Can anyone explain queer heterosexuality to me?

[featherland]

I have noticed over the last few months / years more and more people I know on Facebook identifying themselves as queer, even though they are in heteronormative relationships.

For example, I went to a friend's wedding. It was very traditional - big white gown, all male speeches etc. she has been with her husband since she was a teenager and never (publicly) been in a relationship with a woman. She describes herself as femme and queer - and often posts photos of herself looking very beautiful and typically 'feminine' (makeup, pretty clothes ..) describing herself as such, with loads of pride emoticons.

I just .. Don't get it? I understand the desire to reject gender norms and heteronormativity. But surely those of us who are straight and in monogamous relationships can't just claim the word queer when we receive (willingly or not) all the social privileges of being straight?

And I can understand wanting to stand in solidarity with LGBTQ people. But don't we need to change heteronormative society rather than muscle in on the spaces created by and for people who are marginalised? Eg I am not married, mainly because I can't reconcile myself with the patriarchal history of marriage. I don't see that doing heteronormative tings and saying that you aren't is really queer? If there is such a thing as queer heterosexuality shouldn't it be about living in non normative ways?

I'm almost lost for words.
So queer now means the opposite of what the majority would think it means.
Bit like 'woman'.
Gotcha.

I really wish we could fast forward to a human phase where folk determined their worth based upon what they did, rather than demanding worth for imagined "difference".

This identity thing is so grotesquely self serving, puerile and lazy.

There are people who really think this stuff is groundbreaking.

Ohh I earn more than my DH. Does that make me queer?
He does put the bins out though.

I remember when I was about 16, lecturing my Grandad about something I thought was terribly important and fundamental (assuming he was some kind of old fashioned sweet idiot) and he very kindly but firmly explained that actually, I was talking nonsense and there was actually very little difference in most things from one generation to the next. Especially when it came to sex and relationships.
I was a bit put out at the time but I now realise how spot on he was!
Is there actually a point to gender studies, or should we just send in the Grandparents for a bit of plain speaking for a counterpoint to this fluff?

I was going to say then I too have a queer heterosexual relationship (take that, lesbian and gay friends!) but I have already identified that my partner and I are both non binary. Is it possible for two non binaries to have a heterosexual relationship?

Queer theory denies the binary of man and woman, male and female. Instead, you get BOGOF - two sexes in one non-binary wrapper.

Yes, we can be attracted to someone with a particular personality and presentation - but for most/some of us, we'll never form a sexual/romantic attachment if the accompanying genitalia and physique don't suit. Sexual orientation is pretty fundamental to our being.

It's also an expedient to claim to have a second 'protected characteristic' (LBGT) if you want to get ahead in a political movement or the NUS. A privileged, highly educated female might claim 'intersectional oppression' as both a woman and a trans (non-binary) person, even though she's heterosexual and not trans.

I have seen a few ambitious young men and women take it a stage further and self-identify as 'disabled' (self diagnosed, of course) to get themselves a third protected characteristic. It's like collecting badges, really.

Yup, ‘regressive bullshit’ exactly sums it up.

stillathing apparently you are Skoliosexuals

A queer heterosexual couple?
Doesn't that just mean one has a dick, one doesn't have a dick, but they both are dicks?

Eeh, there's nowt so queer as folk, tha knows.

This was a resurrected thread which frankly should have been left in peace but Errol wins it.

Skoliosexual reads to me like it should mean being exclusively attracted to people with skoliosis.

I apologise for not detecting the whiff of putrefaction but will graciously accept the award.

It's appropriative bollocks. It's people living straight lives who want to be special, and who want a bit of the old "I'm not homophobic" teflon.

And as a bi person I am here to say that "bisexual erasure" is a load of old cobblers, too. If you are bisexual, good for you. If you are in an opposite-sex relationship, that's fine, you are still bi, but you benefit from straight privilege. Nobody cares that you fancy a celeb the same sex as you, you are still in a straight relationship, and you benefit from straight privilege.

Most bi people are in opposite-sex relationships, and that's fine. I suspect it's a combination of social pressure and simple numbers - there are more straight people around that gay, so the odds are that you will end up in a straight relationship as there's more prospective partners. They are still bi. But that doesn't mean those bi people are oppressed for their bisexuality.

