Using normality to alleviate sexual shame is like using capitalism to alleviate poverty. Capitalism creates, distributes, and requires poverty. Sexual normalcy creates, distributes, and requires sexual shame. There is no capitalism without poverty. And there is no sexual normalcy without sexual shame.

This means, among other things, that the problem with normal isn’t just that it’s too narrowly defined. The problem is systemic; it’s built right into the concept. After all normality itself is defined more by what it isn’t, by what is considered abnormal, than it is defined by what it is. Definitions of deviant or exceptional sexuality precede definitions of normal sexuality. We came up with the construct of homosexuality before heterosexuality, the publicly articulated identity transgender preceded that of cisgender. Normal relies on the marginalization of some to define others. Adding to those in the center doesn’t stop the force of pushing others to the margins. And simply telling people on the margins that they’re actually in the center doesn’t alleviate the very real pressures pushing them out if it.

1 year ago  /  106 notes  /   /  Source: sexandsocialism