By Jessica Li Relieve yourself in the restrooms during any class period of the day, and there is a non-zero chance of eavesdropping on two girls in the neighboring stall complaining about their boyfriends. “He doesn’t understand why I’m angry that he can’t take anything seriously,” one of them might say. “I can’t tell if he really cares about me.” “You should dump him,” her friend suggests.
A similar ideology can be found during the first ten seconds of scrolling through Tiktok or Instagram, as stumbling upon the most traumatized side of these popular platforms would bombard a love-seeking user with crucial dating vocabulary: “toxic” (hateful, negative influence) or “red flags” (an early sign of a problematic partner). These words are merely continuations of millennia-old observations as people still fail to achieve romantic harmony, currently made difficult by higher standards, self-awareness, and the patriarchy. Unsatisfied expectations and miscommunications between men and women abound—the modern dating landscape is best compared to a desperate charge into no man’s land as the blasted ground of failed relationships seeks to fell new victims, and one can hear their poor comrades screaming in death throes somewhere through the dust. It hardly needs to be said that the only viable solution to these persisting gender wars is to outlaw heterosexuality.
The most frequent complaints of unhappy partners stem from a lack of understanding or tolerance toward the other gender. Think of all the times you may have heard or experienced, as a man, the words, “All you do when we hang out is play your Fantasy Football. I feel like you’re never emotionally available or willing to listen to me,” or as a woman, “Where’s my dinner?” Left with the option to be gay or be single, this problem would no longer exist—finally, all couples are the same gender! Any rampant issues will be confined to a group of people who share your appearance, your hormones, and your social upbringing. A man’s insensitivity, in the most hypothetical sense, would never again be scapegoated by a woman’s over-escalation of the situation, hypothetically, of course.
Mandatory homosexuality would also resolve the most pressing form of gender inequality that plagues society--one that none of us could live a day without being reminded of: men’s fashion. It is common knowledge that the LGBTQ+ community is wise in their wardrobe selections. In fact, that is almost all they are known for. Once women leave their ugly men for Doc-Marten-clad girlfriends, the men will immediately make an effort to dress better, as gayness entails. Never again will you see the stunning Hailey Bieber standing next to her husband, Justin, looking as though he had just rolled out of bed—frayed hoodies from the public eye will be abolished forever.
Necessarily, the sexual nature of relationships must be considered. A common end to the recklessly active couple is the sudden appearance of a third member—within the uterus. To persuade reluctant fathers from taking off on any future girlfriends, the World Health Organization finds that gay and lesbian sex yields an incredible 0% of unwanted pregnancies. This data may not reflect the population of transgender and nonbinary partners who engage in intimacy, but seeing as healthcare centers and even our US government seem none too keen to represent gender non-conforming individuals, we see no reason to concern ourselves with this particular demographic either.
Beyond safety in the bedroom, criminalizing heterosexuality would ensure self-protection on dates. Ladies can ditch their pepper sprays, Find My iPhone location sharing, and paranoia
over meeting a murderer. (Though we must acknowledge that such precautions are completely superfluous; remember the saying: not all men are bad.)
For those who may politely refuse to engage with a member of the same gender, aromanticism is also an excellent option. Not only will content singles spend more time on self-improvement and self-care instead of wasting weekends on a personified future break-up, but they also leave more potential partners for everyone else. They effortlessly exercise the highest level of philanthropy. It is truly inconceivable that asexual individuals were once condescended to and mocked for their benevolent lack of interest.
And so steeped in capitalism that we are, we should admire the monetary benefits of widespread gayness. Netflix’s Chief Content Officer Bela Bajaria, who oversees the platform’s approved shows and thus closely follows modern trends, says, “We care deeply about our LGBTQ audiences. Our attempts to attract viewers by teasing queer relationships without following through were always successful in bringing in revenue.” Now envision how the entertainment industry would flourish if gay couples were freely written in every show.
And although heterosexuality would be illegal, so is censorship. Straight couples would still exist, only fewer in number. According to society’s experience with queer media, they would incite scandal, attracting the most daring viewers who then take to the Reddit commentary threads to aggressively promote the media without pay. Against the odds, popularity results. It is a lucrative business, gay or straight. To the 1% of America whose income depends on the oscillating social movements of the masses, it makes no difference which sexuality is dominant—we trust that they will find a way to profit.
Taboo fiction aside, a homosexuality mandate would inevitably meet real public resistance from former straights. Some are likely to repeat the same rhetoric against “sexuality
propaganda,” that gayness can exist but should never be shoved in people’s faces. Yet the accusation of “shoved” is often loosely defined to the point of any encounter with LGBTQ+ pride, and such indecisive opposition is likely to come from a self-interested comfort in the hegemony of man-woman relationships. Once being gay is transitioned into the default sexuality, these same individuals would wonder how things had ever been different.
To avoid conflict altogether, there are fewer solutions to unequal experiences in heterosexual relationships, such as raising children to understand the other gender, communicating expectations on the first date, respecting boundaries and knowing when your own are violated, or educating on toxic masculinity.
Yet these ideas are too complicated, require voluntary action, and would take centuries to produce results. Why rely on each new wave of feminism when the government is objectively the best source of resolution for issues of gender, sexuality, and social relations? With the simple relabeling of heterosexuality as forbidden and homosexuality as desirable, American couples will be safer, healthier, and happier for the glorious queer age to come.
Comments