Post Gay
Among other things I learned about me today (involving letterhead and Spain, it was cool), the one I think is most interesting is that I learned I'm a PoMoSexual. Good fucking God, I'm so sick of talking about so-called postmodernism (thank you very much, graduate school) that I would imagine myself running away from this label. I had figured I was Hetroflexible
a long time ago...um, let's say when Angelina burst on the scene and I nearly left my husband to stalk her. But oh, PoMoSexual is interesting. Apparently, this isn't new to many, many people but for those people, get over it. I'm running late as usual. Carol Queen first used the term PoMoSexual in the title of a 1997 anthology of essays, PoMoSexuals: Challenging Assumptions About Gender and Sexuality (Cleis Press).
According to a critic, Queen's idea was that "in-between' experiences prove that human qualities like gender and sexuality are far more fluid and mercurial than we tend to think. Bisexuality is not a fixed point on a scale but an aspect of lived experience, seen in the context of particular relations... Like postmodernism itself, it resists a stable referentiality."
What it comes down to is that I've always assumed most people fell somewhere on the great line chart of gay/straightness. You're either more gay or more straight, but I imagined that if someone amazing who fit you perfectly came around, you might get over the ridigity of your sexuality to experience a love like that. This, of course, could be all bunk and take what you will of it, but it's what makes sense to me. I know some people identify all straight or all gay. I'm not that rigid. I'm happy to identify PoMo. Call it a delayed sense of teenage rebellion or whatever you want; I like the idea of resisting a stable referentiality when it comes to my sexuality.
In a nutshell, I love my husband dearly but I know that if Angelina calls me, I'm not snubbing her.
a long time ago...um, let's say when Angelina burst on the scene and I nearly left my husband to stalk her. But oh, PoMoSexual is interesting. Apparently, this isn't new to many, many people but for those people, get over it. I'm running late as usual. Carol Queen first used the term PoMoSexual in the title of a 1997 anthology of essays, PoMoSexuals: Challenging Assumptions About Gender and Sexuality (Cleis Press).
According to a critic, Queen's idea was that "in-between' experiences prove that human qualities like gender and sexuality are far more fluid and mercurial than we tend to think. Bisexuality is not a fixed point on a scale but an aspect of lived experience, seen in the context of particular relations... Like postmodernism itself, it resists a stable referentiality."
What it comes down to is that I've always assumed most people fell somewhere on the great line chart of gay/straightness. You're either more gay or more straight, but I imagined that if someone amazing who fit you perfectly came around, you might get over the ridigity of your sexuality to experience a love like that. This, of course, could be all bunk and take what you will of it, but it's what makes sense to me. I know some people identify all straight or all gay. I'm not that rigid. I'm happy to identify PoMo. Call it a delayed sense of teenage rebellion or whatever you want; I like the idea of resisting a stable referentiality when it comes to my sexuality.
In a nutshell, I love my husband dearly but I know that if Angelina calls me, I'm not snubbing her.
posted by Sugared Harpy at 9:51 PM
10 Comments:
I remember, vaguely, reading a theory in college about sexuality being more linear instead of you just are what you are. Some people are more gay, more straight, in the middle (bi, I guess) or whatever and people tend to fall somewhere along this line and RARELY are people 100% gay or straight, meaning not necessarily that they would have sexual relations with a person of the same sex, but maybe could enjoy their beauty and their mere being enough to have intense, deep feelings for that person. I think everyone has had that for someone and it almost feels like romantic love. I'm not sure what it is, but its a deep intense feeling. I would feel sorry for someone who has never had that with another person, whom they didn't have sex with, but with whom it meant more. I think if you can't have an intense connection with another person and NOT have sex with them, that's sad. Life is so much more than our sexuality and rigidly defined roles of what is "gay" or "straight" or "feminine" or "masculine". I like the theory of people not being defined by their sexuality because I am so over that. If the only thing that you can tell me about yourself or anyone for that matter is what sexual preference they are, I don't care. We, as humans, are more than that (or at least we should be) and personality is always going to weigh more than who you fuck.
Amen, Anne.
aaron again lol
you might also consider Butler's work regarding sexuality and gender and others. one particular article i have read and am too lazy to pull it out right now discusses the heterosexual imaginary.
The heterosexual imaginary is simply put an imaginary natural occurence. Much like gender heterosexuality is beleived by most as to be the natural state of sexual being. however as butler and other pomo theorists believe heterosexuality is a socially consctructed concept that has been rooted in society as a natural state of being. which of course gives rise to the belief that homosexuality is a pathology. However what butler and others argue is that there is realy no sexuality only in lamens terms a sex drive or desire that the concept of heterosexuality as well as homosexuality is just that a label or construct that truly does not matter.
Just blogging thru. I read the PoMoSexual definition and found it very interesting. To the previous poster, while, I can see some parts of society as being socially contstructed, I don't see sexuality that way. It seems that Butler is saying that sexuality is then a choice? If hetero and homo are just a construct, then why do we have straight and gay folks? If sexuality is just a label, then why isn't everyone bi-sexual? How does Butler account for people just being naturally attracted to whomever that they are attracted to? Most people say that they are attracted to men or women at an early age, regardless of what society tries to tell them. We straight men have an urge to spread our seed and I can honestly say, I don't think that the animal "need" in me was programmed because I just "need" women and no one needs to tell me that or teach me that. How does Butler account a procreative need? Just my opinion..........