Errol does win it! (And I too did not notice the zombification! But it's a perrennial problem.)

Just read this thread and fuck me, what a lot of cobblers. Sorry but there are real issues in the world and real oppression in our society, particularly towards women. All this navel gazing over nothing is pure narcissism and utterly ridiculous. Look, we live in a gender caste system, women are dubbed lesser and pressured to be feminine, conform to stereotypically feminine ways of dressing, behaving etc... They are also hated and punished when they don't comply. That's shit. That needs to change. Destroy the bullshit gender stereotypes. There is also homophobia. This affects lesbians, gay and bisexual people who are in same sex relationships. If you are not currently in a same sex relationship, who cares if you are bisexual? Who knows? Who is stigmatizing you for it? No one bloody cares. These are first world issues. Misogyny on the other hand is alive, well and kicking and the cause of many women's suffering. Homophobia is a threat to many gay men and lesbians. Racism makes the lives of many ethnic minorities harder. Poverty limits lives and ruins the health of the poor through stress, poor diets etc... These are the issues. Not this pandaqueer gendersquid aromasturbating bollocks. No one is queer if they are in an opposite sex relationship. Society needs to stop listening to these lunatic middle class Uni smugwanks who've overdosed on too much Judith Butler.

Society needs to stop listening to these lunatic middle class Uni smugwanks who've overdosed on too much Judith Butler.

Amen to that.

The thing is that there is a whole branch of academia exploring queer theory. Like it was a science or a social science, or something.

I think I'm going to just explain it in two words

Pretentious Wankers.

The thing is that there is a whole branch of academia exploring queer theory. Like it was a science or a social science, or something.

This is what I was shown recently, via some lectures and texts. Throughout I felt it was all just make believe, fantasy and a kind of class of artistic expression. Not actually real. But that was what was scary, they all believed it was real and extra special.

Huh? It’s considered “deviant” for me to have an engineering degree and work in a male dominated area and for DH to have a cry. Is it just me or is the world moving backwards?

Errol does indeed win the thread.

But the bullshit about "FOR ANYONE WONDERING WHAT IT MEANS TO BE "QUEER HETEROSEXUAL," it means that the heterosexual relationship is non-conforming, or deviant, than that of the social construct of traditional heterosexual relationships" surely has to the prize for greatest steaming heap of ordure on mumsnet this calendar year. (I particularly love the way it was accompanied with a CV, in the manner of a Christmas round robin letter: little Jacinta now has her grade V black belt in post modern gender studies...)

Yes, deluded poster, we get it. You are special. So much more special than those of us who (thinking about the varied experiences of women on this board) fought against social norms to get into STEM careers, escaped domestic abuse against a social background of "if you only tried hard to understand him, you could make the marriage work", forged careers in law and politics, broke the expectations of the woman always being the stay-at-home-parent, made a success of being a single parent, took part in sports thought of as "men's sports." But no, you must not let anything get in the way of your mental picture of us as stuck in a 1950s Doris Day movie (and even that was an illusion, because Rock Hudson was gay). Because if you didn't have this mental picture, you'd have no mental model for the mundane, grey background against which you are so "speshul". And that would not do at all.

FOR ANYONE WONDERING WHAT IT MEANS TO BE "QUEER HETEROSEXUAL," it means that the heterosexual relationship is non-conforming, or deviant, than that of the social construct of traditional heterosexual relationships

There is a word or words missing after "or deviant" and before "than that". It doesn't make sense.

I think it should say something like it means that the heterosexual relationship is non-conforming, or deviant, when compared with the social construct of traditional heterosexual relationships

By "not make sense" I mean , literally not make sense because of the poor grammatical structure, not the content.The content is another matter. My re-written version is structurally correct but still drivel.

(Credentials- LLB, DipLP, Notary Public and an A pass in Sixth Year Studies English)

So dh once commented it was odd/ more like a bloke that I did t like musicals, did like sci fi, wasn't very tidy and didn't blow dry my hair. I commented it was odd he was quite so obsessed with talent shows.

Does that make us queer?

Tedious - hmm, if you both really thought the other odd for those reasons then accordingly to my definition upthread then I fear it does.

I'm feeling exceptionally smug at having been awarded a thread by Lass of all people; in return I think she deserves special commendation for turning nonsense into drivel.