What is Sexuality?

Honestly in my opinion, I do not think there is a way to define sexuality in a universal way. I do agree with a lot of Warner's points. The biggest one was the societal structure. Growing up, I am familiar with hearing what is the ideal sexual relationship. Sex is a unification act only for straight married couples or same sex relationships violated religious principles. Porn or media representations and masturbation was something I ought to be ashamed if I was interested in it. Contrary to these beliefs though, I found out that I was interested in sex although because of my upbringing I kept a lot of my interests to myself. I truly believe now that sex is a universal desire. Warner states "The problem is not that people have the opportunity for unsafe sex, but they have the desire and the secret will for it" (Warner, 210). In other words, shaming people for their sexuality does not eliminate their desires. Even if people were secretive or trying to eliminate this desire, it is not something that can be disregarded easily. It is a consistent thought that affects everyone at some point. Additionally, Warner mentions towards the end of his book "The only way to solve the bathhouse problem, since it is also a bedroom problem, is to confront the desire and secret will for unsafe sex" (Warner, 211). Even with this book being published fifteen years ago, what I find relevant is the fact that Warner is trying to say that sex although a private act needs to publicized to a certain point. Lack of access to sex education or abstinence only education has been an issue related to the conflict of sexually transmitted diseases. Arguably, part of the reason why the issue is so large scale is because some people might not have the knowledge about how to use their bodies correctly. Knowing what sex is about beyond what we commonly perceive it as should be part of the solution. People should know about their bodies and that way they could still have sexual relationships without the risk of transmitting disease.

However, as agreeable as some of Warner's points may have been, there were also some that were disagreeable. When he mentions marriage, he quotes "It is a basic human right, even though the details of marriage law may be socially constructed" (Warner, 127). Marriage basically is like a written commitment. It can state all these regulations and rules to have a healthy relationship, but it does not necessarily mean that one will follow them. This statement is agreeable. A person still has the potential to have another relationship even a sexual one, even if with a commitment to their spouse. Regardless of whether cheating is right wrong, the main point is that human relationships have tremendous potential. Marriage is not necessarily a true commitment if one chooses. Where I disagree with Warner is when he describes "that gay marriage is not likely to alter it fundamentally, and any changes that it does bring may well be regressive" (Warner, 129). It is agreeable that marriage is not an absolute commitment, but then again it is about a healthy partnership. If that means relationships that include the same sex, then there should be no problem granting marriage to same sex couples. What really has held back progress has been societal structure. For this case, only opposite sex couples were granted the ability of marriage. It has promoted communities like LGBTQ to protest for the same right. The consistency of the problem is an obvious indicator that something had to change. Not granting same sex couples marriage throughout an extended period of time, is the regressive factor. Part of queer justice is progressing and preventing progress because of a long term belief is an injustice that needs to be addressed.

All in all, I do agree with Warner when it comes to details regarding what marriage truly is or how societal structure shames people unnecessarily. These points I find relevant. I disagree with him when he states gay marriage should not be established. It is a fundamental right given to straight couples and the issue has been a long term one. Not granting the same right for everyone is what I believe queer justice wants to point out. Especially with gay marriage being legalized, Warner's perspective does not seem relevant. Ideally, in a just society people should be able to explore their sexuality freely because how people identify is not always what is expected. 

