Heteronormativity at Gonzaga

Sexuality absolutely deserves a place in academia. It is as much of a condition about being a human as race, gender, or social class. Identities are shaped around what and who one prefers in bed (or elsewhere.) Certain identities, such as the homo/bisexual, are queered and deemed deviant and perverse. Individuals such as Matthew Shepard have lost their lives because of how sexuality in society is treated while men live lies, cheat on their wives with men in empty truck stop bathrooms. Studies such as those by Dr. McKenzie have concluded that not only has homosexuality been around for centuries, but bisexuality is the normal state of existence. Yet in society and many academic departments, the subject of any investigation is considered heterosexual. An example that set my passion for sexuality studies and queer theories ablaze was a recent all student sexuality survey sent out by Gonzaga’s social sciences department. In their search for Truth and understanding of sexuality, the authors of the survey posited a universal heterosexual subject; all queer identities had to answer according to heteronormative standards. The survey uses its power of seeking truth to engage in representational practices that exclude a large group of individuals who use their sexuality to construct identity; heterosexuality is both demanded and enforced. This is an inherently philosophical question because it is one regarding how truth is formulated and the politics of representation, all of which seem to be a heavy concern for the postmoderns as well as queer theorists.

First, it is important to explain the intention of the survey. Its purpose was to show how the student body felt about sexuality. Surveys are an attempt to come to terms with what the general population feels or believes about a subject. They are constructed so that a targeted audience could adequately answer. The point of the survey was to show how students were educated about sexually transmitted diseases and how comfortable students were with sexual intercourse. All of these are relevant and important questions; it is by all means a noble goal and an important site of research. However, as I will explain later, it is at the expense of queer identities and the very nobility of the survey shuts off any mode of criticism or critical thinking.


This particular survey engages in a representational practice before the survey is even taken. One knows before a single answer is asked that it is “student wide,” and thus anyone who is a student at Gonzaga should be able to participate and it reflect said identity. It is represented as all-inclusive and universal.


Yet as I took this survey, I realized this simply could not be the case. Sexuality in general was understood in heterosexual terms. First, there is an overbearing focus on the subject as “pre-marital.” Here are a list of questions that assumed such as subject:

TRUE OR FALSE:
I believe that intercourse before marriage is wrong.
It is against my religious beliefs to have intercourse before marriage
I do not feel ready to have pre-marital intercourse.
WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE FOLLOWING (1-4):
If you were in a close relationship with a partner who desired sexual intercourse and the opportunity were available, would you engage in pre-marital sexual intercourse?
How likely are you to engage in sexual intercourse before you get married?


Through these types of questions, non-heterosexual subjects are forced to answer questions regarding their sexuality as defined by the possibility of marriage. As a gay man, it is irrelevant whether or not I think intercourse before marriage is wrong: I can’t get married. The likelihood of me to have “pre-marital intercourse” is dependent on the likelihood of me having the opportunity to get married. By representing intercourse as inherently “pre-marital” for any student taking the survey, the student population becomes defined as heterosexual. Even though the possibility exists for me to move to a state that allows gay marriage or wait till it becomes legalized where I live, the survey must come to terms with present-day politics, where marriage is assumed and defined as a heterosexual institution between one man and one woman. The question that is the most inflammatory is the first likelihood question. It represents all “close relationships with a partner” as “pre-marital,” destroying the possibility of reading “partner” as non-heterosexual.


Another problem with this survey was the conflation of “sexual activity” and “intercourse.” Rather than exploring the complexities and many facets of sexual relations, it becomes represented as vaginal penetration by a penis. Even when the phrase “sexual activity” is used separately, it becomes one and the same as “intercourse.” Sex and sexuality simply cannot be reduced to intercourse. This is particularly true in the lesbian community where “intercourse” is artificial and generally does not involve any sort of “penetration;” rather it is a form of sexual activity that does not confine itself to the discursive limits of the word intercourse. This is also true for men who are attracted to other men but do not desire to engage in anal intercourse. The identities mentioned above are erased and disciplined to answer the questions according to heterosexual categories; it forces sexual assimilation.


Furthermore, this has consequences for people who are not homosexual. A focus on intercourse obfuscates other modes of sexual relations. As mentioned above, the very nobility of this survey comes from its importance of having students confront STDs and how comfortable they really are about sex. But STDs and sexual autonomy cannot be defined by vaginal penetration. Most STDs can be contracted through other modes of relation and other modes of sexual relations can have as much of an emotional effect on a subject as actual intercourse. Thus it seems very reductive to have this type of overbearing focus on intercourse.


Also, there is a focus on the question of the subject’s virginity. There are around four questions that all are synonymous with the question “Are you a virgin, yes or no?” The word “virgin” is very discursively powerful. I, as well as several of my sexually active friends, are virgins according to the Catholic church. Through the identification of a virgin/non-virgin binary, identities are disciplined and understood according to past heterosexual vaginal penetrating acts. There is also a question of purity at stake that has far-reaching implications for heterosexuals who have participated in sexual intercourse.



Furthermore, students are asked whether the “in crowd” in high school was sexually active and if one felt like he or she could become popular depending upon one’s virginity. This ignores that the “in crowd” could never be “out.” While it is true that the most popular students at my high school were sexually active, I would never be capable of gaining social rewards for losing my “virginity” to another male; in fact, I would and was punished for such an act. One can conclude that a set of questions according to “what is popular” ignores the question of “who (according to sexual identity) is popular,” which is, in most cases, heterosexual.



A problem others and I have had with criticizing the survey was that many heterosexuals thought it achieved a good goal and thus it was ok to marginalize others for the sake of understanding STDs and sexual responsibility. Criticism becomes irrelevant because the survey is defined in its way of seeking good. It is acceptable to regulate and discipline queer identities for the sake of gaining heterosexual knowledge of STDs and sexual responsibilities. Thus, it becomes defended based on the terms it sets up and hiding the obscene underside which excludes queers.



Through the survey, sexuality becomes neutral and objective, rather than a question of social identities which has all too real rewards and punishments. It is represented as some invisible center upon which identities are disciplined in order to become normal. One must assimilate into heterosexual categories in order to succeed. The damage is not simply to the identities who take the survey; the results also take on a heteronormative slant. While it is important to be asking questions about sexuality, it can’t be at the expense of non-heterosexual individuals. Such an approach fails to realize that the knowledge produced assumes and enforces a heterosexual subject. The failure of this particular survey shows the inadequacy of Gonzaga in terms of sexuality in general. While there are feminist ethics philosophy classes and studies about women and gender, queer individuals and sexuality in general is only understood as a secondary concern while other schools have courses devoted to sexuality. Queer theory is a very important subject across philosophy, sociology, and sexuality departments at many schools, yet not a breath of it is mentioned at Gonzaga. Yes, we had a heavily sociological approach towards GLBT studies, which is a great start, but what is truly needed is a postmodern approach that recognizes how sexuality constructs identities and is intimately tied to power relations. Because heterosexuals have the power to define normality, identities are queered, excluded, and brutalized for the sake of maintaining a (false) heterosexual order.