Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence

In 1980, poet and feminist theorist Adrienne Rich published “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” in Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, a paper that became one of the foundational texts of feminist theory and queer studies. Rich challenged the universal assumption that heterosexuality is women’s “natural” sexual orientation, arguing that heterosexuality is actually a political institution imposed upon women. By introducing the concepts of “compulsory heterosexuality” and the “lesbian continuum,” she fundamentally redefined the relationships between sexuality, power, and women’s solidarity.

Theoretical Background and Writing Motivation

Rich wrote this article against the backdrop of divisions and debates within the feminist movement of the late 1970s. At that time, lesbian feminists were often marginalized, their experiences and theoretical contributions ignored or dismissed. Meanwhile, mainstream feminism tended to take heterosexuality for granted, rarely questioning its political nature as an institution.

Rich’s motivations for writing were multiple: first, to challenge the systematic neglect of lesbian experience in feminist scholarship; second, to reveal that heterosexuality is not a natural choice but a product of political coercion; and finally, to propose a more inclusive concept of women’s solidarity that transcends narrow sexual orientation categories.

The article was originally prepared for a Modern Language Association panel on women’s sexuality, but its influence extended far beyond academia, becoming a revolutionary framework for understanding sexuality, power, and resistance.

The Concept of Compulsory Heterosexuality

The core contribution of Rich’s paper is the introduction and elaboration of the concept of “compulsory heterosexuality.” She argues that heterosexuality should not be seen as women’s natural inclination or free choice, but should be understood as a political institution imposed by patriarchy.

Compulsory heterosexuality operates through multiple mechanisms:

Economic Coercion: Women’s economic dependence on men—through wage differentials, occupational segregation, and property rights restrictions—forces women into heterosexual marriage for economic security.

Physical Violence: Through rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and other forms of violence, women are coerced into heterosexual relationships or remain in them out of fear.

Ideological Control: Through myths of romantic love, idealization of motherhood, and normalization of the heterosexual family, women are taught to believe heterosexuality is the only normal and desirable way of life.

Lesbian Erasure: By making lesbianism invisible, pathologized, or criminalized, women are deprived of the possibility of choosing same-sex relationships.

Rich lists eight means by which male power controls women, including denying women their own sexuality, imposing male sexuality, controlling or robbing them of their children, confining and imprisoning women’s bodies, using women as objects of transaction, limiting their creativity, preventing them from accessing knowledge, and depriving them of same-sex intimacy.

The Revolutionary Concept of the Lesbian Continuum

Rich’s proposed “lesbian continuum” is one of the most innovative and controversial concepts in the paper. She expands the definition of “lesbian” to include “a range of women-identified experience,” not limited to sexual desire or behavior.

The lesbian continuum includes: friendships and emotional bonds between women; mentoring relationships and support networks among women; women fighting for other women’s rights; intimate mother-daughter relationships; creative collaborations between women artists and writers; and historical communities of women’s resistance.

The revolutionary nature of this concept lies in its redefinition of what constitutes “lesbian experience.” Rich argues that any form of primary emotional intensity and women-identification between women can be understood as part of the lesbian continuum. This includes women who may never have had sexual relationships with women but invest their emotional and political energy primarily in other women.

This expanded definition challenges the heterosexual/homosexual binary, showing how the richness and diversity of women’s relationships are suppressed and denied by compulsory heterosexuality.

Critique of Feminist Theory

Rich critiques contemporary feminist theory for failing to adequately understand the significance of compulsory heterosexuality. She points out that even the most radical feminist analyses often take heterosexuality for granted, failing to question its nature as a political institution.

She particularly criticizes several important feminist theorists:

Regarding Catharine MacKinnon, Rich argues that while she analyzes gender inequality, she fails to adequately explore how compulsory heterosexuality maintains this inequality.

Regarding Nancy Chodorow’s psychoanalytic feminism, Rich criticizes its assumption that girls “naturally” turn toward fathers and men, ignoring the coercive nature of this turn.

Regarding Dorothy Dinnerstein, Rich points out her failure to consider lesbianism as another possibility for breaking mothers’ monopoly on childcare.

Rich argues that without understanding compulsory heterosexuality, it’s impossible to fully understand the nature and mechanisms of women’s oppression.

Historical and Cross-Cultural Perspectives

Rich’s paper contains rich historical and cross-cultural examples demonstrating the diversity of relationships between women and the historical specificity of compulsory heterosexuality.

