Monday, February 7, 2011

To grieve, or not to grieve...

So, I’m a little confused. Allow me to explain.

I’m taking this human sexuality course and yeah, I was excited about it...for a day or two. Then came the surly skies of monotony tumbling down upon my head. So far, the content we’ve covered is so congested with heteronormativity that I can almost feel the sunshine squandering away. It was made perfectly clear from the first day of class that no “homosexual” content was to be covered. The reasons for this were given, but I’ve forgotten them since they made little sense to me at the time and the professor jumbled through that fact. I thought I’d be okay with it, but I grow weary.

So here’s where my confusion starts. According to the rules of attraction, everything revolves around the drive to keep the species alive; as in, it all comes down to sex and babies. Various studies indicate that what men and women find attractive in one another are cues to fertility and good genes. Heterosexual women offer a bit more complexity since they also look for status, commitment, etc, but the logic of science points this back to reproduction and the maintaining of offspring.

Well, let’s just forget for a moment that humans are much more complex than basically every other living creature on the planet. According to science, there exists a biological basis for what one finds attractive and your body should just know to breed. What to say, then, of us lovely queers? Are our bodies not working properly? Is that part of our brain that tells us who to mate with switched in reverse? Wait, that doesn’t make sense! What about the bisexuals? The nerd in me is not satisfied.

Again, this is my unscientific surface logic that neglects the gestalt of human sexuality. I guess that’s where my issue lies; I wish the class was more inclusive and holistic, rather than reducing us to nematodes and heterosexuals. But now here’s another problem: why do I even care? Well, it’s because I’m a nerd like that. I just want to learn more about everything.

Seriously, though, there could be silent dangers in this. If we studied the biological bases of homosexuality, who knows what could happen. We’d have the parents who decide to abort the gay babies once the in utero screening technology made itself available. On the bright side, the nature v. nurture issue would be quelled a bit.

It’s funny though, because I think there’d be a contradictory effect. Yes, people would then shut up about the “Is it a choice?” debate, but I think there’d be those who would have sympathy for the queer community but at the same time, continue to see it as “less than” because it could be argued that their biology is “inferior.” Sort of like how the Deaf are not seen as equal. This is weird to think of because homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness, but I’m pretty sure this would happen and don’t for a second doubt these people already exist.

Anyway, it all seems rather pointless when you think about what really matters. You could say that the real problem lies in looking for such answers instead of focusing on what changes currently need to be made in the world. I agree with this, but then I guess that means I should just forget about my grievances about the classroom? I should just accept the painfully heteronormative fiesta, complete with a surplus of heavy gender role jokes and reinforcements, that I have to endure a few hours a week, forget about science, and focus on making some real impact within my time on earth because what I ask for, in theory, could explode in my face?

That last sentence hurt my head. C’est la vie.

1 comment: