Heterocentrism

[which doctor]

I don't think the topic of Heterocentrism has ever been brought up on revleft, but I think it needs to.

Admit it, we live in a heterocentric world. Even revleft is heterocentric in many ways. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term heterocentrism, it refers to the thought that people are expected to be heterosexual. Life is tailored to heterosexuals.

This reminds me of a Seinfeld episode (okay, Seinfeld may not be the most experimental show out there)

Paraphrased from an actual episode

Woman: So, wherea are you going to with that gift?
Elaine: Oh, a friend's having a wedding.
Woman: Really? What's he do for a living?
Elaine: I think you mean she.
Woman: Oh, she works, he doesn't.
Elaine: Uhh, there is no he.
Woman: No he?
Elaine: It's a lesbian wedding

It may not be the best example, but it gets to the point. People are expected to be heterosexual in this world! When young children are growing up, they are expected to have crushes on the opposite sex, when in fact, there is nothing wrong with having a crush on the same sex. I will admit it, I had sexual encounters with other children of the same sex when I was young. My parents sure didn't know.

As long as people are expected to be heterosexual, a certain level of homophobia exists. It may not be very blatant, but it is still present.

If you have managed to read this rant, there is one thing I want you to come out if it with, don't always assume everyone, or even the majority of people are heterosexual. Because, they aren't. Don't refer to specific genders when talking about something you don't know about. It is counter-revolutionary.

Thank you.

[ack]

Well, most people are heterosexual(to my knowledge, I dunno, maybe I'm totally wrong...). It's just the way it is. Heterosexuals are the majority, and are therefore tailored to the most.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by ack@Jul 14 2006, 07:47 PM
Well, most people are heterosexual(to my knowledge, I dunno, maybe I'm totally wrong...). It's just the way it is. Heterosexuals are the majority, and are therefore tailored to the most.

Heterosexuals are only the majority because people are expected to be heterosexuals.

What if people were free and uninhibited from birth, truly guided by their emotions. Don't you think there would be less heterosexuals?

[ack]

Originally posted by Fist of Blood+Jul 14 2006, 08:50 PM--> (Fist of Blood @ Jul 14 2006, 08:50 PM)

ack

@Jul 14 2006, 07:47 PM
Well, most people are heterosexual(to my knowledge, I dunno, maybe I'm totally wrong...). It's just the way it is. Heterosexuals are the majority, and are therefore tailored to the most.

Heterosexuals are only the majority because people are expected to be heterosexuals.

What if people were free and uninhibited from birth, truly guided by their emotions. Don't you think there would be less heterosexuals? [/b]

Exactly what I meant by

(to my knowledge, I dunno, maybe I'm totally wrong...)

But even if what you said happened, I think heterosexuals would still be the majority. Urge to reproduce and all that. Not that a homosexual can't reproduce, they just lack the sexual desire.

[TC]

Admit it, we live in a heterocentric world. Even revleft is heterocentric in many ways. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term heterocentrism, it refers to the thought that people are expected to be heterosexual. Life is tailored to heterosexuals...As long as people are expected to be heterosexual, a certain level of homophobia exists. It may not be very blatant, but it is still present.

There is nothing homophobic about the cultural presumption of heterosexuality when there is no reason to think otherwise, simply because the vast majority of people are heterosexual.

People are expected to be heterosexual not out of any homophobia, but because expectation is based on frequency, and people simply happen to be heterosexual much more frequently.

Likewise there is an expectation of righthandness, since most people are righthanded, this has nothing to do with hatred or disgust of lefthanded people it simply has to do with statistical frequency.

You are looking for homophobia when none exists.

If you have managed to read this rant, there is one thing I want you to come out if it with, don't always assume everyone, or even the majority of people are heterosexual. Because, they aren't.

The majority of people are heterosexual thats an absolute fact that no one would dispute.

Heterosexuals are only the majority because people are expected to be heterosexuals.

um, no.

