"Sexual preference depends not on whom we loved in our Oedipal drama, but on whom we identified with, which may mean that there can be a homosexual or a heterosexual consequence of both the 'normal positive' and the 'inverted negative' complexes," says Leo Bersani. So, whom we are attracted to depends not so much on emotion and sexual propensity but on identification. Reconsidering this, I wonder why such an emphasis is placed on the concept of identification, on the level of determining 1) who the person identifies with and 2) if he or she is homosexual or heterosexual. It is interesting to analyze sexual orientation based on a grouping or a label, which in this case is "masculine" or "feminine", instead of examining one's attraction to a particular gender. The evaluation itself of what is masculine and feminine distorts the distinction between the two choices, male and female, that one belongs to. Heterosexuality is based upon which gender one leans toward, since, according to the essay, people are inherently bisexual, but when the lines are not clear cut, the categories lose their boundaries.
The basis of this essay lies in the idea that monogamy "is cognitively inconceivable and morally indefensible." Sexual freedom is frowned upon and libidinous nature is not tolerated. However, although this may be the chosen standard, events in today's news contradict the said notion. Extramarital affairs have become much more prevalent, much credit going to prompt media coverage and sensationalism, but nevertheless have been more exposed than in the past. Perhaps because of this publicity, or because of changing attitudes, people are more accepting, not to mention more engaged with, sexual desire and acts. The lack of strict punishment encourages action, a possible intimation at the changing values of what is deemed acceptable.
No comments:
Post a Comment