On Thu, 9 May 1996, Gregory A. Coolidge wrote:
> >
> > Oh the conceptual gymnastics people will put themselves through in order
> > to install heterosexuality as the "natural". And all to avoid the issue
> > of doing nasty things with their bums.
> >
> > "Compulsory heterosexuality," anyone?
> >
> >
> Bravo, this is exactly the point that Butler and Foucualt are trying to
> make with thier theories of "sex as social construction". They want
> us to quit imagining heterosexuality as "normal", as opposed to
> homosexuality as "abnormal", and to start viewing each as two forms
> of sexuality that simply are. To view them as things which simply are,
> without value judgement, thay ask us to imagine sex in purely social
> constructivist terms, to suspend our disbelief, in order to think
> of sexuality in a different light. Don't take them so damned literally, and
> start thinking of thier efforts as political, rather than as an attempt
> to expalin sex as a matter of scientific fact. I do acknowledge that if
> one finds thier physical explanation of sex totally unbeleivable, then
> thier political projects appear to exist without an adequate foundation in
> reality. Such is the realm of politics.
>
Again, one need not completley subjugate arguments about
biological influences on sex in order to assert homosexuality,
heterosexuality (and let's not forget bisexuality) as forms of sex which
"simply are." Only an igorant biologist today would assert that
homosexuality is "abnormal." By attempting to marginalize discourses other
than that of social theory, you're begging a response from those who might
take your argument literally. And I'm not sure that Foucault or Butler
would appreciate the classification of their extremely sophisticated
projects as falling comletely within the realm of politics.
> >
> > Oh the conceptual gymnastics people will put themselves through in order
> > to install heterosexuality as the "natural". And all to avoid the issue
> > of doing nasty things with their bums.
> >
> > "Compulsory heterosexuality," anyone?
> >
> >
> Bravo, this is exactly the point that Butler and Foucualt are trying to
> make with thier theories of "sex as social construction". They want
> us to quit imagining heterosexuality as "normal", as opposed to
> homosexuality as "abnormal", and to start viewing each as two forms
> of sexuality that simply are. To view them as things which simply are,
> without value judgement, thay ask us to imagine sex in purely social
> constructivist terms, to suspend our disbelief, in order to think
> of sexuality in a different light. Don't take them so damned literally, and
> start thinking of thier efforts as political, rather than as an attempt
> to expalin sex as a matter of scientific fact. I do acknowledge that if
> one finds thier physical explanation of sex totally unbeleivable, then
> thier political projects appear to exist without an adequate foundation in
> reality. Such is the realm of politics.
>
Again, one need not completley subjugate arguments about
biological influences on sex in order to assert homosexuality,
heterosexuality (and let's not forget bisexuality) as forms of sex which
"simply are." Only an igorant biologist today would assert that
homosexuality is "abnormal." By attempting to marginalize discourses other
than that of social theory, you're begging a response from those who might
take your argument literally. And I'm not sure that Foucault or Butler
would appreciate the classification of their extremely sophisticated
projects as falling comletely within the realm of politics.