Dr. Banks, I hope this is how we are supposed to post our responses. If not, I will find out and make corrections. — One thing that I found memorable came from around chapter two, in which the author explained that although homosexual behavior has always existed, homosexuality identity is a very new thing. This section was talking mostly about romantic love between women and how it was not seen as different than their friendship and was hardly ever a problem; at times it was even encouraged, but the more puritanical reaction we are familiar with today boomed during the 1800s and was caused by society demonizing first-wave feminism and āunwomanlyā behaviors. The next memorable moment from the text is one page 41, where Jagose writes, āin order to liberate homosexuality, gay liberation was committed to eradicating fixed notions of femininity and masculinity.ā I think this is a fascinating quote because it shows how in earlier times of the LGBT movement, āgayā and āgay liberationā were catch-all terms. In other words, there was no ā…BTQIAā,āMOGAIā, etc, but already early in the movement gender expression and identity were parts of the main concerns of the community, and not just sexuality. As an androgynous person, I also think it’s wonderful that a sense of cultural androgyny was the ideal for the future. Something that I am curious about is how at certain times in history lesbianism and romantic womanly love were not likened to each other. Lesbianism was sometimes only identified as the sexual act of tribadism. I wonder if this was the case throughout history. If at the times when womanly love and lesbianism were shunned, was it just this sexual act that was shunned? Was cuddling, kissing, cohabitation, etc. not a problem? Was sex between women not really seen as… Read more »
Great observations, Kelsey. I think one of the key points to get is the difference between behavior/activity and identity. Most of our historical research suggests that, as you say, people of the game sex have had various types of sex forever — but at some point in the 19th century, some of those folks stopped seeing themselves as just “confirmed bachelors” and started to see themselves as somehow different from others. Last semester, my cultural rhetorics class read a great book, *Not Gay: Sex Between Straight Men*, which shows how prevalent it still is for straight to have sex (of some sort or another) with other straight men and not be gay, not to identify as gay or as part of a culture of gay men. Many of these men are part of heterosexual relationships and claim to love their wives and children. Moving beyond the idea that what one does IS what one IS, is important in understanding older versions of sexuality. (http://nyupress.org/books/9781479825172/).
As for your question about lesbian sex and women-identified-women, throughout the 19th and early 20th century, there was a rich history of what were called “Boston Marriages” (http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-09-12/a-brief-history-of-boston-marriages/) that were one way that women cohabited. There are other versions of this in history, but since much of the Western world believed that you couldn’t even HAVE sex without a penis present, what women did in their own time was often just ignored — unless it became too public. We’re still learning about this past because it’s hard to finding examples of so many different ways of being in the world. Great question!
Before I even write and post my own, I wanted to respond to yours, Kelsey. I was torn between three memorable quotes / ideas, but you captured one of them well enough that I can eliminate it and go with my other two.
Your second “memorable moment” also caught my attention. Thanks to all our new and specific classifications, and the trans community becoming its own independent community and identity within the larger LGBT community, I was under the impression that a push for transgender rights was very new. I was surprised to see how much it was folded into the older ideas of homophile and gay liberatory platforms. Though, I wonder if this is a good thing (that it was a conversation posed so long ago) or a bad thing (that they were not afforded their own separate identity as they are now).
In unison with Kelsey’s hesitation, I hope that this post has found its’ correct location…if not, I am also happy to make the necessary correction(s)! I found it difficult to narrow my thoughts down to just two intrigues and one question; however, here is what I found most insightful in Jagose’s work surrounding Queer Theory: Jagose makes a claim about the term heterosexuality as a direct derivative of the term homosexuality. I had never really connected the fact that heterosexuality had not required a coined term or definition until the realm of homosexuality surfaced in our society. Jagose writes that “many theorists argue that since the term ‘heterosexuality’ is a back formation of ‘homosexuality’ – the former circulating only after the latter – heterosexuality is derivative of homosexuality, and that such a genealogy has important ideological consequences” (16). This matter of heterosexual definition and meaning only becoming essential because it was born out of the term homosexuality was most intriguing and enlightening to me. Another intriguing element to Jagose’s claims surfaced when I delved into the boundaries of lesbianism described (under some reform) as more political than it is a form of sexual identity. Which leads directly into the paradigm of feminism as it relates to the oppression women have faced due to gender (and sexual) orientation. I was shocked to make direct connections between feminist values and lesbianism when this claim was brought to light in Jagose’s writing: “In ‘The Woman-Identified Woman’ lesbianism is inscribed as a political stance rather than a sexual identification…The Radicalesbians’ paper aligns lesbians much more closely with heterosexual women that with male homosexuals, arguing that the hatred directed against lesbians is an effect of male domination” (48). My questions is fairly simple: Although there are clear shifts within identities related to sexual preference/orientation (as… Read more »
Wow, really interesting question there at the end, Tiffany! I think the answer that Jagose would offer, and here I would agree, is that “queer theory” and “LGBT theory” are different things. She hints at this in talking about how differently gay male and lesbian experiences of oppression have been, and which you note above: many in second-wave feminism saw “lesbian” as a word to describe the “independent” or “liberated” woman. Where lesbian signified different sexuality, it was still, for many, less important than gender oppression. More recent scholarship also points to the way that most gay male theory/research has been almost exclusively about WHITE and MIDDLE CLASS gay men; gay men of color, working class gay men, etc have often been ignored. Queer Theory takes an non-identitarian stance: these theories tend to challenge assumptions that are rooted solely in being lesbian, gay, bi, or trans. Many critique queer theory for being dominated by white academic voices — so there are concerns — but I think what happened in the academy was the development of “Queer Theory” as a way of talking about gender and language that fundamentally challenged the way that all identities are problematic: straight, gay, lesbian, polyamorous, etc. So Queer Theory does [this work here] while gay theories and lesbian theories do [this work over here] and often that work connects — but not always. I think as you read the rest of the book, some of that distinction will start to make sense. Or perhaps Queer Theory’s day in the sun is over and it’s time for something else?
Your first observation about heterosexuality and homosexuality in relation to one another in creation and meaning is one I had not thought about either. It seemed natural to me to think that both terms had been around in the past, but as you mentioned in your post, heterosexuality stemmed out of the term homosexuality. I think the changing terminology that has been used in regards to studying queer theory is very interesting and can provide (positive and negative) insight into society and culture.
Tiffany-
I also found the idea that “heterosexual” exists as a derivative from “homosexual” interesting. I think this view gives more power to the often “otherized” minority of the homosexual community.
In terms of your question: what exactly do you mean by “safe”? While I myself use LGBT as my “blanket title” of choice simply because it’s what I’m used to, I do think queer might be more accurate in terms of a true “blanket.” There are so many identities out there that are not part of the heterosexual majority but also do not identify as L, G, B, T, or Q. An example I can think of off the top of my head is a couple I know who practice swinging. Neither the man nor the woman half of this couple identifies as gay, but each occasionally participates in sexual experiences with people of the same sex. They label themselves as queer.
Hi Jen! The reason I wondered if the term LGBTQ was more safe than “queer” was because I had originally felt that LGBTQ was more encompassing that simply using the term “queer” – and more specifically identifying the different sects of “queer” that don’t necessarily get highlighted. For example, Jagose explains that although lesbians and gays are both considered queer in essence, there are so many differences between the two people groups…and that extends to bisexuals and transgenders as well. However, in hindsight – I can see that the term “queer” is certainly more encompassing that LGBTQ and it does tend to include more titles/examples/relationships/situations that LGBTQ would not necessarily entail. I suppose I felt that a title like LGBTQ would give specific attention to each different identity within the queer realm, yet as you have so rightfully pointed out, that is definitely not the case! Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this!
