sex addict

• hakkinda onlarca sozluk yazari tarafindan zaten oldukca guzel bir sekilde gereken yazilmis yazarimsidir. kendisi "escinsel" kimligini on plana atarak, arka plandaki "homofobik" zihniyetini gizlemektedir. oldukca cahil olan bu yazarimsi kardesimiz, bir sosyoloji doktora adayi olan benim karsimda fazlaca ezildigi icin, hakkimda da sacma sapan seyler yazmaya baslamistir. yani cirkinlesmeye baslayan kisidir. sosyoloji okumasini, kendini gelistirmesini, tabiki ozellikle queer theory ogrenmesini; ve biz sosyologlarin bu mevzulara olan bakis acisini kazanmasini tavsiye ettigim insandir. yazik valla ben escinselim diye kapi kapi gezen bu gencimizin, escinselligin ne oldugunu anlayamamasi oldukca uzuntu vericidir. turkiyemizin aci gercegini, cahillik tablosunu gozler onune seren bir kisidir.
• homofobik bir kisidir. isin en ilginc kismi; kendisinin escinsel olmasi homofobik olmasini ne yazik ki engelleyememistir. ayrica; henuz 20 yillik bir gecmisi olan ve bugun amerika'da lgbt gruplari arasinda en yaygin olarak kullanilan "queer theory"yi tarih oncesinden kalma zanneden bir anlayisa sahiptir. yakin zamanda birazcik kitap okumaya baslarsa (tabiki biyolojinin kokeni, molekuler biyolijinin gucu, yasasin dogustan olma escinsellik gibi sacma sapan seyler degil de; soyle elle tutulur aciklayici elestirel sosyoloji metinleri) kisisel gelisimini artiracaktir.
  
  kendisine kibarca yazdigim ozel mesajlara ragmen, hakkimda cirkin seyler yazmaya devam etmektedir. ben sohbetimizi sonlandirmak, daha fazla polemige girmemek icin kendisini mallar listeme ekledigimi belirtmistim. bundaki sebep, cok zit dusuncelere sahip iki insanin birbiriyle daha fazla tartismaya girmesini onlemekti; bunu bile fesat bir sekilde yorumlamis. sozlukteki herkesi, ve ozellikle de kendi gibi dusunmeyenleri asagilayarak, onlari cesitli etiketlerle kucumseyerek bu isler yurumuyor, cok uzucu. oturup yazismalarimiza bakarsa benim kendisine yaklasimimin, ne derece nazik oldugunu fark edecektir. ancak kendisi israrla tartisma cikarmak isteyen; surekli kendi inandiklarini empoze etmek isteyen hastalikli ve fasizan bir zihniyete sahiptir.
  
  okumasi icin kisa ama faydali bir yazi;
  
  queer theory and the social construction of sexuality
  
  with the rise of the gay liberation movement in the post-stonewall era, overtly gay and lesbian perspectives began to be put forward in politics, philosophy and literary theory. initially these often were overtly linked to feminist analyses of patriarchy (e.g., rich, 1980) or other, earlier approaches to theory. yet in the late 1980's and early 1990's queer theory was developed, although there are obviously important antecedents which make it difficult to date it precisely. there are a number of ways in which queer theory differed from earlier gay liberation theory, but an important initial difference can be gotten at by examining the reasons for opting for the term ‘queer’ as opposed to ‘gay and lesbian.’ some versions of, for example, lesbian theory portrayed the essence of lesbian identity and sexuality in very specific terms: non-hierarchical, consensual, and, specifically in terms of sexuality, as not necessarily focused upon genitalia (e.g., faderman, 1985). lesbians arguing from this framework, for example, could very well criticize natural law theorists as inscribing into the very “law of nature” an essentially masculine sexuality, focused upon the genitals, penetration, and the status of the male orgasm (natural law theorists rarely mention female orgasms).
  
  this approach, based upon characterizations of ‘lesbian’ and ‘gay’ identity and sexuality, however, suffered from three difficulties. first, it appeared even though the goal was to critique a heterosexist regime for its exclusion and marginalization of those whose sexuality is different, any specific or “essentialist” account of gay or lesbian sexuality had the same effect. sticking with the example used above, of a specific conceptualization of lesbian identity, it denigrates women who are sexually and emotionally attracted to other women, yet who do not fit the description. sado-masochists and butch/fem lesbians arguably do not fit this ideal of ‘equality’ offered. a second problem was that by placing such an emphasis upon the gender of one's sexual partner(s), other possible important sources of identity are marginalized, such as race and ethnicity. what is of utmost importance, for example, for a black lesbian is her lesbianism, rather than her race. many gays and lesbians of color attacked this approach, accusing it of re-inscribing an essentially white identity into the heart of gay or lesbian identity (jagose, 1996).
  
  the third and final problem for the gay liberationist approach was that it often took this category of ‘identity’ itself as unproblematic and unhistorical. such a view, however, largely because of arguments developed within poststructuralism, seemed increasingly untenable. the key figure in the attack upon identity as ahistorical is michel foucault. in a series of works he set out to analyze the history of sexuality from ancient greece to the modern era (1980, 1985, 1986). although the project was tragically cut short by his death in 1984, from complications arising from aids, foucault articulated how profoundly understandings of sexuality can vary across time and space, and his arguments have proven very influential in gay and lesbian theorizing in general, and queer theory in particular (spargo, 1999; stychin, 2005).
  
  one of the reasons for the historical review above is that it helps to give some background for understanding the claim that sexuality is socially constructed, rather than given by nature. moreover, in order to not prejudge the issue of social constructionism versus essentialism, i avoided applying the term ‘homosexual’ to the ancient or medieval eras. in ancient greece the gender of one's partner(s) was not important, but instead whether one took the active or passive role. in the medieval view, a ‘sodomite’ was a person who succumbed to temptation and engaged in certain non-procreative sex acts. although the gender of the partner was more important than in the ancient view, the broader theological framework placed the emphasis upon a sin versus refraining-from-sin dichotomy. with the rise of the notion of ‘homosexuality’ in the modern era, a person is placed into a specific category even if one does not act upon those inclinations. what is the common, natural sexuality expressed across these three very different cultures? the social constructionist answer is that there is no ‘natural’ sexuality; all sexual understandings are constructed within and mediated by cultural understandings. the examples can be pushed much further by incorporating anthropological data outside of the western tradition (halperin, 1990; greenberg, 1988). yet even within the narrower context offered here, the differences between them are striking. the assumption in ancient greece was that men (less is known about women) can respond erotically to either sex, and the vast majority of men who engaged in same-sex relationships were also married (or would later become married). yet the contemporary understanding of homosexuality divides the sexual domain in two, heterosexual and homosexual, and most heterosexuals cannot respond erotically to their own sex.
  
  in saying that sexuality is a social construct, these theorists are not saying that these understandings are not real. since persons are also constructs of their culture (in this view), we are made into those categories. hence today persons of course understand themselves as straight or gay (or perhaps bisexual), and it is very difficult to step outside of these categories, even once one comes to seem them as the historical constructs they are.
  
  gay and lesbian theory was thus faced with three significant problems, all of which involved difficulties with the notion of ‘identity.’ queer theory thus arose in large part as an attempt to overcome them. how queer theory does so can be seen by looking at the term ‘queer’ itself. in contrast to gay or lesbian, ‘queer,’ it is argued, does not refer to an essence, whether of a sexual nature or not. instead it is purely relational, standing as an undefined term that gets its meaning precisely by being that which is outside of the norm, however that norm itself may be defined. as one of the most articulate queer theorists puts it: “queer is … whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. there is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. it is an identity without an essence” (halperin, 1995, 62, original emphasis). by lacking any essence, queer does not marginalize those whose sexuality is outside of any gay or lesbian norm, such as sado-masochists. since specific conceptualizations of sexuality are avoided, and hence not put at the center of any definition of queer, it allows more freedom for self-identification for, say, black lesbians to identify as much or more with their race (or any other trait, such as involvement in an s & m subculture) than with lesbianism. finally, it incorporates the insights of poststructuralism about the difficulties in ascribing any essence or non-historical aspect to identity.
  
  this central move by queer theorists, the claim that the categories through which identity is understood are all social constructs rather than given to us by nature, opens up a number of analytical possibilities. for example, queer theorists examine how fundamental notions of gender and sex which seem so natural and self-evident to persons in the modern west are in fact constructed and reinforced through everyday actions, and that this occurs in ways that privilege heterosexuality (butler, 1990, 1993). also examined are medical categories which are themselves socially constructed (fausto-sterling, 2000, is an erudite example of this, although she is not ultimately a queer theorist). others examine how language and especially divisions between what is said and what is not said, corresponding to the dichotomy between ‘closeted’ and ‘out,’ especially in regards to the modern division of heterosexual/homosexual, structure much of modern thought. that is, it is argued that when we look at dichotomies such as natural/artificial, or masculine/feminine, we find in the background an implicit reliance upon a very recent, and arbitrary, understanding of the sexual world as split into two species (sedgwick, 1990). the fluidity of categories created through queer theory even opens the possibility of new sorts of histories that examine previously silent types of affections and relationships (carter, 2005).
  
  another critical perspective opened up by a queer approach, although certainly implicit in those just referred to, is especially important. since most anti-gay and lesbian arguments rely upon the alleged naturalness of heterosexuality, queer theorists attempt to show how these categories are themselves deeply social constructs. an example helps to illustrate the approach. in an essay against gay marriage, chosen because it is very representative, james q. wilson (1996) contends that gay men have a “great tendency” to be promiscuous. in contrast, he puts forward loving, monogamous marriage as the natural condition of heterosexuality. heterosexuality, in his argument, is an odd combination of something completely natural yet simultaneously endangered. one is born straight, yet this natural condition can be subverted by such things as the presence of gay couples, gay teachers, or even excessive talk about homosexuality. wilson's argument requires a radical disjunction between heterosexuality and homosexuality. if gayness is radically different, it is legitimate to suppress it. wilson has the courage to be forthright about this element of his argument; he comes out against “the political imposition of tolerance” towards gays and lesbians (wilson, 1996, 35).
  
