Can the need for inclusion result in certain social norms remain unchallenged, and over time become hard to identify? To “fit in” and be accepted in different social contexts we have to behave according to the dominating rules and conventions. We accept characteristics and make use of attributes specific for the group we want to be a part of. When we accept these attributes we contribute to keep the concept of them alive. Further on these attributes will be picked up by the next person who wants to become a part of that specific context. This means that in the same moment we are being created, we are also the creators. In the same way, we are the cause of, and a result of, the fact that certain concepts remain unchallenged. Individuals are raised within a fixed structure in society. That structure defines principles of heteronormativity, for example the concept of right or wrong, masculinity and femininity, and good or bad. The fact that we are born and raised within it leaves us with a very narrow space in which we can interpret alternative ways. This does not mean that these alternative interpretations do not exist. To question existing and accepted structures can be a first step away from the safe environment that we are a part of. Awareness of the risks of this could be an explanation of why people refrain from questioning it. In this paper we try to penetrate the problems through the glasses of Pierre Bourdieu, Judith Butler and Berger and Luckmann to mention a few. The reason why this paper focuses on society, and norms in specific, emanate in an interest for invisible and sometimes indistinct structures. By indistinct we mean structures that exist in an extent that makes it hard to identify. The aim of this thesis is divided in two parts. The first part is to critically examine the social construction of heteronormativity. The second part is to examine how plural sexual identities function in relation to the heterosexual norm that we assume exists in society. The distinction in an individual’s hetero- or homosexuality is made difficult because of the spectrum of sexual identities. The grayscale of alternatively interpreted sexual identities that fits between the two poles of sexuality (hetero and homosexuality) are easily forgotten and thus treated as deviant behaviors. The issue of sexual identities is a complex one. To speak of it in a natural way to express sexuality, and not of its moral right or wrong, requires the understanding and acceptance of an individual’s differences as well as similarities. It is through ten interviews, where individuals share their experiences of both heteronormativity and sexuality that we get to know how and in which ways they feel affected by these two.