I was a little surprised to learn that there are men who regularly have sex with other men but do not consider themselves to be gay (or even bisexual?). Jagose refers to a few such instances (for example, pages 7-8 and 20). These men seem to be making the same distinction between acts and identity which Jagose discusses in her book. I find this worth commenting on because I think it signals a point of similarity between how sexuality is regarded and how race is regarded. Homosexuality is so stigmatized that be it known that you had so much as one sexual encounter with someone of the same sex, you are considered gay. Likewise, some people feel that if you are related by blood to even one person of color, you are yourself to be considered a person of color. Another surprise is that what I thought was one of the definitions of queer is not addressed in Jagoseās book. I thought (rightly or wrongly) that in the context of queer theory, queer can also be a verb. To queer something (I thought) is to problematize it or shake it up somehow or show it in a new light or make it uncomfortable for people. I associate this usage with playfulness and irreverence. (A trivial example that comes to mind are the āF— Your Genderā T-shirts worn LGBT student activists campaigning at a friendās university.) I find this worth mentioning because I think itās a valuable use of the word. In this sense, queer does not refer only to subject matter but to an approach to subject matter (for example, a way of altering perceptions or addressing an issue or even reading a text). As Iām sure Jagose would be the first to acknowledge, her discussion of same-sex desire is… Read more »
Great observation about activity/behavior v. identity/ontology, Stephen. Last semester, I taught a book that might interest you: *Not Gay: Sex Between Straight Men* (http://nyupress.org/books/9781479825172/). We also read *Sexual Discretion* (http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo17092702.html), which shows how the “down low” experience in African American male lives is also different from what we tend to think of as gay sex = gay identity. This reminds me of a question I used to ask first-year students: “How much meat can a vegetarian eat and still be a vegetarian?” Most say, “NONE!” but then I say, what if the vegetarian doesn’t know it? Or what if someone eats one piece of chicken in two years but otherwise only vegetarian fare. We do have a problem in our culture where we reduce acts and identities together in sometimes unproductive ways — or rather, we box people in in ways that prevent our seeing the real diversity around us.
As for your question, I think we’re seeing more and more work being done on non-Western sexualities, but that work has been slow, in part because Western queer theorists are part of an intellectual tradition that says, “Stay in your lane — don’t write about other cultures you don’t know!” There have been a few studies out recently from both the Near East and Asia, and some from Africa, but yes, in places where more restrictive religious groups control government and education, that work is harder to get done.
Looks like you and I were having the same thoughts. I thought that any man who had sex with other men was in no way of fashion heterosexual. I was well aware of what we might consider ādown lowā men, however, I had never known of a supposedly heterosexual man admitting to sleeping with other men yet still considering themselves heterosexual. I agree with the fact that homosexuality is over stigmatized. I think this is why the men who sleep with men refuse to consider themselves as homosexual because of the negative connotation associated with the term.
Your insight on the actual term queer was quite interesting as well. I took did a quick google search in order to find out what the actual definition of the term is. Queer is defined as strange or odd, which was my initial thought. After reading your post, it made me realize the power of words. Jagose describes the term with a somewhat positive connation while my term was somewhat adverse.
As far as your question, I think thatās a hard one to answer. In a class last semester, we talked about the ethnic canon and trying to slump all culture into one, assuming that what works for one culture will work for all. Honestly, I think the East would be a lot less open when it comes to sexuality and sexual orientation. Iām almost sure that it is much more confined than it is here. I have friends who are African and they will not even associate themselves with ones who are openly gay. However, what is quite ironic about this is the fact that I truly believe my African friend is homosexual.
I mentioned that I was surprised to learn of men who have sex with other men but do not consider themselves gay. But since then, I have been recalling instances from movies and books in which this occurs (or in which characters at least claim not to consider themselves gay). One instance that comes to mind is the film “Brokeback Mountain”: Ennis Del Mar (the Heath Ledger character): āYou know I aināt queerā; Jack Twist (the Jake Gyllenhaal character): āMe neitherā. Another is a novel we will be reading later in the course, “Rubyfruit Jungle” by Rita Mae Brown.
You mention Africa. I recently learned of an author who is getting a lot exposure in connection with homosexuality and Africa: Binyavanga Wainaina. For example, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGxbWRtiEQY.
What a great question, Stephen. I never even considered how Western the assumptions and identifications could be. I have known of the “low down,” but I always more thought of that as a byproduct of the prison community, as I believe that is where it originated? So to read that there were men outside of that community participating was fascinating to me as well.
Until this discussion, I was not familiar with the term ādown lowā or the concept it refers to. For anyone else new to the term/concept, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down-low_(sexual_slang). (The usual Wikipedia caveats apply.)
Let me start by saying that after reading these few pages of Jagoseās Queer Theory, I found myself questioning my own sexuality! One thing that I found interesting or I learned from this reading was the fact that the terms āqueerā and āgayā are not synonymous. From no research, just acquired knowledge I assumed that they meant the same thing, a person who has sex with the same sex, rather they are transsexual or homosexual. I slumped them all into the same category. This caused me to read the piece twice in order to read from two different prospective. The first time I read it, I found myself relying solely on common knowledge. Jagose poses the question of, āIs it possible to be homosexual without ever having had or intending to have sex with the same sexā(8)? Before reading, my answer would have strictly been no. Then I began to question myself after Jagoseās examples of married men sleeping with men but not actually identifying as gay and the lesbian women who sleeps with a self-identified gay male. I posed my own question of āWhy not? Consider the inverse. Would you or I be disqualified for heterosexuality just because weāve not yet engaged with or attempted to engage, a member of the opposite sexā? I came up up with my own answer but Iād like to read what everyone else thinks! Iāve concluded, the term āqueerā has less to do with the actual act of sex and more so with sexuality. Itās fluid, like spectrum. If you define a line from 1 to 10, with 1 being absolutely 1000% homosexual and 10 being absolutely 1000% heterosexual, Iām convinced that most people will fall somewhere between 2 and 9. As Jagose points out, societal stigmas are powerful inhibitors that result in… Read more »
Tiffany,
Insightful thoughts presented here – thank you for bringing to light these paradigms explored throughout Jagose’s work! Essentially, I approached the topic of Queer Theory from the perspective that sexual identity lies directly and solely in the realm of sex – that men who had sex with men must identify as gay (even if they are married with children). Similarly, I feel that those who desire the “attention”, if you will, with the same sex – even if they have not engaged in sexual activity with the same sex – must fall on the homosexual end of the spectrum. The introduction to Jagose’s work somewhat disassembled my thoughts surrounding the topic of homosexuality, or sexual identity as a whole. However, as you suggest through your posed question, I personally never questioned my heterosexual identity before I engaged in sexual activity with someone of the opposite sex. I suppose it all comes down to desire, and born from desire is our sexual identity, yes? Even if someone finds themselves at a “5” on the spectrum (as you have outlined in your response post here) – then I suppose that they would consider themselves bisexual in terms of sexual identity. So here is a question…do these men that Jagose interviews for her research (7-10) consider themselves heterosexual in nature but with homosexual activity scarcely scattered in their weekly routine, or do they consider themselves bisexual because their sexual activity fluctuates to both ends of the spectrum?
I think these men that she interviews who has sex with men weekly, still consider themselves heterosexual. These men seem to have lessened the important of the actual act of sex and have relied solely on their emotions. They state that they are in love with their wives but enjoy having sex with men. They somewhat compare the act of sex with men to some kind of sport or hobby. Also, like Iāve stated in other response post, the term homosexual carries a negative connotation. Them identifying with homosexual would link them to the word āqueerā that is the sole purpose of Jagoseās piece. The word queer means different and they donāt consider themselves different. They have convinced themselves that there is nothing different about sleeping with men for leisure, they compare it to an afternoon of golfing.
I like your question about whether you’d be “disqualified” or not if you hadn’t engaged in sex yet (or don’t plan to). Sex is such a public part of our lives now in ways that it never would have been 50 – 100 years ago, or even longer ago than that. Foucault and Halperin argue that sex becomes an identity, but some lesbian historians and researchers, as Jagose points out, suggest that sex may not be most important defining part of our emotional identities. I remember being in graduate school and one of my very best female friends was over for our weekly watching of *Queer As Folk*. My partner was far away back in Georgia and I hadn’t seen him in person in a couple of months, and said to her, “You know, I really miss being hugged.” She took offense: “But I hug you all the time! I just cuddled with you on the couch!” And before I realized it, my response was, “Yeah, but you’re a girl. Girl hugs don’t count.” Which led to a long conversation about the emotional/affective components of our lives. Yes, technically, this female friend hugged me all the time, but it wasn’t at all the same thing as when a man/my partner hugged me. I’m not sure I’d call those hugs “sexual,” but they certainly FELT different. That experience has always had me thinking that the sex act itself might not be the obvious way of knowing I’m gay.
Tiffany-
Great thoughts and questions! I do think it is possible to be homosexual without having had (or even intending to have) sex with someone of the same sex–in the same way that I also believe it’s possible to have had same sex sexual experiences and not be gay. For the latter, I think about my own experience of knowing my identity–knowing I was gay–10 years before I ever had a sexual experience with a woman. At that young age, I didn’t even think in terms of sex per se, as much as I did thinking about the fact that my emotions were drawn in bigger ways to girls–and in similar ways I observed some of my friends who were girls being drawn to boys.
I also think it is possible for people to have either isolated or numerous sexual experiences of people of the same sex without identifying as a homosexual. In many ways, sex is an act–not an identity in and of itself.
The first bit that interested me in Jagose was when she spoke of the āinvention of homosexualityā and how it stemmed from a male-centered thought. While the text goes on a bit to explain why this thought is male-centric, I found it interesting, because I feel that often times homosexuality and lesbianism can get put together in description and thought. To the outsider, not much emphasis is put on the individual triumphs and trials that differ between the homosexual male and female communities.
I have been reading some of Roxane Gayās work lately and I have been thinking about feminism from the point-of-view of someone who is bisexual or lesbian. Jagoseās chapter five on Lesbian Feminism was very relevant to Roxane Gayās work. i was really struck by the very first sentence of the chapter about the lesbian community being āmarginalizedā in the gay community as well as in the female community. Itās a thought that hadnāt really occurred to me, but one that sadly is true. There has not always been a strong place in the gay or female community (and there is still work to be done towards that!).
One thing that brought up questions to me was the discussion of liberation in various cultures. Did this liberation across cultures have a similar effect to the liberation of males versus females?
Cool observations, Emily. So glad to hear you’re reading Roxanne Gay! Her work is very important, IMHO, and she’s doing a lot to break up the sort of queer-theory-as-male-centered (and often over-written) discourse out there. But yes, Gay brings up not only being lesbian or bi, but also being a person of color, and the impact that race and sexuality have as they overlap. I hope you’ll find a way to bring more of Gay into the course as we read!
Hi Emily! Great post here, I too found the connection between lesbianism and feminism to be intriguing. I had never really taken the time to connect lines and draw conclusions surrounding the oppression that females have faced while living in the shadow of men (in many regards), and Jagose’s work here has certainly provided new insights. What I found most interesting about the subject of lesbianism as it pertains to feminism and is juxtaposed against gay men is that, contrary to my preconceived notions, these two identities do not fit under the same umbrella. As Jagose writes, “Gay men and lesbians have their homosexuality – that is, their same-sex object choice – in common. But the gendering of the sexuality has produced substantial cultural differences between them” (44). Initially, I would have thought that these two people groups would identify with each other because of the same-sex attraction – it was certainly interesting to learn of their dichotomized intents, perceptions, and resolves!
I found the beginning of Jagoseās Queer Theory interesting, particularly Chapter 5 on Lesbian Feminism. Like most historical causes championing womenās rights and equality, I was fascinated by the lesbian struggle. This marginalized group was largely ignored by the gay liberation movement, and was shunned by feminists. The tension is a disservice to all, and it potentially slowed progress in all movements. This tension also made me think of recent political rifts and infighting within the major political parties. More are harmed when unity cannot be achieved.
I also found the argument of evaluating sexuality in the context of gender roles to be an interesting debate, as well. The idea of gender and gender roles remains a highly relevant topic, especially in light of equal rights for gay and lesbian couples, and also in the public discussion about transgendered individuals. The construct of gender is cultural; therefore the argument that sexual preference is another gender constructāthat no one is heterosexual or homosexual, but that we are all within the same plane regarding our sexualityāmakes sense regarding this construct, even if it is debatable.
One question I have: Have the tensions between the gay liberation, feminism, and lesbian feminism movements been healed? Is there more unity and, therefore, a more cohesive fight for equality?
Good question, Victoria. I’m not sure I can speak broadly on that question, but my sense is that the answer would be no, not really. I mean, gay men and lesbian work together (coalition building) all the time in really effective ways, but my experience has been pretty much that this is “project oriented”: so we’ll all show up for the gay marriage debates and lobby in support of it, but then we go back to our own corners and communities when it’s over. Perhaps the real tension now is between assimilationist gay and lesbian politics and radical progressive queer politics. The former camp gets together to advocate for same sex marriage, while the latter thinks same sex marriage is a sell-out position, one that shows gay and lesbians trying to be “straight” and embracing heteronormative institutions rather than disrupting the values and assumptions of those institutions that work to oppress everyone equally. Certainly, white middle-class gay and lesbians get along more than that group does with working class and queers of color as the politics of the latter group often conflict with the assimilationist politics of the former.
(Iām going to break the 200-word word limit. Fair warning. Also, I apologize for typos or any inarticulateness. I am quite ill today.) The first quote or idea that caught my attention was a block quote in chapter 1. Instead of including it directly, and far overshooting my word limit, Iāll summarize. It was the quote comparing Greek pederasts, the native American berdache, and the New Guinea warrior with modern western homosexuals. It asked if they can all really be considered to have the same sexuality, just because they engage in homosexual acts, even though the contexts are wildly different. I loved this quote for two reasons. First, I have no anthropological background and had never heard of the New Guinea example (I wonāt be as graphic here as the book was), and it was a surprising and unexpected glimpse into a culture I know nothing about. Secondly, I felt it was a fantastic question, illustrating how irrelevant the sex act itself is, in comparison to the cultural and historical context of the act. Next, I just generally enjoy the entire topic of the second chapter. I attended an undergraduate class years ago that covered the debate: was homosexuality invented, or has it always existed? At the time, this was a bewildering argument. There was a quote mentioned in that class, from ancient Greece or Rome, that made reference to those people who preferred the same sex. So clearly, homosexuals had always existed, right? I donāt know whether I understand the argument better now because Iām older, or because this book frames it better than it had been framed for me then, but I believe my opinion has changed. Yes, homosexual sex existed long ago, and with it existed those people who preferred it over heterosexual sex. But it was… Read more »
Jayde, I went a bit above the word count too! I think we will be okay.
I think you bring up a fascinating point about the statement made by President Ahmadinejad. I would never have thought of it that way. I am not sure enough about politics or the religious and social norms of Iran to know if he was claiming that the act itself didn’t exist there (like you said, this would seem completely ludicrous and as if he is in an extreme state of denial), or if he perhaps did really mean that the identity doesn’t exist there.
I’m sure many non-western cultures have their own queer identities and non-heteronormative sexualities and sexual behavior, like the two-spirit (non-binary) people of some Native American cultures and the hijra (transgender women) in India. Their definitions and cultural constructions of those identities are not exactly the same as our western NB and transgender identities, but they are similar, so I don’t know if two-spirit people or hijra people would ever identify as non-binary or trans because their identities are unique to their culture and have a value beyond the comparable western gender identities. So maybe their leaders would also say something like “transgender people don’t exist in our culture”, maybe not because they think those people are a perversion who don’t exist outside of the west (which is the first impression I get from President Ahmadinejad’s statement), but maybe because they just don’t want to associate with those terms and the western baggage that comes with.
Oh, I’m certain he meant it in the vilest way possible. He meant it in a “we are not infected with your western perversions!” sort of way. But regardless of his intentions, I’m just wondering if he may have been right.
The man is a talking sack of hammers, so I’m sure he couldn’t articulate it worth a damn. He wouldn’t speak of identity and the difference in cultures like we are. But I’m just thinking, maybe the difference in culture really hasn’t created homosexuality as an identity there, which is why he has the luxury of viewing the issue as he does.
Wow, Jayde, yea, this is one of the moments when the academic and the activist, when in the same body, finds him/her/themself in conflict. Yes, technically, Ahmadinejad was right on several levels: I’d be more tempted to change what he said slightly to be “In Iran we don’t have gay people like your country” and that is quite true, where “gay people” is a culture and history; and I’m even tempted to agree and say, “You’re right: homosexuality probably does not manifest itself in the same way in Iran, at the moment, as elsewhere.” But the activist in me says resist this because he’s just being, as Kelsey says, “vile” rather than etymologically and culturally sophisticated in his rhetorical choices. š It’s like when queer activists argue against gay marriage — they do it for very different reasons and as part of a much more progressive politics than those on the alt-right. When you’re dealing with people who are black-and-white thinkers, though, some of those complexities disappear in our public rhetoric because we don’t want to be aligned with people whose politics we abhor. What we need much more of, of course, are studies and writings that show us what it IS like to be same-sex oriented in Iran … Recent pieces like Habib’s *Female Homosexuality in the Middle East* (2007) and El-Rouayheb’s *Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World* (2005) offer some useful analyses, including a more typically Foucauldian one in the latter book/dissertation.
