Revisionist History


The BBC published an article entitled “The Invention of Heterosexuality,” linked below, and it takes its argument too far. Its argument is that heterosexuality is a social construction.

Here is a quote:

“But heterosexuality has not always “just been there.” And there’s no reason to imagine it will always be.”

Of course, society and academics have attached certain meanings to the term “heterosexuality” and “homosexuality” and developed multiple classifications, but the article attempts to shift the more enduring dichotomy of “male” and “female” to “procreative” and “non-procreative.”

This is another quote from the article:

“The line between heterosexuality and homosexuality isn’t just blurry, as some take Kinsey’s research to imply – it’s an invention, a myth, and an outdated one. Men and women will continue to have different-genital sex with each other until the human species is no more. But heterosexuality – as a social marker, as a way of life, as an identity – may well die out long before then.”

I’m not convinced by this argument. While the line between heterosexuality and homosexuality may be blurrier than many assume, these are still fundamentally distinct realms of sexual orientation. The article depicts heterosexuality as a complete invention, even as a fabrication, arising during the Industrial Revolution presumably.

Granted, in a modern, secular, and free society, people should have the right to live how they wish, without discrimination. In fact, the individual right to their own sexual life (among consenting adults, that is) is a natural right and should be defended. (One of the 101 reasons I am opposed to Christianity, in fact, along with the other Abrahamic curses, is because it violates individual sovereignty, and natural law, by dictating sexual behavior even among consenting adults).

However, this article seems to be part of an ideological and intellectual war on heterosexuality…

In reality, it is impossible to entirely separate heterosexual desire from the reproduction of the species. It remains true that probably about 75 – 80% of the population in any society (with a margin of overlap) has heterosexual desires: mentally, emotionally, and physically.

These desires are hard-wired into human genetics. Indeed, the article ignores the strong evidence for the genetic, biological factors influencing sexual orientation. Basically, the article is an example of post-modernism on steroids: absolutely everything is a social construction.

The article makes it seem that time and circumstance simply created the conditions whereby people were socialized into heterosexuality. The article presents heterosexuality as an economic, political, social and cultural accident.

I’m not convinced. The reproduction of mammals is organized along the complementary and binary forms “male” and “female.”

In summary, the article represents a small but significant attack on the human species in general, trying to wear away one of the basic realities that allows for survival and reproduction.

Comments are closed.

Post Navigation