Welcome, Blog Bloke. You provide an interesting question. I have to read Butler now...
hey there reply to blog bloke
you have interesting arguments and they have been made many times and i do not intend that you take this as belittling in anyway it is just theoretical mental stimulus
anyhow here i go
in regards to the need to procreate. if you look at almost any of the classical sociological or psychological theorists and heaven for bid even Freud there is realy no instinctual drive for humans to procreate. the argument is for the most part that the human brain is evolved to the point that procreation has become a choice for the human being. I doubt that blog bloke or anyone else would argue with me when i say that most individuals do not have sex to have babies they do it cause it FEELS GOOD lol. that is pretty much the argument. Furhtermore and not to offend the religious, alot of classical theorists argue that in part organized religions main purpose was the creation of a way in which to get silly people who can choose not to have sex to have it and make babies therefore marriage became an institution for the purpose of making babies. I could go on and on however i digress. butler accounts for the so called existence of heteros and homos and bis simply by the societal construction of those terms also Foucalt also argued the same in fact homosexual as a grouping of individuals oriented "society" did not exist until the 20th century. yes men had sex with one another in greece and rome and all that however they were not a group and certainly not classified as homosexual as we classify ourselves today. butler and others would more than likely argue that everyone can have sex with anyone in fact find men women both sexually attractive that homo and hetero are limitations placed on society.
but like i said guy you make good arguments and i am an evil sociologist so i think society has constructed everything lol.
Go out and procreate but remember be responsible we have too many people out there with kids who should not have them.
I have a response. I think that your arguement is incorrect. Would you imply that society pressures gay people to ONLY have sex with each other? That is absurd. If society puts pressure on people to be "straight", which is what I am getting at, then you would imply, that they also put pressure on gays to only have sex with each other, which is completely opposite. Lots of straight people engage in homosexual behavior. It doesn't make them gay. Lots of gay people engage in straight behavior and that doesn't make them straight. If there is so much pressure by society to be one way (I think you are implying for people to be straight), then are you trying to say society puts pressure on people to be "gay" and that prevents them from having sex with people of the opposite sex. There are too many holes in your arguement. You are trying to imply that people are "tricked" into being straight, which simply isn't true when you probably wouldn't say people are "tricked" into being gay. Yes, sex does feel good, but the reason that sex feels good, particularly straight sex, is to encourage people to have sex and have babies. Any way you slice it. It may be coincidental that other sex feels good because having sex with a woman, for me, feels good and if weren't for sex feeling good, then we wouldn't procreate. If sex was just about feeling good, then everyone would have sex with everyone and society isn't keeping us from doing that, its sexual attraction. You can't say that is programmed because then why do gays have sex with each other? Are you bisexual, by chance, because this sounds like the arguement of someone who wants to have sex with everyone.
Ok now blog bloke you make absolutely no sense i did not say in anyway that society puts pressure on gays to only have sex with the same sex what i am saying is that the beilief that heterosexuality is the norma and natural existence is absurd and that you prove my point when you argue that straight people can have "gay sex" and gays can have "straight sex" it is the very anomalous nature of who and how we have sex that indicates that heterosexuality is not a natural stats of sexual being as well as homosexuality is not the natural state of being the argument is simple which i think is too post modern for you to understand humans are sexual beings that are capable of sex with anyone of any sex (not gender which is a societal construct) sex defined as man or (penis possessing) and female or (vagina possessing)this is the natural state of being which possesses all possible variants of sexual behaviors between consenting adults. I feel that i have struck a chord with you in a negative way which was not my intention but to dismiss arguments generated by the greatest post modern thinkers of our times is rather ludicrous on you part given that you truly believe that you and all straight people only have sex to procreate.
on second thought
well melissa i appologise for making this my soap box but the kiddie gloves are off.
furthermore blog bloke by you arguing that heteros have sex only to procreate means that you also would have to believe that a woman's purpose is only to have your babies and raise them while you go out and make even more babies with women whose purpose is to bear them and raise them as you continue on your path of sexual domination. it is just silly to truly believe that you have sex to procreate and that sex feels good to make people procreate sex feels good because we have a brain that allows for the feeling of pleasure which can be derived from self manipulation as well as penile and vaginal intercourse. so to me your argument smacks of heterosexism as well as sexism and that there is no need for further comment on this issue at least from me because i have more experience in the realm of this particular type of intellectual discourse and the research that backs it up.
Seriously, what is your deal? I don't know what sort of inner struggle you are having with yourself, but it seems that my comments struck a negative chord in YOU, not me, because you launched into an all out assault, instead of debating. Not only that, but you tried to give yourself an inflated sense of self by saying "I have more experience in this realm" and using a broad spectrum word such as "postmodernism". Judith Butler is a ninny surrounded by cocoon in academia.
She states that oppressed people in our society should accept their state and be "subversive" (another broad term. Killing people is subversive, is that acceptable?) Lobbying for law changes, etc etc is fruitless and even goes on to state in another "theory" that being oppressed turns us on and "parodic performances" turn us on, so that real change would basically not be sexy. How enlightened and in touch with real people and real problems.
I find it ridiculous that you would conclude that because I am a "straight" man that I want a harem of pregnant woman to pass my seed into. I enjoy sex and when I masturbate I still think about having sex with women. You, of course, avoided my question. If everyone wants to have sex with everyone (I reread your posts and realize that you are gay now) how many women have you had sex with lately? That's it. You don't need to read articles or quote "postmodern" feminists to answer that. Its sexual attraction and that's it. Most straight men do not go around trying our "sexual domination"(what?). If I have sex with several people and you have sex with several people, how is our sex somehow different, other than the people involved? Its the same number, my partner and I would be able to procreate as a result. That's the only difference. No secret hetero sexual domination. And believe it or not, straight people DO have sex to procreate. If that wasn't true, than medical science wouldn't be rich from all those people who pay large sums of money to get pregnant when they have fertility problems. The majority of women get pregnant from straight sex.
I just have to say that I find it quite ironic that you are "postmodern", but your writing style is that of ee cummings, who extolled modernism.
Post a Comment
<< Home