Compare Ingraham’s concept of heterosexuality with Launius and Hassel’s definitions of Privilege and Oppression

Paper details

In “Heterosexuality: It’s Just Not Natural!,” Chrys Ingraham argues that heterosexuality isn’t simply an affectional orientation, it’s a social institution. First, sketch Ingraham’s model. Why is heterosexuality an “institution” properly speaking? What features does it have that distinguish it from simply being a type of affectional orientation? Second, compare Ingraham’s concept of heterosexuality with Launius and Hassel’s definitions of Privilege and Oppression. Be sure to define the unique ways Launius and Hassel use these terms, and pay close attention to the ways in which Ingraham’s description of heterosexuality is/is not an example of an institution shaped by privilege and oppression. Finally, provide your own view with respect to the following two points: 1) Is Ingraham’s description of heterosexuality accurate (at least, for the modern West)? Does Ingraham miss anything, or not give emphasis to something that needs it? 2) What aspect (or aspects) of the concept of Privilege/Oppression (if any) did you find most helpful for analyzing Ingraham’s model, and why?