This is not quite on the subject of gender roles or motherhood. Or anything that we talked about in class today, for that matter.
While reading A Male Mencius’s Mother…, I found myself very compelled by the author’s arguments against homosexuality. It is rather fortuitous that in a heterosexual relationship that the male should supplement the deficient female so perfectly. And it certainly isn’t the first time that I’ve heard this sort of argument being made to argue for the unnaturalness of homosexuality.
But why is this argument so compelling? I do confess to feeling persuaded, but I’m baffled that I can’t explain why this argument is so strong to me. It’s not logically strong, and nor can I articulate precisely why this serendipitous phenomenon of a “perfect fit” is “good” or connotes “naturalness”. What is it exactly about the existence of an extra appendage in homosexual sex that makes the act seem so wrong?
In other words, why are we as humans psychologically so interested in things fitting perfectly together? Why are we convinced that two things fitting together is “proper”?
This fascination is not limited to sex either. There is a tumblr called Things Fitting Perfectly Into Things, a site comprised of pictures of objects that were not designed to fit into each other, but somehow happen to, perfectly. I, and apparently many other netizens, derive great pleasure from seeing a lightbulb fit into a tennis ball container. It is soothing to see two random objects, unconnected by any obvious link, somehow perfectly join.
Perhaps this fascination derives from our desire for organization? From the chaos of the universe, we seek order at all levels of our lives, and this is just one micro level of a macro desire. The universe, after all, was created from chaos, and a serendipitous collision of molecules and gases that all seemed to coincide at once.
I guess some Freudians would argue that our fascination exactly stems from the sexual act of penetration and things fitting perfectly together. (Implying that homosexuals have greater tolerance for variance of degree of “fitting in”? lol )
I’m not really going anywhere with this, but Emily encouraged me to post this, and it’s something that’s been on my mind for a while. =) I would love to hear your thoughts!