I, Curtis

Category: Love

  • Without Words, There Is Meaning

    One common problem that is considered in Queer theory is the absence of words to discuss some aspects of life. The vocabulary of life is controlled by dominant forces and therefore minority cases (whether numerical or social minority) are often left without the appropriate forces of language to discuss and therefore give social substance to those minority cases.

    This topic has come to my mind more frequently lately as I think about the nature of the relationship that Chris and I have. We have been together since 2003, in some form or another. I suppose a fair appraisal of the history of our relationship might suggest that it has existed in its present form since 2004, so we have been in this present relationship for about 8 years. In all of that time we have not established any sort of formal name for the relationship and we have no way of referring to each other outside of “boyfriend”. There are aspects of the relationship which would be consistent with that status, but there are also elements of our relationship which is more brotherly. I am less concerned with having a specific title that covers all of the criteria of the relationship and more concerned with the lack of available options. The term “boyfriend” is loaded, especially in a gay context. In a gay context “boyfriend” almost has temporal limitations. In a normative world “boyfriend” lacks the level of seriousness that our relationship has achieved. In some instances there can also be a very adolescent interpretation of it. While Chris and I are both still young, our relationship is not that new and is certainly not temporally limited. In the gay context a popular term is “partner”. That word just annoys me. It is a sexually agnostic term that can mean anything. Chris and I are partners, but I would not use that as a defining point of our relationship. We are partners in a variety of projects ranging from home-improvement tasks (both our own and those of my aunt) to software development. “Partner” just isn’t the right depth of word for my feelings or the relationship that exists. I have seen “husband” used a bit in the gay context as well, both for married and non-married couples. In my state I cannot legally marry, and I don’t know if Chris would marry me if we could. The term certainly has the right severity for the relationship, but comes with the baggage of history from normative culture as well as the modern implications of the term potentially being temporary. While I may ultimately wish that status, it is not something that is an option today and I’m not entirely sure that even if we were married it would be accurate enough for the complexity of the relationship, and the shit that comes with the title from patriarchal systems of power just isn’t worth it.

    I am left without a proper title for the most important person in my life. It is thoughts like these that remind me that I am in a minority situation and that majority culture does not respect me or my relationship.

  • Why penetrative intercourse?

    It is late. This may be terse.

    Why must gay guys engage in penetrative intercourse? Why does penetrative intercourse define what is gay? What does it bring to a relationship? To me it seems as though it is an attempt to appropriate heterosexual standards for relationships and sexuality. Is there not more to intimacy than penetrating your partner? Is there no other way to express passion? I have never looked at things this way, but in doing research for my queer theory paper I began thinking about the structure and gay identities portrayed in Latter Days. The scene where Christian and Aaron are happiest is immediately after they have had their first sexual encounter.

    To me the act of penetrating one’s partner seems primitive and quite unnecessary for achieving emotional intimacy with one’s partner. I am reminded of a scene in Star Trek: First Contact, Data and Picard are interacting physically with the Pheonix and Data asks of Picard “Does physical contact make it more real?”. Picard evades the question and tells him that it was a childhood fantasy.  I understand the need for physical contact, as I do enjoy it a lot, but somehow the intercourse portion just doesn’t make sense to me. Perhaps this is because I am a non-traditional gay. I am excited by emotional intimacy and more basic feelings and less by the idea of being penetrated or penetrating.

    For me personally there is a different aspect of masculinity at work that I am attracted to. I am less attracted to the power of the penis and more attracted to the power of the man. The phallus serves as a nice indicator to confirm biological pre-requisites for manhood, but it is not the only object of my interest.

    We are gay, can we not take a more evolved approach to sexuality that is less carnal?

    Now that blast of mental energy is out there, I will either integrate it into my current paper (on social control of gay identity) or I will carry it over and complete it in another semester as another paper.

  • To Crowders Mountain


    To Crowders Mountain: I wish you a fast recovery to your magestic beauty.

  • Quote I Found

    I was digging in GITI a bit ago, looking for quotes I had saved from people, I found this one from Guy, it really seems to symbolize a lot of what I feel lately:
    “my man has to be fast enough to catch me, strong enough to wrestle me to the ground, and loving enough to keep me from getting mad at him for doing it”