Queer?...perhaps

By Darrius Hills

I’ve long said that I’m not sure what “masculinity” or “femininity” is. At best, I was aware of societal implications about both terms—but not once have I found myself able to articulate an understanding beyond conjecture. In my own frame of reference (because I cannot speak for women), the phrase “masculine” bothers me. “Masculine” is contingent upon numerous networks of social convention—so much to the extent that it makes me wonder whether such a term has any real value. Over the years, I’ve grown to believe that a portion of what “masculinity” means represents a commodified pattern of male interaction with (and responses to) females in terms of the development of sexual identity. Because I’ve rejected this “masculinity,” I’ve come into conflict with males (and females) who adhere to commodified sexual identities. In a word, I’m less “masculine” because of the performance of my sexual identity and sexual ethic.

Poststructuralism and queer thought provide some acceptable responses to this conflict. In a poststructuralist sense, it is necessary to begin by asking a poignant question: from whence does the masculine/feminine (maleness/femaleness) dichotomy(ies) arise? As Judith Butler notes, it arises from the problems associated with an assumption of a natural sex binarism. The key here is “natural”—implying an innate characteristic in an essentialist sense. That is, man/maleness/masculinity = x, and woman/femaleness/femininity = y. Why would an assumed natural sex binarism be harmful?

It’s the precursor to heteronormativity.

Most persons within the Christian tradition (and perhaps larger society) understand maleness and femaleness as biologically centered—it’s a natural duality that allows for the continuation of the species. Here, the sex binarism is perhaps most evident. By positioning ‘maleness’/‘femaleness’ as complimentary in the sense that both merge to allow for procreation, the resulting implicit assumption is that heterosexual relationships are the norm—an ideology which finds roots in the Genesis creation narratives. Sure, this viewpoint “works” for those persons who identify as heterosexual, but what of homosexuals—what of bisexuals—or of persons like myself who attempt to stand beyond normalized/naturalized notions of heterosexuality? Where do they fit into this schema?

I also want to say more about the character of the commodified heterosexuality that springs from sex binarism—particularly as it relates to the conflicts I have had over the years. These naturalized notions of ‘maleness’ are also accompanied by naturalized notions of male interaction toward females in the development of sexual identity. To my mind, there are patterns of sexualized male behavior toward women accepted as “natural.” Let’s go down the list, shall we? (forgive my graphic statements)

>> male sexual promiscuity is natural
>> male “ogling” of the female body is natural
>> male treatment of the female body as an object—as a means to an end (sexual gratification) is natural
>> male sexual pleasure, within the confines of sexual intercourse, is not only natural, tis’ the norm—it is the sole standard for the sex act (take a look at the pornography industry)
>> the male sexual ethic as phallus-centric is natural (this observation actually connects with the previous one related to male sexual pleasure)

With these accepted ‘natural’ behaviors in mind, the notion of performativity enters my analysis. Why are the aforementioned sexual behaviors toward women deemed natural in the context of male sexual identity? Judith Butler asserts that heteronormative sexuality controls numerous societal mechanisms that produce individuals who engage in conventional practices of sex/sexuality in order to maintain what is perceived as a coherent heterosexual identity. Men and women, due to a sex binarism rooted in heteronormative sexuality, act, or perform their sexualities in ways considered natural within “masculine/feminine” contexts. Simply stated, men and women gain sexual agency from prevailing notions of heteronormative masculine/feminine sexual behavioral patterns. These sexual practices bother me, and always have. Why is it naturally “masculine” to "get laid" by a different woman every night, and naturally “nonmasculine” to refrain from wanton sexual activity and/or view the sex act in terms of female pleasure in lieu of male pleasure? (I’ve caught a lot of flack for that one)

In a heteronormative performative sense, I’m guess I’m not a masculine man. Forget all the Tiger Crane Kung Fu; forget the bulky muscles—I haven’t performed my sexuality in a heternormative fashion! Where then, does that leave Mr. Hills? Maybe I’m queer. Yes, I said it—QUEER. Is it possible for a heterosexual person to perform her/his sexuality non-heteronormatively? I think it is possible. I still grapple with notions of “queer.” I humbly admit: I am a novice to queer ideology—I have much to learn.  However, as I responded to a wonderful friend once before, the following makes up what I have observed about queer thought:

(1) "Queer" is deconstructive--of prevailing "norms".
(2) "Queer" is not beholden to any kind of hegemonic ("normalized") categorization; queer stands beyond category.
(3) "Queer" does not conform.
(4) "Queer" is not biologically determinable.
(5) "Queer" varies from culture to culture.
(6) "Queer" is self-defining/self-naming (possesses agency).
(7) "Queer" is not monolithic; there are 'queerness-es'.

In my case, I pay close attention to the first observation. I reject any and all notions of heteronormative sexuality. I refuse to adhere to a form of masculinity that denigrates, devalues, or abuses the female body. In this sense, I’d hope that I’m participating in the deconstructing of heterosexual norms of masculinity. Dad always told me that it is important to strive to be a different kind of man—to do things differently than most men would do them. I sincerely hope that my attempts at heterosexual/heternormative deconstruction count as “different.”

If that makes me “queer,” so be it—