differences were between the responses to the heterosexual and scenarios. Same-sex infidelity was frequently portrayed as ‘worse’ than heterosexual infidelity (see also Confer & Cloud, 2011; Kitzinger & Powell, 1995; Wiederman & LaMar, 1998). Sex between men was portrayed as and than sex between men and women, ‘dirtier’ ‘riskier’ invoking feelings of shame (for both John and Sarah) and the associated social stigma, and reinforcing a heterosexual=safe/homosexual=risky binary construction of sex (Holland, Ramazanoglu, Sharpe & Thomson, 1998). However, this was counterbalanced by a narrative of John’s realisation and enactment of his (gay) self, and therefore his legitimate search for love ‘true’ with a man. Thus, in the same-sex scenarios, John’s sexuality was framed in terms of an essential gay discourse (Kitzinger, 1995). Only a few of the stories entertained the possibility of flux and fluidity in sexuality; however, this was limited to John experiencing about his sexuality. Such portrayals were underpinned by ‘confusion’ an assumption that John would eventually realise he was gay (or straight). Overwhelmingly, sexuality was to be an inner state or “assumed which the individual or or ‘essence’, ‘represses’ ‘discovers’, ‘denies’ (Kitzinger, Wilkinson, Coyle & Milton, 1998: 531). Overall, ‘acknowledges’” the portrayal of sexuality was underpinned by dominant (heteronormative) understandings: a homosexual/heterosexual binary (Hegarty, 1997), the cultural silencing of bisexuality (Gurevich et al., 2007), and an assumption of mononormativity (Barker, 2005).
differences were between the responses to the heterosexual and scenarios. Same-sex infidelity was frequently portrayed as ‘worse’ than heterosexual infidelity (see also Confer & Cloud, 2011; Kitzinger & Powell, 1995; Wiederman & LaMar, 1998). Sex between men was portrayed as ‘dirtier’ and ‘riskier’ than sex between men and women, invoking feelings of shame (for both John and Sarah) and the associated social stigma, and reinforcing a heterosexual=safe/homosexual=risky binary construction of sex (Holland, Ramazanoglu, Sharpe & Thomson, 1998). However, this was counterbalanced by a narrative of John’s realisation and enactment of his ‘true’ (gay) self, and therefore his legitimate search for love with a man. Thus, in the same-sex scenarios, John’s sexuality was framed in terms of an essential gay discourse (Kitzinger, 1995). Only a few of the stories entertained the possibility of flux and fluidity in sexuality; however, this was limited to John experiencing ‘confusion’ about his sexuality. Such portrayals were underpinned by an assumption that John would eventually realise he was gay (or straight). Overwhelmingly, sexuality was “assumed to be an inner state or ‘essence’, which the individual ‘represses’ or ‘discovers’, ‘denies’ or ‘acknowledges’” (Kitzinger, Wilkinson, Coyle & Milton, 1998: 531). Overall, the portrayal of sexuality was underpinned by dominant (heteronormative) understandings: a homosexual/heterosexual binary (Hegarty, 1997), the cultural silencing of bisexuality (Gurevich et al., 2007), and an assumption of mononormativity (Barker, 2005).
Thou%20Shalt%20Not%20Covet%20Another%20Man%20Clarke%20et%20al%2011%20June.docx