Queering Time, Part II

As previously discussed in this blog series, queerness challenges underlying assumptions and norms regarding the nature and meaning of intimacy; it challenges us to think more broadly and expansively about human relatedness and connection. The queer paradigm posited by Hammack et al. (2018) explores seven axioms across which these dominant narratives are challenged, elucidating the diversity and creativity inherent in queerness:

1. “A queer paradigm challenges the normative privileging of different binary cisgender attraction in intimacy.” The queer paradigm challenges the idealization of binary cisgender coupling as the ultimate relational form by recognizing the expansive intimacy that occurs amongst individuals with the same gender identity, as well as that amongst individuals who identify outside the gender binary.

   
   

2. “A queer paradigm challenges the normative notion of static and singular desire across the life course.” Monosexuality, the essentialist idea that intimacy is directed towards one binary gender consistently over the life course, presumes that sexuality is static and unvarying over time. Queerness challenges this notion by recognizing that many individuals experience attraction across various gender identities and highlights the fluidity of desire over the life span.

   
   

3. “A queer paradigm challenges the normative privileging of monoamory and dyadic monogamy in intimacy.” The normalization and codification of intimacy, characterized by the restriction of sexual and romantic intimacy between two people, has an extensive social and legal history, exemplified through the institution of marriage. Queerness subverts this notion through alternative relational configurations such as nonmonogamy, open relationships, and polyamory, expanding the forms of meaningful intimacy that can occur amongst individuals.
   

4. “A queer paradigm challenges the normative privileging of intimacy framed by power symmetry and the absence of role or other forms of power play.” Queerness challenges the normative notion of role symmetry by recognizing the various ways in which role play and power exchange are manifested within consensual, asymmetrical forms of intimacy (e.g. kink, fetish, BDSM).

   
   

5. “A queer paradigm challenges the normative assumption that intimacy is predicated on sexual and/or romantic attraction.” Queerness expands the definition of intimacy to include other forms of nonsexual and nonromantic attraction, such as emotional, aesthetic, sensual, and intellectual attraction.

   
   

6. “A queer paradigm challenges the normative conception of the biological nuclear family as the primary social unit in the lives of individuals.” Queerness challenges the primacy of biological relationships and values alternative social units, such as chosen family and extended community.

   
   

7. “Finally, a queer paradigm challenges the normative assumption that human intimacy is characterized by essential intelligibility—that essential, timeless forms of intimacy can be known or cataloged.” By definition, queerness fundamentally rejects the “normalization” of relational forms. It exists as a realm of open possibility, highlighting the creative and inventive nature of human relation and connection.

   
   

Now let’s turn our attention to the various ways these axioms manifest within queer relationships. There have been multiple studies exploring the ways in which same-sex relationships are uniquely experienced. Diamond (2006) found that same-sex couples structure and negotiate relationships differently than their heterosexual peers, reporting more equitable distributions of financial, household, and child-rearing responsibilities. Due to a historical lack of structural recognition for queer relationships, same-sex couples have been found to engage in creative forms of relationship building through mutual agreements centered on meeting practical needs.

For example, studies have shown that same-sex couples are more likely to engage in nonmonogamous and open relationships than heterosexual couples. In defying traditional relational norms, many queer people may view the stigma attached to queer relationships as a challenge rather than a threat, transforming relationship building through egalitarian resistance and adaptation.

A study by McLean (2004) interviewed bisexual men and women in Australia, most of whom were in nonmonogamous relationships, and found that agreements in nonmonogamous relationships were often founded on values of honesty and communication. Wosick-Correa (2010) identified commitment as a core concept within polyamorous relationships and found that rule violations within relationships were often interpreted not as cheating, but as opportunities to renegotiate relationship agreements.

From this research, the concept of “agentic fidelity” was coined, describing a form of commitment that “relies upon acute self-knowledge and choice exercise through the ability to express needs and boundaries.” Sheff (2005) found that participation in polyamorous relationships led to increased opportunities for women to challenge prescribed roles and gender norms through the explicit rejection of monogamy. Furthermore, she observed a form of masculinity in poly men characterized by less possessiveness and dominance and more emotional availability, associated with more egalitarian, sex positive, and gender-neutral relationship styles.

While same-sex relationships and ethical nonmonogamy challenge normative assumptions of gender, attraction, and relationship building, kink/fetish relationships challenge normative understandings of power and symmetry. In contrast to normative relationships in which power symmetry and equality are idealized but often unachieved, research found that role-based power exchange, consent, and mutual definition of roles serve as definitional components of kink relationships.

Mosher et al. (2006) found an emphasis on collaboratively scripted power exchange within kink relationships, emphasizing interdependence between partners regardless of role. In a study by Bauer (2008), participants named consensual power play as a tool for personal growth that enhanced a sense of agency, and Newmahr (2010) found that participants experienced a sense of self-renewal in kink relationships that facilitated flow and the process of overcoming trauma. Participants also highlighted a therapeutic aspect of kink dynamics, in which asymmetrical scripts based on historical power differentials allowed them to cope with anxiety and trauma by managing the experience of historical forms of trauma in a safe and consensual way (Lindemann, 2011). In this way, participants gained a sense of power and agency by reframing injustice as a form of pleasure and intimacy. Furthermore, kink practices were associated with transformative experience through the creation of culture, identity, and community, which served as vital resources for understanding desire through a nonpathologizing framework.

These studies elucidate the ways in which a queer paradigm expands opportunities for relationship-building and highlights the diverse ways in which individuals engage with intimacy. It challenges restrictive notions of human relatedness and emphasizes the value of creativity, mutuality, and open possibility within human connection, ultimately serving to expand and redefine intimacy in terms of agency and self-expression.

References

Bauer, R. (2008). Transgressive and transformative gendered sexual practices and white privilege: The case of the dyke/trans/BDSM communities. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 36, 233–253. doi:10.1353/Wsq.0.0100

Diamond, L. M. (2006). The intimate same-sex relationships of sexual minorities. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 293–312). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hammack, Frost, & Hughes (2019). Queer Intimacies: A New Paradigm for the Study of Relationship Diversity, The Journal of Sex Research, 56:4–5, 556–592. DOI:10.1080/00224499.2018.1531281

Lindemann, D. (2011). BDSM as therapy? Sexualities, 14, 151–172. doi:10.1177/1363460711399038

McLean, K. (2004). Negotiating (non)monogamy: Bisexuality and intimate relationships. Journal of Bisexuality, 4, 83–97. doi:10.1300/j159v04n01_07

Mosher, C., Levitt, E., & Manley, E. (2006). Layers of leather: The identity formation of leathermen as a process of transforming meanings of masculinity. Journal of Homosexuality, 51, 93–123. doi:10.1300/j082v51n03_06

Newmahr, S. (2010). Rethinking kink: Sadomasochism as serious leisure. Qualitative Sociology, 33, 313–331. doi:10.1007/s11133-010-9158-9

Sheff, E. (2005). Polyamorous women, sexual subjectivity and power. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 34, 251–283. doi:10.1177/0891241604274263

Wosick-Correa, K. (2010). Agreements, rules, and agentic fidelity in polyamorous relationships. Psychology & Sexuality, 1, 44–61. doi:10.1080/19419891003634471