  it is a common move in queer theory to bracket, at least temporarily, issues of truth and falsity (halperin, 1995). instead, the analysis focuses on the social function of discourse. questions of who counts as an expert and why, and concerns about the effects of the expert's discourse are given equal status to questions of the verity of what is said. this approach reveals that hidden underneath wilson's (and other anti-gay) work is an important epistemological move. since heterosexuality is the natural condition, it is a place that is spoken from but not inquired into. in contrast, homosexuality is the aberration and hence it needs to be studied but it is not an authoritative place from which one can speak. by virtue of this heterosexual privilege, wilson is allowed the voice of the impartial, fair-minded expert. yet, as the history section above shows, there are striking discontinuities in understandings of sexuality, and this is true to the point that, according to queer theorists, we should not think of sexuality as having any particular nature at all. through undoing our infatuation with any specific conception of sexuality, the queer theorist opens space for marginalized forms.
  
  kaynak: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/
• bir onceki yazimda okumasi icin kisa ve faydali bir yazi diyerek kopyaladigim yaziyi benim yazdigimi sanarak simdi de sahsimi hirsizlikla suclayan kisi olmustur. bu kisa yaziyi sirf bilgi amacli kopyaladigimi bildigi halde; ici o kadar fesat ki, yine cirkin seyler yazmaya devam etmis. bu yazinin kaynagini eklemeyi unuttugum icin, ne akademik hirsizligimiz, ne serefimiz, ne de haysiyetimiz kalmis; cani sagolsun zaten herkese neler dedigini epey bir sozluk yazari desifre etmis durumda. kisiligi ortada bir gencimiz. neyse gelelim akademik yazilara, alintiya en az kendisi kadar merakliyimdir hic kafasini yormasin. firsat bulursa okumasi icin simdilik bu kadari yeterli olur sanirim;
  
  1. queer theory: lesbian and gay sexualities t de lauretis - 1991 - indiana univ press.
  2. http://www.csun.edu/…ical approach to sexuality.pdf
  3. http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/…itaet_cerulo_1997.pdf
  4. http://jft-newspaper.aub.edu.lb/…k-week9/f10126.pdf
  5. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1088774
  
  kaosgl vs. gibi kisilerin kendi dusuncelerini kafasina gore yazdigi makalelerle bana sozumona "bilimsel" cevaplar vermeye kalkiyor. bana biyolojik temelli (yani escinsellik dogustan gelir; kisi en fazla sonrada farkina varir vs gibi) bir tane "sosyoloji" makalesi gostersin, cok mutlu olucam. yukaridaki gibi bilimsel makaleler bulamayacagi icin; kendisi gibi dusunen 3-5 kisinin sahsi fikirlerini iceren abuk sabuk yazilari tarafima sunan ve sunmaya devam edecek gibi gozuken kisidir.
• aslinda kendisi ile aramizda bir "iletisimsizlik" sorunu olduguna kanaat getirdigim kisidir. escinsellik konusuna iliskin ikimizin de durdugu yer aslinda ayni: "homofobi karsitligi". ancak ayrildigimiz ve birbirimizi anlamakta zorluk cektigimiz nokta ise, kisilerin escinsel olmasina ne yol acar? gibi bir soruya yonelik oluyor. genel olarak ben cinsel yonelimin sosyalizasyonla sekillendigini (arkadas, es dost, aile vs) savunurken; sex addict bu yonelimi kisinin dogustan getirdigini, bir yerlerde hep oldugunu ancak zamanla gun yuzune ciktigini savunuyor. birbirimizi biraz sert bir uslupla elestirmemizin aslinda altinda yatan tartismanin temeli (bkz: nature vs nurture) kaynakli. bu konu halen bilim cevrelerince de hararetle tartisilirken bizim birbimize yonelik kirici ve zaman zaman suclayici yondeki yazilarimiz cok hos olmuyor aslinda. ornegin (bkz: unknown artist) bize american psychological association'in sexual orientation ile ilgili yazisini gondermis http://www.apa.org/…pcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx buradaki su nokta bizim de tartismamiz icin onemli gorunuyor;
  what causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
  
  there is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
  
  sanirim ne benim her sey ogrenilir, sosyalizasyon sonucudur demem dogru, ne de sex addict'in her seyi molekuler biyoloji aciklar yaklasimi dogru. konu gercekten tek bir degiskenle aciklanamayacak kadar onemli ve kompleks.
  
  not: ortami isitmisimdir umarim bir nebze olsun...