The Consequences of Normal

What is normal? In America, holds an archaic and sacred meaning; "...normal means healthy, proper, right," (57), or, whatever the majority of the population is doing, so look to your left, and then to your right; these are the currently acceptable trends, beliefs, and behaviors. However, there are people who stray from the social norms, and these ‘deviants’ are stigmatized. “...people who belong to the majority feel superior to those who do not,” (54). What is the reason for an entire culture to strive to fit into a ‘normal’ range of statistics and look down upon anyone who doesn’t feel the same need to conform? Everything comes with its own set of politics; and with all politics comes a manipulative and influential force; in sexuality, it is shame. It is because our social structures are kept in tact via politics, the media, and the manipulation of their own sexual shame.
Diogenes, an Athenian philosopher, “…thought that the sense of shame was hypocrisy, a denial of our appetitive nature.” Since we are currently—still—living in a society where sex is shameful and a taboo subject, most can’t bring themselves to talk about it. Sex, an act so perverse, so animalistic and dirty, it causes a discomfort so overbearing, humans do something they’ve always done: pin it on someone else. Sexual shame is a force that sways the nation; even the white male is a possible victim of his own stigmatization.
Shame reinforces the norms that it stems from, and it proves to be a useful and profitable factor for institutions (namely big businesses, religions, governments) who use this emotion to keep people from straying too far from whatever they’re trying to mainstream.
The idea of anything being 'normal' based on numbers is already strange to me, but the effect that the norms of society have on humans is even more unearthly. Norms are constraining in the way that people are unable to behave in true autonomy. Many people don’t know that they like something until they’ve tried it, so many people will never know their true desires or real selves (7). Norms are expectant and set standards for children that don’t know anything else, and here, norms can go from being descriptive of our behavior, to prescriptive in our future generation's. Norms rob people of their status, their self-worth, and their individuality.
Going back to the idea of normal meaning things like proper or healthy, I’d like to consider some of the normal social structures in America: the patriarchy, the sexualization of young women, the oppression and de-validation of certain classes and religions, low self-esteem or self-deprecation. Norms create the possibility of very harmful social stigma and self-perceptions being projected not only onto our youth but our entire population.
By adhering to this strange set of otherwise useless set of standards, we’re allowing ourselves to be manipulated into projecting our own shame onto other humans, putting others down to climb to the top. By stigmatizing, and humiliating others, we are comforted in our own shame. Stigma will not disappear with acceptance. It is often handed off to another as society grows to be more acceptant of the possible differences; but the existence of norms still holds the stigmas in place, and anytime someone becomes angry they'll be quick to throw your sexual differences in your face to be cruel and instill you with a handful of old-fashioned, sexual shame (I like to imagine Dale with his pocket sand).
To live in America is to live in a hypersexualized world; we oversexualize our women and young girls, use sex to sell everything under the sun, and then we are shocked and generally become defensive if the subject is brought up. It’s the norm to ignore the elephants fucking in the room. This is why (partially) I believe many heterosexual people who are aroused by same-sex porn. In the heterosexual culture, there is a silence around sex. In homosexual culture, sexuality is a normal and popular topic, due to the liberative nature of expressing identity. In a world where you’re shamed for asking questions (even informational ones) about sex is responded to with wide eyes and harsh tones as a child, there is something attractive about a culture that is open and sexual and unashamed. So when people find themselves enjoying same sex porn (even if they do not identify as homosexual), they’re not only aroused by the videos themselves, but the liberation from sexual constraints that they are experiencing.
In gay culture, it is acceptable to discuss, to explore, learn about yourself, and be yourself. "The world was homophobic before they were any homosexuals for it to be phobic about," (6) because homosexuality opens all of the doors that we’ve been trying so hard to keep closed. Humans aren't aren't stagnant. We change, and eventually, we will surpass the pressure to fall in line with norms and change them. “The point of a movement is to bring about a time when the loathing for queer sex, or gender variance, will no longer distort people’s lives,” (39). After seeing what striving to be normal can do to a person, it is more evident how striving to have homosexuality become a ‘norm,’ and why gay marriage isn’t the best focus; the end goal has always been to liberate sexuality (see my rant about it here in another post!) and to deconstruct the oppressive norms backed by sexual shaming. People kill themselves for enough reasons, being a ‘deviant’ by standards of social constructs shouldn’t be another one of them—Leelah Alcorn is a victim of the dangers of sexual shame, read her story here. By "...wishing that their peers would be a little less queer, a little more decent," (50) is a notion that many homosexual people carry of their peers. However, removing the diversity and queerness of queer supports the same stigma and marginalization that surround norms.

Sexual Shame in a Sexual Nation?

I live in a generation obsessed with shaming all forms of sex. Over the last six years since losing my virginity, I have had to overcome the several obstacles of living up to certain expectations due to my gender and sexuality. Because I have broken away and lingered from these strict expectations, I have been a victim of sexual shame, mostly of the name calling category. These include, but are not limited to, being called “slut”, “whore”, “freak”, and my personal favorite, “thot”. The worst aspect of this is I had never even slept around, the only thing was that, unfortunately for me, I was born into a gender not allowed to be promiscuous. I was told that I was supposed to conform to the “right” and “wrong” forms of sexual behavior, or lack thereof. Living through this was hard enough, especially since I viewed myself as a strong woman in charge of her sex life, in other words I don’t believe casual sex, or any other illicit encounters, makes anyone a “whore”. Just do you, boo boo. Living through this was enough, I could not imagine having to live up to the expectations of sex if I identified as queer. 

To be anything out of the ordinary in this society makes you prone to harassment and hate, which unfortunately includes even your sex life and sexuality. Michael Warner opens his book, The Trouble with Normal, with a chapter on the ethics of sexual shame, so that shows just how important the topic is to him. Warner would conclude in this chapter that as long as human beings are having sex, it is inevitable that the sex they are having will be controlled by someone else. He writes, “so the question is not how do we get rid of sexual shame..but what we will do with our shame”. 

In a New York Times article titled “When Your Sex Life Doesn’t Follow The Script”, author Rachel Hills explains why her sex life was something she never felt like she could discuss due to society. Hills writes, “shame about one’s sex life is an experience as old as Western civilization. Whether it has been gays forced to bury their sexual desires for fear of being shunned or killed, or pregnant teenagers sent off to “maternity homes” to have their babies away from prying neighbors, sex has long been treated as a measure of our propriety, carefully monitored for even the slightest hint of nonconformity”. Isn’t this a sad truth in our society, that sex is something not to be discussed and when it is we are judged for it? If sex is something we all do, how can we respond to a society that shames us? 

I think instead of ‘responding’ our society needs to work on being proactive in teaching our next generation to not be so ashamed of sex. Yes, I had ‘sex’ class in third grade. The discussions mostly just revolved around knowing our own bodies. We learned about periods and erections. Thats it. I also remember watching a live birth video. Looking back now, how the hell  can anyone tell me that a live birth is less weird for a third grader to watch than a sex scene? We need to start teaching all aspects of sex in school, in hopes that the next generations to come will be more accepting because they finally understand. We won’t shame things that we know...hopefully. 

America, according to Warner, presents this ‘paradox’ that “of all nations, it is the most obsessed with sex...it is the land of sexual shame”. The issue here, as I stated above, is that sex is EVERYWHERE in our culture, but we have never fully learned how to live with that. How can we be so exceedingly repressed as children and then be expected to be used to all the sex being forced on us later in life? Of course we respond with shame, it’s a natural human reaction, as messed up as it is. 

Sexual shame should not exist, and although it is more prevalent in some aspects of life, I wish it could cease to exist completely. Why do we feel the need to control other peoples lives and what they do? You can’t commit your own kinky acts and then turn around and judge others for it. Walk the walk if you talk the talk. 

Of all the sexual aberrations, chastity is the strangest -Anatole France

As everyone knows, I come from a very privileged area when it comes to everyone’s sexuality; sexual shame has never been a thing in my life or the lives of my friends back home because having weird sex and the person who you have this weird sex with is normal to me.  Warner wrote, “power lies almost exclusively on the normal side” (44), the normal side, to me, is being yourself and doing what makes you happy.  The first time I experienced sexual shame was when I moved out to Colorado and my peers got quiet when I would talk about sex.  I realized that the majority of the country is not like where I am from and people are more insecure when it comes to talking about sex.  My sophomore year roommate even told me that she had grown up not discussing sex because it was a private matter.  I was shocked that people were programed to shame something that is all over our society today especially in the media.  Although my friends here are still shy about discussing sex, I have gotten the majority of them to talk to me about it because of how confident and how pushy I was for them to open up. 

Where I am from, there is no sexual shame from the community because we are so accepting of everyone and we want to make sure that everyone is educated.  I believe that if the rest of the world were to put an emphasis on sexual education, not only abstinence and false information, the sexual shame will start to disappear.  For me, I was taught about sex every year since 5^th grade to senior year in high school; it started with more biological aspects of sex and when I got into high school it became the fun aspect.  We would play with sex toys, different types of contraception, write on the board all of the weird sex things that we would look up on urban dictionary with our teacher.  The best part was, my teachers for these sex classes were very religious women; one is even married to a deacon.  In a quote by Elizabeth Taylor who was an American actress, she said, “It is bad enough that people are dying of AIDS, but no one should die of ignorance”.  I agree that everyone should be educated equally on their bodies so they don’t make mistakes that they did not even know could happen.  Since my high school taught us about sex, my classmates and I were able to explore our sexuality freely and didn’t feel like it was something to be ashamed of compared to schools that teach only abstinence and that sex is bad.  I think that was the best part of the curriculum at my high school, learning about all sides of sex: abstinence is the only 100% way to prevent pregnancy and STDS, how our bodies work, how to use conception and what type works best for each body, what makes sex enjoyable, etc.

I also think that sexual shame comes from people who haven’t had sex and experienced it; they go off of what they learned in school and if they learned that sex is bad, they will shame whoever talks about it.  When I came to Colorado, I was faced with individuals who were shy about their sexuality because they had not explored it; not saying that its bad to be a virgin, but its bad to be a closed minded virgin.  Once these girls experienced a sexual relationship their sexual shaming went out the window.  This also can connect to the fact that these girls did not have an educational sex Ed class and they only know that sex is shameful until they experience it.

I found a quote that I struggle with.  It is by Indira Gandhi who was the prime minister of India, she said, “The greatest of all contraceptives is affluence”.  This is because every school around me, rich or poor, was able to have a sex ed class that I believe is one of the best forms of birth control.  If having a real sexual education was required for schools by the law, I believe that: the teen pregnancy rate would drop significantly, people would not be shamed for their sexuality, and that people would learn to be more accepting. 

When it comes to being more accepting your sexuality and the sexuality of others, I again think it can be solved with education and not education that is taught with a religious emphasis.  Although I went to a catholic school, my school was very liberal and knew that the girls would not stand to be taught abstinence and they knew that it was unsafe to not teach young girls about what could happen if they were unsafe with their choices.  This made it easy for us to know that there is no normal way to have sex since we learned about so many different ways (25-26). 

Overall, I believe that sexual shaming has been disappearing since our generation is more accepting and in tune about this issue.  However, without proper education and knowing that it is a very normal thing for every individual, I don’t think that this will ever go away. As Deborah Meier, who is an American educational innovator, said, “Good schools, like good societies and good families, celebrate and cherish diversity”.  If you are not educated in: people, sex, locations, culture, etc., that are different than yourself, how can you come to accept the differences that everyone has. 

Post for Wednesday October 21

After reading chapter four “Zoning out Sex” please first reflect on your initial thoughts, disagree? agree?  What do you think the main point of the chapter is? Then reflect on how it made you feel, and if you have any questions.

            Next we would like to focus on a passage within the chapter to further reflect and hopefully discuss in class. On page 180 Warner is talking about why there is no opposition to the new zoning laws and says, “ This is why we don’t hear more opposition to the bill, even though the extraordinary economic success of the industry shows that the porn trade has a broad popular base. Queers will be especially apt to understand this phenomenon, since it is so closely related to the effect that is called the closet. Common mythology understands the closet as an individual’s lie about him- or her-self. Yet queers understand, at some level, that the closet was built around them, willy-nilly, by dominant assumptions about what goes without saying, what can be said without a breach of decorum, who shares the onus of disclosure, and who will bear the consequences of speech and silence- by all of what Erving Goffman, in Stigma, calls “the careful work of disattention.” Speech is everywhere regulated unequally. This is experienced by lesbians and gay men as a private, individual problem of shame and closeting. But it is produced by the assumptions of everyday talk.” Reflect on what you think Warner is trying to say and in general what you think about it?

Koe and Mait

Pre-class post: October 7th

I love the way this book started, because I feel that I instantly connected with Warner’s idea that sex is something that can build someone up, full of pride and whatever other positive feelings, but it can also be something we feel ashamed of ourselves for participating in, and not everyone enjoys it.

The idea of having good kinds of sex and bad kinds of sex is a result of creating a “normal” idea of sexuality or intercourse, when in reality, there’s no right way to do each other. By normalizing any kind of sexual behavior to push all of the negative feelings about sex (more so those who don’t enjoy it than those who do) especially our shameful ones, humans find solace in the idea that their “sex” is less shameful and more socially acceptable in most situations. I think that Warner is trying to say that in our process of normalization, society has pinned homosexuals, polygamists, and promiscuous beings as those who should be shamed in order to comfort themselves, and there’s no need for any of this social stigma, but it was created nonetheless. I think Warner means to say it serves no purpose but to be judgmental.

Religion and HIV/AIDS

Angels in America by Tony Kushner shows the complexities of religion and being gay. Most of the characters that are gay and have a faith tradition that would make them stay in the closet. In the case of Louis he is Jewish and while around his family he acts straight but when not around his family he is openly gay. But then we look at Joe who was raised Mormon and has always been taught to shove down your feelings when it comes to gay feelings and thoughts.

No one likes Joe but I find his story to be most compelling. Joe was raised in a very Mormon family, his father was military and was not very kind. Joe always wanted acceptance and love from his father but as his mother tells him, he never loved Joe. In trying to get this acceptance he marries a woman that seems just like him, an outcast. He moves with his wife, Harper, to New York. Roy takes him under his wing; Roy is Jewish, a very successful lawyer, very conservative, and nasty man who is attracted to men. He teaches and coaches Joe to be like him but before he can truly become like Roy, Roy becomes ill and eventually dies from HIV/AIDS.  Roy treats Joe as his son always trying to advance his career.

Joe is finally getting that father figure who could love him and accept him. But Joe is struggling in his own way because ever since he knew about sexual feelings he knew that he was gay but in the Mormon way he buried those feelings and desires, turning them off as if they do not exist.  He shoved them down so far that he married the only other outcast, Harper, who is mentally ill and Mormon. So these characters have these deeply seeded beliefs that being gay is wrong yet some of them are able to over come these beliefs and be gay, while in Joe’s case it takes him a while and even then it finds it hard. He is gay yet a conservative Mormon that is writing decision that oppresses queer people. He finally leaves his wife and ends up with Louis. When he tells Roy of his living with a man Roy yells at him telling him to go back to his wife. He loses the respect and acceptance of the one father figure he had. This father figure makes it so he loses Louis because of his political standing.

When Joe is deeply rooted into his Mormon beliefs he can be independence, stoic, but the moment he lets him self be vulnerable, be true to whom he is, he loses his independence.  This happens because Religion was key in his life it was his guiding ship. He knew what to do because that is what his religion told him to do. His religion told him to turn off his feelings and desires to men and he did. The moment he broke free from those guidelines he lost his way because he didn’t know how to be gay, he only knew how to be a conservative Mormon.  In Louis’ case he already broke from his religion and accepted his gayness. He was living with Prior and even if he wasn’t openly gay around his family he had the support of a community, Prior and Belize. Joe had no one to help. When he needed it most. Louis leaves him and he is alone with desires that have been oppressed his whole life by his family and religion until he suppresses it him self.

Religion when it comes to being gay is one of the most oppressive forces. I know this. When I wanted to be with a girl I was told that it was a sin and that it was wrong. The only right relationship is between a man and woman. Tony Kushner drives this idea in his play very strongly especially with Joe but he also shows how accepting it can be when Hannah, Joe’s mother, helps Prior with his visions of an Angels. Even though she is strongly Mormon she is able to accept Prior and love him even though his gayness is against her beliefs. Religion is what we make it and I think that is part of Tony’s message. Religion can be oppressive or inclusive depending on the person. We are all searching and desiring from something bigger than ourselves.

Post for Wednesday October 7th

After reading the first part of Michael Warner’s The Trouble with Normal, please first reflect on your initial thoughts. How do you feel about it? Is there anything that is causing you push-back? Is there anything that strikes you as important or brings up passionate feelings? This can be both positive and negative. Please explain your feelings a little bit in the beginning of your post so we can get a feel for how the class sits with it.

Then, Warner discusses a lot about shame and how it relates to human beings in their everyday lives. We would love to focus on a specific passage dealing with Warner’s idea of shame specifically in context of sex and sexuality. On page 25, Warner discusses hierarchies of sex related shame and makes the argument that, “Sex has a politics of its own. Hierarchies of sex sometimes serve no real purpose except to prevent sexual variance. They create victimless crimes, imaginary threats, and moralities of cruelty” What do you think Warner means by this? Feel free to discuss the hierarchies and how they relate to “good sex” and “bad sex” (26). Ultimately, what is this saying about justice, or injustice for that matter, in our society when it comes to queered practices of sexuality?

See you on Wednesday, we look forward to reading your responses!

Brittany and Hayley

Queering American Exceptionalism and Exposing Truth

Growing up with the right-wing conservative father that I had I soon was taught, good-heartedly but misguidedly, that America was the best country on earth and the only one to apparently have freedom. Many different writers and political scholars argue for American exceptionalism even though it is also one of our greatest downfalls. Positive views on the necessity of American exceptionalism can be seen in many facets of cultures and identities, such as in Herman Cain, columnist, republican, and radio host and his article In Defense of American Exceptionalism. This article commentates and exemplifies the mindset of a large group of the American populous that argues why exceptionalism is necessary to our life and identity. However, this notion has received push-back from many different personas voicing against the American group-think that has been ingrained in the minds of many citizens since birth. 

The idea of exceptionalism is well known by all citizens and is even widely accepted in the United States but that does not mean that commentary against these ideals have not been put forth in popular culture. Through art and pop-culture there is an opportunity for truths about society to be revealed through experience and story-telling. One specific example that I would like to focus on comes from the play, Angels in America. In this piece of artistic work playwright Tony Kushner provides commentary on American perceptions of exceptionalism and society ultimately arguing its dangers and its perpetuation of victims. 

Through Kushner’s characters he is able to symbolize and criticize the widely spread and accepted vision of the U.S. nation state providing his own personal truth revolving around the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. Through his talent of portrayal he is able to seamlessly prove to audiences the reality of American society that too often is shrouded in the facade of perfection. In this manner, Kushner is able to essentially queer America more than just through focusing on homosexuality, but through his actual depiction of relationships and human beings. 

In Kushner’s play there are two characters in particular that demonstrate his ability to paint Americanism with something other than the colors red, white, and blue. These characters are none other than Roy Cohn and Belize. Both of these men are queer in the way that their sexual preferences are not heteronormative but they serve a wider purpose in adding to the conversation aside from their sexualities serving as Kushner’s image of truth through the scenes of the play.

Roy Cohn is a deeply closeted homosexual who promotes homosexual hatred through his legal profession; he is also dying of AIDS. Known as a right-wing conservative, Cohn is a ruthless lawyer who is openly discriminatory about others. This is true both in the play serving as the antagonist but also as a real-life historical figure who soon became known as a hated man in society for his cruel and fierce litigation during the Red Scare. In the play however, he is increasingly connected to the character of Belize who is an ex-drag queen, black, homosexual, male nurse. Although the characters are complete opposites they are bound together through AIDS and Roy’s illness taking over his body. Their combination is essential in understanding what Kushner’s queering of America truly is.

One vital scene that I would like to point to occurs in Act 4 Scene 5 in which Belize is speaking to another homosexual character Louis. Although Roy is not in the scene directly he is called upon as a symbol of America. Here Belize, an extremely queer character that is different in his own citizenship and identity, explains his hatred for America. He explains how the whole idea of freedom and prosperity is just a facade that leads others to turmoil and tragedy. He finally represents his final perhaps most strong point on this hatred. He tells Louis, “You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I’ll show you America. Terminal, crazy, and mean.” Here, a dying closeted Roy Cohn full of hatred and illness is the symbolic image of America that Kushner chooses to demonstrate. By drawing upon this image Kushner is able to make the argument of just how harmful American society and exceptionalism can be in terms of the AIDS epidemic and the incredible loss of life. He shows that through the facade of power harmful destruction can be abused to diminish human dignity in many facets.

Not only is Kushner able to provide a new spin on Roy Cohn but he equally depicts him as both villain and victim. Belize is able to pull out this tension and demonstrate to Louis that this is the reality that Roy is facing. During the time where the historical Roy Cohn was deeply closeted, he was facing an America that despised queerness and homosexuality. CBS news published in 1967 a documentary titled “The Homosexuals” which talked about increasing visibility of queer ideals and actions and that Americans considered gay people as disgusting, harmful, and deserved to be punished for homosexual acts. This caused non-heteronormative people to literally retreat and closet themselves deeply. Kushner draws on this and shows through Cohn’s character and the commentary of Belize the costs that came from his sexual shame and death grip on American power and exceptionalism. No matter what, Cohn suffers and dies a horrible death calling on sympathy and forgiveness for his character.

