This discourse constitutes heterosexuality as the only form of authorised sexuality and frames the ways in which sex, sexuality and sexual decision- making are discussed by the male students. This discourse regulates and polices sex and sexual relationships between members of the opposite sex; it constitutes heterosexuality as obligatory, binding and a prerequisite for sharing in the privileges of hegemonic masculinity. The discourse authorises a biologically reductionist and dichotomous view of gender that privileges masculinity over and above femininity.
This discourse allows the male students to use fact-based, uniform and surface levels of knowledge to reproduce biological and essentialist versions of masculinity and femininity. The word heterosexuality means relating to sexual desire or sexual relations between people of opposite sexes. The word opposite means something that is completely different from another, of the same general class yet completely different. The dichotomous and biological discursive strategies that authorise the male students‘ version of gender are embedded within this definition of heterosexuality. However, the emphasis on ‗compulsory‘ in the discourse of compulsory heterosexuality indicates that the
obligatory and binding nature of heterosexuality is sometimes threatened, and requires policing (Connell 1995; Mills 2001).
The male students are authorised in their use of slang, stereotypes, sarcasm and put-downs by this discourse as a means of regulating performances of sexuality and establishing heterosexuality as normative. Performances of femininity and masculinity that do not support the males‘ investment in heterosexuality, or which threaten it, are legitimately subjugated, marginalised or silenced. Sarcasm and putdowns are authorised as discursive strategies to enforce the obligatory performance of heterosexual activity among males, and homosexuality is used as a threat and a putdown in order to police this particular version of heterosexual masculinity. The consequences of not performing heterosexual versions of masculinity are implicit within these strategies.
This discourse enables the males to authorise a version of femininity as sexually active and available only in order to support their performance of compulsory heterosexuality, while at the same time regulating and policing female sexual activity with threats of sexual deviance. The male students are also able to use performances of non-heterosexual femininity to compulsory heterosexual masculinity through the subjugation of difference, i.e., homosexuality and lesbianism. Misogynist discursive strategies are used in this discourse to denigrate lesbian versions of femininity, and sexist discursive strategies are used to transform lesbian versions of femininity into objects for the heterosexual males‘ gaze. The following statements from the male students demonstrate how these meanings are conveyed.
They could use a double-edged screwdriver and a condom on each end, that‘d work for lesos [discussing lesbian contraception].
It‘s fine with girls; two girls are hot [laughter]. Yeh, like here pussy, pussy, pussy [lots of laughter].
This discourse authorises the view that males who perform sexuality in ways that do not support the dominant version of heterosexuality, should be devalued and excluded from hegemonic male privilege. This is particularly directed toward masculine, non-heterosexual performances of sexuality, where
homophobic attitudes are explicitly articulated by the male students and dominate most of their discussions around sex, sexuality and sexual decision- making. The following comments by the male students demonstrate how non- heterosexuality is made the object of putdowns, sarcasm and threats of violence.
You‘re a bloody poof, Fred! You wouldn‘t have the first idea what one of those are for [Condom]. Someone should smash your head in.
Yeh, when was the last time you got laid, Fred? Never that‘s when, not with a girl anyway [laughter].
Yeh, he‘s never had a girlfriend. Up the bum, Fred, that‘s what we should call him ... or maybe he likes animals [lots of laughter].
It‘s just disgusting, that‘s what it is.
Heterosexuality is constituted by this discourse as hierarchic and reliant upon versions of gender that rank and polarise the male as dominant. As such the male students are authorised by this discourse to police those males who perform heterosexuality in a non-controlling, passive or negotiated way during sex, sexual relationships or sexual decision-making. In this way the discourse enables the male students to remind all males, including those who identify as heterosexual, that their performance of heterosexuality must also be a performance of dominant masculinity; this will determine their eligibility for sharing in the privileges of hegemonic masculinity.
This discourse authorises the male students‘ overt sexual behaviour towards females. Sexual relationships with females are legitimised as important signifiers of both heterosexuality and hegemonic masculinity; as noted before, even females who identify as lesbian with no interest in heterosexual relationships are constituted within this discourse as sexually available for the male students‘ gaze in ways that support their investment in hegemonic masculinity and heterosexuality. By taking up this discourse the male students are authorised to view females who do not perform femininity in ways that support the male students‘ dichotomised view of gender and investment in heterosexuality, as objects of sexist and misogynist discursive strategies, including the use of slang, stereotypes, sarcasm and put-downs.
The discourse also authorises the male students‘ version of the role of the male in sex, sexuality and sexual decision-making as biological, functional, fact- based and heterosexual. The males‘ role is constituted purely within the act of reproduction with no reference to relationships, feelings, emotions or issues regarding morals, ethics or personal values. All comments are made by the male students within a heterosexual frame of reference, most refer to the role of sperm in conception, others refer to facts and statistics involving the most common male forms of contraception, and other comments have specific homophobic overtones that are aimed at marginalising male students who are not performing in an acceptably hegemonic and heterosexually masculine way.