Queerness of people

Before I begin I must make myself clear. I am no queer theory expert nor am I a blasting homophobe , sexist or racist. I am just making an observation which can be wrong. I am just trying to understand things.  I know this is a sensitive topic but believe me when I say I am not trying to hurt anyone just talking of things I have seen and trying to decipher them.

It’s hard to understand Queerness. It’s hard to understand people. It’s hard to understand even “common” gestures as a thumbs up which is considered great in the West but in some parts of the East it means the opposite. Now,  Queerness is a lot of things into one. It can be transgendered queerness or homoerotic and homosexual queerness but the real issue here is that queerness at times is used only as one thing; at times this thing limits the person involved or the person involved uses this as something to only rationalize themselves.

I. Involved only in their own Queerness:

I have met people who have  not been nice because of their queerness. They have acted high and mighty because of it. I remember once having a big misunderstanding with a man who was queer but obviously I did not know that; he used terms I didn’t know so I asked what is was he snapped at me though it was a particular aspect of his site. Sure, I could use Google but asking someone personally  is not a big deal. Then that person decided to make fun of me and my query  as a post. When I confronted him about it he was like I did it anonymously. My main concern was even it is anonymous it is kinda rude to make fun of people via random posts especially after you have answered their queries. It feels really odd. Then I called him a “girl” which at that time I didn’t know he was a transgendered man. Soon I saw a picture and could identify he was a “he” but when I mentioned this he mistook me for stereotyping him as a woman.

One of the things that really got to me was that I apologized several times but he kept on being severely mean to me and awfully rude; instead of having an understanding nature he got vehemently rough with me. And also this was after I stated the Queer culture in my country is different.

Instead of asking me the differences he came off that my ignorance is bad. This is a very orientalist tactic of speculation. There was a cultural ethnocentric feel to how he never asked me what my Queer culture is like. But, he expects me naturally to know his.

Even at the end when I said it was a big misunderstanding and no one is at fault he was rude enough to say that I was revoking my sorry which I wasn’t. What I noticed is that this person is involved in himself too much and only in his Queerness as a valid way of expressing Queerness.

The man also stated that he is not to be an expert or consultant to be asked to explain things. Well, if not you then who?

Sometimes we ask through interactions because the dryness or the seriousness of academic papers may take out the reality of a particularly phenomenon or rather subject (as we think less on phenomenon but even subject is like a  abstract concrete slab kind of a word).

My problem is that some people also use Queerness as others use Heteronormative parameters. They get isolated and resistant like an Amish society only able to communicate with itself.

This is Luddite interaction. One can be a Luddite with or without technology in fact technology has made us more apish. We want people to figure it out things by themselves and only have this limited checklist for who is what. It does not only involve Queerness but other things too.

Queerness is not a new thing. It has been there for a long time but now after the Ice Age of World Wars, Liberation Policies, New World Democracies and Individual Collective selves it has, like other categories, been reprised.

We must communicate on it freely and non-self involved attitudes.

II. The range of Queerness:

Queerness does have a range. Unfortunately, Queerness has become in some places a Heteronormative practice.  Like Heteronormativity with its limited spectrum the most I see of Queerness is sex.  And  rough sex. This rough sex is labeled passionate but many a times it is just really violent sex. disguising itself as amour.

Also the people who usually post Queer sex does male Queerness in action. And female Queerness in appearance. Thus the gendered parameters persist.

Males get to easily express their sexual wants on Queer posts. Women cannot. Men also seem to feminize the body of the “recipient” lover in both fictional and real media. The recipient receives the cock and is happy doing that. The action person is usually the guy and that is why females are not that discussed much in mainstream Queerness.

We still have the patriarchal heteronormative stance that penis is the source of sex and “holes” attract the penis.

Queerness as appearance itself is also conflicted because it romanticizes looks of men and women on what a biased society wants Queerness to be — which is another version of heteronormativity only gender non opposite.

Most Queer men who are the “girls” are cute or “non masculine” they are supposed to have high pitched voices and act feminine. The men become more masculine; aggressive even in dress and manners as if to impress their lovers and society in general. You see this in also “butch” females. People need to be gendered in a very constricting manner so sexual expressive freedom is only gained via the heteronormative frame.

Aside appearance and action Queerness for males is more accepted than it is for females. When celebrity men come out, beautiful men, the men in “normal” non-celluloid society rejoice. They tell and tease on their female friends see he’s gay and they feel competition has been deteriorated. Men at times even want a male sex symbol to be gay as their crush or their female friends wanting him drives him up a wall of jealousy and discontent. Thus they joke and try to make the person appear Queer so a competitor is gotten off. With Queer women the reaction is drastically opposite.

We may or may not tease the boys but they get infuriated almost with the popular female icon or sex symbol who outs herself. They get angry that she is lesbian and try to devalue her character though at a time they might have really loved her qualities and beauty. Now, they show signs of culling her. Yes, the extrication is violent. Almost like she was dirty. In fact there are porn which caters to lesbians being “punished” or let’s say experiencing punitive rape from males who tell them they needed “dick therapy” and such lewd suggestions.

Ironically,  the opposite porn may be less common with women “raping” the gay boy into heterosexuality.

