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.
>
Nice one. Spot on.
Dave Hugh-Jones
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
'Yes, that's my mother all right, but my mother's the Virgin Mary, you know.'
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
dash2@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> > 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.
>
Nice one. Spot on.
Dave Hugh-Jones
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
'Yes, that's my mother all right, but my mother's the Virgin Mary, you know.'
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
dash2@xxxxxxxxx