A Heterosexual Influence?

[Matt88]

Now, I don't normally jump on the bandwagon (or should that be parade float?) of gay rights/gay agenda, but a recent conversation with a friend got me thinking, and I'd like to put a few questions to the general glbt community. Now, I'll be the first to admit that this is a little bit academic, but I think everyone's a fan of intelligent conversation, right?

So:

To what extent are homosexual relationships actually heterosexual constructs?

Is the idea of one man and one man (or one woman and one woman) falling in love and staying monogamous for life (theoretically) a natural instinct in everyone, or has this idea been translated (imposed?) on homosexual relationships by the heterosexual norm?

Could it be that homosexual relationships are actually substantially different in form from heterosexual relationships, but this difference is crushed by homosexuals believing that, in order to be in a 'relationship', they must act like heterosexual couples?

Is a homosexual relationship just an imitation of heterosexual relationships (why or why not?)

To what extent is the 'fall in love, settle down, get married (or civil union-ed), buy a house, etc.' a heterosexual norm?

Should gay marriage actually be a goal, or should homosexuals be looking to define their commitment to each other in ways that are not direct imitations of a heterosexual tradition? Is that one of the reasons it is so resisted?

Further afield, is the whole idea of fidelity in homosexual relationships a construct? Homosexuals are notorious for being unfaithful, so is this just boys being boys or should homosexual fidelity be defined in ways that are different to heterosexual fidelity?

There's a whole range of issues here, legal, biological, socio-economic, the whole lot. But a few thoughts on these things and whether or not they're the right things would be a good start.

Looking forward to hearing from you :)

Matt.
xo

[agrippa85]

Call me old fashioned, but I do believe if somethings going to be a serious relationship, a couple should strive for monogamy. If they truly do love eachother, that should be enough for both parties...however for alot of gay couples this doesn't seem to be the norm.

I don't think that homosexual relationships are a construct or heterosexual relationships. While we grow up in a predominantly heterosexual society, with those beliefs in the fore, we are brought up in a society where the idea of a couple (non-specific, be it man/woman, man/man, woman/woman) is that they will be faithful.

This is bombarded in our faces through different media. In movies, books, TV - the unfaithful is generally portrayed as the "evil" or wrong character. While this has taken a bit of a turn recently, due to changes in societal beliefs, most mainstream media still caters to it.

As well as that, at least I can attest to it, our parents also push this idea on kids from birth, as do institutions like our schools and government.

To me, I don't think its an imposition, be it good or bad, on the way homosexual relationships adhere to the "norm". It's the way our society works. If society's norm was to promote polygamy, for example, things would be vastly different. From a historial perspective, look at ancient cultures who promoted sex slaves, concubines and mistresses.

So, in short, I don't think its homosexuals conforming to the heterosexual norm, I think its a result of society and upbringing.

I think its an amazing thing when two people decide they want to spend their lives together, and an even more amazing thing when it works, and hopefully one day I can experience it, for better or for worse.

[andrewc]

Tough questions!

In my opinion fidelity has a a fixed definition. Relationships however are the design of the individuals involved.

Homosexuals that choose a monogamous relationship do so because of the values in which they were brought up. Which yes means hetero values, but at the same time this relationship is inherently different to that of straight couple.

I was reading about something last night that is called Lesbian Bed Death, where there is a study showing that Lesbians have a larger number of relationships but for a shorter time frame than straight couples. Essentially because they emotionally burn out quicker than a straight couple. This was an opnion article so the author went on to postulate that Lesbian and homosexuals in general have shorter relationships than straight couples because the social constructs of Marriage and Child birth are not there for us. It suggested that if it was harder to leave a relationship (i.e. due to law or a child) then maybe you wouldn't! Maybe you would work harder at the relationship.

So whilst our relationships may be based on hetero constructs, they are not bound by them.

[hazyinseptember]

i totally believe that monogamy is unnatural, there are very few species in the animal world that take a mate for life.