For a lesbian does not completely fit into patriarchal heteronormativity. Even a matriarchal heteronormativity may do this to men. Many lesbians do not even like socializing with men. And misandry is not always a product of misogyny. Misandry is ironically more prevalent intersex in my opinion because men hate men of different types even non-female ones. Males who are nurturing and caring are obviously hated but so are men who are the comic book geeks and computer nerds because they are not “female” nor societal”male” and so it becomes difficult to accept them as males.

We live within ranges of limited policies.

III.  Queerness and Queerness:

Many people face problems understanding that Queerness is not a thing at times. Sexually one can be fully heterosexual and have queer swings. Why? Because at times I think people are curious and/or lonely or at the same time just investigating.

The Lesbian phase is more prevalent than the Gay Phase because we encourage patriarchal, heteronormative lesbianism — the menage a trois is one of the most practiced form of restraint for female Queerness and also a downer for many girls who only do it to please males.

The menage of trois of two males and one female is always considered beforehand like sex with protection but being lesbian-like is also considered by some patriarchal promoters to be natural in a woman as in to please her man. This is worse than selfish bigamy or concubinage because in both you are acknowledged for more than your sexual function and in the latter your presence cannot be ignored. But a menage a trois between two females and a male usually only serves the male as he feels happy that he can, without doing much, have two women. In fact, in a menage a trois like that the scene constructed in porn has the man act more at times like a voyeur whilst women perform. It is exploited lesbinism. The man only does intercourse when he is ready and when he feels like it and only then with the girls doing “fillers” to his “star” performance.

A two male, one female menage a trois is many a times only heterosexual. The two men don’t enagage in sex if one watches the other two they are still having sex. There is no “fillers” much in that kind of sex because all three are treated ironically as equal partners. But in the threesome of two women and one man in a patriarchal heteronormative structure man prevails as a victor and it’s quite a difficult thing. The regular two women, one male menage a trois is sometimes a staple in the modern day relationship. It seems to authenticate the virility of man. If a woman requests this she is a loving girlfriend but the opposite thing of two male, one female menage a trois makes her a  selfish, unloving whore. Men are constantly trying to prove their virility.

For females this is not a question as females are non-virile creatures in heteronormative queerness as well. Most women can only adopt whore status — meaning that is she is sterile she can only be fucked. A lesbian is fucked by the patriarchal image of her. She is supposed to be mean and fiery and love “snatch” and “breasts”. Even derriere takes on a patriarchal parameter rounded ass in style. But are lesbians these sterile creatures? Obviously, not. Their “sterility” comes in sperm exclusive sex which is supposed to help with birth. Males who are Queer are not counted on this. Though they cannot give birth they can ejaculate and penetrate meaning they can amount to something in heteronormative scales. Ejaculation is usually showed in porn as celebration — loud and ,messy and can be scattered about. Female orgasm and ejaculation are only halves of this it appears. Female orgasm, is only stated in words and sighs. It can be loud and messy but then it will overshadow a male’s orgasm so it is excluded from mainstream media.

Such as other erogenous centers of a male, the female sex is annexed by only unfair mythologies. Queerness can ask questions into both bodies; Queerness itself can be a heterosexual thing too. Anything Queer is out of place in the main spectrum. A male received orgasm by nipple stimulation is non-patriarchal male, heteronormative ejaculation. It can be omitted. Skin smooth all about is also something ignored. Porn is unfair as it only focuses on genitals meaning it only can understand sex through reproduction. Sex as an aesthetic or love or even exploration is not Porn’s ideal type. Porn categories themselves are limited. The stories are all in a way reproductive; even the Queer ones. The sperm is received internally or externally to reproduce “happiness”.

There is no middle ground. The Porn stars themselves have limited emotions even to the scene involved. People think this is simplicity but it is actually ignorance and trying to pin the tail on the donkey with eyes open but missing.

Queer heterosexuality would show men and women embrace and talk while having sex not just random spurts or sadomasochistic words and disgusting patriarchal/matriarchal trash but say things appropriate to the scene.  Queer sex which focuses on men being roughed up for gay sex or women being roughed up for lesbian sex  can be replaced as a nice reciprocated gesture with both intensity and passion.

Our global culture salutes intensity as violence. Extremities of quite perversely out there subjects are catered as normality. Consequences is cut off for it is the moment we are stupidly encouraged to live for. We cannot even speak our sadnesses afraid we are not fitting in.

We must speak of our individual experiences and not get brainwashed by sadomasochism, limited jargons and misunderstandings.

We must understand and accept the challenges we know are relevant.



One thought on “Queerness of people

  1. This post raises various interesting questions worth exploring through further questions. At one point, it is stated, “My problem is that some people also use Queerness as others use Heteronormative parameters. They get isolated and resistant like an Amish society only able to communicate with itself.”

    This, in fact, is a relevant observation when you take into account how the LGBTQ movements include/exclude certain groups. For example, asexual queers face discrimination in the larger LGBTQ movement in USA. And within the movement there’s a hierarchy of sub-groups. All of this parallels “Heteronormative parameters” and in being “isolated” and “resistant”, they also weaken each other, remaining unable to imagine new ways to produce pleasures with our bodies.

    In the second section of the essay, you highlighted the “range of limited policies”. Perhaps, this analysis could be further added to by analysing what’s now being called “feminist porn” where some of these “limits” are overcome. An analysis might show what is left unquestioned there, too. The third section mentions “intensity as violence”, something that would be worth going into, perhaps through a case study.

Speak yer mind

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s