Nope. Still Straight
Investigating the Diversity and Gendered Experiences of
the Heterosexual Orientation
University of Amsterdam
Katherine Thompson 11138130 August 8, 2016
Supervised by Dr. Margriet van Heesch Second Supervisor: Dr. Bojan Bilic Track GSSS: Gender, Sexuality, and Society
Dedication
This research has been a creative process that has been supported by many people who are very important to me. This thesis is dedicated to each and every one of you!
I would like to first acknowledge my amazing sixteen respondents- Mark, Daniel, Maria, Ana, Sophie, Carlos, Frank, Lola, Layla, Jacob, Sarah, Caitlyn, Rick, Mia, Robert, and Tom. Thank you for meeting and conversing with me. The stories you have each shared have made this re-search what it is today. I have learned so much from you and cannot extend my gratitude enough!
Additionally, I would like to thank my supervisor, Margriet van Heesch. It has been both an honour and pleasure to work with you. Thank you for supporting me endlessly. Your kind words of encouragement have influenced me to become both an independent and confident researcher. Thank you for guiding me to think more critically and for sharing your personal insights with me. This work would not be where it is today (especially within the word count), if it wasn’t for you!
This research additionally wouldn’t have been made possible without the support of my family friends. A special thanks goes out to Theresa and Rachel—Thank you for being supportive friends throughout this entire process and helping me de-stress by providing me with endless amounts of ice cream. Ruben— Thank you for listening to me babble on about topics in which you were unfamiliar with until you met me. Finally, thank you to my team of long distance sup-port—My Mom, Grandma, and my greatest fans, Sarah and Jen. Through the bad times and good, you have each been there to help me along the way, despite the ocean separating us!
Contents
Chapter One: Welcome to the Land of Heterosexuality ... 5
1.1 The Kissing Fiasco ... 5
1.2 Behind the Scenes of Heterosexuality: The Background Story ... 7
1.3 A Little Bit of You and Me, A Little Bit of Theory ... 9
1.4 How Did I do it?: An Insight Into My Methodology ...11
1.5 Concluding Remarks and Chapter Outline ...14
Chapter 2: Reviewing Past and Current Literature ... 16
2.1 Mom, Dad, I’m Straight: ...16
2.2 Heterosexuality as Dominant: Heterosexuality = Heteronormativity: ...17
2.3 Heterosexuality as Diverse: The Changing Heterosexual ...20
2.4 The Gender of Heterosexual Divergence ...22
2.5 Concluding Remarks ...25
Chapter 3: Girls, Girls, Girls ... 27
3.1 Here Come the Ladies ...27
3.2 Divergence from and Diversity within the Female Heterosexual Practices
28
3.3 Let Me Tell You Something: How Women Understand and Explain
Diver-gence ...32
3.4 Not Gay: How Women Maintain a Heterosexual Orientation ...34
3.5 Concluding Remarks ...37
Chapter 4: Boys, Boys, Boys ... 39
4.1 Meet the Men ...39
4.2 Divergence from and Diversity within the Heterosexual Practices of Men ...
...40
4.3 Let Me Tell You Something: How Men Understand and Explain
Diver-gence ...44
4.5 Concluding Remarks ...49
Chapter 5: Heterosexuality: Whose World is it? ... 51
5.1 Boys and Girls all over the World ...51
5.2 Gendered Differences in Experiences with Heterosexually Divergent
Prac-tices ...52
5.3 Gendered Differences in Attitudes Towards Heterosexual Divergence ...54
5.4 Gendered Differences in Motivations for Heterosexual Divergence ...56
5.5 Concluding Remarks ...60
Chapter 6: Conclusion ... 62
References ... 66
Appendix A: Interview Guide ... 69
Appendix B: Participant Descriptions of Women ... 72
Chapter One: Welcome to the Land of Heterosexuality
1.1 The Kissing Fiasco
“Truth or dare?” questioned my friend Jack, as I sat outside in my backyard with a group of my friends on a warm evening in the summer of 2013. The pink sky surrounded us as the day fell into night and the hot air fell cooler. Knowing that whatever choice I made, a sexual response would await me, I answered with “truth”. As assumed, I was asked if I had ever made out or hooked up with a girl. I shrugged, looked at the others and with ease responded “yes.” With puz-zled, yet intrigued looks on their faces Jack, and the male companions were eager to hear every detail as they questioned me on this experience. Being modest and thinking nothing of my expe-rience, I provided them with a few details. They responded to with a cheers with their drinks, and comments such as, “wow, that’s hot,” or “next time, I want to be there.”
After prying me for more details and demonstrating their strong interest in my sex life, it was my turn to return the question. I turned to my friend Mike, one of the men who recognized my same-sex experience as hot and alluring, and asked him to choose between truth or dare. “Dare” he said. I requested that he kiss with Jack, the perpetrator of my participation within the game. Both remained seated, shaking their heads and protesting sternly. “Yeah right!” both of them proclaimed. Mike rose from his seat and placed his hands firmly on the table, he looked at me with a patronizing gaze and with repulsion stated, “What do you think I am? Gay or some-thing?”
Although I did not think much of it at the time, my friends comment is food for thought. When I began searching for a topic for my thesis, I sought to deconstruct the norm of heterosex-uality, a sexual orientation in which I identify with. I returned to this memory to realize that het-erosexuality is perceived and experienced differently in reference to one’s gender identification. Moreover, same- sex relations for men versus women equates and elicits separate meanings and ideas that appear to be distinct, binary opposites between the gender. Whereas sexual contact be-tween two men was deemed by Jack and Mike as automatically equated to homosexuality and gayness, sexual contact between two females is associated with sexiness, excitement, and more-over, an activity that does not dismay a woman’s heterosexual orientation.
I find the boundaries of heterosexuality to simultaneously be both confusing yet intri-guing. My personal circumstances and observations have fuelled my interest in this area of re-search, as I have transcended the heterosexual boundary by participating in homosexual erotic
encounters. This is what I describe throughout this thesis as engaging in heterosexually divergent behaviours. I am additionally interested in researching this topic to further understand how and if others follow the same guiding principles as my dear friends Jack and Mike, or if engaging in same-sex relations as heterosexuals has become an acceptable, pleasurable, and frequent practice for both men and women.
As the ways in which we understand and behave within our social lives are constructed around categorizations, this research is important as it recognizes the constraints categories place on individuals within society. Additionally, it sheds light on how these constraints are experi-enced differently based on one’s gender identification. The following research questions there-fore aim to investigate how the heterosexual orientation is managed, challenged, and reinforced by self-identified heterosexual men and women. The main question I will seek to answer throughout the presentation and analysis of this research data is as follows.
How is the heterosexual orientation being challenged and diversified; yet simultaneously maintained by higher educated, self-identified heterosexual young adults?
My sub questions have additionally been constructed to dive deeper into the historical conceptu-alizations of heterosexuality and the gendered experiences of heterosexuality.
How has the historical development of the heterosexual orientation since the nineteenth century been framed within Western based sociological research to provide an understanding of its boundaries and characteristics?
