How can we deal with our own sexual identities in a world that seems to be demarcated by apparent binaries? This is a question raised by the scholar Eve Kosofsky Sedgwig in her book Epistemology of the Closet and by the philosopher Paul B. Preciado in his book Countersexual Manifesto. Sedgwig focuses more on how the differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality are fabricated, whereas Preciado focuses more on the possibility for multiple sexual identities (that exceed the binaries) to exist. Both authors suggest overcoming the current sexual discourse which can be extremely limiting.
In Epistemology of the Closet Sedgwig uncovers the instability of the homosexual/heterosexual definitions and how these terms depend upon each other in an asymmetrical way to exist. Through this analogy Sedgwig argues that these terms should not be understood as binary oppositions. In Countersexual Manifesto Preciado explores the idea in which a dildo can be used as a technique to fabricate sexuality. With this in mind Preciado questions the materiality of the construction of gender. One of the key ideas of the manifesto is the differentiation between the two types of sexual agents; the realists and the countersexualists. The difference is that the realists focus on the object of their sexual activity to define their sexual identity, whereas the countersexualists see the organ as merely an interface to access pleasure rather than a tool to define their sexual identity
The two authors are quite critical of the status quo of sexual identity and orientation. Both Sedgwig and Preciado urge the reader to re-think these definitions and to open up to new ways of thinking about them. Since Sedgwig’s text was written prior to Preciado’s, there is a clear shift in the tone between one text and the other. While the two authors share similar ideas, Preciado does make more radical statements than Sedgwig did. From my understanding of the readings, there is an encouragement to see sexuality as something that is highly manufactured. Therefore there is a need to see beyond our bodies and beyond what has been established. It is through the notion that a dildo can help create new understandings of sexuality that I think that sexuality can be seen as prosthetic, as something that can be added and changed in multiple variations.
After reading the two texts it is clear that we have to either open up the current sexual discourse or as the authors suggest create a new one. Nonetheless, at times I do wonder how feasible it is to actually introduce these new notions of sexuality. To create a new discourse or add to the current one is something necessary in this day and age. In theory it should be applicable, but in practice it does get more complicated and I do doubt that the transition will be made in the near future. If we do manage to either add to the current discourse or create a new discourse it will most definitively be a slow process, however we can be hopeful that our current understanding of sexuality will eventually change.