Would you f*ck me? I'd f*ck me; I'd f*ck me so hard.

Personally, the title of my post is probably one of my favorite quotes from a movie ever. Not just because it's explicit and fun to say aloud but because it stuck out to me so deeply the first time I watched Silence of the Lambs in a way that few movies ever had. I saw the film when I was young and at a point where I didn't exactly know how I felt about my own sexuality because I wasn't as consumed with giving Valentine's hearts and blowing kisses to the boys in my class as the other girls were. I knew that I deviated from the norm and I felt guilty because of it. So, when I saw this film and realized that there are other people who are just as (maybe not just as but in the neighborhood of) strange as I am, I didn't feel quite so alone. What went over my head when I was girl was that Buffalo Bill wasn't meant to empower and encourage those of differing sexual backgrounds but villainize and ostracize them. Albeit he is a crazed murderer, but why does he also have to be a pan-sexual crazed murderer?

I feel that part of this answer is in Bersani's essay "Against Monogamy." In a certain section Bersani dissects the Oedipus complex and how it is relative to the formation of bisexual desire. Refering to Freud, Bersani concludes that bisexuality is not a mixture of homo- and hetero-sexuality but more so double heterosexuality in which two different psyche's are attracted to each parent (and therefore each sex) within one person. I thought this was really fascinating in that the Oedipus complex is generally described as a set in stone thing that happens to boys which determines their sexuality, vice versa with the Electra complex for girls. This essay works to call this into question, as what place do gender roles really have in psychoanalytic observation; none, if it's legitimate science. When I thought of this further, I wondered why the essay made no case for pan-sexuals, considering that their explanation of bisexuality sounds kind of similar. Then I again realized that I was a reading an essay on monogamy and it's place in popular culture, something which pan-sexuality for the most part has no place in. Bisexuality, though it also supposedly screws with monogamy is more easily digested by society because although it calls your sexuality into question, it still allows one to retain a tiny bit of socially normative heterosexuality. Pan-sexuality throws away not only the categorizations of sexual orientation but also sex as a whole, rattling structures not just of gender assignment but of human physiology. To accept pan-sexuality as legitimate is tear down and rebuild much of our culture, effort which we have not shown to want to put in for a group that tramples all over the things we've worked to put in place. Therefore, the only logical way to respond is to blacklist pan-sexuality as another weird thing that only weird people (like serial killers apparently) do. So much for psychoanalytic understanding.

-Jheanelle G.

p.s. Look how early I did my blog!! First time for everything lol.