Lesbian-April 21

In "Compulsory Heterosexuality," Adrienne Rich describes two conflicting narratives about women's sexualities.  First, women are naturally oriented to men and their offspring.  Second, the lesbian "choice" stems from a rejection of and bitterness toward men.  Rich debunks these narratives by asserting that no true depiction of lesbian thought exists in either narrative.  The narratives perpetuate the notion of masculine-based control over women's sexualities.  Moreover, feminist theory has neglected the identity of lesbians throughout history, which furthers the masculine discourse surrounding lesbians.  Rich urges feminists to incorporate historical analysis in their dialogues about compulsory heterosexuality.  It is crucial for men to maintain control over women's sexualities because women are responsible for the economy and social order.  According to Rich, heterosexuality is an institution in which women are forced into the roles of heterosexual performance.  The economic pressures that dictate gender roles put power in the hands of men to control expression of sexuality.  As the economic climate changes, women become more or less free to reject heterosexuality.  The works that Rich discusses attempt to discover the cause of heterosexual rejection as well as compulsory heterosexuality.  In one analysis, a female Oedipus complex is suggested to be the root of lesbian relationships.  She explains that women long to replicate the mother-daughter relationship that comforted them in their childhoods.  These explanations, like the two narratives, look for a cause or a root to lesbian choice.  Rich clarifies that there is no choice, except for when one rebells against the authority forcing them into heterosexual behavior.  The authority, patriarchy, does many things to secure women's important position as mothers.  They do this by restricting the minds and bodies of women.  An example of female restriction that struck me the most was the prevention of women's movements, enforced by mandated clothing, rape, and full-time mothering.  This ties in well with my final project about the veil in Iran and how it makes women immobile by dictating the activities they can perform, the people they are permitted to socialize with, and the places they can go.  Women are veiled to protect their sexualities, and to make sure that they do not engage in unlawful sexual acts, even though men are encouraged to have polygamous marriages.  Interestingly, the veil is mandated to assert men's control over the female body, and yet this manifestation of sex segregation creates a platform for illicit homosexuality.  In other words, because women are permitted to only socialize with male relatives and other women, a homosocial space can become a homoerotic space.  Rubin's contribution to the discussion about the social factors involved in homosexuality furthers my point about the veiled body.  She expresses that sexual acts that deviate from what is deemed acceptable by society are cruelly punished, and the punishment reflects the state of the society itself.  Studying sexual politics in Iran has allowed me to construct political, economic, and social timelines around sexual history.  The Islamists contempt over women's unveiled bodies derived from fear that the youth would engage in unlawful sexual acts and jeopardize the continuation of the human race.  Similarly, homosexual behavior is shamed because it not associated with reproduction.  Rubin clarifies this phenomenon by describing the hierarchy of sexuality in which married, reproductive heterosexual couples are at the top, and "abnormal" homosexuality is at the bottom.  She wants radical policies that keep up with the ever-transforming institution of homosexuality.  While her writing and historical references are compelling, I find her radical approaches ignore viable understandings of sexual history on a global scale.  She argues that sex workers would be better off if sex was accessible in the free market economy.  However, there have been times in history where prostitution was legal, and women in these places still faced violent oppression.  For example, Islamists in pre-revolutionary Iran permitted prostitution in the Red Light District of Tehran.  Even though prostitution was legal in the confines of the district, women were still horribly abused.  Often, men sold them to brothels, and the women had no escape.  If Rubin is going to argue that capitalism would benefit sex workers, she must take into account that capitalism creates and conveniently turns a blind eye to oppression of the working class.