In Sue Scott and Stevi Jackson’s article ‘Sexuality’, the authors discuss the attitudes towards heterosexual, and subsequently, homosexual relations through a range of institutions in our society. They argue that the normalisation of a certain type of heterosexual relationship hinders the liberation of homosexuals as well as the women within these relationships.
The main argument that the authors make is that the concept of heteronormativity is so deeply engrained in every facet of life that any other sexual orientation will struggle to be seen in the same naturalised manner. One of the places that Jackson and Scott argue the normalisation of heterosexuality occurs is in schools. They suggest that the way sex is taught in schools is centred …show more content…
These discourses (surrounding the male sex drive and the coital imperative) make up the primary base of their argument and tie into the stigma that is pointed out surrounding the sexual ‘other’ – in terms of both sexuality and gender. Their discussion of the assumptions of the roles women and men are expected to fill in a heterosexual relationship, with the man as sexually aggressive and the woman as the reluctant participant of sex uses the ‘male sex drive’ discourse as an example. This suggests that men have an insatiable sex drive, and that women are only ever reluctant participants of sex. This evidence is used to back up the argument that the construction of heterosexual practices as they are now encourage inequality between the women and men participating in them as well as those not attracted to the opposite gender. The coital imperative (the assumption that the goal of all relationships and sexual activity is penetrative sex) is also a frame used by Scott and Jackson that contributes to the assumption that being attracted to those with different genitalia is normal and deeply rooted in human biology. Despite the recent shift to more acceptance of a wider range of sexualities, being attracted to the same sex is viewed as special and unnatural …show more content…
The heterosexual man in the article is slightly demonised, his point of view only entering the article to act as perpetrators of the stereotypes of the heterosexual relationship. Conversely, both heterosexual women and members of the gay and lesbian movement are constructed as weak and unable to break out of the roles they are placed in. I am not challenging this part of the argument, as I have stated the claims made throughout the article are convincing. This construction of the stereotypes of these people makes sense from the point of view of Scott and Jackson’s argument, as they are attempting to show how people slip into the roles expected of them, rather than to show a challenge to them. It would have been interesting to see a different perspective to illustrate the desire of many to fight the roles they were born into, to show how one could challenge this marginalising heteronormative view and work toward
The main argument that the authors make is that the concept of heteronormativity is so deeply engrained in every facet of life that any other sexual orientation will struggle to be seen in the same naturalised manner. One of the places that Jackson and Scott argue the normalisation of heterosexuality occurs is in schools. They suggest that the way sex is taught in schools is centred …show more content…
These discourses (surrounding the male sex drive and the coital imperative) make up the primary base of their argument and tie into the stigma that is pointed out surrounding the sexual ‘other’ – in terms of both sexuality and gender. Their discussion of the assumptions of the roles women and men are expected to fill in a heterosexual relationship, with the man as sexually aggressive and the woman as the reluctant participant of sex uses the ‘male sex drive’ discourse as an example. This suggests that men have an insatiable sex drive, and that women are only ever reluctant participants of sex. This evidence is used to back up the argument that the construction of heterosexual practices as they are now encourage inequality between the women and men participating in them as well as those not attracted to the opposite gender. The coital imperative (the assumption that the goal of all relationships and sexual activity is penetrative sex) is also a frame used by Scott and Jackson that contributes to the assumption that being attracted to those with different genitalia is normal and deeply rooted in human biology. Despite the recent shift to more acceptance of a wider range of sexualities, being attracted to the same sex is viewed as special and unnatural …show more content…
The heterosexual man in the article is slightly demonised, his point of view only entering the article to act as perpetrators of the stereotypes of the heterosexual relationship. Conversely, both heterosexual women and members of the gay and lesbian movement are constructed as weak and unable to break out of the roles they are placed in. I am not challenging this part of the argument, as I have stated the claims made throughout the article are convincing. This construction of the stereotypes of these people makes sense from the point of view of Scott and Jackson’s argument, as they are attempting to show how people slip into the roles expected of them, rather than to show a challenge to them. It would have been interesting to see a different perspective to illustrate the desire of many to fight the roles they were born into, to show how one could challenge this marginalising heteronormative view and work toward