How do sexual/erotic practices of self-identified heterosexuals diverge away or counter the tra-ditional heterosexual norm?
How do self-identified heterosexuals explain and experience heterosexual divergence in refer-ence to their gender identification?
How do young, higher educated heterosexual young adults explain their reasoning for maintain-ing a heterosexual orientation?
These questions will be answered accordingly throughout the remaining chapters of my thesis. It is important to answer these questions about sexuality, to demonstrate that all forms of sexual orientations involve fluctuation, alteration, and contradictions. In placing heterosexuality in the theoretical hot seat, I aim to make it known and understood that heterosexuality also involves confusion, diversity, and divergence for some self-identified heterosexuals.
To obtain answers to these questions, I collected research from previous academic stud-ies, as well as conducted in-depth interviews with sixteen self-identified heterosexual men and women that are enrolled within a higher educational institute within Amsterdam. Information on the background and theorization of heterosexuality, as well as on the methods for conducting this research will be explained further within the following sections of this chapter.
1.2 Behind the Scenes of Heterosexuality: The Background Story
Heterosexuality, despite being normative, presumed, and dominant, has a specific, unravelling history that involves fluctuation and alteration (Blank 2012). Within this section, I will provide a brief insight on the history of heterosexuality, which is prominently discussed by Jonathan Katz (1990) and Hanne Blank (2012). These historians traced the emergence of heterosexuality to re-veal how heterosexuality is a product of historical forces. Additionally, Katz (1990) and Blank (2012) recognize how the heterosexual orientation was not always available for identification, and additionally is premised on fluctuation and change.
Katz (1990) began his research due to his interest in understanding where the identity category of heterosexuality emerged, and how it had become dominant. He found that the notion of heterosexuality was first mentioned in the nineteenth century within prominent medical jour-nals and scientific research. The definition of heterosexuality that was provided however, was dramatically different to how it would be discussed today. Katz (1990) found that heterosexuality was used to define an individual that engaged in opposite-sex relations for pleasure, rather than for Christian procreation (Katz 1990). During this time, sex was viewed as a natural instinct that should, and could only transpire for the purpose of procreation (Katz 1990). The term heterosex-uality thus described abnormal heterosexual behaviour, as it was initiated for pleasure rather than reproduction (Katz 1990). Being attributed the heterosexual label during the Victorian era was not privileged, dominant, natural, or even welcomed. Rather, it was described as a perversion and viewed as a deviant form of sexuality as it wasted semen (Katz 1990).
At the turn of twentieth century however, Katz found that this perception of heterosexual-ity as a morbid passion of sexualheterosexual-ity began to alter due to the influential work of Richard von Krafft-Ebing (Katz 1990; Ward 2015). Krafft-Ebing was an influential German psychiatrist who published Pscyhopathia Sexualis (1886). Katz (1990) found within the work of Krafft-Ebing (1886) that he reviewed the term and practice of heterosexuality, and eradicated the deviancy attached to engaging in non-procreative heterosexual activity. Krafft-Ebing did so by arguing that despite the intentional outcome of heterosexual activity, men and women whom engage in opposite-sex relations are always motivated by natural, reproductive, and therefore opposite-sex, impulses (Ward 2015). Further, he referred to ‘normal sex’ and ‘heterosexuality’ interchangea-bly with one another, which in turn, solidified and praised, all aspects of the heterosexual identity as natural and therefore, normal.
Both Katz (1990) and Blank (2012) identified the turn of the nineteenth century as the pe-riod in which the dominant perception of heterosexuality, which persists within 2016, was estab-lished. Blank (2012) compared the establishment of the heterosexual phenomenon to the discov-ery of a new species. She does not argue against its constant existence, but rather highlights how during a specific time frame, and in a specific place, it was discovered and labeled. From simply being to being known, heterosexuality transformed from an unnamed, existent act, into a catego-rized, behaviour with an associated title (Blank 2012). From act to identity, engaging in same or opposite sex behaviours became constitutive of an identity or personage that carried with it par-ticular meanings, beliefs, and expectations about an individual who was characterized as such (Blank 2012; Ward 2015). With appraisal and dominance attached to the natural heterosexual, homosexuality was treated in opposition. The characteristics associated with homosexuality in-clude deviancy, unnatural, wrong, and immoral (Blank 2012). Katz (1990) and Blank (2012) found that heterosexuality and homosexuality were conceptualized in polar opposite terms, where one could not include components of the other.
Historical analyses are highly important to include, as they help understand the growing and changing context of a certain phenomenon, such as heterosexuality. Additionally, they ex-pose how the understanding of heterosexuality is constantly changing and how, if these catego-ries of sexuality are historically created, they can be changed. Within the following section, I will provide brief overview of the theoretical framework which has been utilized to contextualize heterosexuality within the larger sociological framework.
1.3 A Little Bit of You and Me, A Little Bit of Theory
Heterosexuality is all around us. It is in on our televisions, in our magazines, and even in a lot of our bedrooms. As American feminist social scientist Chris Beasley (2010: 204) puts it: “(…)Heterosexuality appears self-evidently nothing special.” This is due to the perspective and common belief held about sexuality that views it as mundane, prevalent, presumed, naturalized, as well as ‘normal.’ With limited inspiration and enticing qualities, one would think then that heterosexuality should be easy to theorize. However, is this really the case?
Recent theorists (Beasley, Brooke, Holmes 2010; 2011; 2012; 2015), which take a critical approach to gender and sexuality, have provided a new alternative, feminist approach to hetero-sexuality. Here, heterosexuality is conceptualized as a pressing issue that can, and should be, problematized through new approaches that extend beyond recognizing it as dominant and nor-mative, and therefore dangerous and oppressive. Recent academics, such as Chris Beasley, and her American colleagues Mary Holmes, and Heather Brooke (2010, 2011, 2012, 2015) conceptu-alize heterosexuality in such a way that recognizes the dominance of heterosexuality, however its additional ability to be innovative, fluctuating, and inspiring.
New approaches to heterosexuality, which inhibit these previously explained qualities, have found that traditional theories of heterosexuality have equated heterosexuality solely with heteronormativity (Beasley Brook, and Holmes 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015). The notion of heter-onormativity is defined as a system that values heterosexuality as natural and normal (Dellinger, and Peacock 2013; Martin 2009; Hubbard and De Welde 2003; Warner 1991). Additionally, it operates on a specific, binary system of sex, gender, and sexuality, whereby gender is viewed as a natural outcome of one’s biological sex, and men and women are portrayed as complementary, procreative sex partners (Dellinger et al. 2013; Butler 1990).
The term heteronormativity was coined in the early 1990’s, by Michael Warner, however established its roots at the turn of the twenty-first century by prominent theorists such as Adrienne Rich (1980), Monique Wittig (1980), and Judith Butler (1990). These prominent, femi-nist theorists recognized heterosexuality as an oppressive institution where all other expressions of sexuality are devalued, and sex and gender are defined in binary opposing ways (Dellinger et al. 2013; Jackson 2006). The theory of heteronormativity has been established as a prominent, internationally recognized framework that offers insight onto how normality is socially
con-structed, and the implications this causes. Further, it sheds light on the invisible privileges at-tached to heterosexuality, and how it is taken for granted as both a natural and normal outcome of men and women (Martin 2009).
Although it is important to recognize the dominance attached to heterosexuality, it is ad-ditionally important to challenge certain orthodoxies about heterosexuality, and recognize it out-side of monolithic, static, and oppressive terms. This is what Beasley, Brook, and Holmes (2010, 2011, 2012, and 2015), seek to achieve in their work, and through their new, critical approaches to heterosexuality, which focuses on viewing heterosexuality as inclusive of diverse, non-normative forms of pleasure and activities. Such approaches to the study of heterosexuality are additionally undertaken by Ward (2015), Anderson (2008), Anderson, Adams, Rivers (2012), Fahs (2009), Yost and McCarthy (2012), Diamond (2008), Alarie and Gaudet (2013), and Lan-nutti and Denes (2012). These researchers strive to demonstrate how the heterosexual identity for men and women has become diversified within the twenty-first century through the inclusion of same-sex behaviours, which diverge from the opposite-sex norm of heterosexuality.
Researching same-sex relations within the heterosexual context, the authors cited above have provided insight on the contemporary same-sex relations that occur between men or wom-en. Such work however, has mainly focused on the new, sexual practices of women in response to increasing reports of heterosexual-identified women engaging in same-sex experiences with other women (Fahs 2009). This is due to the conceptualized belief that such experiences further oppress women, due to the over-sexualisation in the media, and the public nature of their experi-ences that are found to typically occur in the presence of a male audience (Fahs 2009; Yost and McCarthy 2012; Esterline and Galupo 2013). Ward (2015), Anderson (2008), and Anderson et al. (2012), suggested that such focus devalues and portrays the belief that men do not, and cannot engage in such behaviours, as straight men. Their work has thus been dedicated to investigating same-sex experiences of self-identified straight men, and how, where and why these behaviours take place. Further insights on the gender of heterosexual divergence and fluidity will be ex-plored within Chapter Two of this thesis, however it can currently be noted that such expecta-tions of both men and women attach particular expectaexpecta-tions and meanings to their sexual orienta-tion.
The theories introduced within this section of my thesis will be further explored within Chapter Two. It is worth noting that I do not disagree or contend theories of heteronormativity.
In fact, the theory of heteronormativity is what drew me into the study of Gender and Sexuality Studies. Deconstructing the norm is highly important, and I do not wish to dismay or overlook the previous work that has been conducted which recognizes the privilege attached to heterosex-uality and the implications this causes on individuals within Western society. Rather, I seek to add onto these previously established, and well renowned theories by demonstrating and arguing that diversity can exist within the norm, and heterosexuality is not simply a monolithic, unchang-ing category. The ways in which I gathered my data to provide further insight on this topic are explored within the following section.
1.4 How Did I do it?: An Insight into My Methodology
To understand heterosexuality beyond my own personal experiences, I studied the practices of higher educated, young adults whom self-identified as heterosexuals. The information provided within this section discusses the process, participants, and the strategies I utilized to conduct and analyze my research. This research was a journey, and I quickly learned throughout my experi-ences that the process of researching is not easy or a smooth ride. Rather, it takes time, concen-tration, and much reconfiguration.
As the primary goal of this research was to explore the personal and complex experiences of heterosexuality, methods of qualitative research were selected. Qualitative research methods provide rich, detailed and valuable information about a social phenomenon or issue from the in-dividual study participants’ perspective (Hennink, Hutter, and Bailey 2011). As inin-dividual per-spectives were of great interest to me and I did not seek to generalize my findings, I chose to rely solely on qualitative methods of research. Such methods of research additionally provided me with the ability to locate and discuss discrepancies found between the dominant discourses held in Western society about heterosexuality and individual views.
For the purpose of this research, I utilized the qualitative research method of depth in-terviewing to collect evidence and gain further insight on the diversity of heterosexuality. Quali-tative interviewing involves discussing a specific topic in depth and is described by Hennink et al. (2011) as a conversation with a purpose. It was in my best interest to conduct this particular type of research, as I sought to obtain detailed information on personal experiences and gain in-sight on meanings people attach to sexual practices and the context surrounding their lives as self-identified heterosexuals (Hennink et al. 2011).
The semi-structured interview guide I developed consisted of open-ended questions.1 This allowed the participants responses to lead the interview and for me to respond accordingly. The interview guide I created and relied loosely upon was composed of background, general, and personal questions that related to the sexual orientation, fantasies, and experiences of the partici-pants. It should be noted that the interview guide underwent various changes through the inter-view process, and incorporated new questions or aspects in which the participants included with-in this study touched upon that I had not thought of origwith-inally, but wanted to learn more about.
The interviews began with getting to know each of the participants on a personal level, where theirs, as well as my own demographics and background stories were discussed in a light-hearted, friendly manner. This allowed for a strong rapport to be established between the partici-pants and I. A total of sixteen participartici-pants were included within this research. Their academic backgrounds ranged from Middle Eastern Studies to Chemistry, and from Ancient History, to Medical Anthropology. Their ages ranged from 20-27, and all were enrolled within a higher edu-cational institute within Amsterdam, either at the Vrije Universiteit or the Universiteit van Am-sterdam.
Seven participants, Mark (22), Caitlyn (27), Maria (22), Tom (25), Robert (27), Mia (23), and Rick (26) were of Dutch nationality. The other remaining participants were international stu-dents studying in Amsterdam. Sarah (25) and Jacob (21) both identified as American, whereas Daniel (21), Frank (22), and Sophie (20) were British nationals. Lola (22) additionally identified as half British, half Greek, and Carlos (25) was originally from Brazil. The final two participants, Layla (20) and Ana (25), came from non-westernized countries. Whereas Layla came from Mo-rocco, Ana identified as Kazakhstani. Although Layla and Ana did not come from Westernized countries like the remaining amount of the participants, they lived in Westernized countries for over three years. In addition, these two identified within their interviews as resistant towards their native culture, religion, and beliefs that are attached to their non-Westernized nationality.
An international group of participants was chosen, as Amsterdam is a multicultural city that is composed of a diverse group of individuals. As a result of this, it was in the best interest of this research to include a wide range of individuals that demonstrated interest in the research
1
project, despite their religious, cultural, or national background. Further, it was not in my interest to provide a cross cultural, or religious comparison between the different nationalities.
To gain access to the participants, I relied on three specific means of recruitment strate-gies: personal networks, advertising, and snowballing. It should be noted that after conducting ten interviews, where heterosexual boundary crossing was sporadic, I sought to only include in-dividuals that engaged in sexual/erotic practices that diverged from their heterosexual orienta-tion. I did so, as I wanted to gain a further understanding on how the heterosexual orientation is challenged and diversified, yet simultaneously maintained by higher educated, self-identified heterosexual young adults.
I utilized my personal network to obtain participants. Here, I originally reached out to three men, Mark, Daniel, and Carols, in hopes they could connect me to other men. I additionally utilized my personal network within my Master’s Program to find participants that fit the de-mographics of my research. From here, Caitlyn, a fellow student, reached out and demonstrated her interest in my research. I was additionally put in correspondence with Lola, a friend of my classmate that was interested in sharing her experiences with divergence.
Secondly, I posted an advertisements on Facebook2 by posting an online application I created using Google Docs to recruit participants.3 This application explained the means of the study prior to the questions about their demographics and indicated it was an application to par-ticipate in the study, not a survey.4 The application asked for basic demographics, such as name, age, gender, sexual orientation, area of study, and enrolment within a higher education in Am-sterdam. In addition, they had to provide their email address in which I could contact them by and had to provide consent to be contacted for future processes of the research.
In total, twenty individuals completed the application. Four of these respondents com-pleted the questionnaire in an unserious manner and were not contacted. In addition, one woman completed the application, however did not consent to being contacted for the future processes of
2
The application was posted on various Facebook pages such as: ISN Online Market, UvA Master Students, and Prins Hendrikkade 189 (2015-2016). These pages were chosen based on my membership, and knowledge of other national or international students also being members.
3
The following link provides access to the Google Form used that was posted via Facebook to attract participants outside of my network: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ZYrHDlpDb9uZ4YI3zLfp7lAetOjkG7upt1E2W-1mJic/viewform?c=0&w=1&fbzx=3669667908096110000
4
It became apparent after a few forms were filled out; that individuals thought the Google Doc was a survey, rather than an application for participation. As a result, I had to modify the terms on my form to make the intention clear
the research. Another man put an invalid email address, and could therefore not be reached when I attempted contact. Of the remaining 14 applications, all were contacted, however seven re-spondents replied and were interviewed accordingly. These participants include: Maria, Layla, Sarah, Jacob, Frank, Ana, and Sophie.
The third and final technique I used to recruit participants was the method of snowball-ing. Snowballing is a tactic of participant recruitment that involves asking a participant if they could refer anyone else meeting the study criteria to be contacted and included within the study (Hennink et al. 2011). In total, I included four individuals whom I met through the method of snowballing. These participants include: Mia, Tom, Robert, and Rick. The method of snowball-ing was particularly relied upon to obtain access to participants whom identified as heterosexual, however engaged in sexual/erotic practices that diverged away or countered the traditional heter-osexual norm. In talking with the participants about their personal experiences as heterheter-osexuals, they suggested possible friends or colleagues that could also provide an interesting perspective that would enhance my research.
After recruiting the participants, and conducting and transcribing the interviews, I did a content analysis on each of the transcripts. In conducting a content analysis, I reviewed and ana-lyzed the data to categorize my findings, and uncover emerging and reoccurring themes (Silver-man 2015). I then conducted a discourse analysis to link the information provided and discussed by the participants to sociological theories. In conducting a discourse analysis, the context of the information provided by the participants was reviewed and then applied to the sociological theo-ries I have introduced and will further describe within Chapter Two. A complete description on the outline of each chapter is described in the following section.
1.5 Concluding Remarks and Chapter Outline
This opening chapter has served as a means of introducing the topic of my thesis: heterosexuali-ty. To my knowledge as a Gender and Sexuality Studies Student, heterosexuality is an aspect of our identity that is consistently overlooked as a site of diversity, and is often deconstructed as a norm that serves to impose oppression or domination. The power and dominance pertaining to heterosexuality should not be overlooked. However, so too should the diversity that exists within this sexual orientation category. This thesis will therefore serve as a means way of analyzing the norm to recognize heterosexuality as a diverse sexual category, where its members face
hard-ships, challenges, and restrictions based on their membership. To do this, my thesis will cover the following aspects within each chapter that are described below.
Chapter Two will provide a comparative literature review that explores the ways in which heterosexuality has been explained within previous research. Within this chapter, the second sub-question will be answered accordingly to demonstrate how the study of heterosexuality is con-stantly changing. Chapters Three and Four will be divided between the gendered perspectives of my participants. Whereas Chapter Three will be dedicated to providing insight on the findings from the eight women included within this research, Chapter Four will solely focus on the data obtained from the eight men. The research presented within each of these chapters will provide insight directly from the interviews I conducted. Each of these chapters will answer the third, fourth, and fifth sub-questions in relation to the specific gender that is being explained and ana-lyzed. The sub-questions have therefore been modified within these chapters to reflect the gender of the participants in which I will be relating to and discussing.
In Chapter 5, I will provide an analysis that seeks to answer the main research question. Within this chapter, I will additionally apply the key theorists to my research data by conducting a discourse analysis. This chapter will be dedicated to providing a gendered comparison between the men and women included within my study. After the presentation of my discussion, the final chapter of this research will be dedicated to providing a conclusion to my topic. Within this chapter, I will provide a discussion on the strengths, weaknesses, and ideas for future research on the diversity and gendered boundaries of heterosexuality.
Chapter 2: Reviewing Past and Current Literature
2.1 Mom, Dad, I’m Straight:
“When did you come out?” questioned my second year sociology professor. I sat quietly and alone in the musty, large lecture hall on a late, Friday afternoon in Brock University. This lecture hall, located in the busiest hallway of the university could easily seat over one hundred students. However, it was attended, including myself, by only 30 students from the Sexualities and Society sociology course whom appeared tired from their events held on Thursday evening, or eager to begin their weekend festivities. With no response, my professor repeated herself again in an in-quisitive, enthusiastic tone and filled the classroom with her voice. “When did you come out!?”
Only one student appeared brave and eager enough to answer the professor’s inquiry. He was a young man that was extremely outgoing and announced to the class on the first day that he identified as gay. Despite his confidence and comfortableness with answering the question, the professor politely rejected him. She deemed his anticipated response as helpful, however it was not what she was looking for at this time. As whispers filled the silent room, the professor stared from the front of the room with her arms on her hips and her head cocked to the side. Remaining quiet, my eyes darted around the classroom, searching for an answer from other students whose eyes crunched were in concentration and lips were pursed with confusion. With authority, the professor exerted her voice over the chatter of the puzzled students and questioned, “When did you come out as a heterosexual?”
There is no distinguishable “coming out” experience for heterosexuals (Morgan, Steiner, and Thompson 2010). Instead, heterosexual desires and identities are presumed to transpire natu-rally (Morgan et al. 2010). From thoughts, to feelings, attractions, and behaviours, sexuality is presumably heterosexual unless proven or announced otherwise (Morgan et al. 2010). With such a natural expectation, heterosexuals do not need to confront and explain their identity or declare to the world that they are heterosexuals(Morgan et al. 2010). In fact, proclaiming: “I am a heter-osexual!” might be taken quite crudely or humorously in present day (Morgan et al. 2010: 425). This ultimately explains why the individual in my class expressed his sexuality, while the re-maining amount of students, including myself, remained quiet.
Sociological literature explaining the phenomenon of heterosexuality is constantly chang-ing. While some sociologists have traced the historical roots of this form of sexuality, others have analyzed its dominance to demonstrate its oppressive characteristics and the negative
impli-cations it imposes on sexual minorities. More recently, literature has been produced that addi-tionally recognizes heterosexuality as dominant, however inclusive of new, erotic practices and sexual experiences. Nevertheless, all hold the belief that heterosexuality is a socially constructed phenomenon that is regulated within Western society and imposed, as well as expected, of all its subjects.
