Lesbian Continuum

The lesbian continuum is a term coined by Adrienne Rich (1986) in “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” By constructing sexual identity along a gradient, it offers an alternative to traditional binary classifications of sexual identity. This concept was formulated with the intent of including women who do not ordinarily think of themselves as lesbians, specifically women who identify as heterosexuals. One rationale for this concept was to find similarities among heterosexually identified feminists and lesbian-identified feminists in building women-centered community. The notion of a lesbian continuum is used primarily in feminist studies, women studies, lesbian studies, and queer theory.

This continuum conceptualizes lesbian identity as more than desire for particular sorts of sexual intimacies and relationships. In the spirit of the “personal is political,” sexual orientation is examined within a feminist framework, and intimate relationships are defined as including much more than sexual intimacy. Furthermore, Rich seeks to give voice to lesbians and women-identified activists as political agents by defining lesbianism as something other than the female counterpart of male homosexuality.

Thus, for Rich, lesbianism is a political, personal, and purposeful commitment that places women in the center and is not dependant upon their relationships to men. Relationships to and connections with other women are the central aspects that Rich uses in defining what it means to be lesbian in a patriarchal society. By defining lesbianism so broadly, Rich aims to reconceive eroticism in female terms. This continuum is also, then, an attempt at redefining sexual and intimate relationships beyond a phallic, goal-orientated conception of sexuality. Joy, empowerment, and self-actualization found in and constructed through being female with other females in resistance to the misogynist construction of what it means to be female are the goals and processes of what Rich means by being lesbian.

A positive aspect of this idea is its tendency to call for a more inclusive type of identity politics. Rich's concept encourages organizations to build coalitions across more stringently defined sexual identities. This is important because identity politics has often been exclusionary and less effective as such. However, defining a lesbian as any woman who is women-identified can dilute the self-affirming effects of identity politics.

One controversial aspect of the lesbian continuum has to do with the mainstream marginalization of lesbians and the silence surrounding their sexuality. Historically, lesbians have been considered invisible and silenced since many of their erotic relationships were categorized as mere friendships that could not be anything more. Many argue that to define lesbianism as women who are women identified, thus including heterosexuals and many nonsexual relationships, at best compromises our insights into and at worst negates the possibility of intimate sexual practices between women. This point becomes even more pertinent when feminist and lesbian theories critique hegemonic sexuality as phallically identified and defined.

Another negative aspect of this idea is that it can be used to justify further marginalizing those who are not considered “acceptable” in their sexual practices. This is problematic throughout communities of minorities. Simplistically, the lesbian continuum can be seen as contributing to the divide between sexual minorities who argue they are no different than anyone else and those who claim difference because of who they are sexually. Furthermore, the potential to undermine the binary categorization of heterosexual and homosexual remains unfulfilled since the boundaries are only drawn differently instead of questioning the assumptions that uphold these categories. In light of these arguments, the lesbian continuum can be seen as further justifying puritanical ideas regarding sexual practice and romanticizing, if not prioritizing, nonsexual attachments. It can also be criticized, as Gayle Rubin (1997) does in an interview with Judith Butler in Feminism Meets Queer Theory, as contributing to a feminist rhetoric that condemns sexual difference. Rubin uses “sexual difference” as an alternative for the more typical labels of pervert, deviant, and, more positively, the idea of sexual diversity while emphasizing that these differences are constructed as such by the very patriarchal structures and ideas that feminist theories work to combat.

...