Hi everyone! Much of Jagoseās introduction was not new to me, as we discussed a great deal about the idea of homosexuality as a socially and culturally constructed term (and the baggage it carries) in the Community and Cultural Rhetorics course last fall; however, it is interesting to note that modern notions of what means to ābeā homosexual as an identity are somewhat new, and cannot be applied (in the same way/sense) to examine behaviors/acts that occurred in very different historical moments. In other words, as Jagose puts it, homosexuality (and queerness, in general) resists definition, and has done so differently over the past 100 years or so. What resonates with me the most, though, is how homosexuality, as an identity, becomes less queer as it takes on the trappings of a heterosexual identity. Does that make sense? If homosexuality is appropriated in such a way to co-exist with (or closely resemble) heterosexuality ā getting married and settling down with a mortgage and 2.5 kids, for example ā then does it cease to be a queer identity? Thatās something I wrestling to understand. I was brought up in a very conservative, religious household that made me believe that ābeingā this way was inherently wrong; the bible says so and all that. But with that comes a particular idea of what having a morally good/normal life looks like ā at least with regard to straight couples building a life together ā and I find myself struggling to make that idea fit together with being a gay man and figuring out queer life, I suppose. All that to say that even as a gay man, queerness is something I am still trying to define for myself, as well as in what ways that term defines me, which brings me to this question:… Read more »
Well, there are many who would say that a gay/homosexual identity and queerness cannot cohabitate (as it were). Some argue that *queer* can’t be an identity because identities involve sedimenting values, experiences, concepts, and a host of objects that represent cultural understandings of identity — in short, to identify is to take on those ‘trappings’ that culture can then recognize. To be queer, some argue, would be far too much shifting and change to ever be fully *recognizable* by others. I’m not sure anyone gets to make the judgement on these things, but I tend to think of my identity as “gay” but my politics as “queer” — to me, *queer* is a rhetorical project, a set of arguments, values, logics, and languages that one uses at particular moments and in particular ways in order to unsettle or destabilize the normative. Being gay, on the other hand, is about living in a world with others and being seen as a certain person, being recognizable; even when it does relationships differently, I see it as still having a relationship with another than people outside the two of you can recognize. It certainly gets complicated. But for me, I just hold on to queer as a politics, a rhetoric, and a theoretical lens for engaging the world, while gay is more an identity that connects me to other men and women …
I havenāt done much research about how the lesbian feminist movement differed from the gay liberation movement, and some of the theories Jagose presented were quite interestingāsome even shocking. In some ways it makes sense, but I didnāt realize the depth of discord that existed between the movements. I guess I always thought gay liberation was one common movement, and while Iām not naĆÆve enough to think that it wasnāt largely controlled by men, I never realized how separate the struggles really became. And while the inherent power gay men had (and have) compared to lesbians canāt be argued, some of the theorists seem to pit the two groups against each other in surprising ways. For example, Fryeās conclusion that gay men do not want to have sex with women because they have learned to hate women seems ridiculous (Jagose, 53). It also seems odd that Jeffreys would claim that lesbians and heterosexual men had more common interests than lesbians and gay men simply because they love women (Jagose, 51). This was all surprising, in part, because of my own experience as a gay woman. I have many gay male friends who I feel more at ease with and identify more with than I do the numerous amount of heterosexual female friends I have. I guess thatās my question for the week: do you all think the divide between gay men and women is still present to the same degree today as is described in chapter 5 of Jagose? If so, how? If not, why do you think it changed? It was also nice to be reminded of the progression of the homosexual identity. Jagose seems to present this progression as 1) no true homosexual identity, only homosexual acts, 2) the homosexual defined by societyās views (largely informed by religious… Read more »
I think that four-part progression, Jen, seems about “right” in as much as that is how we’ve come to think of it — obviously those ideas overlap in history and aren’t completely discreet, but yes, seems right. As for the idea of gay men and lesbians in conflict politically … I’m reminded here that we tend to think of all large-scale civil rights movements as unified — that’s part of the way Civil Rights rhetorics work — but that hides the discord that’s really always there. I mean, we tend to think of African American Civil Rights as unified, but then we remember that there was a more peaceful argument (MLK) and a more militant argument (Malcolm X/Black Panthers), and those two groups didn’t always agree at all on how to proceed. Similarly, as Barbara Christian, Audre Lorde, and Angela Davis have all pointed out, they were constantly asking when black women’s needs would be raised, and the early Civil Rights leaders, MLK in particular, were all “Let’s handle the race issue and then we’ll deal with the gender issue” and they got back-burnered. Second wave feminists did the same thing: “Let’s deal with the woman issue and then we’ll deal with the race issue” — and here we are, in 2017, and we still talk about how “women” make .70 cents on the dollar compared to men, but that’s WHITE women! Black women make closer to .60 cents on the dollar and Latinx women closer to .50 cents on the dollar. So why do we always talk about what “women” make by referencing only what WHITE WOMEN make? These same things show up in gay and lesbian politics and lives: white, middle-class gay men and lesbian might be most worried about getting married, but that might not be the… Read more »
I found the majority of the reading this week leaving me with questions, and completely fascinating. I think I will be referring back to this reading as we continue, and will need to revisit it from time to time to see what else I get from it. Something I have been thinking of since beginning the reading for the course a while back, is why there is such a need for identification in the LGBTQ+ community. The short answer that I have come up with and wish to investigate further (perhaps even with next week’s novel), is that the years and years of forced repression has prompted the need to identify. In the beginning o Queer Theory, we read about defining even the term queer, and how that word has changed to be an ” umbrella term for a coalition of culturally marginal sexual self identifications” (1). I find the “self identification” part here important, because I think that part is important. For years there was little to no recognition, and when there was recognition, it certainly was not self induced in a manner that one would want to bring upon themselves. The identification would be to separate, to humiliate, to differentiate to the point of exclusion. The “self” identification is the need that I see stemming from the forced identification, which would lead to repression, from the past. A second thought that stood out to me was in regard to those who engage in homosexual acts and do not accept the label homosexual. The quotes and examples used in the book come from the AIDS research, and I wonder if this has changed some as stigma with homosexuality is lessened. I, personally, know gay men who were (or are) married. Obviously, those who were married and are no longer… Read more »
Ok, late to the party, but here none the less. A bit of irony caught my eye early on in the reading when the definition of the word queer is brought into question on page 3. In one way, “queer focuses on mismatches between sex, gender, and desire” (Jagose 3). But in another, queer is a word that defines that which falls within the outer limits of the norm, or more than two standard deviations from the median (that Statistics class finally pays off). How could these two definitions be applied to the same subject? As we are all a combination of male and female, how can a mismatch within ourselves be queer; queer from to societal norms yes, but how can we be deviant of ourselves? But I digress. Additionally, I was stopped in my tracks on page 13 by the assertion that only when individuals were able to make a living outside the home and move away from the interdependent family unit was there a possibility for the homosexual identity to be formed. I am still turning that one over in my mind arguing that the identity already existed just not in a public way. My question is based in the reading from the lesbian relationship standpoint and the fact that those relationships, conjugal or otherwise, have been largely ignored or never recognized. Could it be that sexual intimacy, is just seen differently from the biologically male and female perspective? In a strictly biological sense, regardless of sexual preference, do males and females seek out sexual pleasure from a different perspective? I base that on the fact that I have worked in the federal prison system for over 15 years and I have seen what those relationships are boiled down to. In prison, there is a sort of… Read more »
Wow, Stephanie! What great connections — and your experiences working in the prison system really add a lot. I think you’re right: on some level, I’d say that men and women have been conditioned to approach sex in very different ways, and you can see that when you work in special populations, like prisons, where the full range of freedoms are removed. In those spaces, a more condensed and intense version of the ‘norm’ still seems to happen. The distinction you make — between male sexuality as about dominance and control and female sexuality being more about comfort and security — I certainly see a lot of that outside of prisons. But there are also many lesbian relationships that are dysfunctional, where one partner attempts to dominate or control the other — and there are gay male relationships that slip into Platonic friendships after a while, being more about comfort and security than erotic passion. It seems to me that gay and lesbian relationships tend to run the full gamut of emotional and physical experiences, just as their straight counterparts, but I wonder if we look at that behavior differently since we see fewer examples / day than we see of heteronormative relationships? Or I wonder if, since gender roles continue, if gay and lesbian relationships often suffer from the same heteronormative gender values that straight culture does — I’m not sure being gay or lesbian frees us from those gender values, which then get carried into our relationships. Really thoughtful post … RE the Marxist reading of sexuality, that post-industrial capitalism gives rise to queer lives … I tend to make that argument when I talk to classes in part because I want them to see that, as Jagose notes, while sexual behavior may be the same or similar… Read more »
Great paper! I thoroughly enjoyed reading your research surrounding class and societal norms when it comes to homosexuality in Forster’s writing! Below is a link to my feedback (which can be opened through dropbox). If you can’t open the word doc, let me know and I will email it to you!
Dr. Banks, I hope this is how we are supposed to post our responses. If not, I will find out and make corrections. — One thing that I found memorable came from around chapter two, in which the author explained that although homosexual behavior has always existed, homosexuality identity is a very new thing. This section was talking mostly about romantic love between women and how it was not seen as different than their friendship and was hardly ever a problem; at times it was even encouraged, but the more puritanical reaction we are familiar with today boomed during the 1800s and was caused by society demonizing first-wave feminism and āunwomanlyā behaviors. The next memorable moment from the text is one page 41, where Jagose writes, āin order to liberate homosexuality, gay liberation was committed to eradicating fixed notions of femininity and masculinity.ā I think this is a fascinating quote because it shows how in earlier times of the LGBT movement, āgayā and āgay liberationā were catch-all terms. In other words, there was no ā…BTQIAā,āMOGAIā, etc, but already early in the movement gender expression and identity were parts of the main concerns of the community, and not just sexuality. As an androgynous person, I also think it’s wonderful that a sense of cultural androgyny was the ideal for the future. Something that I am curious about is how at certain times in history lesbianism and romantic womanly love were not likened to each other. Lesbianism was sometimes only identified as the sexual act of tribadism. I wonder if this was the case throughout history. If at the times when womanly love and lesbianism were shunned, was it just this sexual act that was shunned? Was cuddling, kissing, cohabitation, etc. not a problem? Was sex between women not really seen as… Read more »
Great observations, Kelsey. I think one of the key points to get is the difference between behavior/activity and identity. Most of our historical research suggests that, as you say, people of the game sex have had various types of sex forever — but at some point in the 19th century, some of those folks stopped seeing themselves as just “confirmed bachelors” and started to see themselves as somehow different from others. Last semester, my cultural rhetorics class read a great book, *Not Gay: Sex Between Straight Men*, which shows how prevalent it still is for straight to have sex (of some sort or another) with other straight men and not be gay, not to identify as gay or as part of a culture of gay men. Many of these men are part of heterosexual relationships and claim to love their wives and children. Moving beyond the idea that what one does IS what one IS, is important in understanding older versions of sexuality. (http://nyupress.org/books/9781479825172/).
As for your question about lesbian sex and women-identified-women, throughout the 19th and early 20th century, there was a rich history of what were called “Boston Marriages” (http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-09-12/a-brief-history-of-boston-marriages/) that were one way that women cohabited. There are other versions of this in history, but since much of the Western world believed that you couldn’t even HAVE sex without a penis present, what women did in their own time was often just ignored — unless it became too public. We’re still learning about this past because it’s hard to finding examples of so many different ways of being in the world. Great question!
Before I even write and post my own, I wanted to respond to yours, Kelsey. I was torn between three memorable quotes / ideas, but you captured one of them well enough that I can eliminate it and go with my other two.
Your second “memorable moment” also caught my attention. Thanks to all our new and specific classifications, and the trans community becoming its own independent community and identity within the larger LGBT community, I was under the impression that a push for transgender rights was very new. I was surprised to see how much it was folded into the older ideas of homophile and gay liberatory platforms. Though, I wonder if this is a good thing (that it was a conversation posed so long ago) or a bad thing (that they were not afforded their own separate identity as they are now).
In unison with Kelsey’s hesitation, I hope that this post has found its’ correct location…if not, I am also happy to make the necessary correction(s)! I found it difficult to narrow my thoughts down to just two intrigues and one question; however, here is what I found most insightful in Jagose’s work surrounding Queer Theory: Jagose makes a claim about the term heterosexuality as a direct derivative of the term homosexuality. I had never really connected the fact that heterosexuality had not required a coined term or definition until the realm of homosexuality surfaced in our society. Jagose writes that “many theorists argue that since the term ‘heterosexuality’ is a back formation of ‘homosexuality’ – the former circulating only after the latter – heterosexuality is derivative of homosexuality, and that such a genealogy has important ideological consequences” (16). This matter of heterosexual definition and meaning only becoming essential because it was born out of the term homosexuality was most intriguing and enlightening to me. Another intriguing element to Jagose’s claims surfaced when I delved into the boundaries of lesbianism described (under some reform) as more political than it is a form of sexual identity. Which leads directly into the paradigm of feminism as it relates to the oppression women have faced due to gender (and sexual) orientation. I was shocked to make direct connections between feminist values and lesbianism when this claim was brought to light in Jagose’s writing: “In ‘The Woman-Identified Woman’ lesbianism is inscribed as a political stance rather than a sexual identification…The Radicalesbians’ paper aligns lesbians much more closely with heterosexual women that with male homosexuals, arguing that the hatred directed against lesbians is an effect of male domination” (48). My questions is fairly simple: Although there are clear shifts within identities related to sexual preference/orientation (as… Read more »
Wow, really interesting question there at the end, Tiffany! I think the answer that Jagose would offer, and here I would agree, is that “queer theory” and “LGBT theory” are different things. She hints at this in talking about how differently gay male and lesbian experiences of oppression have been, and which you note above: many in second-wave feminism saw “lesbian” as a word to describe the “independent” or “liberated” woman. Where lesbian signified different sexuality, it was still, for many, less important than gender oppression. More recent scholarship also points to the way that most gay male theory/research has been almost exclusively about WHITE and MIDDLE CLASS gay men; gay men of color, working class gay men, etc have often been ignored. Queer Theory takes an non-identitarian stance: these theories tend to challenge assumptions that are rooted solely in being lesbian, gay, bi, or trans. Many critique queer theory for being dominated by white academic voices — so there are concerns — but I think what happened in the academy was the development of “Queer Theory” as a way of talking about gender and language that fundamentally challenged the way that all identities are problematic: straight, gay, lesbian, polyamorous, etc. So Queer Theory does [this work here] while gay theories and lesbian theories do [this work over here] and often that work connects — but not always. I think as you read the rest of the book, some of that distinction will start to make sense. Or perhaps Queer Theory’s day in the sun is over and it’s time for something else?
Tiffany,
Your first observation about heterosexuality and homosexuality in relation to one another in creation and meaning is one I had not thought about either. It seemed natural to me to think that both terms had been around in the past, but as you mentioned in your post, heterosexuality stemmed out of the term homosexuality. I think the changing terminology that has been used in regards to studying queer theory is very interesting and can provide (positive and negative) insight into society and culture.
Tiffany-
I also found the idea that “heterosexual” exists as a derivative from “homosexual” interesting. I think this view gives more power to the often “otherized” minority of the homosexual community.
In terms of your question: what exactly do you mean by “safe”? While I myself use LGBT as my “blanket title” of choice simply because it’s what I’m used to, I do think queer might be more accurate in terms of a true “blanket.” There are so many identities out there that are not part of the heterosexual majority but also do not identify as L, G, B, T, or Q. An example I can think of off the top of my head is a couple I know who practice swinging. Neither the man nor the woman half of this couple identifies as gay, but each occasionally participates in sexual experiences with people of the same sex. They label themselves as queer.
Hi Jen! The reason I wondered if the term LGBTQ was more safe than “queer” was because I had originally felt that LGBTQ was more encompassing that simply using the term “queer” – and more specifically identifying the different sects of “queer” that don’t necessarily get highlighted. For example, Jagose explains that although lesbians and gays are both considered queer in essence, there are so many differences between the two people groups…and that extends to bisexuals and transgenders as well. However, in hindsight – I can see that the term “queer” is certainly more encompassing that LGBTQ and it does tend to include more titles/examples/relationships/situations that LGBTQ would not necessarily entail. I suppose I felt that a title like LGBTQ would give specific attention to each different identity within the queer realm, yet as you have so rightfully pointed out, that is definitely not the case! Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this!
I was a little surprised to learn that there are men who regularly have sex with other men but do not consider themselves to be gay (or even bisexual?). Jagose refers to a few such instances (for example, pages 7-8 and 20). These men seem to be making the same distinction between acts and identity which Jagose discusses in her book. I find this worth commenting on because I think it signals a point of similarity between how sexuality is regarded and how race is regarded. Homosexuality is so stigmatized that be it known that you had so much as one sexual encounter with someone of the same sex, you are considered gay. Likewise, some people feel that if you are related by blood to even one person of color, you are yourself to be considered a person of color. Another surprise is that what I thought was one of the definitions of queer is not addressed in Jagoseās book. I thought (rightly or wrongly) that in the context of queer theory, queer can also be a verb. To queer something (I thought) is to problematize it or shake it up somehow or show it in a new light or make it uncomfortable for people. I associate this usage with playfulness and irreverence. (A trivial example that comes to mind are the āF— Your Genderā T-shirts worn LGBT student activists campaigning at a friendās university.) I find this worth mentioning because I think itās a valuable use of the word. In this sense, queer does not refer only to subject matter but to an approach to subject matter (for example, a way of altering perceptions or addressing an issue or even reading a text). As Iām sure Jagose would be the first to acknowledge, her discussion of same-sex desire is… Read more »
Great observation about activity/behavior v. identity/ontology, Stephen. Last semester, I taught a book that might interest you: *Not Gay: Sex Between Straight Men* (http://nyupress.org/books/9781479825172/). We also read *Sexual Discretion* (http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo17092702.html), which shows how the “down low” experience in African American male lives is also different from what we tend to think of as gay sex = gay identity. This reminds me of a question I used to ask first-year students: “How much meat can a vegetarian eat and still be a vegetarian?” Most say, “NONE!” but then I say, what if the vegetarian doesn’t know it? Or what if someone eats one piece of chicken in two years but otherwise only vegetarian fare. We do have a problem in our culture where we reduce acts and identities together in sometimes unproductive ways — or rather, we box people in in ways that prevent our seeing the real diversity around us.
