Abstract
The most common definition of heterosexuality is that of a sexual identity of somebody who is sexually attracted to the opposite sex. According to Richardson, “[Heterosexuality] is constructed as a coherent, natural, fixed and stable category; as universal and monolithic.” But what does “natural” mean? I think that in order to answer this question properly, we should start by examining the different meanings of the word “natural”. First, we will see how heterosexuality could be seen as “natural”, in the sense of “normal”, that is, in accordance with nature, neither determined socially, nor economically, nor technically, nor religiously etc.: heterosexuality being a “good thing” (heteronormativity). Secondly, we will see to what extent the adjective “natural” can be defined in opposition to culture, which is something acquired, artificial and sociologically constructed. Thirdly, we will have a look at mid 1970s feminist writings and how they tried, each in their own way, to challenge heterosexuality, because they perceived it as a compulsory institution. Finally, we will examine the impact of “Queer Theory” on the question of the ‘natural' status of heterosexuality and look at how it puts the very notion of sexual identity into question.
