Originally Posted by rach2jlc
Exactly. You can, nevertheless, interrogate how that discourse works and how it forms itself or exercises power. it may or may not make any difference in the long run, but it can help you to be more aware of yourself, your relationship, and your surroundings. You can also, I think, begin to see the extent to which you want to take part in or be a part of certain discourses based on your choices/actions/attitudes. The point isn't to get OUT of discourse (which is impossible), but instead to see how it might function and what sort of wiggle-room you might within it. Overall, I was only trying to say that the idea of categories or of "patterns" isn't a simple or a direct one, as you rightly point out.
Absolutely, and I think deconstruction has now become so ingrained in the academic psyche that it's almost become second-nature. We can all spot the categories and see how they generate behaviour when we sit down and think about them. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to separate discourse-based attitudes from phenomenological responses in real life, especially in matters of attraction. I can easily agree that identities are gendered and that markers of attraction are in large part culturally determined (one needs only to glance over history for this), but it's less clear to me that other aspects of sexuality and attraction don't precede social categories, especially if one agrees that homo/heterosexual inclinations (as opposed to activities) are not a choice. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I don't see what kind of wiggle room you're looking for, because I don't understand how the physical
fact of male/male relationships should (logically) make them different culturally
from male/female ones, particularly since I don't believe in a template for the latter in any case. Perhaps I'm not expressing myself clearly, but this sort of conversation hardly lends itself to lucidity.
N.B. I hate to be so blunt, but I wish the DT frat pack would just, you know, fuck off for a while. The thread was plenty interesting before you injected it with homoerotic come-ons and tired one-liners.