![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Aug. 22nd, 2015 12:27 pmSecond fb link of the day: this article on why straight men have sex with each other. Again, repost from there:
A thing I find simultaneously important and useful & questionable here is this: "In no way do I think it’s productive to call this bisexuality, which I understand *as its own significant and important queer identification in its own right* [emphasis mine], and that’s not what I’m describing. I do, in the end of the book, suggest that, if straight people want in on queer life, that’s about something more than homosexual sex. That’s about queer subculture, which is anchored to a long tradition of anti-normative political practices and anti-normative sex practices and appreciation for a much broader array of bodies and kinds of relationships and so forth, and so I think most straight people don’t actually want to be part of it. I think straight people who engage in homosexual sex, what makes them straight is precisely that they have no interest whatsoever in being part of queer subculture, and so in the last chapter I’m making the point that they could if they wanted to, but they don’t, and that’s part of how we know that this is homosexual sex being enacted in the service of heteronormativity."
Now, I have a problem with the use of 'queer' in a wholesale way, and also this article (I don't know about the book) other than in one paragraph treats "white men" and "men" as synonymous, but I think that - that bisexuality is a *significant and important identification in its own right* - is a really important distinction to make, and why all the attempts to claim *anyone* who has sex with/attraction for more than one sex as "bisexual" is ultimately misguided, because it undermines that. With the research recently out showing how many people identify as straight-but-not-exclusively so, I think this - how activity, attraction, identity and orientation culture intersect or don't - is really, really important to examine.
It also *doesn't* apply in the reverse direction, due to the presumption of straightness and the automatic immersion of everyone in hetero culture simply through being born and raised in it. Which is why we *also* have to be wary of identifying orientation with "queer subculture" - the ability to access and participate in "queer subculture(s)" is *not* equally open to everyone, as it's strongly urban and spaces are frequently inaccessible to otherwise-marginalised people in a variety of ways (dis/ability, race, financial status etc). What is "queer life"? Is a man or a woman who is exclusively attracted to their own sex, for eg, but forcibly isolated from "queer subculture(s)" somehow less "queer" than those who are able to actively participate in them? Especially when we bring in "political practices", which excludes an even wider range of people from "real", "valid" non-hetness.
A thing I find simultaneously important and useful & questionable here is this: "In no way do I think it’s productive to call this bisexuality, which I understand *as its own significant and important queer identification in its own right* [emphasis mine], and that’s not what I’m describing. I do, in the end of the book, suggest that, if straight people want in on queer life, that’s about something more than homosexual sex. That’s about queer subculture, which is anchored to a long tradition of anti-normative political practices and anti-normative sex practices and appreciation for a much broader array of bodies and kinds of relationships and so forth, and so I think most straight people don’t actually want to be part of it. I think straight people who engage in homosexual sex, what makes them straight is precisely that they have no interest whatsoever in being part of queer subculture, and so in the last chapter I’m making the point that they could if they wanted to, but they don’t, and that’s part of how we know that this is homosexual sex being enacted in the service of heteronormativity."
Now, I have a problem with the use of 'queer' in a wholesale way, and also this article (I don't know about the book) other than in one paragraph treats "white men" and "men" as synonymous, but I think that - that bisexuality is a *significant and important identification in its own right* - is a really important distinction to make, and why all the attempts to claim *anyone* who has sex with/attraction for more than one sex as "bisexual" is ultimately misguided, because it undermines that. With the research recently out showing how many people identify as straight-but-not-exclusively so, I think this - how activity, attraction, identity and orientation culture intersect or don't - is really, really important to examine.
It also *doesn't* apply in the reverse direction, due to the presumption of straightness and the automatic immersion of everyone in hetero culture simply through being born and raised in it. Which is why we *also* have to be wary of identifying orientation with "queer subculture" - the ability to access and participate in "queer subculture(s)" is *not* equally open to everyone, as it's strongly urban and spaces are frequently inaccessible to otherwise-marginalised people in a variety of ways (dis/ability, race, financial status etc). What is "queer life"? Is a man or a woman who is exclusively attracted to their own sex, for eg, but forcibly isolated from "queer subculture(s)" somehow less "queer" than those who are able to actively participate in them? Especially when we bring in "political practices", which excludes an even wider range of people from "real", "valid" non-hetness.
