- Apr 20, 2020
- United Kingdom
What are you talking about?I doubt many hetrosexual people will have the sense that there's something "fundamentally distinctive" about them.
Of course heterosexuals believe there is something fundamentally distinctive about them. That something is literally the thing that makes them believe they are heterosexual. You cannot believe that you are heterosexual if you don't believe there is some distinctive property of you that makes you that way.
Why are you trying to nitpick a point that is borderline tautological?
And?Regardless of the term's origins, or any alternate term you use, most people, heck, most animals, are going to have an opposite-sex attraction.
Having an "opposite sex attraction" doesn't make you a heterosexual. What is supposed to make you a heterosexual is having an attraction that is exclusively directed towards members of the opposite sex.
In reality, only a minority of people who identify as heterosexual have got through life without ever having any experience of same-sex desire or intimacy, so heterosexuality also relies on the ability to suppress or sublimate any desire that is not towards the opposite sex in order to preserve the integrity of the identity.
But imagine if heterosexuality stopped existing tomorrow. Imagine if people never really thought about the type of person they wanted to have sex with in abstract terms, and instead only acted based on the sexual desire that they felt in the moment.
Things would continue largely the same, men and women would have sex. The acts might change a bit, but not unrecognizably. Some of those men and women (possibly a majority) would also have sex with members of the same sex. Some of them would not, and would only have sex with members of the opposite sex. In the latter case, it wouldn't be because they had decided they were a type of person who didn't feel desire for the same sex, it would be because whenever the opportunity had arisen they had not felt the desire to do so.
Those are very obviously different things.
My point was not about "bragging" or not being "terrified" or anything along those lines, it's an incredibly basic point. Heterosexuals tend to imagine sex as something men do to women. This can manifest in a whole range of different ways, it can certainly manifest as a sense of achievement and accomplishment in having sex or in one's own sexual competence. It can also manifest as anxiety about the ability to meet a partner's sexual needs. "Doing" in this case can also mean "giving", and "giving" comes with certain expectations.I hate to bring up the "lived experience" argument, but I've never metanyone in real life who braggged about "doing" someone.
And yes, this is a bigger part of sexual ideology than it is of actual sexual acts. In reality, most straight men tend to not enjoy partners who are too passive. But again, heterosexuality is kind of a cultural fiction (kind of like a stereotype - an artificial generalization that we use to make sense of a complex social environment). I'm not the one who thinks heterosexuality actually exists. Yuck!
Believing that intercourse is the only meaningful expression of sexuality, or has some special privileged position among sexual acts, is kind of a heterosexual stereotype to be honest.But the scene is bereft of any actual intercourse (that we see)
Look, I'm fine with having straight people in media if there's a point to it. But come on, there's no reason to rub it in our faces. Making these characters straight for no reason is completely meaningless and gratuitous and it serves no purpose within the narrative except to act as tokenistic "representation". They could have removed it, or used gay characters instead, and nothing would have changed.Is "pandering" simply the depiction of relationships?