Within this section of my thesis, I will provide a comparative literature review that high-lights how heterosexuality has been discussed within the sociological framework. The North American literature in which I am reviewing comes from the beginning of the 1980s, and in-cludes recent work that has been produced within 2015. I have chosen to review this work, as the research I have conducted is reflective of and premised on, Western notions of gender and sexu-ality. Within this section, I will review how heterosexuality has been framed as a dominant dis-course, and as more recently, a form of identity that allows for transgression, diversity, and fluid-ity based one one’s gender identification.
2.2 Heterosexuality as Dominant: Heterosexuality = Heteronormativity:
Through the progression of history, and with the support of sexologists, psychologists, and psy-chiatrists, heterosexuality evolved to be viewed as natural and normal, whereas deviant forms of sexuality were viewed in opposition (Jackson and Scott 2010). This conceptualization of sexuali-ty was recognized as destructive and oppressive towards sexual minorities, and was critically challenged in the midst of the twentieth century by internationally recognized, feminist theorists, Adrienne Rich (1980), Monique Wittig (1980), Judith Butler (1990), and Michael Warner (1991). Such theorists recognized the invisible privileges and harmfulness attached to dominant forms of identities, and conceptualized heterosexuality as the root and supporter of oppression (Fischer 2013).
The assumption of heterosexuality as normal and natural was conceptualized under the term, heteronormativity (Marin 2009). The term heteronormativity was coined and popularized in 1991 by the academic theorist, Michael Warner (1991), within his article Fear of a Queer Planet. Here, Warner (1991) referred to heteronormativity as the interdependence of sex, gender and sexuality, where sex and gender are defined as a mutually exclusive categories, and sexuality is naturalized as an attraction that exists between the opposite sexes (Warner 1991; Hofstätter and Wöllmann n.d). Since its debut at the turn of the twenty-first century, heteronormativity has
been further conceptualized as including institutions, practices, and norms that supports, rein-forces, and reproduces heterosexuality, while subjugating alternative forms of sexuality, specifi-cally homosexuality (Martin 2009).
The heteronormative system coined by Warner (1990) which values heterosexuality was conceptualized as operating on a specific, binary system of sex and gender. Here, gender is viewed as a natural derivative of sex, and males and females are viewed in binary opposing, yet complimentary terms in comparison to one another (Dellinger and Peacock 2013). Similar ap-proaches to and understandings of heterosexuality were conceptualized prior to the coining of the term, heteronormativity. Although the term was coined at the turn of the twenty-first century to theorize heterosexuality, its roots were established in the previously established work of Adrienne Rich (1980), Monique Wittig (1980), and Judith Butler (1990). Rich (1980), Wittig (1980), and Butler (1990) each additionally traced the dominance of heterosexuality as inextrica-bly linked to the specific sex and gender system that is now explicitly theorized under the con-cept of heteronormativity (Hofstätter and Wöllmann n.d).
In 1980, prominent theorist, Adrienne Rich, author of the essay, Compulsory Heterosex-uality and Lesbian Existence, originally theorized heterosexHeterosex-uality to demonstrate its implications on the positionality of women. Rich entitled the phenomenon, compulsory heterosexuality, and theorized heterosexuality as a pervasive institution, specifically for women due to their necessary reliance on men (Rich 1980). Within her essay, Rich (1980) critiqued heterosexuality as an insti-tution, as she viewed it as having negative implications on women, as their sexual and emotional capacities are inextricably, and consistently tied to their male counterparts. Further, she argued that the institution of heterosexuality is politically, rather than naturally organized, as it influ-ences male and female development while reinforcing gender inequality between the sexes (Rich 1980). To conclude, Rich (1980) conceptualized heterosexuality as supportive of the sexual dom-ination of men over women, deeming it as a harmful, yet invisible institution (Striepe and Tol-man 2003).
The inextricable link between sex, gender, and heterosexuality was additionally concep-tualized by Monique Wittig (1980). Wittig coined the term, heterosexual contract, within her work, The Straight Mind, to demonstrate that gender identities are confined within the hetero-sexual orientation. Here, Wittig (1980) stressed that what makes a woman, is inherently defined by her social relation to a man, and vice versa (Lloyd 2007). The popular theorist, Judith Butler,
utilized and added on to the notions and ideas set forth by both Rich and Wittig by additionally creating a new, and different concept preceding the creation of the term heteronormativity. Her conception was based on a radical deconstruction of gender that sought to view this particular form of identity as a performance that adheres to sex distinction and the heterosexual desire (Lloyd 2007).
The term, the heterosexual matrix was coined by the popular theorist, Judith Butler with-in her 1990 published book, Gender Trouble, where she discussed sex, gender, and sexual desire. Here, Butler (1990) used the term, the heterosexual matrix, to provide insight on the compulsory ordering of, and relationship between, one’s anatomical sex, gender identity, and sexual desire. In recognizing the heterosexual matrix, Butler (1990) deconstructed and critiqued the Western notions of sex, gender, and sexual desire that views anatomical sex, which is ascribed at birth, as a causal influence of gender development (Preves 2003). Butler (1990) argued that Western per-ceptions hold sexual desire as a natural development and outcome of sex and gender, which is directed towards members deemed as the opposite sex/gender of one’s own (Preves 2003). In critiquing the “natural” ordering of sex, gender and sexuality, Butler revealed Western societies limitations in analyzing and providing insight on the lives of individuals who do not follow this linear path of development. An evident example of this, which is central to deconstructing the norm of heterosexuality, is if people do not develop an attraction towards a member of the oppo-site sex, which is presumably a natural progression of Western based social life (Butler 1990).
The ideas put forth by Butler (1990), as well as Rich (1980) and Wittig (1980), founded the theoretical framework of heteronormativity, a popular term that continues to thrive within the present day which is relied upon to explain sexual dominance and oppression. Heteronormativity has been used to bring attention to the everyday practices and events that rest on and reproduce the assumption of heterosexuality as the norm, such as weddings, prom, animated films, and the coming out experience of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans (LGBT) community (Ingraham 2005; Best 2005; Cokely 2005; Page and Peacock 2013; Striepe and Tolman 2003; Rossi 2010; Hubbard and De Welde 2003). Using the theory of heteronormativity, authors such as Cokely (2005), Best (2005), Ingraham (2005), and others, recognize heterosexuality as a concealed so-cial practice. It is included within everyday practices, thereby making it invisible and taken for granted (Ingraham 2005). As a result, heterosexuality has become so assumed that it is no longer
recognized as a learned, social practice that additionally organizes our social world (Ingraham 2005).
The term heteronormativity has brought to attention the privileges attached to heterosex-uality, such as not having to explain one’s sexual preferences or identity, or be unequally viewed or treated within society due to stigma (Hubbard and De Welde 2003). In response to such reac-tions, heterosexuality has been conceptualized within the field of sociology as a negative, harm-ful practice to reiterate and explain its dominance (Beasley, Holmes, and Brook 2015). Recently, these presumed orthodoxies attached to heterosexuality have started to be challenged within the field of sociology. These ideas will be explored within the following section.
