This discourse constitutes males and females as having authentic sexual characters that are dichotomous and pre-existed any social, cultural, religious, political or historical context (Connell 2002; Weedon 1997). These masculine and feminine characteristics are constituted as universal to all men and women, and remain unchanged across time and place (Grosz 1990). This discourse is fluid across all of the health educators‘ discourses and demonstrates how the positioning of gender, the cultural differences of girls and boys, is based on a reductionist version of biology that divides and defines males and females on the basis of their reproductive organs (Connell 2002).
This discourse authorises difference within a heteronormative framework, as long as difference supports an investment in heterosexuality (Connell 1995; Epstein & Johnson 1994, 1998). The Discourse of Primal Heterosexuality and Essential Gender privileges a particular version of heterosexuality, one that supports a dichotomous view of gender that privileges the hegemonic male (Mills 2001). The discursive strategies of biology, patriarchy and colloquialism combine to convey meaning about the value of hegemonic versions of heterosexual masculinity (Connell 2002; Mills 2001) and demonstrate how the socially constructed features of hegemonic masculinity and emphasised femininity are transposed onto the biological features of conception in ways which naturalise patriarchal versions of gender (Butler 1991, 2004; Connell 1987, 1995, 2002).
Females are constituted through this discourse as a reward for the hegemonic, heterosexual male (Connell 2002). By making the role of the female a joke, the discourse maintains male hegemony and privilege (Connell 1995; Davies 1993; Spender 1980). By taking up this discourse, the health educators convey the meaning that all sperm are male and all eggs are female; they also authorise the view that hegemonically heterosexual sperm get to have sex with emphasised feminine eggs that are just waiting to be found. This is biologically incorrect; hegemony and heterosexuality are not facts of biology they are social practices, eggs and sperm can neither be hegemonic nor sexual, masculine or feminine, neither are all sperm male or all eggs female.
This discourse authorises the view that females require skills in building and maintaining relationships. The discourse constitutes the female students as responsible for supporting male performances of hegemonic, heterosexual masculinity by being sexually available. This discourse also conveys the meaning that females who make themselves sexually available for males are valued, and are acting in ways that are supportive of the heterosexual relationship.
In this discourse females are responsible for displaying behaviours that position them as sexually available for males. However, in the following excerpts it is evident that there is a tension in the meanings being conveyed here. In the first excerpt sexually available females are positioned as valued and supportive of
heterosexual relationships; in the second excerpt sexually available females are positioned as sexually deviant and labelled as ‗easy‘.
The girls get to be popular and cool with the boys; you know … she‘s a nice girl because she gives good head.
She‘s not the sort of person that will take three or four hours to sort of, you know ... you don‘t have to get lots of alcohol into them and then drag em away and all that sort of stuff ... they‘re easy!
Being ‗easy‘ is a colloquialism used within patriarchal societies to refer to a performance of female sexuality that is censured socially, culturally and legally. This performance is understood as potentially threatening to male hegemony, and has its roots in archaic versions of ownership over female bodies (Millett 1972; Spender 1980). Within the above excerpt there is also a tension in terms of the warning that it conveys to those females who are not sexually available for males; they get dragged away ‗and all that stuff‘. The difference and ambiguity in meaning regarding females who are sexually available is an important effect of the constructions of masculinity and femininity in the Discourse of Primal Heterosexuality and Essential Gender, and has consequences for the production of male and female students‘ gendered subjectivities within sex education classes that are limited and constraining.
This discourse positions females as responsible for whatever happens to them when they are sexually available, it also constitutes a version of femininity that is physically and psychologically out of control. Sexual availability in females is constructed as deviant, avaricious (in the use of the phrase ‗anyone she can get her hands on‘), and is not valued within the discourse. This is followed with the question, ‗What do you reckon happens to her?‘ which implies there will be consequences as a result of her actions. In this discourse females are responsible for being knowledgeable about contraception, they are responsible for using contraception or ensuring that contraceptives are used, and they are responsible for the consequences of not using contraception both in terms of pregnancy and STIs/BBVs, HIV/AIDS.
She‘ll pretty much have sex with anyone she can get her hands on. What do you reckon happens to her?
She didn‘t bother with any of that sort of stuff did she? Now it doesn‘t just mean an unwanted pregnancy, she could have
just as likely caught HIV.
The Discourse of Primal Heterosexuality and Essential Gender not only normalises heterosexuality and performances of femininity, it also regulates performances of masculinity that are overtly heterosexual, hegemonic, hyper sexed, aggressive, competitive and that always win (Butler 1991, 2004; Connell 1995, 2002). As a result only the most heterosexual versions of sex, sexuality and sexual decision-making are openly discussed (Epstein & Johnson1994, 1998; Mills 2001), which authorises the polarised versions of hegemonic masculinity and emphasised femininity.
Non-heterosexual gendered subjectivities are constituted through the Discourse of Primal Heterosexuality and Essential Gender as deviant and the subject of sexual risks, such as references to HIV/AIDS, STIs/BBVs. These strategies operate to support heterosexuality as a biological and psychological norm and reproduce silences and absences for those who identify as other than heterosexual. The silences surrounding the voices and experiences of those students who do not identify as heterosexual are an issue of great concern given the high rates of suicide among same sex attracted youth, and their experiences of sexual violence, harassment and discrimination within the education system (Department of Health and Human Services 2001; Hillier et al. 1998).