i'm weeping because they are from the same essay but no one reads the essay anymore (this is not directed at you specifically! just generally, because i see it so often lol)

compulsory heterosexuality is different from how um... how to put this nicely... wlw discourse types use "comphet." so i will explain both. these terms come from adrienne rich's "compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence." (and to preface, i don't agree with all of what she writes, but i think if people are going to use terms, they need to understand the origins.)

compulsory heterosexuality is essentially the societal forces that force women into relationships with men in order to be part of society, and then to prioritize those relationships with men over their relationships with women. it addresses heterosexuality as a political institution, and not just an innate orientation. this applies to ALL women, not just lesbians. it's the force that says a woman's husband is a more important relationship than her best friend. in the past, women's inability to open bank accounts or own land was an example of how compulsory heterosexuality manifests, but even now, the pay gap is one--if women are paid less than men, there is a societal force coercing women to enter in relationships with men for security. the overall treatment of heterosexual marriage and/or motherhood (with men) for women as the end-goal from the time they are born is part of it. all in all, it's what guide's women's lives and women's freedoms to revolve around men and male desires, even when they don't consciously want it to.

the lesbian continuum is basically what happens when women's relationships are centered and allowed to flourish freely. adrienne rich argues that there is kind of a lesbian consciousness/ethics to this, regardless of the sexuality of the women involved. it's about woman-centering, basically. think of something like female best friends who are single mothers and choose to raise their children together. it includes everything from the first mother-daughter bonding moment to women running schools for girls to actually forming romantic life partnerships. she's not saying that these women ARE, sexually, lesbians, but that it exists in the same kind of sphere.

there's a lot more to it in her writing, but i hope that helps explain it!