(I read this (page 45) because of Suzy’s post, which reblogs another really great post about the way the text totally erases queer coupledom, etc., but I’m not fully reblogging because this is kind of a separate post and it’s mostly just me as a straight cis lady complaining and I didn’t want to do that all over that conversation, but read them, they are good!)

So like, I get that theory can be jokes. I’ve learned a lot from jokes. But I’m not sure what joke this is making?

I really feel like that essay is critiquing, like, a stereotype and a bunch of ideas about coupledom that aren’t or at least don’t have to be true any more. At one point it literally contains the sentence: “The pseudo-empowerment of women to sleep around, wear lipstick, and buy themselves chocolate if they want to does not amount to any significant change to their structural exploitation.” Like, I don’t know, this isn’t untrue, sure, but like you have blown my mind with this Sex and the City-level stereotype. When did Female Chauvinist Pigs come out?

Also the part where the concrete example of a pop song about the way the couple form has replaced religious devotion is “Every breath you take,” which is actually, literally, a song about a stalker that people famously misinterpret to be a love song, from 1983, and not an actual contemporary love song because that would involve ruining your analysis with actual engagement with what the culture’s actually saying about love or couples right now? 

1. billyhasopinions likes this
2. rgr-pop likes this
3. mootpoint posted this