As for your question, I think we’re seeing more and more work being done on non-Western sexualities, but that work has been slow, in part because Western queer theorists are part of an intellectual tradition that says, “Stay in your lane — don’t write about other cultures you don’t know!” There have been a few studies out recently from both the Near East and Asia, and some from Africa, but yes, in places where more restrictive religious groups control government and education, that work is harder to get done.
Stephen,
Looks like you and I were having the same thoughts. I thought that any man who had sex with other men was in no way of fashion heterosexual. I was well aware of what we might consider ādown lowā men, however, I had never known of a supposedly heterosexual man admitting to sleeping with other men yet still considering themselves heterosexual. I agree with the fact that homosexuality is over stigmatized. I think this is why the men who sleep with men refuse to consider themselves as homosexual because of the negative connotation associated with the term.
Your insight on the actual term queer was quite interesting as well. I took did a quick google search in order to find out what the actual definition of the term is. Queer is defined as strange or odd, which was my initial thought. After reading your post, it made me realize the power of words. Jagose describes the term with a somewhat positive connation while my term was somewhat adverse.
As far as your question, I think thatās a hard one to answer. In a class last semester, we talked about the ethnic canon and trying to slump all culture into one, assuming that what works for one culture will work for all. Honestly, I think the East would be a lot less open when it comes to sexuality and sexual orientation. Iām almost sure that it is much more confined than it is here. I have friends who are African and they will not even associate themselves with ones who are openly gay. However, what is quite ironic about this is the fact that I truly believe my African friend is homosexual.
Hi Tiffany,
I mentioned that I was surprised to learn of men who have sex with other men but do not consider themselves gay. But since then, I have been recalling instances from movies and books in which this occurs (or in which characters at least claim not to consider themselves gay). One instance that comes to mind is the film “Brokeback Mountain”: Ennis Del Mar (the Heath Ledger character): āYou know I aināt queerā; Jack Twist (the Jake Gyllenhaal character): āMe neitherā. Another is a novel we will be reading later in the course, “Rubyfruit Jungle” by Rita Mae Brown.
You mention Africa. I recently learned of an author who is getting a lot exposure in connection with homosexuality and Africa: Binyavanga Wainaina. For example, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGxbWRtiEQY.
Correction to my initial post: “T-shirts worn LGBT student activists” should read “T-shirts worn by LGBT student activists”. Sorry.
What a great question, Stephen. I never even considered how Western the assumptions and identifications could be. I have known of the “low down,” but I always more thought of that as a byproduct of the prison community, as I believe that is where it originated? So to read that there were men outside of that community participating was fascinating to me as well.
Until this discussion, I was not familiar with the term ādown lowā or the concept it refers to. For anyone else new to the term/concept, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down-low_(sexual_slang). (The usual Wikipedia caveats apply.)
Let me start by saying that after reading these few pages of Jagoseās Queer Theory, I found myself questioning my own sexuality! One thing that I found interesting or I learned from this reading was the fact that the terms āqueerā and āgayā are not synonymous. From no research, just acquired knowledge I assumed that they meant the same thing, a person who has sex with the same sex, rather they are transsexual or homosexual. I slumped them all into the same category. This caused me to read the piece twice in order to read from two different prospective. The first time I read it, I found myself relying solely on common knowledge. Jagose poses the question of, āIs it possible to be homosexual without ever having had or intending to have sex with the same sexā(8)? Before reading, my answer would have strictly been no. Then I began to question myself after Jagoseās examples of married men sleeping with men but not actually identifying as gay and the lesbian women who sleeps with a self-identified gay male. I posed my own question of āWhy not? Consider the inverse. Would you or I be disqualified for heterosexuality just because weāve not yet engaged with or attempted to engage, a member of the opposite sexā? I came up up with my own answer but Iād like to read what everyone else thinks! Iāve concluded, the term āqueerā has less to do with the actual act of sex and more so with sexuality. Itās fluid, like spectrum. If you define a line from 1 to 10, with 1 being absolutely 1000% homosexual and 10 being absolutely 1000% heterosexual, Iām convinced that most people will fall somewhere between 2 and 9. As Jagose points out, societal stigmas are powerful inhibitors that result in… Read more »
Tiffany,
Insightful thoughts presented here – thank you for bringing to light these paradigms explored throughout Jagose’s work! Essentially, I approached the topic of Queer Theory from the perspective that sexual identity lies directly and solely in the realm of sex – that men who had sex with men must identify as gay (even if they are married with children). Similarly, I feel that those who desire the “attention”, if you will, with the same sex – even if they have not engaged in sexual activity with the same sex – must fall on the homosexual end of the spectrum. The introduction to Jagose’s work somewhat disassembled my thoughts surrounding the topic of homosexuality, or sexual identity as a whole. However, as you suggest through your posed question, I personally never questioned my heterosexual identity before I engaged in sexual activity with someone of the opposite sex. I suppose it all comes down to desire, and born from desire is our sexual identity, yes? Even if someone finds themselves at a “5” on the spectrum (as you have outlined in your response post here) – then I suppose that they would consider themselves bisexual in terms of sexual identity. So here is a question…do these men that Jagose interviews for her research (7-10) consider themselves heterosexual in nature but with homosexual activity scarcely scattered in their weekly routine, or do they consider themselves bisexual because their sexual activity fluctuates to both ends of the spectrum?
Tiffany,
I think these men that she interviews who has sex with men weekly, still consider themselves heterosexual. These men seem to have lessened the important of the actual act of sex and have relied solely on their emotions. They state that they are in love with their wives but enjoy having sex with men. They somewhat compare the act of sex with men to some kind of sport or hobby. Also, like Iāve stated in other response post, the term homosexual carries a negative connotation. Them identifying with homosexual would link them to the word āqueerā that is the sole purpose of Jagoseās piece. The word queer means different and they donāt consider themselves different. They have convinced themselves that there is nothing different about sleeping with men for leisure, they compare it to an afternoon of golfing.
I like your question about whether you’d be “disqualified” or not if you hadn’t engaged in sex yet (or don’t plan to). Sex is such a public part of our lives now in ways that it never would have been 50 – 100 years ago, or even longer ago than that. Foucault and Halperin argue that sex becomes an identity, but some lesbian historians and researchers, as Jagose points out, suggest that sex may not be most important defining part of our emotional identities. I remember being in graduate school and one of my very best female friends was over for our weekly watching of *Queer As Folk*. My partner was far away back in Georgia and I hadn’t seen him in person in a couple of months, and said to her, “You know, I really miss being hugged.” She took offense: “But I hug you all the time! I just cuddled with you on the couch!” And before I realized it, my response was, “Yeah, but you’re a girl. Girl hugs don’t count.” Which led to a long conversation about the emotional/affective components of our lives. Yes, technically, this female friend hugged me all the time, but it wasn’t at all the same thing as when a man/my partner hugged me. I’m not sure I’d call those hugs “sexual,” but they certainly FELT different. That experience has always had me thinking that the sex act itself might not be the obvious way of knowing I’m gay.
Tiffany-
Great thoughts and questions! I do think it is possible to be homosexual without having had (or even intending to have) sex with someone of the same sex–in the same way that I also believe it’s possible to have had same sex sexual experiences and not be gay. For the latter, I think about my own experience of knowing my identity–knowing I was gay–10 years before I ever had a sexual experience with a woman. At that young age, I didn’t even think in terms of sex per se, as much as I did thinking about the fact that my emotions were drawn in bigger ways to girls–and in similar ways I observed some of my friends who were girls being drawn to boys.
I also think it is possible for people to have either isolated or numerous sexual experiences of people of the same sex without identifying as a homosexual. In many ways, sex is an act–not an identity in and of itself.
Hello everyone! So nice to meet you all!
The first bit that interested me in Jagose was when she spoke of the āinvention of homosexualityā and how it stemmed from a male-centered thought. While the text goes on a bit to explain why this thought is male-centric, I found it interesting, because I feel that often times homosexuality and lesbianism can get put together in description and thought. To the outsider, not much emphasis is put on the individual triumphs and trials that differ between the homosexual male and female communities.
I have been reading some of Roxane Gayās work lately and I have been thinking about feminism from the point-of-view of someone who is bisexual or lesbian. Jagoseās chapter five on Lesbian Feminism was very relevant to Roxane Gayās work. i was really struck by the very first sentence of the chapter about the lesbian community being āmarginalizedā in the gay community as well as in the female community. Itās a thought that hadnāt really occurred to me, but one that sadly is true. There has not always been a strong place in the gay or female community (and there is still work to be done towards that!).
One thing that brought up questions to me was the discussion of liberation in various cultures. Did this liberation across cultures have a similar effect to the liberation of males versus females?
Cool observations, Emily. So glad to hear you’re reading Roxanne Gay! Her work is very important, IMHO, and she’s doing a lot to break up the sort of queer-theory-as-male-centered (and often over-written) discourse out there. But yes, Gay brings up not only being lesbian or bi, but also being a person of color, and the impact that race and sexuality have as they overlap. I hope you’ll find a way to bring more of Gay into the course as we read!
Hi Emily! Great post here, I too found the connection between lesbianism and feminism to be intriguing. I had never really taken the time to connect lines and draw conclusions surrounding the oppression that females have faced while living in the shadow of men (in many regards), and Jagose’s work here has certainly provided new insights. What I found most interesting about the subject of lesbianism as it pertains to feminism and is juxtaposed against gay men is that, contrary to my preconceived notions, these two identities do not fit under the same umbrella. As Jagose writes, “Gay men and lesbians have their homosexuality – that is, their same-sex object choice – in common. But the gendering of the sexuality has produced substantial cultural differences between them” (44). Initially, I would have thought that these two people groups would identify with each other because of the same-sex attraction – it was certainly interesting to learn of their dichotomized intents, perceptions, and resolves!
I found the beginning of Jagoseās Queer Theory interesting, particularly Chapter 5 on Lesbian Feminism. Like most historical causes championing womenās rights and equality, I was fascinated by the lesbian struggle. This marginalized group was largely ignored by the gay liberation movement, and was shunned by feminists. The tension is a disservice to all, and it potentially slowed progress in all movements. This tension also made me think of recent political rifts and infighting within the major political parties. More are harmed when unity cannot be achieved.
I also found the argument of evaluating sexuality in the context of gender roles to be an interesting debate, as well. The idea of gender and gender roles remains a highly relevant topic, especially in light of equal rights for gay and lesbian couples, and also in the public discussion about transgendered individuals. The construct of gender is cultural; therefore the argument that sexual preference is another gender constructāthat no one is heterosexual or homosexual, but that we are all within the same plane regarding our sexualityāmakes sense regarding this construct, even if it is debatable.
One question I have: Have the tensions between the gay liberation, feminism, and lesbian feminism movements been healed? Is there more unity and, therefore, a more cohesive fight for equality?
Good question, Victoria. I’m not sure I can speak broadly on that question, but my sense is that the answer would be no, not really. I mean, gay men and lesbian work together (coalition building) all the time in really effective ways, but my experience has been pretty much that this is “project oriented”: so we’ll all show up for the gay marriage debates and lobby in support of it, but then we go back to our own corners and communities when it’s over. Perhaps the real tension now is between assimilationist gay and lesbian politics and radical progressive queer politics. The former camp gets together to advocate for same sex marriage, while the latter thinks same sex marriage is a sell-out position, one that shows gay and lesbians trying to be “straight” and embracing heteronormative institutions rather than disrupting the values and assumptions of those institutions that work to oppress everyone equally. Certainly, white middle-class gay and lesbians get along more than that group does with working class and queers of color as the politics of the latter group often conflict with the assimilationist politics of the former.
(Iām going to break the 200-word word limit. Fair warning. Also, I apologize for typos or any inarticulateness. I am quite ill today.) The first quote or idea that caught my attention was a block quote in chapter 1. Instead of including it directly, and far overshooting my word limit, Iāll summarize. It was the quote comparing Greek pederasts, the native American berdache, and the New Guinea warrior with modern western homosexuals. It asked if they can all really be considered to have the same sexuality, just because they engage in homosexual acts, even though the contexts are wildly different. I loved this quote for two reasons. First, I have no anthropological background and had never heard of the New Guinea example (I wonāt be as graphic here as the book was), and it was a surprising and unexpected glimpse into a culture I know nothing about. Secondly, I felt it was a fantastic question, illustrating how irrelevant the sex act itself is, in comparison to the cultural and historical context of the act. Next, I just generally enjoy the entire topic of the second chapter. I attended an undergraduate class years ago that covered the debate: was homosexuality invented, or has it always existed? At the time, this was a bewildering argument. There was a quote mentioned in that class, from ancient Greece or Rome, that made reference to those people who preferred the same sex. So clearly, homosexuals had always existed, right? I donāt know whether I understand the argument better now because Iām older, or because this book frames it better than it had been framed for me then, but I believe my opinion has changed. Yes, homosexual sex existed long ago, and with it existed those people who preferred it over heterosexual sex. But it was… Read more »
Jayde, I went a bit above the word count too! I think we will be okay.
I think you bring up a fascinating point about the statement made by President Ahmadinejad. I would never have thought of it that way. I am not sure enough about politics or the religious and social norms of Iran to know if he was claiming that the act itself didn’t exist there (like you said, this would seem completely ludicrous and as if he is in an extreme state of denial), or if he perhaps did really mean that the identity doesn’t exist there.
I’m sure many non-western cultures have their own queer identities and non-heteronormative sexualities and sexual behavior, like the two-spirit (non-binary) people of some Native American cultures and the hijra (transgender women) in India. Their definitions and cultural constructions of those identities are not exactly the same as our western NB and transgender identities, but they are similar, so I don’t know if two-spirit people or hijra people would ever identify as non-binary or trans because their identities are unique to their culture and have a value beyond the comparable western gender identities. So maybe their leaders would also say something like “transgender people don’t exist in our culture”, maybe not because they think those people are a perversion who don’t exist outside of the west (which is the first impression I get from President Ahmadinejad’s statement), but maybe because they just don’t want to associate with those terms and the western baggage that comes with.
Oh, I’m certain he meant it in the vilest way possible. He meant it in a “we are not infected with your western perversions!” sort of way. But regardless of his intentions, I’m just wondering if he may have been right.
The man is a talking sack of hammers, so I’m sure he couldn’t articulate it worth a damn. He wouldn’t speak of identity and the difference in cultures like we are. But I’m just thinking, maybe the difference in culture really hasn’t created homosexuality as an identity there, which is why he has the luxury of viewing the issue as he does.
Wow, Jayde, yea, this is one of the moments when the academic and the activist, when in the same body, finds him/her/themself in conflict. Yes, technically, Ahmadinejad was right on several levels: I’d be more tempted to change what he said slightly to be “In Iran we don’t have gay people like your country” and that is quite true, where “gay people” is a culture and history; and I’m even tempted to agree and say, “You’re right: homosexuality probably does not manifest itself in the same way in Iran, at the moment, as elsewhere.” But the activist in me says resist this because he’s just being, as Kelsey says, “vile” rather than etymologically and culturally sophisticated in his rhetorical choices. š It’s like when queer activists argue against gay marriage — they do it for very different reasons and as part of a much more progressive politics than those on the alt-right. When you’re dealing with people who are black-and-white thinkers, though, some of those complexities disappear in our public rhetoric because we don’t want to be aligned with people whose politics we abhor. What we need much more of, of course, are studies and writings that show us what it IS like to be same-sex oriented in Iran … Recent pieces like Habib’s *Female Homosexuality in the Middle East* (2007) and El-Rouayheb’s *Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World* (2005) offer some useful analyses, including a more typically Foucauldian one in the latter book/dissertation.
