Is the Rectum a Grave?

Some Task Avoidance

Tonight I have an assignment due for my Queer Theory class, yet here I am choosing to write a blog entry. Something that is completely irrelevant and really just a way for me to procrastinate doing my write up about Leo Bersani’s essay “Is the Rectum a Grave?” Sure, it was kind of amusing to read, especially with the title being such. But, as I really got into it, I realized that I have very little idea what he’s actually talking about. I was just reading words and not really picking up on the content. In this class (particularly), I feel so much like an English Language Learner (ELL) that I might have in one of my classes. These kids have learned the basics of English; they understand that there are 26 letters that each have their own sounds (even though often those sounds don’t do what you think they should) and they can blend them enough to be able to read them aloud, even though they have absolutely no idea what they’re reading. If ever you’ve read with ELLs you know exactly what I’m talking about.

So here I am a fluent English speaker (though I do admit to making up words and saying hickish things like “I might could…”), but I sit here reading only the words. There were sections that I definitely understood, certain ideas and sentences, but if you ask me to outline Bersani’s argument (which my professor is asking me to do) I don’t really have much of a clue. At least, not yet. I sat down to do my write-up and just stared at the computer like it would reveal to me some sort of magic code that could help me unravel this article. Much to my disappointment, the computer doesn’t give me what I want, so I turn to task avoidance. I now am trying to see how many other things I can get done instead of doing my homework. It’s pretty ridiculous, but here I am. Blogging about Leo Bersani, when I would much rather be reading Push or Sula (both of which I need to finish in the next few days).

But, why am I sharing this? This is my failure and my laziness coming through. It’s hard to understand, so I walk away until I gain some sort of enlightenment even though even as I’m writing this, I know that it’s really just going to take me struggling through this material to even begin to unravel it. But for whatever reason, I think this is easier to do than to sit at my assignment screen and write directly about Bersani. It feels so daunting when I’m staring at the blank screen, labeled and dated; it’s far too formal for my level of understanding, so instead of facing it head on, I task avoid. Ironically, I’ve had a lot of things that I’ve been wanting to blog about all weekend, but haven’t, and now I find myself writing about this ridiculous article, which I know no one really cares to hear about.

So, now, I think at this point, I’m going to attempt to outline Bersani’s argument about sex and AIDS and homosexuality, and if I’m successful, I will just copy/paste it into the terrifyingly blank document and call it good. So, unless you actually want to read about Bersani, if I’ve managed to tempt you with the title, then you can stop reading now. The rest will be fairly irrelevant to an actual blog post (at least in the traditional sense).

Is the Rectum a Grave?

Bersani starts his argument with the statement that most people don’t like sex. He states that there are two camps: those that “can’t face their sexual desires” and those that “know such a relation exists and who are presumably unafraid of their own sexual impulses” (198). He looks at the thing in common between the two groups: a certain aversion to sex. Within that aversion, he talks about “malignant aversion” in relation to the AIDS epidemic and the lack of help given to those with AIDS. The coverage of the AIDS epidemic focuses on the groups who are minimally at risk, and excludes the “principal sufferers.”

It then moves to white gay males, and how they have no claims to power because unlike many minorities catering to homosexuals isn’t always necessary to remain in a place of power. It talks about the gays who can essentially “pass” because they could keep their “proud middle-class consciousness.” It moves to macho-style homosexuals, leading to the oxymoronic expression “leather queen.” In dressing like a macho man, he “intends to pay worshipful tribute to the style and behavior he defiles” (208).

The argument moves towards describing how homosexuality is a parody of femininity, as it begins to define and resemble power structures. It talks about how sex becomes a way of dominating women because of the passivity of being penetrated. He says, “to be penetrated is to abdicate power” (212). It talks about how pornography can “institutionalize the sexuality of male supremacy” (213), and how pornography can be related to violence and power in such a way that makes violence and rape sound sexy. It can be seen as a cathartic outlet for violent fantasies of dominance and power. He discusses how MacKinnon and Dworkin give reasons why pornography must be multiplied and the reasons for defending sex. He talks about how phallocentrism is a denial of the value of powerlessness, and is more of a “radical disintegration and humiliation of the self” (217). It moves into a Bataille type argument where sex becomes a form of self-debasement where one can move between a “hyperbolic sense of self and a loss of all consciousness of self” (218).

Four talking points:
Macho-style homosexuals. Seem to be like Quentin Crisp’s idea of the Great Dark Man, at least, the corrupted version of the GDM. They exude masculinity until they open their mouths and essentially pervade the masculine “identity.” What it means to be hyper masculine like the GDM is immediately broken with the idea that a GDM would be a homosexual. It kind of falls more into the ideas we developed with Paris is Burning where they are portraying “reality” and those that win the competitions are the ones that are the most “real.”

Another thing I found interesting was how it talked about how there is an assumption that to be homosexual is to give up a place in the hierarchy in favor of a brotherhood. It was then amusing to read about how they are completely in a hierarchy based on appearance

One of the problems is the assumption that to be penetrated is to abdicate power. I think the argument could be made that the act of being penetrated could be seen as an act of active passivity.

I could be completely wrong about this one, but in the section that talks about politicians not targeting homosexuals and having it make a difference in terms of voting, I think that isn’t necessarily the case right now. I think where homosexuality is so much in the spotlight right now and is almost a sort of trend, I would think there’s more of a move to gain those votes. Or at least, there becomes a finer line to walk in terms of completely alienating the homosexual population.

So if you’ve made it this far, I commend you. It probably makes no sense to you either, but more because I did a fairly terrible job of outlining it…