Ultimately, by marginalizing and oppressing so many individuals American exceptionalism destroys what it is meant to do in perpetuating freedom. Tony Kushner proves this through the death of Roy Cohn and many others like him during the AIDS epidemic who because they were queer, were not valued by society. By living in a country that criminalizes and hates queer sexualities America essentially exacerbated the AIDS crisis and caused people to be imprisoned by their own bodies and sexual attractions. Kushner’s truth is revealed through his commentary that American justice perceptions are unjust in all aspects, dehumanizes and damaging all individuals, not just homosexuals.

Challenging Ideas about Sexuality

Something I found to be compelling about Angels in America was that, although much of its content revolves around sexuality and sexual identity, it challenges its audience to think differently about human sexuality. I think it does that by presenting five different characters whose sexuality could all be classified as gay by society (not necessarily their own identification), but all five of these characters are drastically different. Their differences aren’t limited to their personality either. They range in race, religion, levels of privilege, and their own personal problems with and in the world.

Angels in America points out the reality that two men who are both gay can be worlds apart, especially when we consider the differences Belize and Roy Cohn, and Luis and Joe. It seems like Tony Kushner uses all the stark contrasts between these characters to challenge his audience’s preconceived notions about what it means to be gay in America.

Let’s start by looking at the most obviously different characters: Belize and Roy Cohn. It doesn't take long to realize that these characters have little to nothing in common besides the gender of the people that they sleep with. In fact, one of the first annotations I wrote in a scene between the two of them was “polar opposites.”

The first words exchanged between the two men in part two act one scene six are pretty telling of how race, class, power, and privilege separate the two. Belize enters the hospital room and straight away Roy tries to establish dominance over him, “Get outta here your, I got nothing to say to you…I want a white nurse. My constitutional right.” Belize, because he doesn’t take anyone’s crap especially not Roy’s, responds with, “You’re in a hospital, you don't have any constitutional rights.” At this point in the scene, the wheels should start churning in the audience’s brains. Belize is an African American working class male nurse, while Roy Cohn is a white, wealthy lawyer, who has the power to pull strings even on the level of the white house. What do Belize and Roy have in common? They both sleep with men. What do they not have in common? Literally everything else. Belize even goes as far to call Roy his “vanquished foe” in part two act five scene three.

The relationship between Belize and Roy is far closer to one of oppressor and oppressed than two gay men in solidarity with one another because of their shared sexuality. I think all of this goes to say that while sexuality can be an important factor in shaping an individual’s personal identity, sexuality, in and of itself, tells us very little about a human being.

And then we have the contradictory and complicated love-hate relationship between Luis and Joe. For these two men, it is their politics and religions, which drastically clash. In the beginning of their romantic relationship, in act three scene seven, they find solace in each other because both feel as if they “don’t deserve being loved.” Joe is a closeted, politically conservative, Mormon, who has lobbied for very homophobic court rulings. Luis is a liberal and “deeply secular Jew” who thinks that right-wing conservatives are basically the downfall of America. Their relationship was doomed from the get-go and ends dramatically in a fits fight.

In part two act four scene ten, Luis has found and read over court decisions Joe had helped rule in. When Luis finds out that one of the rulings Joe wrote, “Homosexuals are not entitled to equal protection under the law,” Luis calls Joe a “stupid closeted bigot.” The two then have an all out brawl that ends with Luis lying on the floor and bleeding followed by my favorite Luis line, “I just want to lie here and bleed for a while.” We find no reconciliation or closure between these ex-lovers, only bad blood (literally).

What does this failed relationships tell us about sexuality? Well, in one sense it tells us that sometimes politics can be more divisive than sexuality is connective. In the end, being sexually attracted to one another was not a deep enough bond, a deep enough similarity, to merit these two men to stay in a relationship (or even friendship for that matter) with one another. I think this is especially relevant it today’s political climate where bipartisan politics runs just as deep –if not deeper than it did in the 1980s. If I was to assess who I have more in common with, a person with my shared political views versus my same sexuality, I would definitely go with hanging out with a liberal lesbian than a super-conservative male. I have friends in both groups, but you get the idea.

By more closely examining the relationships between all the gay characters in Angels in America we find disconnect, not homogony. This lack of any kind of homogony challenges the notion that people who share the same sexuality can be grouped into one uniform identity. They can’t. In a day and age where people are still very divided because of their sexual orientations, it is important to remember that connectedness based on shared sexuality alone can only take you so far.