Sexual orientation is determined by or shortly after birth, its not determined by social environment or expectation. Most people are heterosexual for purely biological, sexual reasons: people of the opposite sex turn them on.

There are pretty obvious evolutionary reasons for this: heterosexuals have a lot more direct impact on the gene pool as they have vastly more offspring.

What if people were free and uninhibited from birth, truly guided by their emotions. Don't you think there would be less heterosexuals?

No, there wouldn't be more or less...degree of inhibition and being 'truely guided by emotions' are not factors in someone's sexual orientation. Being inhibited and repressed might make someone a little disturbed but it wont make them heterosexual or homosexual or anything else.

[which doctor]

There is nothing homophobic about the cultural presumption of heterosexuality when there is no reason to think otherwise, simply because the vast majority of people are heterosexual.

The vast majority of people claim to be heterosexual.

People are expected to be heterosexual not out of any homophobia, but because expectation is based on frequency, and people simply happen to be heterosexual much more frequently.

I would really wish the US census would ask for sexual orientation. I bet you would find a higher percentage of queers in a state like California than in a state like Alabama.

You are looking for homophobia when none exists.

o rly?

Sexual orientation is determined by or shortly after birth, its not determined by social environment or expectation. Most people are heterosexual for purely biological, sexual reasons: people of the opposite sex turn them on.

So you're saying the social environment has nothing to do about whether or not a person would want to be openly gay?

No, there wouldn't be more or less...degree of inhibition and being 'truely guided by emotions' are not factors in someone's sexual orientation. Being inhibited and repressed might make someone a little disturbed but it wont make them heterosexual or homosexual or anything else.

But it would make them more or less willing to be openly gay.

You must admit that a heterocentric world is more conducive to heterosexuals than it is to the LGBT population.

[Cult of Reason]

openly gay?

That is a completely different issue entirely.

[Demogorgon]

Hmm, I don't know, the fact is for obious biological reasons there are more hetrosexuals in the worlds than gays.

Hell, I'm gay myself, and tend to usually imagine people are straight unless I am told otherwise.

Ideally we would make no assumptions of course, but it can be very hard not to, so long as we keep an open mind and accept any variations within pople that aren't immediately obvious to us, it doesn't matter greatly.

[Mujer Libre]

Good post FoB- I think it's definitely something that needs to be addressed IMO. Just because most people at this point are solely hetero doesn't mean that heterosexism needs to be the norm.

And I think TC is taking a realllly reductionist approach when she says that if sexuality is determined biologically (which as far as I'm aware is still a contentious issue, yes there are almost certainly biological aspects, but you can never ever reduce something as complex as sexuality down to scientific fact IMO) that's that and there's no fluidity, no scope for change- even at the societal level.

It's a bit like the argumnt over monogamy to me. Sure, most people may still be hetero (or monogamous) but to enforce that as a social norm, which implicitly paints any alternate sexuality as 'deviant' is not acceptable and needs to be challenged.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by TragicClown@Jul 15 2006, 11:23 AM
There is nothing homophobic about the cultural presumption of heterosexuality when there is no reason to think otherwise, simply because the vast majority of people are heterosexual.

People are expected to be heterosexual not out of any homophobia, but because expectation is based on frequency, and people simply happen to be heterosexual much more frequently.

Likewise there is an expectation of righthandness, since most people are righthanded, this has nothing to do with hatred or disgust of lefthanded people it simply has to do with statistical frequency.

You are looking for homophobia when none exists.

If you have managed to read this rant, there is one thing I want you to come out if it with, don't always assume everyone, or even the majority of people are heterosexual. Because, they aren't.

The majority of people are heterosexual thats an absolute fact that no one would dispute.

Heterosexuals are only the majority because people are expected to be heterosexuals.

um, no.

Sexual orientation is determined by or shortly after birth, its not determined by social environment or expectation. Most people are heterosexual for purely biological, sexual reasons: people of the opposite sex turn them on.

There are pretty obvious evolutionary reasons for this: heterosexuals have a lot more direct impact on the gene pool as they have vastly more offspring.

What if people were free and uninhibited from birth, truly guided by their emotions. Don't you think there would be less heterosexuals?

No, there wouldn't be more or less...degree of inhibition and being 'truely guided by emotions' are not factors in someone's sexual orientation. Being inhibited and repressed might make someone a little disturbed but it wont make them heterosexual or homosexual or anything else.

as it happens, people don't get beaten up, verbally abused, kicked out of home, fired from jobs, etc, because they're left handed. as far as i'm aware, left-handed people aren't 6-7 times more likely to commit suicide than right handed people.

you're comparing two things which have no similarity whatsoever. and yes, i know you were comparing them because of 'stastical frequency', but you can't talk about statistics in a vacuum. gender and sexuality aren't binary concepts, and to look at them as such is very conservative and archaic, and is exactly the kind of thing that revolutionary leftists should oppose.

sexuality is a result of both biological and societal influences; to what degree each of those things has an impact is debatable, but to reduce it down to simple biology is absurd.

and even if hetrosexuality was more frequent, do you honestly think that that's the sole reason that society is hetronormative? there are less 'white' people on earth than 'non-white' people, yet 'white' was seen for a long time (and i'd argue still is these days) as the 'norm', and anyone who wasn't white was a deviant. enforcing hetrosexuality is advantageous for various powerful groups in society who love the nuclear family structure, and so it's 'normality' is enforced. it perpetuates a vicious cycle where people are less likely to be openly queer or to say fuck you to gender/sexuality conventions, and so it continues to appear that hetrosexuality is more 'normal' in society.

[LSD]

I think it's important to seperate the two social phenomena which are commonly called "heterocentrism". The first is the, rather unavoidable, tendency of society to be generally geared towards heterosexuals and heterosexuality, while the second is the attempt to translate that into a normative paradigm.

Although, obviously, discrimination plays a significant role in the marginalization of homosexuality and homosexual culture, it is simply undeniable that regardless of sociopolitical conditions, more people will be heterosexual than homosexual.

We can quibble on exactly how much more frequent opposite sex attraction "naturally" is and obviously the issue of a "cause" for homosexuality is a contentious one; but I really don't think there's a credible sex researcher in the world who would claim that homosexuality is or could ever be more common than heterosexuality.

Accordingly, it's pretty much a given most forms of societal expression and organization will be made by, and therefore targeted to, heterosexuals. Not all, of course, but certainly most.

That said, this form of "heterocentrism" is ultimately harmless. It may be inconvenient for those who are in the minority, but in any society with marked social differences, that's bound to happen.

Frankly, I think that TC's "left-handed" analogy was actually quite apt on this issue, even if somewhat misstated.

No, left-handed people are not subject to institutional discrimination and biggotry. But that's the point. Despite a culture and society that is overwhelmingly right-handed, despite a social environment which assumes and is primarily geared towards right-handedness ...left handed people are not seriously marginalized or harmed.

That speaks to the fact that it is not "assumptions" or "preponderance" that shapes discrimination, it's institutional prejudice. Now, sure, those two things can and often do go hand in hand, but the first does not nesessitate the latter.

And this is where the second kind of social "heterocentrism" comes in; not the assumption that heterosexuality is "normal" (which it is), but that this normalcy has implicit value.

It's the leap from quantitative to qualitative which leads to harmful "heterocentrism", not the acknowledgment of statistical fact.

For instance, no one can deny that there are, presently, more ethnic Turks than ethnic Kurds. And accepting this demographic fact is entirely nonpolitical. If one were to infer from this fact, however, that Kurdish ethnicity is "deviant" or "unnatural", one has crossed the line into racism and discrimination.

It's exactly the same with "heterocentrism".

Unfortunately, this thread seems to be more about the first kind of "heterocentrism" than the latter. FOB's example from "seinfeld" and complaints that people are "expected" to be heteroseual ....they all rather miss the point.

People born today are expected to be all sorts of things and those expectations are, for the most part, rather irrelevent. What matters is how people react if those expections are defied.

If two blonde haired parents have a black-haired child are they surprised? Probably. But do they mind? Unlikely. If the same could be said for all heterosexuals with homosexual children, we would really be somewhere.

I don't think we can ever "erase" the societal expection that most children are heterosexual. Again, that's because most children are heterosexual. What we can do however is fight any attempt to "favour" or "endorse" either possibility.

And that's what fighting homophobia should be about. Trying to "neutralize expection" or rewrite sitcom scripts ...it's all rather idealist, I'm afraid.

Fighting discrimination in practice means fighting discrimination. If you want to call that "anti-heterocentrism", go right ahead. Just so long as you don't miss the big picture.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by LSD@Jul 15 2006, 02:17 PM
Although, obviously, discrimination plays a significant role in the marginalization of homosexuality and homosexual culture, it is simply undeniable that regardless of sociopolitical conditions, more people will be heterosexual than homosexual.

you're giving up before the game's even really begun. whether or not you believe that even in a post-revolutionary society there will still be more hetrosexual people than queer people, my ideal world would constitute one where such barriers between queer and non-queer were effectively destroyed. there would be no need for terminology like hetrosexual or homosexual or bisexual or whatever, because people wouldn't care anymore because sexuality would cease to be repressed.

We can quibble on exactly how much more frequent opposite sex attraction "naturally" is and obviously the issue of a "cause" for homosexuality is a contentious one; but I really don't think there's a credible sex researcher in the world who would claim that homosexuality is or could ever be more common than heterosexuality.

Accordingly, it's pretty much a given most forms of societal expression and organization will be made by, and therefore targeted to, heterosexuals. Not all, of course, but certainly most.

so you think that media and whatnot provides a fairly accurate representation of society? because i think that the media still focuses on portraying white, straight people with a coupla tokens thrown in here and there. in the west, it's estimated that 10% of the population identify as queer. there are probably a lot more who don't identift as queer for various reasons such as fear of stigmatisation if anyone found out, thinking that it means that they're abnormal and thus trying to suppress it, dismissing their sexual feelings as something else. even if we took 10% as a starting point, can you honestly tell me that about 10%, or even 5% of the media and other forms of expression represent this number?

No, left-handed people are not subject to institutional discrimination and biggotry. But that's the point. Despite a culture and society that is overwhelmingly right-handed, despite a social environment which assumes and is primarily geared towards right-handedness ...left handed people are not seriously marginalized or harmed.

That speaks to the fact that it is not "assumptions" or "preponderance" that shapes discrimination, it's institutional prejudice. Now, sure, those two things can and often do go hand in hand, but the first does not nesessitate the latter.

the thing is though, while homophobia and hetrnormative attitudes are institutional, until those very institutions are removed, queer people will continue to be discriminated against and abused. so while it's very easy to say that to rectify this problem we just need to abolish said institutions, it's not exactly helpful to people who are suffering from societal perceptions (which are shaped by hetronormative media) right now. is it a fairly ineffective, bandaid solution? of course. but i don't think that i or FoB or ML or anyone is trying to say that simply challenging hetrocentricism through media or whatever is all we have to do. but it sure is something which can help people now.

hetronormative media is an issue which needs to be looked at. i'm tired of queer people only really getting exposure on things like queer eye and the l word, which in some ways works against queer liberation. i applaud playschool for depicting two lesbian mothers playing with their child, and i think the uproar that followed proves just how much powerful people rely on hetrocentricism and how much anything that subverts that really challenges them.

Trying to "neutralize expection" or rewrite sitcom scripts ...it's all rather idealist, I'm afraid.

Fighting discrimination in practice means fighting discrimination. If you want to call that "anti-heterocentrism", go right ahead. Just so long as you don't miss the big picture.

as i said, i highly doubt that anyone who wants to resist hetrocentricism in the media thinks that that's the only way to challenge homophobia, it's simply a way, which in conjunction with other methods can be effective and helpful to the people who actually suffer because of hetrocentricism.

i&#39;m finding that there&#39;s a trend on this board where people think that there are only one or two ways to actively challenge various forms of discrimination or oppression. i&#39;d say that &#39;anti-hetrocentricist&#39; action is a much more effective tactic for queer liberation than attending a may day rally is to workers&#39; liberation, yet it&#39;s dismissed as being irrelevant <_<

[Ferg]

Originally posted by ack@Jul 15 2006, 12:47 AM
Well, most people are heterosexual(to my knowledge, I dunno, maybe I&#39;m totally wrong...). It&#39;s just the way it is. Heterosexuals are the majority, and are therefore tailored to the most.

You&#39;re correct, evolution wasen&#39;t tailored to men fucking men. Evolution exists for one reason, that is to survive and that is only accomplished through hetrosexual intercourse so the vast majority of the world will be hetrosexual. It may seem like the amount is on the rise but it isn&#39;t. It&#39;s just that now, people are comming out of the closet.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Ferg@Jul 15 2006, 03:19 PM
You&#39;re correct, evolution wasen&#39;t tailored to men fucking men. Evolution exists for one reason, that is to survive and that is only accomplished through hetrosexual intercourse so the vast majority of the world will be hetrosexual. It may seem like the amount is on the rise but it isn&#39;t. It&#39;s just that now, people are comming out of the closet.

sounding awfully dodgy here...

so since it goes against evolution, people who engage in sex other than that of vaginal penetration are..what?

[Ferg]

Originally posted by rioters bloc+Jul 15 2006, 05:28 AM--> (rioters bloc @ Jul 15 2006, 05:28 AM)

Ferg

@Jul 15 2006, 03:19 PM
You&#39;re correct, evolution wasen&#39;t tailored to men fucking men. Evolution exists for one reason, that is to survive and that is only accomplished through hetrosexual intercourse so the vast majority of the world will be hetrosexual. It may seem like the amount is on the rise but it isn&#39;t. It&#39;s just that now, people are comming out of the closet.

sounding awfully dodgy here...

so since it goes against evolution, people who engage in sex other than that of vaginal penetration are..what? [/b]

What I&#39;m saying, is Lesbian and Gay people aren&#39;t in the majority because evolution happens for us to survive. We can&#39;t survive if we don&#39;t reproduce.

[LSD]

you&#39;re giving up before the game&#39;s even really begun.

That&#39;s because I reject that there&#39;s a "game" to be played here.

That there are vastly more heterosexuals than homosexuals is fact and that this situation is liable to be permanent is just basic logical deductive reasoning.

Should some evidence be presented otherwise, I would of course be willing to reconsider my position on this. But so far all historical, sociological, biological, and psychological data indicate that while the "causes" of human sexuality are probably complex the existance and relative frequency of distinct sexual orienations are simple fact.

whether or not you believe that even in a post-revolutionary society there will still be more hetrosexual people than queer people, my ideal world would constitute one where such barriers between queer and non-queer were effectively destroyed. there would be no need for terminology like hetrosexual or homosexual or bisexual or whatever, because people wouldn&#39;t care anymore because sexuality would cease to be repressed.

An end to repression doesn&#39;t mean an end to distinction.

No matter how "liberated" or "equal" human beings become, there will always be identifiable differences between us. Those differences should not matter insofar as politics are concerned, but they will certainly not "disappear".

Sexual equality, for instance, doesn&#39;t mean that we reject the existance of male or female sexes, it just means that we recognize that those biological categories are irrelevent to all matters of politics and society.

Similarly, the overwhelming evidence at present is that while sexual orientation is not static or "binary", it is definitely more binary than "fluid". And the majority of people simply are and will almost certainly always be heterosexual.

There are rather intuitive evolutionary reasons what this is and, while evolutionary psychology should not be to readily accepted, when it comes to elementary issues of reproduction and gene propagaation, it&#39;s not unreasonable to look for a genetic cause.

The human brain, after all, is just like any other organ of our body. It is as much a product of pressured evolution as anything else. That means that people disposed to behaviours likely to induce reproduction will always outnumbered those who are not.

All of which only becomes a political problem when you start attatching values to matters of orientation and sexual behaviour.

so you think that media and whatnot is provides a fairly accurate representation of society?

Not at all&#33;

Again, the homophobic attitudes of mainstream society today reflect a social policy of institutional heterosexist discrimination. That manifests in gays being marginalized from all aspects of social expression.

That is, the problem is not that there are more portrayals of straights than gays -- that again is unlikely to ever change -- it&#39;s that the portrayals of gays are negative while those of straights is positive.

It&#39;s a matter of discrimination. not statistical "imbalancing".

hetronormative media is an issue which needs to be looked at.

Oh, I agree entirely.

The treatment of homosexuals in the mainstream media is abhorent at present. But this is a problem of homophobia, not "heterocentrism" or "heterosexism".

Gays aren&#39;t just underrepresented (although they are, and by a rather drastic amount), they are negatively portrayed. They&#39;re role in the media today is not unlike that traditionaly assigned to racial or ethnic minorities -- to reinforce the stereotypes of their group and otherwise shut up.

This kind of homophobia has nothing to do with "expectations" or even statistics, it has to do with a concerted effort to demonize and ostracize homosexuals.

Besides, since when has this primarily been about "the media"?

I&#39;d think that on a communist message board, it goes without saying that the present bourgeois media does not represent anything other than the class interests of its owners.

Instead, I though that this thread was about society in general and how it approaches the quantitative issue of homosexual/homosexual "expectancy".That is, in the first post, FoB complained that young children are "expected" to have crushes on opposite-sex individuals. I continue to insist that this complaint misses the point.

People will always assume that most people will be straight because, again, most people will be straight. What matters is not whether the expectation is made, but how people react if it is defied.

It&#39;s the attatchment of qualitative conclusions to quantitative fact that is the real danger here, not the acknowledgment of statistical reality.

As i said, i highly doubt that anyone who wants to resist hetrocentricism in the media thinks that that&#39;s the only way to challenge homophobia, it&#39;s simply a way, which in conjunction with other methods can be effective and helpful to the people who actually suffer because of hetrocentricism.

Again, there are really two forms of "heterocentrism", one which is worth fighting and one which is not. All I&#39;m saying is that it&#39;s important that we recognize which is which.

[which doctor]

You&#39;re correct, evolution wasen&#39;t tailored to men fucking men. Evolution exists for one reason, that is to survive and that is only accomplished through hetrosexual intercourse so the vast majority of the world will be hetrosexual. It may seem like the amount is on the rise but it isn&#39;t. It&#39;s just that now, people are comming out of the closet.

People can have sex with other people regardless of their gender and their personal choice of gender. A gay man can have sex with a female to procreate.

[TC]

I&#39;ll respond to this more later, i want to start by saying though that i think LSD&#39;s comments are really excellent and have more than adiquately responded to this very poorly thought out argument advanced by FistofBlood.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by TragicClown@Jul 15 2006, 11:20 AM
I&#39;ll respond to this more later, i want to start by saying though that i think LSD&#39;s comments are really excellent and have more than adiquately responded to this very poorly thought out argument advanced by FistofBlood.

It&#39;s not the quality of the debate, but the quality of the debater that wins an argument. LSD is a far more superior debater than I could ever wish to be at this point. If it comes down to me vs LSD, he will certainly take the cake.

[TC]

LSD sometimes does a sort of "volume over argument" style of debate, but in this case i think his arguments are very sound, and yours are not.

This entire thread involved a conceptual error that you made, a presumption that expectation implies value, when this is not the case. You are just wrong on this one no amount of debating skills is gonna save it.