There is no doubt in my mind that the culture we live in still strongly struggles to enforce and reinforce heteronormative values. This enforcement goes beyond mere understanding of the fact that, statistically speaking, most people identify as heterosexual and moves into an expectation that all people probably should be heterosexual. The factors and behaviors in society that reinforce this belief are many, varied and subtle. This paper will briefly examine five large areas of culture that serve this function, how they enforce this norm, and the effect of this enforcement on individuals.

I. The exclusivity of heterosexual references in culture

It can happen in things as simple as the words we associate with romance; we say “husbands and wives,” instead of gender-neutral choices like, “spouses” or “partners.” Popular men’s and women’s magazines, such as “Maxim” or “Cosmopolitan,” refer to matters of romance exclusively in terms of the opposite sex. People are assumed to be straight unless they are specifically outed or admitted as GLBT. “Relationship” sections of most mainstream bookstores are filled with books that only address the issues in terms of man/woman relationship, giving not so much as a nod to same sex couples. Even little things like ceramic salt shakers and “his” and “hers” towels reinforce the idea that heterosexual orientation is the only legitimate sexual orientation.

Of course, it’s difficult to go shopping when you’re a member of any group in the minority. To a certain extent, the predominance of heterosexuality in media and culture is an expected and understandable phenomenon. Anyone who’s left-handed, vegetarian, non-Christian, non-white, has a disability, speaks a foreign language as their first, has an unusual hobby or esoteric area of interest or livelihood, or anyone who has ever shopped for clothes to fit a body shape or size that is outside the norm has experienced the frustration of trying to make her way in a world that doesn’t seem to recognize her existence.

However, when it comes to traits that make an individual different from that which is considered the “average,” there is a keenly-felt difference between those factors which are simply forgotten about or disregarded for the sake of profit and those factors which are actively discriminated against because of social prejudice or stigma. Mere predominance is different from active exclusivity.

Sexual orientation is one area in which the cultural enforcement is well and truly pointed. Homosexuality exists in the culture, perhaps even widely so, but it is not yet widely encountered outside of its accepted, expected, and rather specialized pocket of society. It is confined to its place in society and expected not to venture into the everyday.

II. The denial of same-sex romance

In terms of societal acceptance, heterosexual pairs of all shapes and sizes are recognized and celebrated in terms of romance and family, whereas heterosexual sexuality is celebrated only when practiced by those who fit the ideals of youth and beauty.

In television, movies, and other media, gay couples are nearly always shown as young, attractive pairs. This may mean that our limited celebration of gay and lesbian relationships is a sign that we recognize them primarily as sexual, not romantic. If this is the case, is it any surprise that same-sex relationships are struggling to gain an accepted place in society? So long as heterosexuality and homosexuality are viewed not only as differently directed orientations, but fundamentally different kinds of human sexualities, same-sex relationships will not be granted equal lifestyle expressions in society.

III. Portrayals of homosexual relationships in mainstream television

While it’s true that popular television is increasing it’s representation of gay and lesbian individuals all the time, fiction and non-fiction shows alike continually find themselves experiencing difficultly in trying to portray same-sex relationships without having them be either a) the focal point of the show in question, (eg. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy or The “L“ Word), b) heavily stereotyped comic guest roles (as in sitcoms like Frasier or Seinfeld), or c) addressed as a major source of conversation and controversy within the plotline of the show (as in Buffy: The Vampire Slayer). In other words, realistic gay and lesbian relationships get the center spotlight, or they get no light at all.

Furthermore, behind-the-scenes anecdotes tell of failed attempts to integrate any gay main characters in fiction shows that are plot-based rather than character-based: in 1993, the launch of the Star Trek spin-off, Deep Space Nine was originally intended to feature a gay main character; the space station doctor, played by Alexander Siddig. However, his orientation was changed to straight at the last minute due to homophobic pressures.

More recently, writers for the hit show CSI attempted and failed to out one of their main characters as gay. In the fourth season of the show, the ballistics technician, Bobby Dawson (played by openly gay actor Gerald McCullough) had been a regular character since the pilot. It was decided by the writers that Bobby was an openly gay man living with a partner and an adopted daughter, but when they tried to incorporate this fact into the show, they ran into a problem; outing Bobby as gay could not be done casually, and the established style of CSI’s storytelling demanded that any delving into main characters personal lives be done as brief side notes so as not to interfere with the crime solving foundation central to the show’s plot. They had no reservations about the idea of featuring an accepted and open gay character on their show, but in execution, it proved impossible.

What these examples tell us is that homosexuality is still far too novel an idea to be treated as a mere feature of someone’s life, rather than the central focus.