Ethan Freedman
Queering Relationships
November 30, 2023
Prof. Adam Thomas
For my final reflection, I have decided to emphasize that I am exhausted from doing the work. By doing the work, I mean adopting usage of “queer” as resistance along with all of the other terms for which it provides a domain and applying it to the texts that we have read and class discussions we have had. These usages of queer as resistance range from identities to experiences, and I wish to touch on the visceral and affective experience that I have had taking Queering Relationships by Prof. Adam Thomas.
To begin, I have sat through many courses with Queering in the title – and I would even argue that one course on the topic of queering is already more than others have inquired. While each space is unique to the thinkers that enter it, the common theme they all have is creating a safe and communal approach to addressing sensitive issues with pervasive stigmas. I have looked at topics on queering migration, queering activism, queering sex education, and queering methodologies of research – however, no class has created room like Queering Relationships.
At the beginning of the semester, our first 15 minute class created room for students to think about the subjects they were interested in learning about before the semester went underway. I remember suggesting that we cover the subject “beastiality,” and the discomfort that spread over the room. Specifically one student had a discomfort with the subject that they were willing to publicly share. I appreciated their input as they desired to speak about consenting relationships rather than relationship types where one or more parties cannot consent. I remember being very excited to go further into this course – especially with students who were willing to push back on some of my interests. What else is more beneficial to queering understandings than critical thought towards that which we already know.
As class progressed onwards, I recall that student dropping the class the second day and a feeling of guilt overcame me. Did my comments leave a student feeling unsafe or like the class was gonna be unsafe? Tangent: I just looked up the definition of beastiality and am frustrated by the fact that porn is actually the first thing to appear. In other words, the search engine optimization for beastiality is bought out by entertainment and licensing companies making hyper sexualized and pervasive content the first resource to appear in results when anyone has a question about the subject. This is similar to how porn companies control sex education topics.
Back to my comment: I felt that I had left this student feeling unsafe and was hoping that was not the case – for if it was, it would have been incredibly hard to make safe spaces for discussions on stigmatized topics as the course continued.
Within the present moment, I have the pleasure of saying that this course fostered a beyond safe space for conversation on topics that generally leave people severely uncomfortable. Comfort levels could be measured by the voices that spoke in class, the words they had to say, and the extent that they continued to show up, do the work, and be present. Comfort is also measured by the desire to appease discomfort with knowledge and dialogue on the subject. I am amazed by the fact that a Colgate course has created space for people to critically discuss relationship dynamics, interests, and other topics that generally go assumed as heteronormative. To queer relationships is to leave room for anyone to address aspects of a relationship that are important to them – and be validated as long as their words are in line with theories and not pushing the boundaries and sensitivities of language. This is easier said than done, but pushing the boundaries might be seen in an example of kink being considered a reason for an individual identifying within the queer community. While there is pushback in these situations, adopting a queer and resistant perspective on relationships enables us to see why one might consider kink to be a queer identity – while simultaneously agreeing that it stretches the domain too far.
In closing, this course queered relationships consistently by asking students to sit down with each other and discuss them. Relationships are often not discussed in an academic setting – which is queer enough to start. Resistance of norms grew as we moved away from general discursive topics related to relationships and into dynamics that often go unspoken or are asked to be hidden from public view depending on identity and cultural contexts. We learned that many factors play a role in lower relationship satisfaction or have an effect on the way relationships might look in the future. Whether it is AI, language, or different sexual acts, the future holds something for relationships that only queer frameworks leave effortless room to address. I feel that adding more emphasis on different religions and the relationship dynamics that they encompass might be really interesting. Religion is pervasive in constructing relationship dynamics and I don’t feel that we ever covered it explicitly. To cover it explicitly is to discuss traditional aspects to developing relationships in religious contexts and how those religions might struggle to maintain their constructed relationships in a queering world.
To students with different backgrounds, identities, relationships to intimacy, relationships in general, knowledge, life contexts, and so many more variables and getting them to discuss sex, sexuality, and intimacy will always be easier said than done – but Adam Thomas did it! Differences will continue to exist in this world, especially when it comes to the relationships for which individuals yearn. Powers in this world wish for uniformity in relationship dynamics but Queering relationships as a course asked for students to unwrite their visceral and emotional understandings of relationship dynamics to consider how other modes of being and connecting might exist under the umbrella of resistance to normative relationship types.