2.3 Heterosexuality as Diverse: The Changing Heterosexual
In utilizing the theory of heteronormativity to explain and make sense of heterosexuality, theo-rists within the field of sociology have equated heterosexuality to heteronormativity, and have thus only focussed on the dark aspects of this form of sexual desire (Beasley et al. 2012). To change this perception, recent theorists investigating heterosexuality, such as Chris Beasley, Heather Brooke and Mary Holmes have worked in unison to deconstruct the norm of heterosexu-ality to demonstrate that it is not always, ‘nasty, boring, and normative’ (Beasley et al. 2012: 3). Although they highlight that it is important to understand and recognize the harmfulness attached to dominant categories, it too is important to highlight how variations, diversity, and positivity exists within the norm (Beasley et al. 2012)
Beasley, Brook, and Holmes (2010, 2011, 2012, 2015), reanalyzed heterosexuality to eradicate its immediate relation to heteronormativity. In 2015, Beasley, Brook, and Holmes ar-gued that heterosexuality has become a site of innovation, change, and diversity through the in-clusion of unorthodox practices in heterosexual relationships. For Beasley et al. (2015), unortho-dox practices within heterosexuality include any divergence from the standard, status quo, or tra-ditionally accepted forms of behaviours that are categorized as heteronormative. To them, this signified heterosexuality as a site of divergence, as it was not always premised on man-woman sexual relationships and interactions (Beasley et al. 2015). What is intriguing about their notion of divergence however, is that it is conceptualized as moving away from the norm, while remain-ing within its boundary (Beasley et al. 2015). The engagement in unorthodox sexual practices, and divergence from the heterosexual norm, was additionally highlighted by Jane Ward (2015).
Within her work, Ward (2015) reviewed homosexual contact and practices exhibited by heterosexuals. Here, she conceptualized the notion of heteronormativity as being challenged within the heterosexual framework through the inclusion of non-normative, same-sex practices (Ward 2015). As heteronormativity rests upon the domination of, and division between, hetero-sexuality and homohetero-sexuality, Ward (2015) argued that heteronormativity can no longer be used to explain heterosexuality completely, as this separation between sexualities is no longer con-cretely stable. This is the result of the inclusion of sexual fluidity into the heterosexual identity.
Sexual fluidity is understood as flexibility in sexual responsiveness or attractions which is situation dependent (Katz-Wise and Hyde 2004). Further, it is conceptualized by Katz-Wise (2015) as a change in attraction towards individuals with the same, or opposite gender identifica-tion. The notion of sexual fluidity has however, been understudied within the straight communi-ty, arguing that individuals in the LGBT community are more prone to this form of sexual identi-ty (Kat Wise and Hyde 2004; Ward 2015). This further demonstrates the heteronormative per-spective of heterosexuality that fails to recognize the potential for diversity within, and diver-gence away from, the dominant norm. Ward (2015) recognized the implications this imposes, and extending on the previous established work of sexual fluidity by applying and analyzing it within the straight community.
Within her work, Ward (2015) argues that the fluidity and complexity of sexuality is one that characterizes all human sexual desire. Additionally, heterosexual fluidity or diverging prac-tices have little effect or implications on sexual identification (Ward 2015). She conceptualized that identifying as hetero-flexible involves living a life that is characterized by both heterosexual and homosexual experiences, however these identified individuals reject bisexual identities and lead primarily heterosexual lifestyles (Ward 2015). This involves being primarily attached both sexually and emotionally attached to the opposite sex, however additionally engaging in sexual interests where normal patterns are altered and transgressed by engaging in sexual behaviours that are outside of one’s claimed sexual identity (Ward 2015; Blank 2012). With this being said however, Ward (2015), as well as Esterline and Galupo (2013) and Anderson and Adams (2011), recognize how heterosexual divergence is a gendered experience that is practiced and perceived differently by men versus women. The gender of heterosexual divergence will be discussed with-in the followwith-ing chapter to serve as a means way to demonstrate how heterosexual divergence
remains guided by heteronormative assumptions of sex, gender, and sexuality, causing men and women to experience and perceive divergence differently.
2.4 The Gender of Heterosexual Divergence
Despite the recognition of heterosexuality as becoming inclusive of diversified practices, which includes same-sex experiences, commentary suggests that such experiences are largely a female trend (Ward 2015). Inclusive within the college5 experience (Yost and McCarthy 2012;) and within films and television series, such as Pretty Little Liars, The O.C, How I Met Your Mother, and the infamous Girls Gone Wild, female-female sexuality has been depicted as a popular trend in which young women desire, and are additionally open to. Within such portrayals, women have been depicted as sexualized individuals whom, as Katy Perry once famously stated, can kiss girls and like it. With increased popularity in college and market depictions of female-female sexuali-ty, sociologists, including myself, are left wondering, is heterosexual fluidity reserved for the women of the world, or can, and do men experience the same?
Sociological research contends the view that heterosexual fluidity is inherently linked to biological predispositions (Rich 1980; Wittig 1980; Butler 1990; Ward 2015). With this being said, research within the field of sociology has mainly focused on the diverging and diverse sex-ual practices of heterosexsex-ual women (Diamond 2008; Fahs 2009; Yost and McCarthy 2012; Lannutti and Denes 2012; Alarie and Gaudet 2013). For example, Fahs (2009) analyzed how same-sex experiences are becoming compulsory events and experiences within the lives of self-identified heterosexual women. Extending on Adrienne Rich’s notion of compulsory heterosexu-ality, Fahs (2009) interviewed a sample of 40 women to contend that bisexual experiences have become the new norm of women. Conceptualizing this idea under the term compulsory bisexuali-ty, Fahs (2009) argued that women are becoming compelled to abide by social norms that now privilege and accept women’s same-sex relations. As a result, Fahs (2009) found that the young women often perform bisexual experiences with little regard to the political issues surrounding the LGBT community, but rather to adhere to social norms and societal pressures.
The notion of performativity was additionally discussed by Yost and McCarthy (2012). Yost and McCarthy (2012) found that women displayed same-sex sexuality for men, and
5
closed such acts as normal and not conflicting with their heterosexual orientation. Such findings were premised on in-depth interviews with women whom were found to have labelled their same-sex behaviours as funny or motivated by male viewers, alcohol, and the environment, such as being at a party or club (Yost and McCarthy 2012). Less than one quarter of the women in-cluded within their research discussed their sexually divergent behaviours in reference to being motivated by a desire to sexually experiment with other women (Yost and McCarthy). Such find-ings are similar to Alarie and Gaudet (2013) whom found that bisexual experiences are becoming a part of the heterosexual narrative for women, where they continue to be perceived as hetero-sexual. Alarie and Gaudet (2013) additionally found that bisexuality is used as a tactic by women to attract men, and which therefore reinforces and maintains their heterosexual orientation.
