Social Construction of Sexuality

Paper Summary:

This paper examines how Sigmund Freud and Adrienne Rich approach the issue of the social construction of sexual orientation from radically different perspectives and with different objectives. It argues, through a critical analysis of the writings of both thinkers, that while Freud represents heterosexual orientation as natural he is clearly conflicted on the issue of social construction while, in contrast, Rich focuses almost entirely upon how heterosexuality is socially determined, while suggesting that - outside of this oppressive social determination - sexual orientation is natural.

From the Paper:

"In sharp contrast to Freud, Adrienne Rich represents heterosexuality as being social constructed by oppressive social forces, overriding innate or biologically determined sexual orientation that may be either homosexual or heterosexual. It should be noted that Rich is primarily focused upon a critique of the "bias" of "compulsory heterosexuality" in our society. While she attacks the view that women are "innately sexually-oriented" towards men (Rich 63), she acknowledges that there are women who are "self-described" as heterosexual as well as homosexual (Rich 90). Thus, although her focus is on the social construct of "compulsory heterosexuality" it appears that Rich considers there to be an underlying innate sexual orientation that the social construction is built upon and oppresses."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Freud, Sigmund. "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality." In Course Reader: Principles of Human Sexuality.
• Rich, Adrienne. "Compulsory Heterosexuality." In Course Reader: Principles of Human Sexuality.

More papers on Social Construction of Sexuality:

• Essay # 3436 : "The Social Construction of Sexuality"
• Term Paper # 103293 : "Social Workers and the Social Construction of Sexuality"
• Term Paper # 129269 : "Social Construction of Sexuality"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: