The Sex Blog. We bring you the sociology and psychology of sex in a daring, erotic, thought-provoking, sexy, forbidden and easy to understand way.

Orgysmic
Tags

© 2018 by Orgysmic. Artworks by Juliusz Lewandowski.

Der Sexblog. Soziologische und psychologische Analysen der Sexualitäten. Gewagt, erotisch, sexy, provozierend und leicht verständlich.

Does Marriage Equality Reinforce Heteronormativity?

January 6, 2019

In the last 20 years, the Western LGBTIQ movement has focused itself mainly on achieving marriage equality. Many have criticized this, including queer people. For example, German blogger "Der Zaunfink" wrote, "that marriage equality opens up the possibility to present gay sexuality as enclosed and disciplined as straight people's marital sex." Is it really that marriage equality reinforces heteronormativity? We analyze this question while taking a look at the AIDS crisis.

 

[Originally, this article was written as an essay for Dr Christine M. Klapeer's seminar "Unsettling Normalities: Gender-Binary and Heteronormativity" at the Georg-August-University in Göttingen, Germany, marked with . A similar, shorter version of this article was written by me for the August 2018 edition of the SIEGESSÄULE Magazine in Berlin.]

 

[Dieser Artikel existiert auch auf deutsch.]

 

The history of queer liberation movements is as diverse as the queer "community" itself. What is often referred to as the "first LGBTIQ emancipation movement" includes mainly events in Berlin from 1897 to 1933. In light of the lawyer Karl Heinrich Ulrichs’ relentless efforts for gay rights (1), the invention of the terms “homosexual” and “heterosexual” by the author Karl Maria Kertbeny (2) and the propagation of those terms by the psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing (3), as well as the conviction of Oscar Wilde (4), physician and sexual scientist Magnus Hirschfeld founded the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee, the world’s first ever organization for gay rights, in his flat in (back then from Berlin independent) Charlottenburg in 1897. More than just fighting paragraph 175 – which was at the times criminalizing male homosexuality – Magnus Hirschfeld was also fighting for women*’s rights as well as for many different sexual and gender minorities. With his theory about sexual intermediates he was able to present a scientific model against the gender binary and saw every human being as an individual mix of female and male characteristics. His consciously non-stigmatizing, scientific interest was also analyzing androgynous, intersex*, and trans* people, as well as cross-dressers. In his institute of sexual science, which he opened in 1919 in Berlin-Tiergarten, Hirschfeld probably performed the world’s first sex reassignment surgery for the intersexual Lili Elbe. Furthermore, he coined the term “transvestite” (6). Even though his bias for eugenics has for good reasons been criticized, he published in 1934 a rebuttal of the national socialist race ideology, which uses as one of the first scientific publications ever the term “racism”. Finally, he rejected antifeminism, which was prevailing in some cis-male-homosexual parts of the movement, and successfully sought to cooperate with radical women’s rights activist Anita Augspurg. (7)

 

The happenings around the Stonewall Inn at Christopher Street in New York City in 1969 is often referred to as the “second queer emancipation movement”. In light of governmental repression and social exclusion members of the LGBTIQ community started street riots against recurring police brutality in June 1969. The main spot was the bar “Stonewall Inn”, back then run by the mafia and often visited by especially financially poor and the most marginalized members of the queer community: drag queens, trans*-people, queers of color, feminine young gays, butch lesbians, male sex workers and prostituted men (8), as well as homeless youth. On the 28th of June 1969, they started to revolt against police brutality and governmental repression which resulted in street fights that would go on for days. Several members of those marginalized groups stuck out especially, for example: The butch lesbian (with black mother and white father) Stormé DeLarverie, who was, on the 28th of June, violently escorted out of the Stonewall Inn by police while bleeding from her head. She was resisting the police forces for minutes until she eventually addressed the masses asking for help as the turmoil began. Second the homeless black drag queen Marsha P. Johnson, who among other things threw a brick stone on a police car, smashing the front window. And third the homeless trans*-activist and drag queen with Latin American ancestors Sylvia Rivera. Rivera sometimes referred to themselves as a gay man, as a lesbian woman, as a drag or street queen and didn’t see any of those identities as exclusionary. After the Stonewall Riots, Rivera founded together with Johnson the organization “Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries (STAR)” to campaign for homeless drag queens and trans* of colour (9). In order to remember the Stonewall Riots millions of people take part in pride parades all around the world every year.
 

 

So obviously, the origins of the queer liberation movement were marked by an extraordinary diversity. Marriage equality also played a role in the early years. For example, in the 19th century, Karl Heinrich Ulrichs already argued in favour of the possibility of a same sex marriage (10). Still, it never was the only point of queer liberation movements that ultimately also seek to challenge hetero- and other normativities. However, many critics say that the LGBTIQ-movement has slowly developed into a movement of white, cisgendered, gay men from the middle class ignoring all other groups and focussing more and more on marriage equality which – according to the critics – has ultimately lead to an assimilation by heteronormativity. With this essay, I try to critically examine the pros and cons of those arguments, as well as unify them with the help of Rubin’s sex hierarchy (11).

 

 

Marriage equality challenges heteronormativity

 

To say that nothing changed with marriage equality regarding straight privileges, heteronormativity and the improvement of living conditions of Western non-heterosexuals (but not necessarily non-cisgendered people) would be wrong. In 2018, a male-gay Romanian-US-American couple, that got married in Belgium, sued Romania because it did not want to grant the US-American residency. The European court then decided that EU member states cannot deny residency to homosexual spouses of EU-citizens by saying that “gay marriages” are not recognized in their country (12). Straight privileges, a result of heteronormativity, were, therefore, clearly levered out and expanded to another sexual minority. Similar things happened to other privileges linked to marriage that could formerly only be enjoyed by heterosexuals. Tax advantages that once only financially disburdened straight married couples can now also be enjoyed by gay couples. Gay and straight couples are now also equal regarding dependent’s pensions and heritage which eliminates another form of financial discrimination against gay couples. Other forms of straight privileges included custody or medical and nursing care insurances. By broadening those privileges real mechanisms of discrimination have been eliminated and a better equality has been achieved.

 

Beyond those partly material advantages, there are also psychological benefits of marriage equality. For example, Badgett was able to prove in 2011 that not only does the exercise of the right to marry hold direct positive effects on the feeling of social integration of same-sex couples in Western countries. More than that, just the presence of that right alone has a similar effect: „The qualitative data from the Netherlands provided support for (..) [the hypothesis that gaining] the right to marry created feelings of social inclusion for same-sex couples, whether married or not. These feelings of inclusion stand in sharp contrast to the feelings of social exclusion experienced by respondents before they could legally marry (…).“ (13) Badgett noted that other institutions similar to marriage that might even be accompanied with the same rights but are not called “marriage” – for example, the “eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft” in Germany, the PACS in France, or the Civil Union in the US – do not have the same positive psychological effects: “Those alternatives statuses were created to provide benefits and rights while preserving marriage for heterosexual couples solely, maintaining the exclusion of same-sex couples. Furthermore, these new statuses have no existing occupants to make same-sex couples ‘included’ in anything, much less in a socially meaningful relationship.” (14) It remains true that complete marriage equality is best capable to challenge circumstances related to heteronormativity and to at least partly remove perceived or real discrimination and stigmatization.

 

Not left unspoken should within that context also the changes within the general Western population, changes that happened by further integrating sexual minorities. Today it’s by far not uncommon to also encounter other forms of families than just the stereotypical, heterosexual family with a working father, a housewifely mother, and their two kids. Part of the social changes towards more diverse life plans and family models is certainly also related to a stronger acceptance of sexual minorities. Sigusch states that with the broader integration of gay and lesbian (and a little bit also bi- and pansexual) people, not only were homosexuals “heterosexualized” but heterosexuals were also “homosexualized”; this happened in a way so that they themselves now also strive for “gay” liberties and peculiarities: no kids, no rigid gender roles, a new feeling for their bodies, men wanting to be sexy as well instead of being content with a potbelly and one pair of underwear for 14 days, a modification of old fidelity imperatives to unite relationship and sexual urges, serial relationships, self-evident masturbation despite relationships, one-night-stands, public sex, etc. According to Sigusch, the “neosexual revolution” has embraced all societal individuals which has led to the alignment of former conspicuous homosexuals and former inconspicuous heterosexuals (15).

 

One can conclude that former normativities have changed drastically; they were challenged and transformed by what was considered as “not normal”. Western heterosexuality had clearly been challenged by homosexual life plans – including marriage equality.

 

 

Marriage equality endorses heteronormativity

 

But who is actually equal in marriage equality? Certainly, it’s not everybody because we are far from having polyamorous marriages. And does everyone within the queer community benefit to the same extent? Even though Badgett stressed out the psychological benefits of marriage equality she also notes in her studies that those benefits are experienced mostly by one particular group: white, relatively wealthy (cisgendered) gay men. To explain this, she says that marriage privileges are the only privileges that separate that group of gay men from the most privileged social group: Straight, white, (cisgendered) men with good income: “In relative terms (..) the right to marry moves those gay men much closer to full privileged status than marriage would for people of color, women, or lower-income people, so marriage-induced feelings of inclusion might be greater for high-income White gay men.” (16)

 

While the beginnings of the queer movements seem to have focussed on goals that would benefit a variety of queer people, in recent years the Western queer movement seems to have concentrated on mainly one goal that would benefit specifically white, well paid, cisgendered gay men. The reasons for this are as diverse as the visible diversity of our “community” unfortunately very often isn’t anymore, for example the fact that these men very often have privileges that bring about more possibilities to act as well as to take more dominant positions within the movement. But one reason has to be analyzed more in detail: The AIDS crisis.

 

Picture 1: Oversexualization of MSM – Cover picture of German magazine "Der Spiegel" in 1983. Heading says "Deadly plague AIDS: The mysterious disease" (Source: Supp 2017, spiegel.de/spiegel/kritik-anaids-berichterstattung-im-spiegeluntergangsstimmung-panik-a-1131559.html)

 When – as a result of immune deficiencies – more and more cases of people dying of opportunistic diseases surged up in the early 1980s, and those cases happening remarkably often among men having sex with men (MSM), the already advanced LGBTIQ-movement experienced a heavy backlash. Within a short period of time, countless people died and panic spread through society. The fear of a new plague that would wipe out humanity was big and fueled by sensational media coverage, for example by German magazine “Der Spiegel”. Quickly a scapegoat had been found: gay men. Together with the resurging sex-negativity and the fear of “disinhibited sinners fucking around” the focus was put on the MSM community – also due to the necessary prevention by the upcoming AIDS service organizations. Der Zaunfink writes on his blog that from a strategic prevention point of view it became useful to put certain sexual acts and subcultural infrastructures into the media spotlight. The old topos of disinhibited sexuality could now be attached to the unveiled panopticon of sexual excesses that the heteronormative society hasn’t seen in such detail ever before. Anal sex, sucking, darkrooms, fist fucking, kinks, sex parties und BDSM practices would make the public sphere cringe in pleasant creepiness. The old accusation of the licentiousness of male gay sexuality received new, most impressive illustrations (17). The question of AIDS split society: One group was looking to cooperate with the AIDS service organizations and those affected by HIV and AIDS, as well as to propagate condoms. The other, bigger group thought this to be dangerous. Current German Minister for Home Affairs Horst Seehofer was even demanding to collect and put those groups that were especially affected by AIDS into special homes in order to protect society (18). Overall it was thought to be foolish to advertise condoms instead of encouraging society to concentrate on monogamous marriages. Der Zaunfink notes that the moral guideline that sexuality was only ethically acceptable within a monogamous relationship could easily be integrated into the discussions around HIV. Despite all medical facts people still tell each other the myth of the “safe monogamous relationship” versus the “dangerous promiscuous sex” (19). A similar approach presents Duggan when she says that attacks against promiscuity and the “gay lifestyle” had been accompanied by messages of the monogamous marriage as responsible prevention method (20). In general, those times had been marked by an oversexualization of queer people, especially of MSM. “The gay man” was defined solely by his sexuality.

 

By the mid/end of the 1990s the death sentence AIDS turned for most people in Western countries with a well working, institutionalized health system into a chronic HIV infection that enabled – due to always improving medications – a “normal” life. (However, this is among the general population not a far spread knowledge yet; the old pictures of AIDS partly survive until today). In 1997, Hawaii was the world’s first region to introduce a law making civil unions between people of the same sex possible, in 1998, the Netherlands followed as the world’s first country. In 2001, they were also the world’s first state to introduce marriage equality. How was it possible that in less than 10 years so much had changed that a country – in the light of a “new plague” – transitioned from extreme homophobia towards laws that put homosexuals in more equal positions with heterosexuals?

 

More than that the societal representation of MSM has radically changed. Again, Der Zaunfink writes on his blog that the new pictures, visible in every media, didn’t speak about sexuality, but about love, friendship, and partnership. They didn’t show half-naked, faceless bodies in sparsely lit subcultural places but smiling people dressed fancily in public space. Within the symbol of marriage there is above all one aspect that is being handled, an aspect that has always been central to the ambivalent view on queer lives and probably also to homophobia: sexuality (21). What had happened?

 

Picture 2: Ad for misterbnb

Source: nomadicboys.com/gay-manchester-guide/

 

After the AIDS crisis gay men, the dominant group within the queer movement, recognized that their success in mainstream culture depends on their desexualized representation. In German newspaper “Der Freitag”, Rehberg wrote that homophobia also remains because pictures of loving gay dads and lesbian mums don’t influence the phobia of “the other sexuality.” That phobia remains untouched (22). From that point of view, such (desexualized) pictures (of marriage) don’t challenge heteronormativity at all. Rather, in the shadow of the AIDS crisis, they represent the attempt to be assimilated by the general culture in order to overcome the trauma of social condemnation, of the threat of exclusion and assembly camps, of the stigmatization as society endangering sex monsters, of the loss of solidarity in times of massive numbers of deaths among friends. The circulation increasing novelty value of those pictures lies – ironically – mainly within the fact that those people are in no way any different to the straight newly wed couples that we were already used to. There was a new message in the pictures of ring exchanging gay couples that found its iconographic form in those photos: “We are just like you.” (23)

 

The focus on desexualized, same-sex couples was joined by the classification into “good” and “bad queers”, those that happily sail towards marriage life and those that dare to still continue a promiscuous single life or – God forbid – live in open or polyamorous relationships. The result was a moral depreciation of non-monogamous, non-similar-to-marriage, and by that non-heteronormative sexualities and relationship models. Of course it must be obvious to most people that also gay monogamous couples still have some form of sex, but what’s important here is that there’s now the possibility to present that sexuality as just as encaged and disciplined as the marital sex of straight people. All those “good gays” that don’t long for anything but their congeners’ amoral, wild sexuality to become invisible and disappear, so that people don’t associate them with those excesses anymore, show that those presentations also go hand in hand with the hope for broader acceptance. (24) An example for this are the current heated discussions around PrEP, a new method to prevent HIV infections, where HIV-negative people take a medicament (“Truvada”) that was originally developed to treat an HIV infection that protects them from getting HIV. Often, there are slurs thrown at those people like “darkroom sluts” or “Truvada whores”.

 

Marriage became the symbol for MSM to free themselves from the stigmatizing over-sexualization that grew bigger during the AIDS crisis, as well as to get closer to the higher social status of straight people. Ironically, Der Zaunfink notes that the chants “Marriage for all!” sometimes sounds to him like a threat as the monogamous marriage had never been only an option, it was and is also a norm, a generally binding ideal and nonetheless also a status symbol (25).