The findings of Alarie and Gaudet (2013), Yost and McCarthy (2012) and Fahs (2009) are interesting as they explore how same-sex relations between women are both exploitive and manipulative, yet reflective of the increasing availability for women to engage in and explore same-sex desires. Such research however, fails to account for men’s inclusivity of same-sex ex-periences. As a result, a gender bias persists, where the female sex and femininity is found to be inclusive of sexual fluidity and promises the ability to engage in same-sex relations (Ward 2015). In comparison, men’s gender and sexuality is presumed to be less malleable and inclusive of sexually fluid experiences and behaviours, (Ward 2015; Anderson 2008; Anderson, Adams, Riv-ers 2012). The inclusion of such behaviours is conceptualized, yet argued against, by AndRiv-erson et al. (2012), who recognize how homosexuality and maleness are viewed as binary opposing identities. In failing to include men within research on sexual fluidity, hegemonic masculine standards of heterosexuality continue to be upheld, as it is perceived that accepted forms of same-sex relations are reserved for women, or gay men.
When conducting research with self-identified heterosexual men, Anderson (2008; 2012) found that men reported occasional experiences of attraction, or engage in sexual relations, with other men. Using in-depth interviews, Anderson (2008), found that many of the male athletes included within his research had engaged in homosexual encounters, a surprising finding that rocks the boat of hegemonic masculine standards of heterosexuality. This is due to the perception that same-sex behaviours equate to a homosexual identity within North American and Western European cultures (Anderson 2008). In 2012, Anderson, along with his other colleagues, again found that when researching male students within the UK, many disclosed that they had kissed
with a member of the same-sex. Such experiences were found to be regarded as non-sexual how-ever by the participants, due to the friendship based nature of the kiss. The research conducted by Anderson et al. (2008; 2012), reveals that homoerotic practices are embedded within the lives of heterosexually identified men, thereby demonstrating that men are no longer disengaging from behaviours that have been labelled as gay and therefore threatening to their masculinity.
Ward (2015) additionally analyzed the inclusion of homoeroticism into men’s heterosex-uality. Here, Ward (2015) researched the contemporary same-sex relations between straight, white men, and found that such experiences often occur in hyper-masculine contexts. In these environments, such as within prison or in college hazing rituals, men engage in same-sex rela-tions to prove their masculinity (Ward 2015). This is not to say however, that fluidity of men’s sexuality does not only exist within these environments. Rather, men’s sexual fluidity is preva-lent, however silenced by the perception upheld within society that men’s sexuality, in compari-son and opposition to women’s, is rigid, strict, and premised on binary notions. As a result, men suffer from greater gender regulation than women, and are forced to manage their heterosexuali-ty much more strictly (Ward 2015). In comparing and focusing on straight men’s practices, Ward (2015), as well as Anderson (2008) and Anderson et al. (2012), eliminate the silence that has sur-rounded the discussion of heterosexual men’s same-sex, sexual experiences. Their analyses re-veal that men’s heterosexuality both allows for, and requires, a significant amount of homosexu-al contact (Ward 2015).
Research on the practices and experiences of heterosexual fluidity, while inclusive of men’s narratives, is dominated by the analysis of women’s experiences. While Anderson’s (2008; 2012) and Ward’s (2015) work captivates the ways that homosexual contact is inhibited within straight masculinity, this research is evidently minimal, and therefore lacking. Stigma holds that men whom engage in same-sex practices are evidently masking their true, homosexual identity (Ward 2015). In comparison, when women engage in such activities, it is evidently to express their inner hetero-flexibility that is perceived as a core feature of their female heterosex-ual orientation (2015). Further research investigating the gender of heterosexheterosex-ual divergence and fluidity is therefore highly important, as it can aid the recognition of how members of either gen-der identification are managing, challenging, or reinforcing the gengen-dered assumptions of hetero-sexuality and heterosexual divergence.
2.5 Concluding Remarks
This section of my thesis has provided a comparative literature that highlights how heterosexu-ality has been theorized within sociological research from the 1980s to the present day. Research on heterosexuality is constantly changing. Once recognized as an oppressing identity, research was built on the recognition of heterosexuality as a dominant discourse that reflects and equates heterosexuality to heteronormativity. This type of research is flourishing, as deconstructing the norm of heterosexuality can be used to free sexual minorities of their stigma, and recognize dom-inance as socially constructed, yet repeatedly imposed. Such research has been highly important within the field of sociology and gender studies, as it has placed heterosexuality within the theo-retical hot seat to recognize its dominant, oppressive characteristics, and the boundaries it impos-es on individuals to identify with an ‘either-or’ situation of sexuality. Additionally, sociological research focussed on heteronormativity has brought awareness to the specific beliefs and expec-tations that are imposed on both the sexual majority and minority.
More recently, theorists within the present day have begun to recognize the lack of theory and critique on heterosexuality itself. Such research recognizes that not all aspects of heterosexu-ality are oppressive and dangerous, and rather involves change and moderation as well (Beasley et al. 2012). Recognized as allowing for transgression, diversity, and fluidity, the separate no-tions of homosexuality and heterosexuality became conceptualized as occurring in unison with one another. As a result, homoerotic experiences have become incorporated into the practices of self-identified heterosexuals (Ward 2015). Literature discussing such experiences however, has been largely focused on analyzing and explaining the same-sex practices of self-identified, het-erosexual women, rather than men. As a result, hethet-erosexual fluidity has become predominately associated and viewed as a female, rather than male, trend.
It is my hope that the work I have completed for my Master’s Thesis will build on present day notions of heterosexuality as fluid, malleable, and constantly changing. In addition, I seek to provide insight on how non-normative, same-sex practices have become embedded within the lives of both self-identified heterosexual women and men. The stories of the self-identified het-erosexuals will be discussed intently within the following chapters. Their stories prove that the heterosexual orientation involves diversity, as each of the stories shared by the participants about their sexual practices, behaviours, and beliefs were inherently different. Further, they were not
always premised on the opposite-sex relations that are deemed as the foundation of heterosexual-ity.
Chapter 3: Girls, Girls, Girls
3.1 Here Come the Ladies
Field Diary (19.04.2016): I walked into her room and expected to have a brief conversa-tion with her, a girl that disclosed over the Google Applicaconversa-tion that she was from Moroc-co. Cancelling on me two days prior, I was not looking forward to the interview, as I ex-pected to have a brief conversation with a practicing Muslim who may not have many sexual experiences. But wow, I was wrong. She greeted me with a cigarette in hand and techno music playing softly in the background. Offering me a beer, we quickly connected and her poetic, confident voice shared her sexual and emotional stories that contradicted her faith, family, and heterosexual lifestyle.
In this chapter, the insights of the eight women included within this research are shared to demonstrate the diversity of the heterosexual orientation. The women whom participated in this research include Ana (25), Maria (22), Sophie (20), Lola (22), Sarah (25), Layla (20), Mia (23), and Caitlyn (27). Complete biographies of the women can be found within Appendix B of my thesis. I urge you to read these excerpts prior to the remaining part of this chapter, as they cap-ture the contradicting aspects of heterosexuality.
