636 Rich Compulsory Heterosexuality women have a richer, ongoing inner world to fall back on.. men m\ not become as emotionally important to women as women do to men This would carry into the late twentieth century Smith-Rosenberg's findings about eighteenth-and nineteenth-century women's emotional focus on women. Emotionally important "can of course refer to anger as well as to love or to that intense mixture of the two often found in women's relationships with women: one aspe of what i hay call the"double-life of women"(see below ) Chodorow concludes that because women have women as mothers, "The mother remains a pr mary internal object [sic] to the girl, so that heterosexual relationship are on the model of a nonexclusive, second relationship for her, whereas for the boy they recreate an exclusive, primary relationship. "According to Chodorow, women"have learned to deny the limitations of masculine lovers for both psychological and practical reasons. 2 But the practical reasons (like witch burnings, male ol of law eology, and science, or economic nonviability within the sexual division of labor) are glossed over. Chodorow's account barely glances at the constraints and sanctions which, historically, have enforced or insured the coupling of women with men and obstructed or penalized our cou pling or allying in independent groups with other women. She dismisses lesbian existence with the comment that"lesbian relationships do tend to re-create mother-daughter emotions and connections, but most women are heterosexual"(implied: more mature, having developed beyond the mother-daughter connection). She then adds: "This heterosexual pref erence and taboos on homosexuality, in addition to objective economic dependence on men, make the option of primary sexual bonds with other women unlikely-though more prevalent in recent years. 13 The significance of that qualification seems irresistible--but Chodorow does not explore it further. Is she saying that lesbian existence has become more visible in recent years(in certain groups? ) that economic and other pressures have changed(under capitalism, socialism, or both:? ) and that consequently more women are rejecting the heterosexual"choice"? She argues that women want children because their heterosexual re lationships lack richness and intensity, that in having a child a womaN seeks to re-create her own intense relationship with her mother. It seems o be that on the basis of her own findings, Chodorow leads us implicitly o conclude that heterosexuality is not a " preference"for women; that for one thing, it fragments the erotic from the emotional in a way that women find impoverishing and painful. Yet her book participates in mandating it. Neglecting the covert socializations and the overt forces which have channelled women into marriage and heterosexual romance I 1. Chodorow, pp, 197-98 2.Ibid,pp.198-99 13.Ibid.,p.200.Compulsory Heterosexuality "women have a richer, ongoing inner world to fall back on.... men do not become as emotionally important to women as women do to men."'' This would carry into the late twentieth century Smith-Rosenberg's findings about eighteenth- and nineteenth-century women's emotional focus on women. "Emotionally important" can of course refer to anger as well as to love, or to that intense mixture of the two often found in women's relationships with women: one aspect of what I have come to call the "double-life of women" (see below). Chodorow concludes that because women have women as mothers, "The mother remains a pri￾mary internal object [sic] to the girl, so that heterosexual relationships are on the model of a nonexclusive, second relationship for her, whereas for the boy they recreate an exclusive, primary relationship." According to Chodorow, women "have learned to deny the limitations of masculine lovers for both psychological and practical reasons."'2 But the practical reasons (like witch burnings, male control of law, theology, and science, or economic nonviability within the sexual division of labor) are glossed over. Chodorow's account barely glances at the constraints and sanctions which, historically, have enforced or insured the coupling of women with men and obstructed or penalized our cou￾pling or allying in independent groups with other women. She dismisses lesbian existence with the comment that "lesbian relationships do tend to re-create mother-daughter emotions and connections, but most women are heterosexual" (implied: more mature, having developed beyond the mother-daughter connection). She then adds: "This heterosexual pref￾erence and taboos on homosexuality, in addition to objective economic dependence on men, make the option of primary sexual bonds with other women unlikely-though more prevalent in recent years."'3 The significance of that qualification seems irresistible-but Chodorow does not explore it further. Is she saying that lesbian existence has become more visible in recent years (in certain groups?), that economic and other pressures have changed (under capitalism, socialism, or both?), and that consequently more women are rejecting the heterosexual "choice"? She argues that women want children because their heterosexual re￾lationships lack richness and intensity, that in having a child a woman seeks to re-create her own intense relationship with her mother. It seems to be that on the basis of her own findings, Chodorow leads us implicitly to conclude that heterosexuality is not a "preference" for women; that, for one thing, it fragments the erotic from the emotional in a way that women find impoverishing and painful. Yet her book participates in mandating it. Neglecting the covert socializations and the overt forces which have channelled women into marriage and heterosexual romance, 11. Chodorow, pp. 197-98. 12. Ibid., pp. 198-99. 13. Ibid., p. 200. 636 Rich