 

Picture 3: Ad for Coca Cola with a male gay couple and assumably their child (Source: http://www.towleroad.com/2015/06/gay-couple-choose-happiness-over-tradition-in-new-coca-cola-ad-from-the-netherlands/)

 

Duggan here uses the word “homonormativity” (26) which she describes as a system that doesn’t challenge dominant, heteronormative assumptions and institutions but keeps them alive by demobilising, depoliticizing, privatizing, and anchoring the gay-lesbian community in homes and consumption. “Equality,” one of the keywords of the queer movements, becomes confined to the access to a few conservative institutions (for example marriage), and “freedom” becomes an excuse for massive inequalities within the neoliberal system. Homonormativity is the reproduction of heteronormativity, the reproduction of a normative idea of family: white, relatively high income, monogamous, cisgendered, married. Those people that profit most from marriage equality are those that get closest to that idea: white, affluent, monogamous, cisgender, gay men. The price that had to be paid for that assimilation of the queer movement to heteronormativity was giving up the needs of many other people of that movement: trans* people that are being pathologized by medicine and killed by other people, women* that are being raped regularly, intersex people that are forced to undergo surgeries often leading to lifelong traumatizations, or queers of color that are again target of (also police) violence and that are being made invisible. Understandably, some wonder whether those that have been fighting for marriage equality for so long will now also support their fights.

 

 

Shifting but persisting borders

 

Does marriage equality now challenge or endorse heteronormativity? There are good arguments for both sides depending on your point of view. I would like to try to combine both positions using Rubin’s sex hierarchy.
 

In her essay “Thinking Sex”, Rubin introduces her idea of a sex hierarchy. Based on a “charmed circle” of socially sanctioned sexualities (straight, married, monogamous, for reproduction, for free, as a couple, within a relationship, same generation, at home, without pornography, only with bodies, vanilla) that are accompanied by socially ostracised borders of sexualities (gay, without marriage, promiscuous, not for reproduction, paid, alone or in a group, occasional, cross-generational, public, pornographic, with objects like dildos, BDSM or other kinks), Rubin argues that there is a social hierarchy of sexualities categorized from “best/good” to “bad/worst” (27). Within that hierarchy there is a borderline established. However, it is often not very clear where that line between good and bad sex is drawn. For example unmarried straight couples, promiscuous heterosexuals, masturbation or long-term gay relationships often fall into a grey zone, sometimes being positioned on one, sometimes on the other side of that border.
 

Picture 4: The Sex Hierarchie according to Gayle Rubin

 (Source: Rubin, G. (1992): Thinking Sex – Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality, https://www.ipce.info/library_3/pdf/rubin_thinking_sex.pdf, p. 14.)

 

Also, the demarcation changes from culture to culture and through human history. Marriage equality contributed to a shift of that demarcation. Within that hierarchy, (certain) gay relationships don’t (exclusively) fall onto the side of “bad sexualities” anymore. Therefore, to some degree, marriage equality challenges heteronormativity. Some forms of straight privileges are lifted and expanded to same sex couples. Additionally, we see an increase in psychological wellbeing and the feeling of increased integration. Furthermore, marriage equality in one country has the potential to falter straight privileges in other countries as well.

 

However, marriage only shifts borders, the hierarchization of sexuality remains. Heteronormativity is partly exchanged with homonormativity embedded in neoliberalism. By assimilation, the line is not drawn anymore between people read as straight and gay, but between those gays read as monogamous and controlling sexuality, and those gays read as promiscuous and “perverted”. Via homonormativity, marriage equality includes some (especially white, cisgendered) gays into heteronormativity, all while reshifting borders and establishing a repositioning towards “the others”. Normativity is dismantled, re-negotiated, and established and strengthened in a new form.

 

As a result, both is true: Heteronormativity had been convulsed by marriage equality. However, it has (also by the aid of neoliberal politics) re-strengthened itself, included a part of the queer movement within itself, and continued living in a new way. Marriage equality doesn’t eliminate borders. But it shifts them. And in that way it is still subversive. The hope remains that the queer “community” won’t be satisfied with that but will remain solidaric towards the whole diversity of itself.


 

Subscribe to our newsletter and get this text as well as the original German version as PDF. Simply write an email to info@orgysmic.com.

 

ORGYSMIC – The Sex Blog – is a social scientific blog with articles from (among others) sociology, sexology, (social) psychology, anthropology, gender, postcolonial, and queer studies. We fight for sexual education, sexual health, as well as a world free from discrimination and oppression. If you would like to support us then you can do so on Patreon. We also recommend our article on how sexual fetishes come into existence.

