Perversion Revisited: Because There’s Nothing More Oedipal Than Having The Kind Of Sex That Would Most Horrify Your Parents
The Logic of Sense and the Locus of Affect
Or, as Deleuze might ask: with which pure event is the becoming-tragic of the narrative consistent?
Obviously, I don’t mean to minimize the awfulness of an 18-year-old feeling so miserable that he had to take his own life. But a few questions are in order:
- is it tragic that a gay 18-year-old killed himself, or that an 18-year-old killed himself?
- is the “LGBT community” (a term that makes me throw up in my mouth a little) following an ethical imperative to work against bullying, or against bullying of homosexuals?
- is the gay element to this story inherent or incidental? And even if it is inherent, is the gay factor really more shocking than the fact that the rampant spread of information technology is proceeding with such a thin ethical substratum that a college freshman thinks it’s acceptable to broadcast his roommates’ sexual adventures, whether said roommate is fucking a man, a woman, or a pint of ice cream?
To mourn this boy as a “gay teen” is, ironically, to pathologize the specificity of the suffering which drove him to suicide as “gay shame.” A kid killed himself because his roommate publicly shamed him. In my opinion, that sentence contains every irreducible element of the narrative. Does the specificity of the shame’s origin matter, or does it simply mark our prurient interest in the details of the case?
Perhaps the greatest irony of the traditional marriage argument is that it seeks to preserve a singular tradition that has, in fact, never existed at any point in history.
Because, honestly, which traditional definition of marriage do we want our Constitution to protect?
…The one from Book of Genesis when family values meant multiple wives and concubines?
…Or the marriages of the Middle Ages when women were traded like cattle and weddings were too bawdy for church?
…Since this is America, should we preserve marriage as it existed in 1776 when arranged marriages were still commonplace?
…Or the traditions of 1850 when California became a state and marriage was customarily between one man and one woman-or-girl of age 11 and up?
…Or are we really seeking to protect a more modern vision of traditional marriage, say from the 1950s when it was illegal for whites to wed blacks or Hispanics?
…Or the traditional marriage of the late 1960s when couples were routinely excommunicated for marrying outside their faith?
No, the truth of the matter is, that we’re trying to preserve traditional marriage the way it “was and always has been” during a very narrow period in the late 70s / early 80s - just before most of us found out that gays even existed: Between one man and one woman of legal age and willing consent. Regardless of race or religion (within reason). Plus the chicken dance and the birdseed. Those are okay.
But there’s something profoundly disturbing about amending the Constitution to define anything about the 1970s as “the way God intended it.”
This is perhaps the best defense of the recent overturning of Prop 8 I’ve ever read. Based on real research of the history of what marriage really meant, too!
Oh BNP. So articulate logical and well reasoned.
I FUCKING HATE NAZIS
I remember when this happened. I had to go overtime on feminist raging.
What the fuck??? But, wait…look at this guy… UGH
Britain’s very own Tea Party. Thankfully, our loonies aren’t nearly as influential or numerous as America’s loonies.
The NeverEnding Story.
each and every one. (this is a nice try, though)