Emma Holten lives here

Barbara Kruger’s never really talked about Supreme, the skate company who’s been ripping off her ideas and prints letter for letter, color for color, for their red-and-white logo, which you have seen, because it is everywhere. 

The enforcement of male-female relationships as a social norm. In the influential essay “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” (1980), Adrienne Rich (1929-) suggests that heterosexuality is not simply the result of a natural attraction between men and women but is, in fact, an institution that is forced upon people, through various forms of psychological, physical, legal, economic, and cultural coercion.

In societies in which same-sex relationships are taboo, there are many penalties that gay and bisexual people face. Similarly, there are many pressures put on all people to form heterosexual relationships. Compulsory heterosexuality can be seen in laws forbidding same-sex sexual contact, in films and television programs that fail to represent gay and bisexual people or that represent them negatively, in antigay violence, even in the way children are children are often taught to imagine their futures as containing heterosexual partnerships. That some people face severe sanctions for not being heterosexual suggests that heterosexuality is enforced as a norm for all, which raises the questions about the naturalness of any individual’s sexual orientation. Feelings of attraction and affection towards men that are not simply the result of fear or coercion do exist in many women. It becomes almost impossible to know, however, what part of these feelings is genuine and self-generated and what part is a response to the social conditioning into heterosexuality.

This aspect of Rich’s argument has been controversial. Because she was writing as a lesbian feminist about the ramifications of compulsory heterosexuality for women and for feminism, many have assumed that Rich was claiming that no heterosexual relationship can ever be authentic She addresses this issue at the end of her essay by explaining that it is not her intention to judge individuals on their personal lives, but rather to examine heterosexuality on a structural level, as an institution that reinforces male supremacy. If feminists assume that heterosexuality is simply a natural orientation that some women share, they will miss the opportunity to analyze one of the central ways that women’s freedom is limited, through the imperative that they form relationships with men.

In this essay, Rich was the first to articulate the coercive aspects of heterosexism. Before this, radical feminists explained that the reason women stayed in unequal relationships with men was because of the (primarily economic) privilege they received. That explanation probably grants too much agency to women, overestimating the degree of conscious thought put into heterosexuality. By highlighting the intensity of the cultural conditioning, the erasure of lesbian history, and the psychological and economic penalties lesbian women face, Rich challenged feminists to re-conceptualize the degree to which heterosexuality is simply a “natural” sexual orientation or a calculated, “free” choice.

We have always been here. 

Vintage MLM love photography post

Vintage WLW love photography post