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
See you on Wednesday, we look forward to reading your responses!
Brittany and Hayley
My first impression of this book is that it is very one sided, not saying I don’t agree with his side, but that there is not a lot of information about the other side. I did not expect to be reading about such an odd topic that I have never really heard about.
ReplyDeleteNext, when Warner talks about the Hierarchies of sex, I was able to understand what he was talking about more clearly. For me, I did not know that it was illegal in some states for different sexual acts and toys. In this quote, he says that this hierarchy of sex produces victimless crimes; I understood this as, because of the shaming we have on sex, these laws produce a larger shame that can be considered illegal and within our society today, things that are illegal are threats to us. In a quote on page 25, Rubin says, “The criminalization of innocuous behaviors such as homosexuality, prostitution, obscenity, or recreational drug use is rationalized by portraying them as menaces to health and safety, women and children, national security, the family, or civilization itself”. I both agree and disagree with this quote because of the things they listed as innocuous behaviors. I agree that homosexuality and obscenity are very innocent things that according to people’s constitutional rights should not be taken away. However, I am still iffy about recreational drug use and prostitution being innocent; this is not because I am against people who do these things, but because these things can lead to very violent crimes. Although not all drugs or all prostitutes can cause these crimes, a lot of crimes revolve around these two things and that’s why I cannot fully agree with that statement and that everything should be legalized.
Next to touch on “good sex” and “bad sex”, I believe that people can do whatever they want as long as it is mutual. These hierarchies have produced stereotypes for people’s sex lives. If you are into “bad sex” then you are considered, queer and if you are into “good sex” then you are considered in the norm. These stereotypes, I feel, have been decreasing because of the sexualization of society by the media. Since sex is a very known and watched thing in our society today, I don’t think that a lot of what this book is saying is as relevant as it was when it was written; however, I could be very wrong and just live in a very liberal society that hides these things from me.
In all honesty, just reading the back of the book I thought I was totally going to totally disagree with what the author had to say. Warner actually brings some agreeable points throughout the beginning portions of this chapter, but later towards the end was where I tended to disagree with him.
ReplyDeleteLet's start with the agreeable points. The issue of sexuality is without a doubt political. For example, it is stated "Almost all children grow up in families that think of themselves and all their members as heterosexual, and for some children this produces a profound and nameless estrangement, a sense of inner secrets and hidden shame" (Warner, 8). To me, I find this agreeable because there is always some sort of stereotype for an ideal society. In terms of sexuality, this means a sexual relation can only be between opposite sexes. From a peace and justice perspective, this makes me question the values of freedom given to people. This country is supposed to be tolerant of all people's beliefs, but what is point where structure is too much? For sexuality, I believe the author is trying to argue that it should be a private matter and not a public one. It seems that the various sexual acts are judged and given value, which can put others to shame.
Now, I completely disagree with the author's claim about gay and lesbian movements. He states "The lesbian and gay movement at its best has always been rooted in a queer ethic of dignity in shame" (Warner, 37). I will agree that structural power whether personal or political does cause people with certain sexual identities to feel isolated. The movements however, are on a basis of pride. Queer justice is going against normal norms in the hope for equality. Gay and lesbian movements regardless of the fact that some were not successful, consisted of members who would embrace the idea of being gay or lesbian, and tried to fight for equality. Members within the community would most certainly feel different from society, but it does not mean that they feel that their identity can be significant. This is what the movements are about. It points out injustices in traditional beliefs and tries to progress to a point where an identity can be more widely accepted and embraced.
As always though, I could be wrong and am open to discussion.
So far, I feel kind of uncomfortable with a lot of Michael Warner's ideas. While I do agree with the damaging results of sexual shame in regards to queer forms of sexual expression, I'm don't think I agree with his views on gay marriage, monogamy, pornography, and prostitution. While I acknowledge that a hierarchy of sexual practices and what is accepted by society exists, I still have my reservations on what the implications of normalizing some on the "bad" things on the list would mean for our society. For example, I don't think I could get on board with normalizing or fully legalizing sex in public places or inter-generational sex (as it might pertain to minors). This book is really challenging for me, but that's not a bad thing because we all need to be challenged.
ReplyDeleteAfter Geoffrey prefaced this book on Monday, saying we might disagree with a lot of what Michael Warner was saying, I was really nervous to actually pick up and start reading. That is why, once I did open the book, I was so, so, SO amazed by how much I was vibrating with what Warner wrote. Everything I read had me saying "yes" and "duh" and "of course" and the chapter was over before I even had a chance to stop and ask myself when the disagreeable stuff would appear. Surely, he would say something dumb, or erasing, or offensive, or invalidating. But nope! I am so on board, at least in terms of having an open mind and receiving his ideas without skepticism. It is with the same universal acceptance in which Warner asks "Is it only genetically determined desire that deserves respect and legal protection?" that I can read and accept as valid ideas of Warners that I had previously never considered. Just because there is a different sort of mode of thinking that I have never entered, that doesn't mean it is wrong or that it is somehow an enemy to me or movements that I place value on.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most important ideas expressed by Warner, I think, is that "sex does not need to be primordial in order to be legitimate" (11). When I talk about my sexuality with my parents, I often use the rhetoric that Warner says is halting real, true, queer progress: it's not a choice, this is who I am, I was born this way. In some ways I feel this is true, but not in the way that it means. I actually think of my sexuality in constructivist terms, but I think there is a level of dignity found in human action and sexuality that is inherent to us and born in us. Embodying my sexuality is a way of exercising this dignity, in some way or form, so while I may not have been born gay exactly, I was still born this way. Does that make sense? Sorry, Lady Gaga.
The one issue I did take with Warner is that his major example of shame is the heterosexual example of Bill Clinton. Like, when are talking predominately about queer issues, I felt like this was a little bit of heterowashing. Sort of like the new Stonewall movie that features white cis men playing fictional characters. Like, quit it and tell the truth! I feel like Warner even senses that he is being a little weird about this, because he writes "it is also true that anyone who is associated with actual sex can be spectacularly demonized. This goes for anyone -- straight, gay, or presidential. But some people are more exposed in their sexuality than others" (23). My major issue with this is that Warner seems to conflate exposure and risk, which are differently experienced by different social groups.
Maybe we can talk more about that in class.
I think some of what Warner has to say is interesting, especially in the ideas of sex shame. When he brings up the Clinton incident, I thought this was a very good example of the morality and politics being unnecessary, there was a lot used to create shame. Many people were either against Clinton, feeling his acts made him immoral for his position, or others felt that as long as he did his job, who cared what is sex life was like. It also showed the discrimination of women since Monica was blamed and name called, yet the same was not true of the treatment of Clinton, in some cases his behavior was dismissed as hetero male norm or he was a victim being seduced by the woman, as Warner says, “…anyone who is associated with actual sex can be spectacularly demonized (23),” which Lewinsky was.
ReplyDeleteAnother statement I thought was interesting was about our culture, “Anglo-American culture has always been more prone to embarrassment about sex than most other cultures. Even to the casual observer, American culture presents a paradox. Of all nations, it is the most obsessed with sex, and of all nations it is the most easily scandalized (21),” for me is a create pint about our culture. Sex is used to sell everything, yet there are pretty rigorous dress codes for girls and women to police their bodies, which some argue also create shame in females about their bodies.
A statement I questioned, is it stereotyping to define queer culture as libertine? (35) Or what is Warner trying to say here? I’m not really sure how I feel about the book so far. It is challenging to think outside the norms as far as desire and shame and how acts or identity relate or do not relate.
When Dr. Bateman prefaced this book and after I had read the back of this book I was unsure of what to think about Warner’s vision of true sexual autonomy. After reading the beginning I am still not exactly sure what to think. I would agree that sexual shame is social and political, however I am not sure how Warner intends to fix it or what exactly his point is that he is trying to make. I am interested and still thinking about the concept “in-group purification”. I had never thought of this particular topic in this way, and I think the rest of Warner’s book will be very interesting, informative and proactive. I think Warner is saying hierarchies of sex have one purpose and that is preventing sexual variance. If I am understanding Warner correctly I would have to agree that society is uncomfortable with sexual variance and the hierarchies of sex came about to not allow sexual variance and because of this sexual shame is a hugely detrimental part of sex in today’s society. Overall I am still learning and attempting to understand Warner’s point of view and I am not completely sure what to make of his first chapter yet. I also thought Warner’s use of the Bill Clinton was very interesting, when I first heard about Bill Clinton’s event in the oval office I didn’t think or care much of it. However now I realize that what happened and how society reacted tells us much about our society today and how we deal with issues surrounding sex.
ReplyDeleteI was very interested in the way that Warner’s book has begun, and I’m greatly disappointed that I had never really been exposed to any of these ideas before. I strongly identified with the American paradox that Warner presented, “Of all nations, it is the most obsessed with sex, and of all nations it is the most easily scandalized” (21). The opening of this book has already begun to give language to many things that have confused me and distressed me about American culture and the normalized gay liberation movement.
ReplyDeleteWarner’s opening argument about the control and shame over our sexuality introducing sexuality as an issue of justice. As Warner points out, sexuality has been largely ignored or even denied in many popular struggles for justice. Ignoring this reality invites other ways for peoples suffering to be made invisible and invalidated. The issue of choice and autonomy over our choices is connected to being a question of justice. Warner presents the reality that for much of the gay liberation movement gays and lesbians have had the burden of proving that their sexual orientation is not a choice, but Warner believes that by taking on this burden the lesbian and gay community is buying into the same oppressive structure that has limited choices in the first place. Ultimately, Warner is queering the way that we see justice and the ways that we have as a society normalized sexual control as a form of maintaining control over different aspects of our lives.
Yikes! Sorry I took so long to reply to this blog post.
ReplyDeleteAs a person who is familiar with sex work, does not identify as straight, and has fluctuated between being sex-repulsed/celibate and being hypersexual (as a method of self harm in an ironic attempt to heal from my past childhood sexual abuse), the assigned reading has boldly precipitated a cacophony of introspection, questioning, suspicion, passion, and anger within. I strongly agree with Warner’s defense of sexual labor (due to personally being vehemently opposed to the stigmatization of sex work/ers), notions of intersectionality when he states that “…some people stand at greater risk than others” in regards to sexual shame (due to being shamed as a “Jezebel” and a “hussy” because I have been socially categorized as a black woman), and his slightly poststructuralist analysis pertaining to how civilization “…makes new kinds of sexualities;” however, I am still rather conflicted over the argument of the “gay gene” mentioned on page 9 and the sexual hierarchy table he unpacks on pages 25 and 26 (VII, 3, 11).
When Warner mentioned that there are gay and lesbian people who claim that their homosexual attractions originated from having a “different” genetic makeup, I grew very uncomfortable. Although I was not uncomfortable with Warner’s acknowledgement of these individuals, I was disturbed by the fact that some gays and lesbians would take such an apologetic, assimilationist stance towards their own identities. Furthermore, I grew even more uneasy upon remembering that I used to protect my identity in the same fashion. When I first came out, I wanted acceptance, recognition, and validation by my straight peers (who were strategically groomed by homophobia to potentially despise me and do anything in their power to assert their heterosexual privileges). After being introduced to poststructuralism and creating my own sexual reality, discourse, and knowledges (e.g., adopting the belief that the construct of gender—more specifically, the contemporary Western gender binary—is not concretely genetic, but is instead a societal fabrication meant to systematize and medicalize individuals who were born with certain genitalia), however, I began to view my sexuality as a political farce. My attractions are a farce considering that gender is a solely manmade (no pun intended) concept, yet my attractions are political as well considering that they deviate from and challenge dominant heteronormative culture. I think I’m rambling now, so I’ll digress to my next point regarding the hierarchy table.
I have gone through periods of being absolutely disgusted by anything of a sexual nature and moments of hypersexuality as a coping mechanism; as a result, my sexuality is painfully discontinuous. Because of this fluid discontinuity, I cannot bring myself to agree with the binarist hierarchy table that Warner has created. When I was highly sexually active, I could easily be categorized under the label of “Bad, Abnormal, Unnatural;” ironically, when I was celibate, I could still be given such a title. In fact, I was given this title not only by the sexualized culture that I live under, but by queer culture as well. Queers often emulate the sexual shame hierarchies that heterosexuals have imposed on them; however, I was judged by how well I could fit into the classification of “Bad, Abnormal, Unnatural.” Although I was praised for being homosexual, unmarried, nonprocreative, and alone (literally), my celibacy barred me from having a public, casual, cross-generational, sadomasochistic, etc. sexuality (Warner 25-6). Thus, the queer gods punished me for my hubris and mocked me.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the late posts!
I think Warner made great arguments throughout his first part of his book, which really made me question things I thought I knew for sure. One of the things I’m not so sure I like about Warner is the fact that his arguments are so very one-sided. Whose voices are really shining through in his arguments? The entire LGBTQ population? Gay white men? Queer people of color? He does make valid points though, and I think his intentions are good, though pessimistic at times. I’m honestly not sure what I agree with and what I don’t agree with, there’s too many variables.
As for the quote on 25, I believe a lot of this has to do with our societies obsession with controlling each other’s sex lives. I think this is something, and Warner may agree, that has been largely ignored in our society. We don’t see protestors out and about about everyone’s sex lives? Maybe sometimes, but it is so systemically ingrained in us that we don’t even notice certain groups are being punished for how they have sex and who they have sex with. Warner’s ideas of ‘victimless crimes’ resonates with this point. This is all concluding that our society doesn't seem to like anything that is queered, especially when it comes to sex. They have to label it, put limitations to it, and make it seem abnormal in order to make their own sex lives seem normal?! In reality, none of us are normal, especially in the bedroom.