As sexual creatures, humanity is determined by socially-accepted modes of being. As a way of comfort, we classify people as females or males, but are we mere representations of our private parts? If we think erotically and take no time to think philosophically, we lose the people in between. If we don’t see people for the image they care to portray, we are simply projecting our own prescribed expectations unto others. When we cast our projections unto others, we rob them of their humanity. In this robbing of humanity, we conceive others as nothing more than objects of observation. In turn, we use these objects to help us assess our own existence.

We must recognize each individual as a human being–not a proven model of what a female or a male is expected to be. By estranging this regulated notion of sexuality, we open up new criteria for understanding society. When we are aware of the society we occupy, we come to terms with whatever inherent social pressures are present, pervasive, and prominent.

If we don’t question and dissect, tell me, what else are we doing?



What is the theory of social construction?

Learn more with this link! –>



Critical Writing: So Stylish: Keep it Kooky

So Stylish: Keep it Kooky

When something is queer, it seems odd. When something is stylish, it seems right. Together, what makes for a queer style? Gender roles establish normative attitudes and behaviors. Girls wear pink and boys wear blue—this is how we decipher. Progressively, socially accepted personas are pressured unto society.

Therefore, when people deliberately disturb conventions, the ensuing personas and performances tend to perplex those who are out of touch with certain means of expression.

To illustrate, let’s look at two cases contracted by social norms. First, imagine lesbian haircuts. Now, imagine drag queens. Undoubtedly, if you know what these terms mean, you can paint a fair picture; in other words, lesbian haircuts are as predictable as outrageous drag queens. In light of this, think of all the defined classifications imposed upon society—these supposed “acceptations” and “abnormalities”.

Above all, language defines labels; in turn, these definitions offer specific, customized understandings. If we misconstrue expressions or lack a language to communicate, unknown anomalies are deemed uncomfortable and, for some, even threatening. Nevertheless, language gives us the power to change the terms and influence expression. Collectively, we are responsible for our way with words—we must be wise with how words are interpreted. Even so, instead of dictating what is acceptable or not, let us look to the individual represented by the language their labeled by.

Really, who are we to judge?


On a lighter note, here’s someone who manages queer style beautifully: