ahhhh ty ty for this teeks......this took me a couple rereads but
"divergence becomes desirable only given a fantasy of possession: that there are things we possess and other things we do not, such that those that are ‘‘not’’ can be possessed to complete one’s possessions"
The threat of merger is attributed to the same-sex couple rather than to the heterosexual couple in part as a response to the presumption that ‘‘difference,’’ described in terms of opposition, keeps each sex in line. Furthermore, the idea that without men women would merge, constructs women as lacking only insofar as it elevates the concepts of separation and autonomy that secure the masculine and heteronormative subject as a social and bodily ideal. The fantasy that shapes this line of argument is that heterosexuality involves love for difference, and that such love is ethical in its opening to difference and even the other (see Warner 1990: 19; Ahmed 2004a). The heterosexual subject ‘‘lines up’’ by being one sex (identification) and having the other (desire). I have already contested this assumption by suggesting that compulsion toward heterosexual intimacy produces social and familial resemblance. We can question the assumption that desire requires ‘‘signs’’ of difference, as something that each body must ‘‘have’’ in relation to ‘‘another.’’
are the parts that stood out most to me... also the parts I understood the most...identification>desire dynamic is always v interesting to think about. rlly interesting when framed like this ahhhh
no subject
"divergence becomes desirable only given a fantasy of possession: that there are things we possess and other things we do not, such that those that are ‘‘not’’ can be possessed to complete one’s possessions"
The threat of merger is attributed to the same-sex couple rather than to the heterosexual couple in part as a response to the presumption that ‘‘difference,’’ described in terms of opposition, keeps each sex in line. Furthermore, the idea that without men women would merge, constructs women as lacking only insofar as it elevates the concepts of separation and autonomy that secure the masculine and heteronormative subject as a social and bodily ideal. The fantasy that shapes this line of argument is that heterosexuality involves love for difference, and that such love is ethical in its opening to difference and even the other (see Warner 1990: 19; Ahmed 2004a). The heterosexual subject ‘‘lines up’’ by being one sex (identification) and having the other (desire). I have already contested this assumption by suggesting that compulsion toward heterosexual intimacy produces social and familial resemblance. We can question the assumption that desire requires ‘‘signs’’ of difference, as something that each body must ‘‘have’’ in relation to ‘‘another.’’
are the parts that stood out most to me... also the parts I understood the most...identification>desire dynamic is always v interesting to think about. rlly interesting when framed like this ahhhh