In an earlier post, I talked about how Maggie Nelson, a current darling of intellectual feminism, defines herself by the nature of her sexual practices.
Today I saw "How to transcend a happy marriage" at Lincoln Center in Manhattan, a play by Sarah Ruhl where, among other things, the same theme arises.
In Nelson's case, it is anal sex with a spouse who was once a woman and, as a result, we are repeatedly told that she has become a "sodomitical mother" after having a child with a sperm donor. I'm referring to her recent memoir "The Argonauts."
With respect to Ruhl, the identity of a key character in the play is defined by her polyamorous lifestyle: an openly disclosed sex-life with two male partners, everyone living together in the same household.
Are these people lawyers, doctors, liberals, conservatives, progressives, opera lovers, Cubs fans, whatever? In other words, the way many people may define themselves? Well, only as secondary traits, if at all. The main way they think about themselves, and want others to think about them, is how they have sex.
A major issue in the play is our animal nature versus what civilization appears to require of us and after all, we are first and foremost animals. So fair enough, you might say.
Both Nelson and Ruhl, by the way, have received "Genius" grants from the MacArthur foundation so if you think their preoccupation with the topic is only to sell books and tickets to the theater, think again. This is where society is at and I'm sure both women would argue, always has been. We just haven't been sufficiently honest about it.
What to be considered a genius? Just be honest. (To be fair, it isn't all that easy.)
I'll have more to say about "How to transcend a happy marriage" in another post.
No comments:
Post a Comment