Hi everyone! Much of Jagoseās introduction was not new to me, as we discussed a great deal about the idea of homosexuality as a socially and culturally constructed term (and the baggage it carries) in the Community and Cultural Rhetorics course last fall; however, it is interesting to note that modern notions of what means to ābeā homosexual as an identity are somewhat new, and cannot be applied (in the same way/sense) to examine behaviors/acts that occurred in very different historical moments. In other words, as Jagose puts it, homosexuality (and queerness, in general) resists definition, and has done so differently over the past 100 years or so. What resonates with me the most, though, is how homosexuality, as an identity, becomes less queer as it takes on the trappings of a heterosexual identity. Does that make sense? If homosexuality is appropriated in such a way to co-exist with (or closely resemble) heterosexuality ā getting married and settling down with a mortgage and 2.5 kids, for example ā then does it cease to be a queer identity? Thatās something I wrestling to understand. I was brought up in a very conservative, religious household that made me believe that ābeingā this way was inherently wrong; the bible says so and all that. But with that comes a particular idea of what having a morally good/normal life looks like ā at least with regard to straight couples building a life together ā and I find myself struggling to make that idea fit together with being a gay man and figuring out queer life, I suppose. All that to say that even as a gay man, queerness is something I am still trying to define for myself, as well as in what ways that term defines me, which brings me to this question:… Read more »
Well, there are many who would say that a gay/homosexual identity and queerness cannot cohabitate (as it were). Some argue that *queer* can’t be an identity because identities involve sedimenting values, experiences, concepts, and a host of objects that represent cultural understandings of identity — in short, to identify is to take on those ‘trappings’ that culture can then recognize. To be queer, some argue, would be far too much shifting and change to ever be fully *recognizable* by others. I’m not sure anyone gets to make the judgement on these things, but I tend to think of my identity as “gay” but my politics as “queer” — to me, *queer* is a rhetorical project, a set of arguments, values, logics, and languages that one uses at particular moments and in particular ways in order to unsettle or destabilize the normative. Being gay, on the other hand, is about living in a world with others and being seen as a certain person, being recognizable; even when it does relationships differently, I see it as still having a relationship with another than people outside the two of you can recognize. It certainly gets complicated. But for me, I just hold on to queer as a politics, a rhetoric, and a theoretical lens for engaging the world, while gay is more an identity that connects me to other men and women …
I havenāt done much research about how the lesbian feminist movement differed from the gay liberation movement, and some of the theories Jagose presented were quite interestingāsome even shocking. In some ways it makes sense, but I didnāt realize the depth of discord that existed between the movements. I guess I always thought gay liberation was one common movement, and while Iām not naĆÆve enough to think that it wasnāt largely controlled by men, I never realized how separate the struggles really became. And while the inherent power gay men had (and have) compared to lesbians canāt be argued, some of the theorists seem to pit the two groups against each other in surprising ways. For example, Fryeās conclusion that gay men do not want to have sex with women because they have learned to hate women seems ridiculous (Jagose, 53). It also seems odd that Jeffreys would claim that lesbians and heterosexual men had more common interests than lesbians and gay men simply because they love women (Jagose, 51). This was all surprising, in part, because of my own experience as a gay woman. I have many gay male friends who I feel more at ease with and identify more with than I do the numerous amount of heterosexual female friends I have. I guess thatās my question for the week: do you all think the divide between gay men and women is still present to the same degree today as is described in chapter 5 of Jagose? If so, how? If not, why do you think it changed? It was also nice to be reminded of the progression of the homosexual identity. Jagose seems to present this progression as 1) no true homosexual identity, only homosexual acts, 2) the homosexual defined by societyās views (largely informed by religious… Read more »
I think that four-part progression, Jen, seems about “right” in as much as that is how we’ve come to think of it — obviously those ideas overlap in history and aren’t completely discreet, but yes, seems right. As for the idea of gay men and lesbians in conflict politically … I’m reminded here that we tend to think of all large-scale civil rights movements as unified — that’s part of the way Civil Rights rhetorics work — but that hides the discord that’s really always there. I mean, we tend to think of African American Civil Rights as unified, but then we remember that there was a more peaceful argument (MLK) and a more militant argument (Malcolm X/Black Panthers), and those two groups didn’t always agree at all on how to proceed. Similarly, as Barbara Christian, Audre Lorde, and Angela Davis have all pointed out, they were constantly asking when black women’s needs would be raised, and the early Civil Rights leaders, MLK in particular, were all “Let’s handle the race issue and then we’ll deal with the gender issue” and they got back-burnered. Second wave feminists did the same thing: “Let’s deal with the woman issue and then we’ll deal with the race issue” — and here we are, in 2017, and we still talk about how “women” make .70 cents on the dollar compared to men, but that’s WHITE women! Black women make closer to .60 cents on the dollar and Latinx women closer to .50 cents on the dollar. So why do we always talk about what “women” make by referencing only what WHITE WOMEN make? These same things show up in gay and lesbian politics and lives: white, middle-class gay men and lesbian might be most worried about getting married, but that might not be the… Read more »
I found the majority of the reading this week leaving me with questions, and completely fascinating. I think I will be referring back to this reading as we continue, and will need to revisit it from time to time to see what else I get from it. Something I have been thinking of since beginning the reading for the course a while back, is why there is such a need for identification in the LGBTQ+ community. The short answer that I have come up with and wish to investigate further (perhaps even with next week’s novel), is that the years and years of forced repression has prompted the need to identify. In the beginning o Queer Theory, we read about defining even the term queer, and how that word has changed to be an ” umbrella term for a coalition of culturally marginal sexual self identifications” (1). I find the “self identification” part here important, because I think that part is important. For years there was little to no recognition, and when there was recognition, it certainly was not self induced in a manner that one would want to bring upon themselves. The identification would be to separate, to humiliate, to differentiate to the point of exclusion. The “self” identification is the need that I see stemming from the forced identification, which would lead to repression, from the past. A second thought that stood out to me was in regard to those who engage in homosexual acts and do not accept the label homosexual. The quotes and examples used in the book come from the AIDS research, and I wonder if this has changed some as stigma with homosexuality is lessened. I, personally, know gay men who were (or are) married. Obviously, those who were married and are no longer… Read more »
Ok, late to the party, but here none the less. A bit of irony caught my eye early on in the reading when the definition of the word queer is brought into question on page 3. In one way, “queer focuses on mismatches between sex, gender, and desire” (Jagose 3). But in another, queer is a word that defines that which falls within the outer limits of the norm, or more than two standard deviations from the median (that Statistics class finally pays off). How could these two definitions be applied to the same subject? As we are all a combination of male and female, how can a mismatch within ourselves be queer; queer from to societal norms yes, but how can we be deviant of ourselves? But I digress. Additionally, I was stopped in my tracks on page 13 by the assertion that only when individuals were able to make a living outside the home and move away from the interdependent family unit was there a possibility for the homosexual identity to be formed. I am still turning that one over in my mind arguing that the identity already existed just not in a public way. My question is based in the reading from the lesbian relationship standpoint and the fact that those relationships, conjugal or otherwise, have been largely ignored or never recognized. Could it be that sexual intimacy, is just seen differently from the biologically male and female perspective? In a strictly biological sense, regardless of sexual preference, do males and females seek out sexual pleasure from a different perspective? I base that on the fact that I have worked in the federal prison system for over 15 years and I have seen what those relationships are boiled down to. In prison, there is a sort of… Read more »
Wow, Stephanie! What great connections — and your experiences working in the prison system really add a lot. I think you’re right: on some level, I’d say that men and women have been conditioned to approach sex in very different ways, and you can see that when you work in special populations, like prisons, where the full range of freedoms are removed. In those spaces, a more condensed and intense version of the ‘norm’ still seems to happen. The distinction you make — between male sexuality as about dominance and control and female sexuality being more about comfort and security — I certainly see a lot of that outside of prisons. But there are also many lesbian relationships that are dysfunctional, where one partner attempts to dominate or control the other — and there are gay male relationships that slip into Platonic friendships after a while, being more about comfort and security than erotic passion. It seems to me that gay and lesbian relationships tend to run the full gamut of emotional and physical experiences, just as their straight counterparts, but I wonder if we look at that behavior differently since we see fewer examples / day than we see of heteronormative relationships? Or I wonder if, since gender roles continue, if gay and lesbian relationships often suffer from the same heteronormative gender values that straight culture does — I’m not sure being gay or lesbian frees us from those gender values, which then get carried into our relationships. Really thoughtful post … RE the Marxist reading of sexuality, that post-industrial capitalism gives rise to queer lives … I tend to make that argument when I talk to classes in part because I want them to see that, as Jagose notes, while sexual behavior may be the same or similar… Read more »
Hi Tiffany!
Great paper! I thoroughly enjoyed reading your research surrounding class and societal norms when it comes to homosexuality in Forster’s writing! Below is a link to my feedback (which can be opened through dropbox). If you can’t open the word doc, let me know and I will email it to you!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oyja5bjsuvq7thk/Price%20Review%20of%20Tiffany%20Graham.docx?dl=0