Paper Example on Shaping Our Sexuality

Introduction

Heterosexuality is and has always been a social topic discussed for generations. With the perspective that heterosexuality enhances the idea of gender identity, many social scholars have deduced various ways to its importance and role within a community. According to Schwartz, heterosexuality is programmed into people from childhood. First, the scholar enhances the fact that even though it is hard to advertise the gender responsibility of heterosexuals, their dressing codes and behavior identify their masculinity and feminine traits (Schwartz 190). In other words, men with feminine traits and characters are judged as homosexuals. Moreover, Kimmel (142), elaborate that heterosexuality "masculinity" embraces the idea that each male-teenager/youth understand that the each and every move, utterances, and gestures are monitored by a specific gender guideline. The main purpose of the close monitoring is to ensure that all masculine gender constantly comply and adhere to the "Guy Code" (Kimmel 142). The code is to be obeyed weather the masculine teens/youth irrespective of their wish and willingness; thus, a male youth cannot express her feminine traits since it represents homosexuality. Moreover, according to the above identification of heterosexuality and homosexuality that experience of students at River High School discussed by Pascoe, do not enhance social construction because heterosexuality constitutes of numerous attributes, traits, and roles of people within a society. Furthermore, the social construct is uniquely different from biological gender properties; thus, bot the genders "male and female" can show masculine behavior and character and the definitions provide no room for both attributes in one individual.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

According to Pascoe's analysis on the heterosexual and homosexual response on the study of the students at River High School, homosexuality or the term "faggot" has more social consequences than heterosexuality (Pascoe 209). With the fact that most kids are programmed with the idea that when a masculine gender acts, react, talks, and portrays the feminine character they are termed as homosexuals. With that it is ideal to indicate that homosexuality is feared in the society; thus, used as a means of scaring away children. It is for the above reason that different people perceive heterosexuality and homosexuality differently. According to Pascoe (211), the author states that:

Most guys explained their or others' dislike of fags by claiming that homophobia was synonymous with being a guy. For instance, Keith, a white soccer-playing senior, explained, "I think guys are just homophobic." However, boys were not equal-opportunity homophobes. Several students told me that these homophobic insults applied only to boys and not girls. For example, while Jake, a handsome white senior, told me that he didn't like gay people, he quickly added, "Lesbians, okay that's good." Similarly, Cathy, a popular white cheerleader, told me, "Being a lesbian is accepted because guys think, 'Oh that's cool.'" Darnell, after telling me that boys were warned about becoming faggots, said: "They "guys" are fine with the girl. I think it's the guy part they're like ewwwy."

According to the above phrase, it is clear that masculinity is not allowed to express their femininity. For that purpose, masculinity attributes such as courage, independence, dormancy/superiority, and assertiveness of the men are compromised. With that there is no social construct is an individual is not allowed to exercise his feminine character and behavior.

It is quite unfortunate that social construction does not depend on the biological traits of a human being but to some extent; it is not perceived in a right manner. Social construction applauds and accepts lesbianism but condemns homosexuality because of the various perceptions. According to Pascoe (212), the author states, "A boy could get called a fag for exhibiting any sort of behavior identified as un-masculine ... expressing interest (sexual or platonic) in another guy." With such intention, it is clear that the most of the men will be in trouble according to the social norms. It is for the above fact that even with the existence of two genders, the masculine side gets more attention because of the historical position in the community and the feminine side receives little attention since most men feel and think that lesbianism is an ideal act. With that in mind, the social construction discussed above clearly portrays discriminative elements of heterosexuality, especially, with the changing social norms. Bearing that in mind, most men tend to show more interest in the transition of life, for example from childhood to adulthood.

It is for the above fact that childhood is represented by femininity. In such a case, femininity is described as a boy's attachment to the mother and feminine side; thus, they are weak, they do not have the potential to solve their issues by themselves and depend on the parents for guidance. On the other hand, masculinity represents the independence, assertiveness, and responsibility attributes of the youth after the transition to adulthood. With that said, both Kimmel and Schwartz did not describe heterosexuality in a manner corresponding to social construction.

Work Cited

Kimmel, Michael. "The Rites of Almost-Men: Binge Drinking, Fraternity Hazing, and the Elephant Walk." Groner, Rachael, and John O'Hara. Composing Gender. New York: Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2014. 140-150. Print.

Pascoe, C.J. 'Dude. "You're a Fag: Adolescent Male Homophobia." Groner, Rachael, and John O'Hara. Composing Gender. New York: Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2014. 208-220. Print.

Rosenbloom, Stephanie. "Good Girls Go Bad for a Day." Groner, Rachael, and John O'Hara. Composing Gender. New York: Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2014. 165-169. Print.

Schwartz, Pepper. "The Social Construction of Heterosexuality." Groner, Rachael, and John O'Hara. Composing Gender. New York: Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2014. 186-202. Print.