And current hetrosexual/society norms are the result of christian religion. Marriage has had varied forms in many different cultures, from multiple wives, to gay weddings, to polyandry.

in the end though we are only constructs of the society we live in.

here is some great stuff from wiki on marriage

Polyandry (a woman having multiple husbands) occurs very rarely in a few isolated tribal societies with limited resources. These societies include some bands of the Canadian Inuit[citation needed], although the practice has declined sharply in the 20th century due to their conversion from tribal religion to Christianity by Moravian missionaries. Additionally, the Spartans were notable for practicing polyandry.[citation needed] Spartan polyandry often took the form of adelphic polyandry (where the husbands are all biological brothers).

Societies which permit group marriage are extremely rare, but have existed in Utopian societies such as the Oneida Community.[citation needed]

Today, many married people practice various forms of consensual nonmonogamy, including polyamory and swinging. These people have agreements with their spouses that permit other intimate relationships or sexual partners. Therefore, the concept of marriage need not necessarily hinge on sexual or emotional monogamy.

[edit] Christian insistence on monogamy

In the Christian tradition, a "one man one woman" model for the Christian marriage was advocated by Saint Augustine (354-439 AD) with his published letter The Good of Marriage. To discourage polygamy, he wrote it "was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful." (chapter 15, paragraph 17) Sermons from St. Augustine's letters were popular and influential. In 534 AD Roman Emperor Justinian criminalized all but monogamous man/woman sex within the confines of marriage. The Justinian Code was the basis of European law for 1,000 years.

Christianity has continued to insist on monogamy as an essential of marriage.

[edit] Contemporary Western societies

In 21st century Western societies, bigamy is illegal and sexual relations outside marriage are generally frowned-upon, though there is a minority view accepting (or even advocating) open marriage.

However, divorce and remarriage are relatively easy to undertake in these societies. This has led to a practice called serial monogamy. "Serial monogamy" involves entering into successive marriages over time. Serial monogamy is also sometimes used to refer to cases where the couples cohabitate without getting married.

[meezon04]

Brilliant thread Matt!

I do believe the entire concept of marriage is based, originally, on Christianity and love. I'm glad I am Christian and gay because it's made me look at marriage from an outside point of view. It's a basic right that I'm denied, and I've never understood why. It just seems so normal to me for girls to be with girls and guys to be with guys.

It's like the advice that Andy's dad gives him in "Another Gay Sequel" - "You need to decide whether to follow your heart, or your hole." Gays pretty much have the right to be promiscuous, as it's our way of lashing out about not being allowed marriage rights. Marriage (usually) settles loving couples down, 'til death do you part'.
Marriage is old, traditional and out-dated, and being gay is the new 'In' - it's fun, you can get all the sex you want and you don't even have to feel bad about sleeping around because you're not granted marriage/civil union rights in the first place.

So I think it's about lashing out against the norm, but I do know there are many out there who just want to be accepted and they love one another and no-one else. These are the people we should look up to because they are the one's who might actually get something done about the pathetic laws. I myself like public affection with my partners for this reason, so that people know we are here. Hiding in the bedroom isn't the way for people to see the real you. People have the right to free speech, why people can't have the right to be themselves?

Because of the past, the bible, the law, homophobia, fear, and acceptance in society, we've had to create our own laws on what our relationships are and what they mean to us. We're treated like 2nd-class citizens and we've only got the heterosexuals and their natural rights to marriage to look up to. We either fight for the same right to party, or we say "F*ck your stupid laws" and do our own thing.

[Matt88]

I sent this around to a few of my friends, and would just like to share one of the replies I received:

"Obviously all formalised relationships are learned social constructs, regardless of sexuality or the depth of that relationship. The way we think about family, friendship, community, marriage, partnership, monogamy, promiscuity and so on and so forth has been taught to us. We know this because these concepts differ between cultures and historical periods.....What is acceptable, what fits within hegemony, shifts.

The real crux of your thinking here comes with the juxtaposition of 'hetro' and 'homo'. If we're going to operate on the certainty that these constructs are real and (relatively) fixed binaries, fine - although, this is open to debate. Your 'somewhat same-sex-inclined' concession is a nod in this direction, I think. Anyway, yes. Our immediate tradition (I won't bother to clarify 'our' or 'immediate' at this stage) is largely heteronormative. Culturally, socially, we’re saturated with the privileged nature of monogamous heterosexual partnership that follows a relatively strict trajectory from dating to marriage to children. This is a cultural expectation. Certainly, this expectation is waning with an increase in divorce rates, the rise of childless families, the destabilisation of the nuclear family unity, and so on. However, the hetero-mono model is the ‘ideal.

This raises so many issues for the homos, and what we’re grappling at here demonstrates a need for this tension to be recognised and (maybe, eventually) resolved. You can’t get outside of culture so you can’t say homos should just pay no attention to every heteronormative romantic story-line that appears in every film or television show or book or café conversation. However, you can look to alternate discursive trends towards less rigidity in the way we define who we are (and who we fuck) as a possible solution.

Anyway, boring stuff out of the way, monogamy is a construct that homos have a particular reputation for subverting for a myriad of reasons that you’ve already started speculating towards. It’s impossible to pinpoint why I might of think of myself as monogamous, but I do. The marriage debate is an interesting one that is so much more complex than for or against, but I do predict it’ll go the way of ‘equality’ although I’m undecided as to whether or not I’d participate.

Love is this whole other kettle of fish and it’s slightly outside of what I think you’re talking about Matt, so I won’t carry on. However, ‘finding that special someone’ is important for lots of people. I’ve always enjoyed falling in love – it’s always slightly different and it can even happen over and over again with the same person. If you can hold onto that, monogamy seems easy."

[ammonite]

Matt, the terribly ironic thing about radical-queer arguments like this is how much like homophobe arguments they are. sometimes i can't tell the difference.

andrewc, there is debate about the validity of 'lesbian bed death'. the original study that coined the phrase was flawed. personally i don't beleive that it's real - straight couples sex lives fizzle out too, but it makes homophobic straight men feel good to think that women can't have fullfilling sex without them.
and yeah i think that children and legal marriages definatly do encourage people to work on their relationship problems instead of just ditching at hard times, which is a good thing right?

i totally believe that monogamy is unnatural, there are very few species in the animal world that take a mate for life.but there are some species that do, so it's not unnatural, just uncommon - like homosexuality maybe ;)

people tend to think of polygamy as being abusive - of women in polygynous marriages being treated like brood mares, and not equal to their husband.
i think the balance of power in polyamory is important - a husband might have 3 wives as in polygyny, but those wives also have several husbands.

[hazyinseptember]

but there are some species that do, so it's not unnatural, just uncommon - like homosexuality maybe ;)

True.. i did look back on my usage of the work unnatural and think it was a bit harsh .. so let me rephrase that..

i believe humanity as a species is not meant to be monogamous.

people tend to think of polygamy as being abusive - of women in polygynous marriages being treated like brood mares, and not equal to their husband.

i think any kind of marriage/relationship arrangement can work between the right people..

[hazyinseptember]

Whatever makes a pair of animals socially monogamous does not necessarily make them sexually or genetically monogamous. Social monogamy, sexual monogamy, and genetic monogamy can occur in different combinations.

Social monogamy is relatively rare in the animal kingdom. The actual incidence of social monogamy varies greatly across different branches of the evolutionary tree. Over 90 percent of avian species are socially monogamous.[13][20]

This stands in contrast to mammals. Only 3 percent of mammalian species are socially monogamous, although up to 15 percent of primate species are socially monogamous.[13][20] Social monogamy has also been observed in reptiles, fish, and insects.

Sexual monogamy is very rare among animals. The great majority of socially monogamous species engage in extra-pair copulations, making them sexually non-monogamous. For example, while over 90% of birds are socially monogamous, "on average, 30 percent or more of the baby birds in any nest [are] sired by someone other than the resident male."[21] Patricia Adair Gowaty has estimated that, out of 180 different species of socially monogamous songbirds, only 10 percent are sexually monogamous.[22]

[hazyinseptember]

The following are some of the mating systems generally recognised in humans and other animals:

* Monogamy: One male and one female have an exclusive mating relationship.
* Polygamy: One or more males have an exclusive relationship with one or more females. Three types are recognized:
o Polygyny (the most common polygamous mating system in vertebrates so far studied): One male has an exclusive relationship with two or more females
o Polyandry: One female has an exclusive relationship with two or more males.
o Polygynandry: Two or more males have an exclusive relationship with two or more females; the numbers of males and females need not be equal, and in vertebrate species studied so far, there are usually fewer males.
* Promiscuity: Any male and female will mate within the social group.

[hazyinseptember]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality

has some crazy information on animal sexuality..

Flatworm

Penis fencing is a mating behaviour engaged in by certain species of flatworm, such as Pseudobiceros hancockanus. Species which engage in the practice are hermaphroditic, possessing both eggs and sperm-producing testes.[63]

Child-bearing, while necessary for the continuation of a species, requires considerable resources from the mother. Thus, from a biological point of view, it is preferable to be the father rather than the mother.

The species "fence" using two-headed dagger-like penises which are pointed, and white in color. The "winner" is the organism that inseminates the other. The sperm is absorbed through pores in the skin, causing fertilization in the "loser".

Bonobos

The Bonobo, which has a peaceful, egalitarian and matriarchal society, is a fully bisexual species — both males and females engage in sexual behaviour with the same and the opposite sex, with females being particularly noted for engaging in sexual behaviour with each other and at up to 75% of sexual activity being bisexual. Bonobos often use sexual activity to prevent violence and conflict.

[JJJJunior]

Exams are looming so I thought I might have a crack at some of these in a procrastination effort ;).

Is the idea of one man and one man (or one woman and one woman) falling in love and staying monogamous for life (theoretically) a natural instinct in everyone, or has this idea been translated (imposed?) on homosexual relationships by the heterosexual norm?

I would be more inclined to say that it comes down to the individual. Some people are pro-monogamy and others aren't, but I don't think it can be divided up between heterosexuals or homosexuals exclusively. I mean, there ARE homosexuals in which monogamy is what they are after, and heterosexuals who find monogamy impossible to stick to. Different strokes for different folks I think.


Could it be that homosexual relationships are actually substantially different in form from heterosexual relationships, but this difference is crushed by homosexuals believing that, in order to be in a 'relationship', they must act like heterosexual couples?

I don't think so. I've always believed that people are people, regardless of race/sex/sexual orientation etc. If anything, I think that homosexuals as a group are more in touch with sexuality, and as such are more progressive when it comes to open relationships and the like than our heterosexual brothers and sisters.


To what extent is the 'fall in love, settle down, get married (or civil union-ed), buy a house, etc.' a heterosexual norm?

Sure, I'll accept that it's a heterosexual norm, but that's because the majority of people ARE heterosexual, so of course it's going to skew it that way. That said, the way things are going with the gay marriage movement I think we'll see this less and less.


Should gay marriage actually be a goal, or should homosexuals be looking to define their commitment to each other in ways that are not direct imitations of a heterosexual tradition? Is that one of the reasons it is so resisted?

Of course it should be a goal. It's all about having the freedom to make that choice, because it's a civil right that everyone should have. I get very upset with the extreme queer activists who actively oppose gay marriage because they don't believe in conforming to heteronormative social constructs etc etc blah blah blah. Whatever, just because you feel that way doesn't mean you should block that right from others who might wish to go down that path.


Further afield, is the whole idea of fidelity in homosexual relationships a construct? Homosexuals are notorious for being unfaithful, so is this just boys being boys or should homosexual fidelity be defined in ways that are different to heterosexual fidelity?

Fidelity is fidelity, you're either unfaithful or you aren't If you are in an open relationship and you sleep with another person, that isn't infidelity because you have a prior agreement with your significant other. If, however, you have a monogamous arrangement with your partner, and you sleep around behind their back, that's cheating and there is no other way to colour it. Sorry.