The six weeks in which I was conducting my research, where I was provided with the ability to meet these friendly and insightful young women, was the highlight of my research. I was able to easily connect with each of them on a personal level, and have in-depth conversa-tions that were premised on explaining their personal circumstances as identifying as heterosexu-al, and what their practices, feelings, and attractions entailed as sexual beings. While some en-gaged solely in opposite-sex relations, others were open to, or had enen-gaged in, diverse experi-ences with members of either sex. These conversations were rarely awkward, and often included many laughs. When describing her recent sexual experience with a woman in the bathroom of a club, one of the women even proclaimed, “I cannot believe I am even telling you this! We just met!”
Although I was able to quickly connect with each of the eight women, it was not neces-sarily easy for all of them to answer the questions which I posed. All were open to sharing their sexual experiences, however had difficulties in explaining their heterosexual orientation. Addi-tionally they faced difficulties in answering questions that aimed to reveal the dominant dis-courses on heterosexuality. As heterosexuals are not called upon to explain their sexual identity, these questions lead to lengthy responses. The answers given reiterated the issue that many women did not know how to categorize their sexuality due to their conflict between their
behav-iours and heterosexual orientation. With this being said, all disclosed their enjoyment in partici-pating within the interview, which was a pleasure to hear as a researcher.
This current chapter will present the general findings and themes that emerged during the interviews with the women. As the goal of this thesis to understand the gendered differences of the heterosexual orientation, I will first present the findings relevant to the women included with-in this research. Withwith-in chapter five, such fwith-indwith-ings will be compared with-in relation to the men’s, which are presented in chapter four of this thesis. This guiding chapter will additionally seek to answer the three following sub-questions:
How do sexual/erotic practices of self-identified heterosexual women diverge away or counter the traditional heterosexual norm?
How do self-identified heterosexual women understand and explain heterosexual divergence in reference to their gender identification?
How do young, high educated heterosexual women explain their reasoning for maintaining a heterosexual orientation?
The contradictory, yet complimenting findings of the experiences of the eight women are shared below in depth. I have organized each section to provide answers to the research ques-tions and explore the common themes that emerged when conducting a qualitative content analy-sis. The following sections are divided into describing the: (1) Sexual behaviours and practices that signified divergence, (2) Explanations for divergence, and (3), Effect of diverging experi-ences on a self-identified, heterosexual orientation.
3.2 Divergence from and Diversity within the Female Heterosexual Practices
The heterosexual orientation is understood to rest upon the attraction, arousal, and sexual en-gagement with members between the opposite sex (Blank 2012). It is thus presumed that indi-viduals whom identify themselves as heterosexual abide by this equation. Throughout the inter-views with the women however, it became apparent that fitting into this equation is not always the case. The sexual and erotic practices of the women often diverged and countered the tradi-tional heterosexual norm that rests upon opposite sex attraction and sexual interaction. Within
this section of my thesis, I will provide insight on how the sexual/erotic practices of self-identified heterosexual women diverge from the traditional heterosexual norm.
The first sexual practice in which females diverged from the heterosexual norm was through defining their own sexual orientation. Defining one’s own sexual orientation was an opening inquiry that proved to be a complicated question for most heterosexual women to an-swer. While all identified prior to and at various points in their interview’s as heterosexual, each interpreted their sexual orientation differently and most took their time in answering the ques-tion. For example, when questioned, Mia confusingly stated,
I am pretty open now, but I have only been in relationships with men. I have kissed other girls and I really like girls more, and I like girls bodies more, so I think it is a little ran-dom that I have ended up with guys.
Mia’s response highlights the fluidity and openness of her sexuality, and how her engagement in sexual behaviours, thoughts, and attractions conflicted with the traditional beliefs attached to the heterosexual orientation. This caused her to question her sexuality profusely, and resulted in her having the hardest time of all the participants in defining her sexual orientation.
Mia’s explanation demonstrates firsthand that the heterosexual orientation is a complicat-ed form of identity. While it may be easily recognizcomplicat-ed by some women, for others, it is compli-cated, analyzed and challenged. Other women did not have such a problem. Without hesitation, Sarah and Ana were two women who easily defined their sexual orientation. For Sarah, it was a specific part of her identity in which she has never doubted or felt in conflict with. When ques-tioned, Sarah firmly, yet humorously stated,
I would say I am super heterosexual. I am so boring. But I am happy being bored. I just take it as it is, never really thought about it, but whatever.
Sarah’s response highlights how her orientation as a heterosexual is something that she finds plain and within the ordinary. Yet, is comfortable and happy with. Ana’s response was of a simi-larity, as when asked during the interview, she too was able to define her sexual identity without hesitation.
When additionally confronted with this question however, Sophie, Maria, Lola, Caitlyn, and Layla had additional difficulties in defining their sexual orientation. Like Mia, these women highlighted their contradictory practices to the heterosexual norm that complicated the process of defining their sexuality. When questioned, Caitlyn stated,
Heterosexual. Not strictly though, because I am attracted to girls, but it is the easiest thing to say. I have been together with my boyfriend for a long time and I have kissed girls a lot in those years, I think I have kissed more girls at this point in my life.
Similarly, Layla answered,
I used to define myself as a heterosexual, but I do not necessarily think that I am fully heterosexual in the sense that I can be attracted to a female, and I have had three sexual partners that were women.
In defining their own sexual orientation, both Layla and Caitlyn provided insight on their sexual attractions and behaviours that signified heterosexual divergence. Maria, and Lola additionally highlighted their conflicting, non-heterosexual interactions when describing their sexual orienta-tion. They recognized that the process of acting non-heterosexually challenged their personal process of defining, as the line between heterosexuality and homosexuality had been blurred dur-ing these sexual experiences.
The second identified way in which the women diverged from the heterosexual norm was therefore through participation in sexual interactions that did not abide by the strict, opposite-sex relations. Of the eight women interviewed, five disclosed that they had engaged in same-sex rela-tions. Ana, Sarah and Sophie, were of the three that at the time of the interview had not engaged in any same-sex practices. Sophie however, stated the possibility of kissing another woman with-in her future. Maria, Mia, Caitlyn, Lola, and Layla on the other hand, had countered the tradi-tional heterosexual norm at the time of the interview, as they did not strictly engage in opposite-sex relations, the foundation of heteroopposite-sexuality.
The same-sex experiences of Maria, Mia, Caitlyn, Lola, and Layla were incorporated dif-ferently into each of their lives. While all five of these women had kissed with other women, four had went beyond the realm of kissing, and engaged in what I call, a same-sex, sexual expe-rience. A same-sex, sexual experience involves sexual interactions such as mutual masturbation, performing and receiving oral sex, and/or sexual intercourse. When Maria described her sexual orientation, shedding light on her same-sex behaviours, she stated,
Mainly straight, I have made out with girls when I am drunk and tipsy, nothing more, or when guys ask so yeah, that is why I say I am mainly straight.
A similar description of kissing was additionally provided by Lola, who highlighted how she would often kiss other women due to the request of a male companion when “on a night out.” Unlike Maria however, Lola, in addition to Mia, engaged in a same-sex, sexual experiences with
