Today I was supposed to go and read a draft paper at Murdoch Uni, for the philosophy group that meets down in the cafe. Only a few people showed and they showed late, so I’ve been switched into the official honours / postgrad seminar. Sweet deal, I reckon, since I get a bigger audience that way.
The paper is about how gay people don’t have as many relationship conventions as heterosexual people and how this makes gay relationships more creative and interesting. You know, in a nutshell.
11 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I’m not one for generalising about sexualtiy, except to say homosexuals tend to enjoy sex with the same gender, heterosexuals tends to enjoy sex with the opposite gender, etc. As for notions that homosexuals are more creative and interesting…. well, the person who wrote the paper has obviously not met the poofs I have. Boring, and I guess that’s why I’m single of Valentine’s Day. Just because they’re poofs, it doesn’t mean they’re interesting: that’s my life’s philosophy.
Comment by James — Wednesday February 14 2007 @ 9:48 pm
Creative & interesting are subjective terms, are they not? I do tend to agree that most of gay relationships are less based in your normal sexual conventions, but that is not to say that they don’t share some core relationship ones. For having encountered many such relationships, i find that they are relatively all alike - gay or otherwise.
That’s all for now :)
Comment by V — Thursday February 15 2007 @ 2:11 am
(puts on Prince outfit, does high jumping scissor kick, runs finger up and down a casio with a “Funk” preset)
Controversy.
Comment by Tomás Ford — Friday February 16 2007 @ 12:31 pm
James and V - Thanks for bringing that stuff up, because I know someone else will bring it up later when I don’t have time to sit here and think up the best response. I would say:
a) ‘Creative’ and ‘interesting’ are pretty inexact words. What I mean is that, according to this theory I’m writing about, gay relationships are more open and negotiable than straight ones because there aren’t so many social conventions to live up to. However, the main source for this paper, Michel Foucault, wrote his stuff on gay culture in c. 1975-1980, so maybe there are more gay social conventions now. It may also be the case that he was speaking for a minority of avant garde types even back then.
Still, even if there are plenty of very powerful gay social conventions today, gay culture has at least shown that social conventions are not set in stone. People create them and people are free to change them if they want to. Knowing this, we have more choices about who we want to live our lives with, and on what terms.
b) Some people might argue that even core relationship conventions are socially constructed, but you don’t have to accept that to accept what Foucault says. It’s enough just to believe that some gay people have come up with neato ways of *expressing* those feelings that don’t involve a conventional marriage and 2.4 children.
Comment by Mark — Friday February 16 2007 @ 1:46 pm
my favourite quote said by a friend to another friend:
“just because i don’t stick my daily groceries up my snatch it doesn’t mean i have a boring sex life”
Comment by serrin — Friday February 16 2007 @ 6:55 pm
oops i posted before i meant to
my point - rather brutally constructed - is that “creative and interesting” is not necessarily any more interesting than normal, whatever situation you’re talking about.
as mentioned before, they are entirely subjective terms. breking with tradition doesn’t necessarily mean they are more interesting, though it does perhaps mean they are more creative (through necessity).
however that assumes a “now” focus, these days anything goes.
i think it’s worth exploring how much gay relationships have affected straight ones, like if they open our minds about things like being gay, being unmarried, not having children etc, then how much of our current open minded within straight relationships comes from gay people having already paved the way?
it’s 6pm, that’s badly constructed but i don’t have time to revisit it.
Comment by serrin — Friday February 16 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Serrin - Nah, I think that would be interesting. Somebody has probably already done it too, and if I’m not utterly lazy I might even make a note to look for it later.
Comment by Mark — Saturday February 17 2007 @ 1:58 pm
Man, I tell you, if anything, from watching gays and lesbians (why do the female homosexuals have a spanking separate label while the men only have gay and homo?) they can be and are as loose as the straights.
Creative/interesting, all about how much action you can get and how you flavour the scene. Banana, strawberry, apricot…
I think the homosexuals don’t have as many relationship conventions because any relationship between gays is frowned upon in the eyes of the Government at large. Or at least from my Federal viewpoint of things. What with non-recognition of spousal relationships and all.
Yes, well, I have no idea what I’m writing about any more.
Comment by Switch — Monday February 19 2007 @ 10:44 am
Yeah, that’s kinda the idea. If relationships aren’t recognised institutionally, in a way this contributes to a lack of formalisation on a social level.
Won’t comment on the flavour remark tho… ;)
Comment by Mark — Monday February 19 2007 @ 12:52 pm
I do tend to agree with the general idea that perhaps gay relationships, being non-conventional in terms of political/social representation & acceptance, and thus had to be forged within other terms than marriage and “2.4 children” (really? 2.4? that many? i thought it was barely 2?…ha. Good to know.), may have ‘catalyzed’ certain straight relationships to realise and open up to relational alternatives, simply bc gays’ differences are a bit more ‘obvious’ to observe, so to speak. But i don’t think gay couple especially “came up with” any new ways of being together. Any couple who doesn’t want to or can’t have children, believes in marriage or not, either gay or straight, have been coming up with ‘interesting ways’ to be with eachother, far before gay culture became mainstream in the 80s.
I can’t be arsed to come up with any facts to back it up though. So feel free to tear me down in a glorious blaze :D!
Comment by V — Tuesday February 20 2007 @ 10:14 am
Nah, while I still think Foucault was right about homosexuality as a focal point for social development, I might tone down some of the claims I make. If readers think I’m saying that gay people have a *monopoly* on social experimentation, they won’t pay attention to any of the more theoretical things I say, and that would suck.
Thx for helping :)
Comment by Mark — Wednesday February 21 2007 @ 2:49 pm