She discusses: Chinese “marriage resisters” who refused marriage and formed women’s communities; African women’s marriage systems where women could “marry” other women; 19th-century “Boston marriages” where women partners lived together; and historical women’s convents and women’s communities.

These examples show that when women have choices, many choose women-centered lifestyles. They also reveal how different societies organize and control women’s sexual and emotional lives in different ways.

Theoretical Impact and Contributions

“Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” has had profound influence on multiple theoretical fields:

Queer Theory: Rich’s work laid the foundation for later queer theory, particularly critiques of heteronormativity. She demonstrated how sexual orientation is not a private choice but a political institution.

Intersectional Analysis: Although Rich’s analysis primarily focused on gender and sexuality, she also noted how race, class, and other factors affect the operation of compulsory heterosexuality.

Reconceptualizing Women’s Solidarity: Through the concept of the lesbian continuum, Rich provided a more inclusive vision of women’s solidarity that doesn’t require shared sexual orientation or experience.

Institutional Analysis: Rich demonstrated how to analyze seemingly “natural” social arrangements as political institutions that maintain inequality.

Critiques and Controversies

Rich’s paper has also sparked important critiques and debates:

Charges of Essentialism: Some critics argue that the lesbian continuum concept might erase the importance of lesbianism as a specific sexual identity, categorizing all women’s relationships as “lesbian.”

Neglecting Sexual Desire: Some lesbian feminists criticize Rich for downplaying the importance of sexual desire and sexual practice in lesbian identity.

Universalization Problems: Critics point out that Rich’s analysis might be too universalizing, failing to adequately consider how compulsory heterosexuality operates differently across different cultural, racial, and class contexts.

Agency Issues: Some argue that viewing all heterosexual relationships as products of “coercion” might deny women’s agency and genuine desire in these relationships.

Contemporary Relevance

More than forty years later, Rich’s concepts remain powerfully explanatory and politically relevant:

#MeToo Movement: The analysis of compulsory heterosexuality helps understand how sexual violence and harassment function as systematic tools for maintaining patriarchy.

Marriage Equality Debates: Rich’s work provides a framework for understanding why same-sex marriage rights are so threatening—they challenge the compulsory and normative nature of heterosexual marriage.

Transgender Rights: Although Rich’s original analysis didn’t adequately include transgender experiences, her critique of coercive systems of gender and sexuality provides tools for understanding transgender oppression.

Popularity of “Comphet”: On social media, “comphet” (abbreviation for compulsory heterosexuality) has become a popular concept for young people exploring and questioning their sexual orientation.

Methodological Innovation

Rich’s paper is also methodologically innovative. She combines: personal narrative and political analysis; historical research and contemporary critique; literary analysis and social theory; and cross-cultural comparison and specific case studies.

This interdisciplinary approach demonstrates how to combine different types of evidence and analysis to create new theoretical insights. It also provides a methodological model for later feminist research.

Political Implications

Rich’s analysis has radical political implications. If heterosexuality is compulsory rather than natural, then: existing gender and sexual arrangements are changeable; women’s liberation requires challenging compulsory heterosexuality; solidarity and alliance between women are key to resisting patriarchy; and personal sexual choices have political significance.

She calls for the feminist movement to take lesbian existence and experience seriously, not as a marginal issue but as central to understanding and challenging patriarchy.

Conclusion: Reimagining Possibilities

Adrienne Rich’s “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” fundamentally changed how we understand sexuality, power, and resistance. By revealing the political nature and coercive character of heterosexuality, she opened space for reimagining gender and sexual relations.

The concept of the lesbian continuum not only expands our understanding of lesbianism but also provides new visions of women’s solidarity. It shows how connections between women have always existed, despite suppression and denial, and that these connections might become the basis for resistance and change.

Rich’s work reminds us that the most seemingly natural and private areas of life—sexuality and intimate relationships—are actually deeply politicized. Recognizing this politicization is the first step; challenging and changing oppressive institutions is the next. In the ongoing struggle for gender justice, Rich’s insights remain indispensable theoretical and political resources.

The enduring value of this paper lies in its refusal to accept the status quo as inevitable, its insistence on imagining and creating different possibilities. As Rich wrote: “When we look at the expansion and liberation of these possibilities as women’s right, we can begin to envision a very different world.”