Against Heterosexuality

[Brother Adam]

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality

 

Over the course of several centuries, the West had progressively abandoned Christianity’s marital architecture for human sexuality. Then, about one hundred and fifty years ago, it began to replace that longstanding teleological tradition with a brand new creation: the absolutist but absurd taxonomy of sexual orientations. Heterosexuality was made to serve as this fanciful framework’s regulating ideal, preserving the social prohibitions against sodomy and other sexual debaucheries without requiring recourse to the procreative nature of human sexuality.

 

On this novel account, same-sex sex acts were wrong not because they spurn the rational-animal purpose of sex—namely the family—but rather because the desire for these actions allegedly arises from a distasteful psychological disorder. As queer theorist Hanne Blank recounts, “This new concept [of heterosexuality], gussied up in a mangled mix of impressive-sounding dead languages, gave old orthodoxies a new and vibrant lease on life by suggesting, in authoritative tones, that science had effectively pronounced them natural, inevitable, and innate.”

 

...

 

But emphasizing this new standard did succeed in cementing these categories of hetero- and homosexuality in the popular imagination. “Homosexuality appeared as one of the forms of sexuality,” Foucault writes, “when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy onto a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul. The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species.” Sexual orientation, then, is nothing more than a fragile social construct, and one constructed terribly recently.

 

While our popular culture has not caught up— yet—the queer theorists increasingly calling the shots at the elite level already agree with Foucault on this point. Such thinkers echo Gore Vidal’s LGBT-heretical line: “Actually, there is no such thing as a homosexual person, any more than there is such a thing as a heterosexual person.” True, the firm natural division between the two identities has proven useful to the “gay rights” activists on the ground, and not least of all for the civil-rights-era ethos such power dynamics conjure up. But most queer theorists—and, for that matter, most academics throughout the humanities and the social/behavioral disciplines today—will readily concede that such distinctions are fledgling constructs and not much more. Many in this camp aim to expose the counterfeit credentials of sexual orientation and, taking a page from Nietzsche, to genealogically explain it away once and for all.

 

Read the rest there.

 

Thoughts?

[CatherineM]

I guess this makes me counter-culture.

[NotreDame]

The most pernicious aspect of the orientation-identity system is that it tends to exempt heterosexuals from moral evaluation. If homosexuality binds us to sin, heterosexuality blinds us to sin.

 

The proper ordering of sexuality is important regardless of orientation or state in life and I think sometimes we discount how difficult it is.  If someone identifies as a gay catholic, they aren't called to anything differently than I currently am, which is chastity - and I imagine chastity is easier for some than others.  If someone is married, they aren't excepted from certain rules either - look at how pornography is effecting so many marriages - married couples often have to be chaste for periods of time and many saints have pointed out that this is sometimes more difficult.  St Francis de Sales mentions the trials of a widow/widower to be chaste after the death of a spouse, while still with all the memories of marital experience. 

 

Ultimately we are all called to be chaste for various times in our lives.  This is what we should focus on, but there's almost nothing written on the subject - and what little is out there is quite poor.***  I don't know why such an important subject has gotten such a poor treatment, but I suspect if more men in the Church were actually attempting chastity themselves, then we'd have seen better scholarship on it.  I believe our newer priests and religious are doing this and I suspect we'll get more and better literature on this in the future.

 

*** most of what is out there on chastity is Alcoholics Anonymous style 12-step approaches, which fail to address root problems in chastity in the same way AA fails to address root problems in alcoholics.

 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Original post bro.

[4588686]

Tedious and self-indulgent.  

[4588686]

Much like MIKolbe's love life

[4588686]

wacka wacka wacka

[Basilisa Marie]

 

These Christian compatriots of mine are wrong to cling so tightly to sexual orientation, confusing our unprecedented and unsuccessful apologia for chastity with its eternal foundation. We do not need “heteronormativity” to defend against debauchery. On the contrary, it is just getting in our way.

 

So it seems like an analogy could be made between this and biblical literalist creationists trying to use science to defend their beliefs - yes? 

 

When the author says the "binary is being deconstructed" I think he's on to something.  The new popular thing among LGBTQ young people is to push acceptance of people who "identify" outside the norms of hetero-, bi-, and homo- sexual. "Pansexual" refers to people who say that they can be attracted to anyone, regardless of "gender identity." There are "romantics," "asexuals," "demisexuals..." it seems like every wavelength on the spectrum is asking for a name and representation. There's also a push to accept people who identify along the trans* spectrum. People who identify with the "gender binary" (i.e. men and women) are called cisgender, while there's a whole spectrum of people who desire to identify as every possible wavelength of the "spectrum" of gender identity.  So while the binaries of sex and gender are being deconstructed, everyone still wants a name for what they are, some kind of pseudo-Aristotelian "everyone gets a category!" Everyone wants a label. People who don't want labels are weird - I once read a comic that included a "whatever sexual" character who didn't want to be defined by any labels, and the comment section went berzerk with protests from people. They wanted to identify her as a cisgendered female homoromantic heterodemisexual in an open relationship. It's an isolated anecdote, but I think it serves as a good example of what I'm talking about. It's a rabbit hole. 

