SHE RULES/QUEER THEORY RULES/WRITING ABOUT QUEER TEMPORALITY, DELEUZE, AND SADOMASOCHISM FOR THIS PAPER AND THE RESEARCH IS JUST SO REFRESHING AND FUN
j.habs/l.dugs/j.munoz(s?) and their work have been toootally important in shaping how i conceive of value/affect/space/bodies/everything. i am reblobbin this to remind myself but also specifically with my brother in mind. DAN ARE YOU READING THIS, IT’S IMPORTANT
this book is the best/halberstam spoke at the university of manitoba a couple years ago and it was the best/this book provides useful examples of what I mean when I talk about friendship/you’re not supposed to expect too much of your friends or be too invested but the opposite is true when you queer friendship, expect too much and fail but try to fail together/so should I be super mad at shitty ex-boyfriends (is their failure patriarchy or is their failure queer?)/isn’t it so weird that halberstam spoke at the university of manitoba/yes it is
Why does theorizing how my friendships are conflicted, desire-ridden 19th century throwbacks and the inherent queerness of such a fact not make them easier to have?
What Heather Love says:
“In the collective effort to undermine a strict division between heterosexuality and homosexuality, queer scholars have looked to models of sexual and gender behavior that exceed the normative bounds of ‘modern gay identity.’ The history of friendship is a particularly attractive archive for the exploration of same-sex relations, partly because of the relative absence of stigma, and partly because of the relatively unstructured nature of friendship as a mode of intimacy.” Feeling Backward, pg. 77.
But ALSO there’s an important part right after in this chapter when Love quotes Foucault again on friendship, noting: ‘It’s a desire, an uneasiness, a desire-in-uneasiness that exists among a lot of people.’ Feeling Backward, pg. 78.
On why my romantic friendships are so troubled/troubling I imagine “desire-in-uneasiness” is probably why, which I prefer to “because I make them that way.”