Chapter 24 Exercises: LGBTQ+ Courtship — Beyond the Heteronormative Frame
Exercise 24.1: The Default Assumption Audit (Individual Reflection)
Time: 20–30 minutes | Format: Written reflection
Most dating advice, romance media, and courtship research starts from heterosexual experience as the assumed default. This exercise asks you to make that assumption visible.
Find three examples of courtship advice from any contemporary source — a Reddit thread, a magazine article, a podcast transcript, a book excerpt. They can be any tone or perspective.
For each example, answer: 1. Who is the assumed audience? What gender, sexuality, and relationship structure is treated as the default? 2. What would have to change about the advice if the audience were a gay man? A bisexual woman? A nonbinary queer person? 3. What does the advice assume that it doesn't state? (About roles, about who initiates, about what "success" looks like?)
Conclude with two to three sentences on what the consistent assumptions across your three examples tell you about the cultural default in contemporary courtship discourse.
Exercise 24.2: App Design Analysis (Analytical Exercise)
Time: 45–60 minutes | Format: Written analysis, 400–500 words
Select two dating apps — one designed primarily for LGBTQ+ users (Grindr, Her, Scruff, Lex, etc.) and one designed as broadly inclusive (Tinder, Hinge, Bumble, OkCupid, etc.).
If you have access, explore the actual apps. If not, use screenshots and published descriptions available online.
Compare them on: 1. Gender options: How many gender categories are available? How are they displayed to potential matches? Is "non-binary" a visible option in match preferences? 2. Orientation options: Can users specify orientation? Does the app match users to people of their preferred orientation, or only to people of their preferred gender? 3. Proximity and safety: Does either app have features specifically designed for user safety? Are these features designed with any particular user population in mind? 4. Profile structure: What information is foregrounded? What assumptions are built into the profile fields? 5. Community culture: What community norms are visible in the app's marketing, community guidelines, or interface design?
Conclude: Which design choices reflect heteronormative assumptions? Which represent genuine accommodation of diverse users? What changes would most meaningfully improve the experience for trans or nonbinary users?
Exercise 24.3: Intersectionality in Queer Desire (Discussion Exercise)
Time: 30–40 minutes | Format: Small group discussion, followed by written individual reflection (200–250 words)
Read the following scenario, then discuss in groups of 3–4:
Alex is a 24-year-old Black gay man living in a mid-sized city. He uses a popular gay male dating app. He has noticed that he receives significantly fewer matches and messages than his white friends who he considers to have comparable profiles. A white male friend in the same city suggests Alex try "making his profile more upbeat" or changing his photos.
Discussion questions: 1. What does the research in section 24.7 suggest is actually happening in Alex's experience? 2. What are the limits and problems with the white friend's advice? 3. How does the concept of "internalized racism" versus "preference" apply here? Are these meaningfully distinct? 4. What responsibility, if any, do dating app platforms have for racial sorting patterns in their user data?
Individual written reflection: Without resolving the preference/racism debate, what would a researcher need to know to study this phenomenon rigorously and ethically?
Exercise 24.4: Trans Disclosure Scenario Analysis (Applied Ethics Exercise)
Time: Outside class, 45 minutes | Format: Written analysis, 350–500 words
Consider the research findings in section 24.5 on trans people's disclosure decisions. Using the framework of risk trade-offs (not "what is the right answer," but "what are the competing risks at different disclosure timings"), analyze the following scenario:
Jamie is a trans woman who began dating Marcus approximately three weeks ago. They have been on four dates and are developing what feels like a genuine connection. Jamie has not yet disclosed that she is trans. She is trying to decide whether and when to disclose.
Your analysis should: 1. Identify the specific risks of early disclosure (prior to the fifth date, roughly) for Jamie 2. Identify the specific risks of later disclosure for Jamie 3. Identify how Marcus's potential response type (accepting, rejecting non-violently, responding with hostility) changes the risk calculation 4. Note what additional information about Jamie's specific situation — her geographic context, her safety network, her read of Marcus — would change the analysis
Conclude with a paragraph on what the framing of this as a "disclosure decision for Jamie" reveals about where responsibility is located in the current cultural context, and whether that location is appropriate.
Exercise 24.5: "What Queer Courtship Can Teach" (Creative-Analytical Exercise)
Time: 30–40 minutes | Format: Written exercise
Section 24.6 argues that LGBTQ+ courtship has developed explicit negotiation practices, consent conversations, and relationship structure flexibility that the broader culture could learn from.
Your task: Select one specific practice from LGBTQ+ courtship culture (pronoun communication, explicit relationship goal-setting conversations, consensual non-monogamy negotiation frameworks, community accountability practices, or another practice you can document with a source) and argue for how it could be meaningfully integrated into heterosexual courtship practice.
Your argument should address: 1. What the practice is and how it developed in LGBTQ+ contexts 2. What problem in heterosexual courtship it would address 3. What resistance to adopting it would come from heteronormative cultural expectations, and why 4. What heterosexual courtship would have to look like for the practice to feel normal rather than exceptional
Length: 350–500 words. You may use the chapter's sources or find additional sources.
Exercise 24.6: Chosen Family and Courtship Infrastructure (Research Exercise)
Time: Outside class, 60 minutes | Format: Discussion board post, 250–350 words, plus response
Using Weston (1991) and at least one more recent source on LGBTQ+ chosen family (your library database will have options from the 2010s–2020s), answer:
- How does chosen family function differently from family of origin as courtship infrastructure?
- What does research show about the relationship between chosen family support and relationship quality/stability for LGBTQ+ individuals?
- Is there evidence that chosen family practices are diffusing into non-LGBTQ+ networks, or do they remain primarily queer-community-specific?
Respond substantively to one classmate's post — engage with their argument, not just their conclusion.