Sufficient Champagne

Ask me. • E-mail me. Find me. • Hire Me.

swamibooba: That sounds like a highly subjective question, but I say we do need one another. Being gay is a privelige few get to experience and with it comes common ground that goes beyond mere sex and relationships. Sure, the gay subculture came into being partly as a survival mechanism against overall cultural oppression. I say partly, because gay culture existed long before the concept of pure homosexuality and heterosexuality was accepted. The queens gathered to bitch and camp and make fun of everyone else long before we were severely oppressed. I’m just gonna say it: we had a subculture partly because we are better than everyone else, apart from that whole business of reproduction. So my take is at this particular point in history we don’t necessarily need each other as a group, but we will eventually. And anyway, we still find each other for friendship. Take you and I - we may share interests in, say, Judy Garland, Babs and Walter Benjamin - but that we both know what it’s like to be a gay man only enriches our discourse. I don’t want to live in a world where it’s hard to find friends with informed opinions on gay porn and can make a joke about felching that references Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. Ah, yes; and yet, but. I should say, before I make myself totally insufferable, that I push on this question because it is a serious question, not because I think that you ought to be made to contradict yourself. I me thinks you’re intuitively onto something quite correct. But I did happen to sign me up for a course called “Homosexuality and Psychology” and I me see no reason why I I should be the only one made to suffer for my mine shitty choices, yes? So once more into the—giggles!—breach. —————————— There are easily eight different ways to come at this. An identity built on sex is a contradiction in terms, because identity is etymologically about same-being and sex presumes and requires different-being. It actually depends on the monadic subject. So we fuck lonely, needing more the space between one and another than one another ourselves. Claiming the same-being of any sexual practice is ridiculous; why is my attraction to cocks any more unifying than my attraction to blondes? Indeed, the relationship between practice and identity ———————————— Gallic shrug, I made myself tired and stopped caring. It’s all very desiccated and somehow misses the point. Maybe that’s the more pertinent question: what is the point? What is at stake in identifying, in talking about reciprocal supra-personal needs? I think the stakes are written in part in gay blood—in lonely, angry suicides and in self-abnegating practices of unsafe sex and in stunted and frustrated flows of desire. (This is all very unrefined, but deal.) But so then if we’re bleeding all over these real and valuable cuts between one thing and another, what about those of us who don’t seem to notice?—we’re thrown back on the stupid gay people. For whom perhaps a better word is “ignorant.” They’ve been granted—they’ve inherited—the freedom to ignore. Which is a freedom, not a liberation. But what, still, are they missing—what, still, are the stakes?

swamibooba:

That sounds like a highly subjective question, but I say we do need one another. Being gay is a privelige few get to experience and with it comes common ground that goes beyond mere sex and relationships.

Sure, the gay subculture came into being partly as a survival mechanism against overall cultural oppression. I say partly, because gay culture existed long before the concept of pure homosexuality and heterosexuality was accepted. The queens gathered to bitch and camp and make fun of everyone else long before we were severely oppressed. I’m just gonna say it: we had a subculture partly because we are better than everyone else, apart from that whole business of reproduction.

So my take is at this particular point in history we don’t necessarily need each other as a group, but we will eventually. And anyway, we still find each other for friendship. Take you and I - we may share interests in, say, Judy Garland, Babs and Walter Benjamin - but that we both know what it’s like to be a gay man only enriches our discourse.

I don’t want to live in a world where it’s hard to find friends with informed opinions on gay porn and can make a joke about felching that references Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?.

Ah, yes; and yet, but.

I should say, before I make myself totally insufferable, that I push on this question because it is a serious question, not because I think that you ought to be made to contradict yourself. I me thinks you’re intuitively onto something quite correct. But I did happen to sign me up for a course called “Homosexuality and Psychology” and I me see no reason why I I should be the only one made to suffer for my mine shitty choices, yes? So once more into the—giggles!—breach.

——————————

There are easily eight different ways to come at this.

An identity built on sex is a contradiction in terms, because identity is etymologically about same-being and sex presumes and requires different-being. It actually depends on the monadic subject. So we fuck lonely, needing more the space between one and another than one another ourselves.

Claiming the same-being of any sexual practice is ridiculous; why is my attraction to cocks any more unifying than my attraction to blondes?

Indeed, the relationship between practice and identity

————————————

Gallic shrug, I made myself tired and stopped caring. It’s all very desiccated and somehow misses the point. Maybe that’s the more pertinent question: what is the point? What is at stake in identifying, in talking about reciprocal supra-personal needs?

I think the stakes are written in part in gay blood—in lonely, angry suicides and in self-abnegating practices of unsafe sex and in stunted and frustrated flows of desire.

(This is all very unrefined, but deal.)

But so then if we’re bleeding all over these real and valuable cuts between one thing and another, what about those of us who don’t seem to notice?—we’re thrown back on the stupid gay people. For whom perhaps a better word is “ignorant.” They’ve been granted—they’ve inherited—the freedom to ignore.

Which is a freedom, not a liberation.

But what, still, are they missing—what, still, are the stakes?

3 months ago

  1. phyllis-stein reblogged this from swamibooba and added:
    Ah, yes; and yet, but....should say, before I make myself totally insufferable, that I...
  2. swamibooba posted this

1 ⁄ 1

- Inkhorn theme by PT Campbell -