 

Is the author saying that homosexuality itself - people that are only attracted to members of the same sex - was an invention of the 18th century, or that the category was the invention? Because he never says otherwise (at least, I didn't catch it with my first readthrough). People who are only attracted to members of the same sex and never experience sexual attraction do in fact exist, and have always existed. It may have helped his argument to acknowledge this fact. 

He also seems to think that most people (or everyone) who is a heterosexual is so afraid of being gay that they avoid close friendship with the same sex because they're afraid of "being moved by his or her beauty."  This certainly isn't the case between me and my close female friends. Relationships between women are probably different, but we form deep friendships and admire each other's beauty on a regular basis. I was asked to be a bridesmaid for a close friend of mine, and I can honestly say I have never seen her look more beautiful than on her wedding day. So on this point, I really think the author is assuming his experiences and feelings are the norm. Because they certainly aren't - I don't think I'm abnormal (at least in this capacity heh heh). 

 

He does acknowledge that "straight people still tend to receive more societal advantages from their appellation...dismantling of the orientation schema threatens them far more than it does their gay and lesbian counterparts."  But this paragraph should have been explored a bit further. As it stands, it reads more like a one-off that was suggested by a professor, like the author doesn't really understand the societal advantages given to heterosexuals. If he did, that would have been a great argument against sexuality labels and constructs and whatnot. 

 

As it stands, large parts of the essay were intriguing, but other parts just read as him normalizing his own (limited, individualized) experiences. That is, assuming everyone experiences things the way he does. It's an article about a deeply human topic, and his argument lacks any real humanity. or reference to human experience other than his own. 

 

 

 

[NotreDame]

Is the author saying that homosexuality itself - people that are only attracted to members of the same sex - was an invention of the 18th century, or that the category was the invention?

He also seems to think that most people (or everyone) who is a heterosexual is so afraid of being gay that they avoid close friendship with the same sex because they're afraid of "being moved by his or her beauty." 

Is the author saying that homosexuality itself - people that are only attracted to members of the same sex - was an invention of the 18th century, or that the category was the invention?

 

It seems he's talking about the definition of the category and, by result, making it an identity for the people in the category.

 

He also seems to think that most people (or everyone) who is a heterosexual is so afraid of being gay that they avoid close friendship with the same sex because they're afraid of "being moved by his or her beauty."

 

I read it more as afraid of being mistaken for gay, or for not doing things because the seem gay, rather than actually afraid of being gay, but yeah, he could have left out that paragraph - it wasn't very persuasive.

[Didacus]

It is self-evident that homosexuality is immoral.  I don't even bother discussing it anymore.  It just silly and absurd.

[Selah]

Much like MIKolbe's love life

 

Did you just

[4588686]

It is self-evident that homosexuality is immoral.  I don't even bother discussing it anymore.  It just silly and absurd.

 

 

 

I agree.  It is also self-evident that you are a closeted homosexual.  You dirty, dirty boy.  

[franciscanheart]

It is self-evident that homosexuality is immoral. I don't even bother discussing it anymore. It just silly and absurd.

Homosexual ACTIONS. [facepalm]

[Didacus]

Homosexual ACTIONS. [facepalm]

 

Thank you for the correction.

Face palm noted and deserved.  My apologies.

[Basilisa Marie]

Is the author saying that homosexuality itself - people that are only attracted to members of the same sex - was an invention of the 18th century, or that the category was the invention?

 

It seems he's talking about the definition of the category and, by result, making it an identity for the people in the category.

 

He also seems to think that most people (or everyone) who is a heterosexual is so afraid of being gay that they avoid close friendship with the same sex because they're afraid of "being moved by his or her beauty."

 

I read it more as afraid of being mistaken for gay, or for not doing things because the seem gay, rather than actually afraid of being gay, but yeah, he could have left out that paragraph - it wasn't very persuasive.

 

1. But there's still a distinction between identifying with the label (category) and actually being that way. His argument seems to ignore the fact that these people actually exist. At least, he doesn't address this fact at all. This leads me to think that he believes the world would be so much better if we didn't use labels for people's sexuality...not because it would be beneficial for everyone (again, he has the opportunity to go into why straight people are privileged in society and why that's bad, but he chooses not to go into that). Then for what reason? I'm left to infer that it means he wouldn't have to deal with acknowledging the existence of people who aren't solely sexually attracted to the opposite sex. It effectively results in erasing the existence of people who are different again.  The second piece of evidence for this lies in how he exhibits the fear of...

 

2. being mistaken for being gay.  That's really what I meant in the first place. He's clearly exhibiting some kind of homophobic tendencies. His argument is only based around himself and his own experiences and the consequences of the argument for him. He tries to argue that throwing out all categories would help everyone, but the ways he outlines are only ones in which he can participate. He doesn't give us any real evidence of empathy for anyone who isn't a straight male. 

 

I don't think this means his argument or the ideas he brings up are worthless. I agree that there's a lot to be gained by throwing out the labels, by not playing by non-Catholic rules. It's like creationists trying to back up their beliefs with modern scientific methods, when those beliefs were never meant to be examined under that kind of methodology in the first place.  So similarly, I think trying to place people in labeled categories ultimately serves to divide us up, encouraging division, when we should be striving to see each other as brothers and sisters in Christ with human dignity. People don't fit in boxes.