 

---

 

(1) Karl Heinrich Ulrichs was born in Eastern Friesland in 1825 and was a German lawyer, pioneer of sexual sciences, and one of the first known pioneers for the legal equality of homosexuals which he called “Urning” (Engl.: “uranian”) (male homosexual) and “Urninde” (female homosexual) – also because the term “homosexual” hasn’t been invented yet. Besides publishing 12 writings about “Research on the Riddle of Man-Manly Love" he is also especially well-known for giving a speech at the German Lawyers Conference in 1867 where he demanded the decriminalization of same-sex sexuality.

 

(2) Karl Maria Kertbeny was born in Vienna in 1824 and was an Austrian-Hungarian author. Struck by the suicide of a friend he started to be interested in same-sex-attraction in the 1860s and used the term “homosexual” for the first time in 1868.

 

(3) Richard von Krafft-Ebing was born in Mannheim, Germany in 1840 and was a German-Austrian psychiatrist, neurologist and forensic medical expert. With his in 1886 published “Psychopathia Sexualis” he helped to circulate the term “homosexuality”. Von Krafft-Ebing was advocating to have homosexuality decriminalized as he – contrary to most people at the times – did not see it as an immoral behaviour but as an inheritable nervous disease. With this framing, he also contributed to the pathologization of homosexuality.

 

(4) Oscar Wilde was born in Dublin in 1854 and was an influential Irish writer. In 1895 he was sentenced to being imprisoned in a workhouse for two years due to sodomy. His case caused a European-wide discussed scandal.

 

(5) For simplicity, I will use the term “heterosexuals” and “homosexuals” whenever needed in this essay. This terms should however not be understood in an essential way.

 

(6) Apparently, Magnus Hirschfeld was often performing himself as a “transvestite” with his drag name “Tante Magnesia”. (Cf. Gordon, M. (2015): Sündiges Berlin – Die Zwanziger Jahre: Sex, Rausch, Untergang, Wittlich, p. 138f)

 

(7) Cf. Sigusch, V. (2008): Geschichte der Sexualwissenschaft, Frankfurt/Main, p. 197ff

and Gordon, M. (2015): Sündiges Berlin – Die Zwanziger Jahre: Sex, Rausch, Untergang, Wittlich, p. 137ff.

 

(8) In order to respect the fact, that some people deliberately and happily choose to do sex work, while some are forced into prostitution (e.g. by the mafia or because of financial despair) I would like to use both terms “sex workers” as well as “prostituted people” here.


(9) Cf. Schlaffer, N. (2016): The Unsung Heroines of Stonewall – Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera, https://sites.psu.edu/womeninhistory/2016/10/23/the-unsung-heroinesof-stonewall-marsha-p-johnson-and-sylvia-rivera/, October 23, 2016, accessed on July 25, 2018.

 

(10) Cf. Gordon, M. (2015): Sündiges Berlin – Die Zwanziger Jahre: Sex, Rausch, Untergang, Wittlich, p. 138f.


(11) Cf. Rubin, G. (1992): Thinking Sex – Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality, https://www.ipce.info/library_3/pdf/rubin_thinking_sex.pdf, accessed on July 25, 2018.

 

(12) Cf. Deutsche Welle (2018): EuGH – Gleichgeschlechtliche Ehepartner haben in allen EUStaaten Aufenthaltsrecht, https://www.dw.com/de/eugh-gleichgeschlechtlicheehepartner-haben-in-allen-eu-staaten-aufenthaltsrecht/a-44077179, June 5, 2018, accessed on July 25, 2018.

 

(13) Badgett, M. V. L. (2011): Social Inclusion and the Value of Marriage Equality in Massachusetts and the Netherlands, in: Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 67, No. 2, 2011, pp. 316-334, p. 324.

 

(14) Badgett, M. V. L. (2011): Social Inclusion and the Value of Marriage Equality in Massachusetts and the Netherlands, in: Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 67, No. 2, 2011, pp. 316-334, p. 332.

 

(15) Cf. Sigusch, V. (2015): Schwule in Bewegung oder Differenzierung der Homosexualität, in Sigusch, V.: Sexualitäten – Eine kritische Theorie in 99 Fragmenten, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 353-358, p. 353f.

 

(16) Badgett, M. V. L. (2011): Social Inclusion and the Value of Marriage Equality in Massachusetts and the Netherlands, in: Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 67, No. 2, 2011, pp. 316-334, S. 319.

 

(17) Cf. Der Zaunfink (2018): Vom Sodomiten zur PrEP-Schlampe – Wanderwege der Sexfeindlichkeit, in: Der Zaunfink – Queere Alltagsanthropologie, derzaunfink.wordpress.com, https://derzaunfink.wordpress.com/2018/05/18/vomsodomiten-zur-prep-schlampe/, May 18, 2018, accessed on May 26, 2018.

 

(18) Cf. Stroh, K. (2012): Maßnahmenkatalog gegen HIV – Als die CSU in den Krieg gegen Aids zog, SZ.de, https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/massnahmenkatalog-gegen-hivals-die-csu-in-den-krieg-gegen-aids-zog-1.1292107, February 24, 2012, accessed on July 26, 2018.

 

(19) Cf. Der Zaunfink (2018): Vom Sodomiten zur PrEP-Schlampe – Wanderwege der Sexfeindlichkeit, in: Der Zaunfink – Queere Alltagsanthropologie, derzaunfink.wordpress.com, https://derzaunfink.wordpress.com/2018/05/18/vomsodomiten-zur-prep-schlampe/, May 18, 2018, accessed on May 26, 2018.

 

(20) Cf. Duggan, L. (2002): The New Homonormativity – The Sexual Politics of Neoliberalism, in: Castronovo, R., Nelson, D. D. (Hrsg.): Materializing Democracy – Toward a Revitalized Cultural Politics, Durham, p. 175-194.

 

(21) Cf. Der Zaunfink (2015): Das Paarprivilegien-Projekt – Fast wie richtige Menschen, in: Der Zaunfink – Queere Alltagsanthropologie, derzaunfink.wordpress.com, https://derzaunfink.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/das-paarprivilegien-projekt-fast-wie-richtigemenschen/, June 22, 2015, accessed on June 26, 2018.

 

(22) Cf. Rehberg, P. (2013): Homophob sind immer die anderen, in: der Freitag – Das Meinungsmedium, freitag.de, https://www.freitag.de/autoren/der-freitag/ homophobsind- immer-die-anderen, July 4, 2013, accessed on July 26, 2018.

 

(23) Cf. Der Zaunfink (2015): Das Paarprivilegien-Projekt – Fast wie richtige Menschen, in: Der Zaunfink – Queere Alltagsanthropologie, derzaunfink.wordpress.com, https://derzaunfink.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/das-paarprivilegien-projekt-fast-wie-richtigemenschen/, June 22, 2015, accessed on May 26, 2018.

 

(24) Cf. Der Zaunfink (2018): Vom Sodomiten zur PrEP-Schlampe – Wanderwege der Sexfeindlichkeit, in: Der Zaunfink – Queere Alltagsanthropologie, derzaunfink.wordpress.com, https://derzaunfink.wordpress.com/2018/05/18/vomsodomiten-zur-prep-schlampe/, May 18, 2018, accessed on May 26, 2018.

 

(25) Cf. Der Zaunfink (2015): Das Paarprivilegien-Projekt – Fast wie richtige Menschen, in: Der Zaunfink – Queere Alltagsanthropologie, derzaunfink.wordpress.com, https://derzaunfink.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/das-paarprivilegien-projekt-fast-wie-richtigemenschen/, June 22, 2015, accessed on May 26, 2018.


(26) Cf. Duggan, L. (2002): The New Homonormativity – The Sexual Politics of Neoliberalism, in: Castronovo, R., Nelson, D. D. (Hrsg.): Materializing Democracy – Toward a Revitalized Cultural Politics, Durham, p. 175-194.

 

(27) Cf. Rubin, G. (1992): Thinking Sex – Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality, https://www.ipce.info/library_3/p –df/rubin_thinking_sex.pdf, accessed on July 25, 2018.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

Tod, Homophobie & "gefährliche Sex-Monster"

January 19, 2020

Death, Homophobia, & "Dangerous Sex Monsters"

December 1, 2019

1/10
Please reload

You Might Also Like: