In their article, Sex in Public, Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner make sharp social commentaries on what it means to live in our heteronormative society. They discuss the definition of heteronormativity and how it stems for a sense of privilege and a need for social purity. Interestingly too, as per the title’s namesake, they discuss why exactly the notion of “sex in public” is considered so taboo based on the constructs set in place by heteronormativivity, and the fact that “queer” love and intimacy in general is strictly confined to spaces that are separate and private from the public. This in turn causes the public to mediate any sort of queerness, and ultimately makes all sex and intimacy public, despite the heteronormative need to suppress all queerness.

In hashing out what exactly heteronormativity means, the two authors begin by comparing the idea to multi-ethnic integration (ie- such as found in immigration) in the United States. They use the example of a magazine cover that displays a photo of an ethnically unidentifiable woman, muttering the fact that decades down the line there will have been so much cross-racial reproduction in America that race will not be considered when thinking about what it is to be American. The authors use this as an example of a societal attempt at easing the “white-dominated society” into the potential shaking of their “’core’ national culture” (2601). It is so hard for our dominantly Caucasian society to swallow the idea that their perceived purity would one day no longer exist, to the point where their hand must be held through it all. And that is the crux of the definition of heteronormativity that Berlant and Warner present, as they state, “This sense of rightness-embedded in things and not just in sex- is what we call heteronormativity. Heteronormativity is more than ideology, or prejudice, or phobia against gays and lesbians; it is produced in almost every aspect of the forms and arrangements of social life…” (2605). The privilege of being the dominant culture in society brings with it a fear of difference, which in turn harbors tailored constructs, such as the normalcy Americans find in heterosexuality, that enable this perceived pure society to maintain its existence through repression of sexuality in public spaces. Most suppressed is “queer,” or homosexual sexuality as it is so difficult for the heteronormative citizen to define it and allow its existence in their constructed universe based on their privilege.

Moving off the fact that fact, intimacy must therefore be separate from the public sphere according to Berlant and Warner. In turn, they argue that “…Although the intimate relations of private personhood appear to be the realm of sexuality itself, allowing “sex in public” to appear like matter out of place, intimacy is itself publicly mediated, in several senses” (2604). Therefore, while intimacy is for only the private sphere, it has therefore become a public act based on the fact that its activity is mediated by the aversion of the public. It is confusing to think about, but the truth is that if we are constantly trying to avoid the public in our sexual acts, then those sexual acts therefore belong to the public by the fact that we are answering to the public in hiding from it. The irony is that the original attempt at securing these non-conforming sexual acts to privacy, it causes these acts to become a part of public society.

In Gender Trouble, by Judith Butler, there is a focus on gender norms and what gender truly is. Butler believes that gender is a result of one’s actions and behaviors, such as a focus on the body and mind, which regulates this concept of sexuality, creating a distinction and a political argument concerning gender.

Butler delves into this concept of ideology, where this formation of ideas shapes gender and sexuality. With these ideas, comes an even closer focus on the body versus the mind, the corporeal versus the soul, or the inner versus the outer. Butler’s argument begins with the interior soul, which is within the body and is “signified through its inscription on the body…” (2548) She believes that the structuring inner space is successful due to the presence of the body as a vital enclosure. The soul itself, is “a surface signification that contests and displaces the inner/outer distinction itself…” (2548) She states that it is some form of internal psychic space that is inscribed on the body as a social signification.

When new definitions and forms of sexuality arise, they go against the typical heterosexual structure. It is this socially constructed ideal that is then viewed as a norm, automatically expelling, or casting out, any other forms. It regulates the sexual field, keeping it in a comfortable and understandable place. However, gender is not as black and white as many urge it to be. What is it, exactly? Before answering that question, Butler goes into the argument of the inner and outer. She claims that acts and gestures are what produce this internal core, but they do so on the surface of the body, thus creating identity. She claims that these actions are performative, as the essence or identity that they signify are simply fabrications that are sustained through corporeality. It is these acts and gestures that create an illusion of an “interior and organizing gender core”.        Butler then answers the question of gender, as she says, “if the inner truth of gender is a fabrication and if a true gender is a fantasy instituted and inscribed on the surface of bodies, then it seems that genders can be neither true nor false…” (2549) Essentially, gender does not exist, according to Butler. It is simply a result of these behaviors that work to create an identity that does not truly belong to an individual.

I especially liked her inclusion of Esther Newton’s perception on gender identity and the expressive model of gender, mocking it, as she states, “…drag is a double inversion that says, “appearance is an illusion.” Drag says “my outside” appearance is feminine, but my essence ‘inside’ the body is masculine. At the same time, it symbolizes the opposite inversion; “my appearance ‘outside’ is masculine but my essence ‘inside’ is feminine” (2549) An argument such as this one further encourages and proves the arguments that Butler makes throughout the piece. It mocks gender identity in a simple way, as it is evident that the outer appearance of an individual does not signify their sexuality. It does not give them a true identity, thus proving that gender is not true or false, as Butler mentioned before. It goes into this concept of inner and outer, which is the most basic form of Butler’s argument, as there are much more specific forms, or labels, that show this distinction. Although gender may not be true or false, it is clear to see the various forms of sexuality that individuals may possess. Newton’s argument poses a contradiction between the two reversals, as it steers away from the concept of gender significations.

Butler’s arguments towards gender and ideology connects very well with Althusser’s concept of ideology and how one is called, or hailed, by a specific presence. Individuals are interpellated through the presence of gender norms, as they signify accepted or appropriate behavior within society. Butler’s argument is powerful and incredibly relevant, as it not only relates to the initial outbreak of the deeper understanding of sexuality, but also the modern day understanding of it as well. There are countless cases where individuals are misunderstood on account of their sexuality. This is a result of many things, but in Butler’s argument, it is the forced social norms that come with the concept of gender that are imposed on individuals. It is a concern that is not understood by all, as it is much easier for everything and everyone to have a label of some sort. This way, there is some type of order and “identity” between individuals. However, Butler believes it is useless, as these forms are not necessarily true or false, but socially constructed instead. They are imposed on individuals who are forced to stay in one lane, regulating heterosexuality, rather than understanding the deeper meaning of what gender really is.

Gender Trouble aims to open possibilities for the ways gender manifests, or in Butler’s terms, is performed, rather than to provide a definitive account of what exactly is “gender.” She argues that gender is both performed and performative; that gender is something individuals perform and that gender, in the performance, constitutes “the identity it is purported to be”. She argues that sex is constructed, and constructed through the “apparatus” of gender.

Can a person actually possess a gender? Can a person even be a gender? Or are we just acting out a gender? I think a good example of gender performativity would be Lady Gaga when she assumes the role of her male alter ego,  Joe Calderone. When she performs as Joe, Gaga attempt to blur the lines that are imposed in society’s approaches towards gender and sex. Manliness in this case, is being performed through Lady Gaga’s actions and clothing rather than being a trait that pre-exists within her. Gender and sex, from Butler’s perspective, can be approached in a similar fashion to “dress up” in the sense of being a construction (or performance) rather than an essential part of one’s being. To quote Rupaul Charles: “we’re all born naked and the rest is drag”.

Butler talks about drag performances (side note: drag performances are so much fun and everyone should go see one at least once!) in order to illustrate how they shake up the “very distinctions between the natural and the artificial, depth and surface, inner and outer through which discourse about genders almost always operates”. Since drag is the performance of a gender that is supposed to be the opposite of the performer’s “true” gender, it causes one to question the extent to which certain traits are considered male or female. Rather than viewing drag as just imitation, Butler approaches it as an action that defines the boundaries that create the idea of gender in the first place. Butler defines gender as “the repeated stylization of the body, a set of repeated acts within a highly rigid regulatory frame that congeal over time to produce the appearance of substance, of a natural sort of being”.

Gender comes to existence through our actions. She states: “gender proves to be performative — that is, constituting the identity it is purported to be. In this sense, gender is always a doing, though not a doing by a subject who might be said to preexist the dead”.

Her conclusion for the challenging of gender binaries is that no individual person can escape the existing framework or power structures but that those power structures can be challenged through performing gender in such a way that calls attention to the framework’s logic and challenges its status as “natural”.

In Gender Trouble, Judith Butler refers to how sex and gender have been a major topic within politics.  Someone who was by chance born with one set of reproductive organs versus another has had their entire ideology shaped by what it means to be of that sex.  However, there is a difference between “the body,” which has traditionally influenced our views on gender, and what is within us that shapes who we are.  

Butler alludes to Foucault’s The History of Sexuality, in how society has managed to control the discourse, and in turn, public views of controlling sexuality.  Traditional views of sexuality include some form of heteronormative vaginal/penile intercourse between a (preferably married) man and woman.  This is a clear way to define two types of bodies: the male and female.  However, homosexuality throws a wrench into this neat construction of gender, not to mention transgender individuals, or Butler’s example, those who dress in drag.  Suddenly, these other sexual practices “that open surfaces and orifices to erotic signification or close down others effectively reinscribe the boundaries of the body along new cultural lines” (2545).  No longer does inhabiting one type of body restrict one to specific sexual acts, and therefore other behavior as well.

As interference declines within the realm of what constitutes proper exchanges between the sexes, “the very boundaries that determine what it is to be a body at all” decline as well (2545).  For so long, many of us have internalized what it means to be a “girl” or “boy” since childhood.  As a child, I was told by my mother that it is more fun to be a girl.  We get to dress up, wear makeup and high heels, and partake in generally more frivolous activities while men do the work.  While I’ll admit that I do enjoy designer shoes, I have departed from my family norm by providing for myself (I’m the first woman in my family to have lived in their own home/apartment outside of a father or husband), with the goal of pursuing a master’s degree next year instead of a wedding (my mom likes to mention she was married and pregnant at my age).  Both aspects are considered masculine traits in my family, and while not discouraged, I’m often looked upon as an oddity in my family (can’t wait for Thanksgiving next week!). 

Butler takes this idea further when referencing Foucault again later in the essay.  He describes how the essence of one’s soul is located somewhere within the body, not outwardly displayed on it.  It is invisible, a “signifying lack” (2548).  Desire is not a consequence of gender.  A girl wanting a Barbie doll for their birthday may, of course, want one out of true desire, but more likely, from an internalized idea of what it means to be a girl formed by gender ideology.  Butler points out that it is through repetitive acts conforming our gender that creates what we see as our gender identity.  However, she also make a key distinction between expressive and performative acts.  She encourages the radical idea of expression, and that by allowing the outward expression of our true selves, we will not be forced to conform to gender.

In Judith Butler’s From Gender Trouble, one of the things she talks about is what it means to be a female and how being a female is filled with endless possibilities of trouble. She discusses how there is this box of what a woman should be and if one does not fit into that criteria, there would be trouble. For example, a woman could get pregnant by the wrong person at the wrong time or not be able to get pregnant when the time is right. Similarly, a woman is supposed to be modest and should contain certain aspects about herself including sexuality or else she is considered “trouble.” All of that pressure falls onto a woman, not a man. Again, if a woman were to discuss her sexual partners openly it is looked at as “trouble” however for a man he is given props. While all of these issues are definitely still present today, women have been making huge strides to counteract these boxes of what we are supposed to be. For example, we almost had a woman president! A woman being in a position of that power or even coming close to achieving it is a huge mark of progress on its own. Another example can be women in the film/tv industry. Up until very recently, women were portrayed on screen as these stiff, non-complex, doll-like characters. They were essentially present as a prop for the male characters. However, now we have woman dominating the industry. We see this major stride very well in the area of Comedy. Comedy was predominantly male up until very recently. A perfect example of this is the tv show “Broad City” on Comedy Central. This show was created by and stars two female comedians and it is a show based on their real life odd-couple friendship while they are trying to make it in New York City. This show does not shy away from female issues of “trouble.” For example, Menstruation used to be something that nobody spoke about and was considered inappropriate to discuss while it is a natural process of the human body! There is an episode of “Broad City” where one of the girls gets her period on a flight and the whole episode surrounds her trying to find a tampon. It is absolutely hysterical and real. 20 years ago an episode like that would never have been aired. Therefore, while I think women still face discrimination and hardships, I also have tremendous hope because the “troubles” of being a woman are slowly becoming less and less.

Sexuality is not the spontaneous overflow of unfettered passion (2404), according to Zizek!, but a theatrical performance: the sadomasochist stage director, who enjoys the fantastical dominatrix onstage, that extends her hand toward the director in the empty audience, pulling him up, and physically reminds him: whose the master of his body. In other words, pain, less physical/more emotional, is the lynchpin to the fantasy of love. And love, if you ain’t know by now, is a construct. Oh, where in New York art thou construct-free spaces to engage our primate sense of love upon a mate, that’s not a dive bar? What is love (don’t go there Alexis)?

Let’s step back and ask a less daunting question: Does Zizek! exist? What position is he arguing of courtly love, as a relevant parameter (2407) that stages the conscious mating? One, Zizek sort of exist, verified by Norton & YouTube; and two, my assertion: courtly love adheres to only a minority of men, that value “conscious” pursuit for carnal love. Let’s break these three italics: Value, is how a man prioritizes his attention; pursuit, is the exercising, or Althusserian material existence (1354), of his attention aprori or vested with seductive tools; and carnal, is the biological hardwiring that, upon “lover’s” (a noun I’ll expound on later) sight, automates testosterone and adrenaline that’s pleasurable…which runs full circle: that runs back to an “unconscious” attention. Thus, the chemical pleasure, is the valued attention, to be pursued.

The pursued woman, in this case, will respond to his hail (1356), whether she ignores him or engages, because she being the judge of a future relation or not, because she’s being pursued (the roles would switch, if she pursued the male), has initially and/or ultimately judged, thru periphery or directly, his superficial façade: the face, hair, body, etc. The pursuer’s subsequent persuasive rhetoric use of, perhaps Jakobson’s poetic function (1151), if it passes thru the screening membrane between pursuer/pursued, would be the deciding factor. I’d argue this type of modern courtly man, on all degrees, from infrequent pursuer, or daily, as in a Casanovian libertine, or modern pick-up artist, may lean toward Zizek’s argument.

However, I do agree that, in most cases, empirically in majority of relationships, at least in Manhattan, there’s a symbolic love dyad, via both mates “always already subjected” by constructs of love (Church, advertising, parents), that, whether necessary or not, is there at love’s first sight. Which brings me to that seemingly impossible question of: what is love? If Plato’s Symposium is inconclusive, fast-forward 2000+ years later where Freud ask “What does a woman want?”, and excluding the Darwinian’s natural selection of procreation…love—as I avoid answering this philosophical conundrum—is better suited for it’s pragmatic synonym: process.

 First love, we misconstrue, or people tell us we do, for a crush, or “puppy love”. And because the greatest minds in history, can’t objectively agree on love: to that love struck kid in elementary school, love…this is love.

This is pre-puberty. Lust is not a biological feeling yet, or perhaps it’s felt another way (I can’t recall the 90’s). This may be the “Real”(2426) that Zizek mentions, when the catalytic discovery in The Crying Game, when the purser discovers the impossibility of his fantasy and the object-subject relation switches. Proceeding, then, this “puppy love”, I assume, unless the kid is a natural mack, has no conception of Jakobson poetics, does not like pain in any manner, and may even listen to his mom’s advice: and give this six year old girl, a bear and flowers…and it’s not Valentine’s Day! But until that inevitable day where both kids are just so confused, they “break-up” (if it gets that far), to the contrary argument: that courtly love still dictates parameters; that kid, with his sincere attraction of her, is boundless from an idea of love, or at least from Zizek’s one.

In “Gender Trouble,” Judith Butler ultimately argues that gender is performed. She also criticizes aspects of Feminist theory (and other well known theorists) such as the idea that there exists an identity and a subject that requires representation in politics and language. For Judith Butler, the simple categories of “woman” and “man” are in reality super complex because of factors such as class, ethnicity and sexuality. She points out that these categories also empower a patriarchal society. Though ultimately she challenges the common idea that sex is biological and gender is culturally constructed. According to Judith Butler, both sex and gender are constructed! “Sexed bodies can not signify without gender and the existence of sex prior to discourse and cultural imposition is only an effect of the functioning of gender.” In other words, sex and gender construct each other. This is important because Judith Butler wants people to trouble the categories of gender through performance and in a way remove the gendered pronouns.

In a way Butler is asking to reconstruct the English language in such a way that gender-based pronouns cease to exist. To her, that will be progress towards a less gender based society. The idea of how language and society intertwine, support and complicate each other has been discussed throughout the whole semester, but in Butler’s case she is literally giving us the first action to take, which she makes sound simple, yet I could not see working out for a very long time. For example, I think reteaching our current society the English pronouns would not be very welcoming (because people aren’t crazy about change) and so a change as big as that would take A lot of time. People tend to stick to what they know because it makes them feel comfortable. The moment something as common as the pronouns are challenged then people will get uncomfortable. An uncomfortable society leads to a restless a society, that acts out without thinking (most of the time violently). Point being, that what Butler calls out for is not a simple task, yet I do think she is correct that sex and gender are constructed. Society constructs what it means to be of a certain sex and how one should behave since they’re from a certain sex. Society is what claims that sex is biological so technically that means society chose that, which technically means it constructed that idea.

“Sex in Public”

            Sex in Public by Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner can confuse one into thinking that this text will discuss people having sex in public spaces. This text speaks nothing about that but about heteronormativity. Heterosexuality is normalized in our culture according to Berlant and Warner. They state that in our society heterosexual is deemed right whereas homosexuality or bisexuality are wrong. Berlant and Warner make the suggestion that there is a rightness of heteronormativity in things. In the text they stated, “Heteronormativity is more than ideology, or, prejudice, or phobia against gays and lesbians; it is produced in almost every aspect of the forms and arrangements of social life.” This portion of the text exemplifies that heteronormativity is an aspect of our culture that is deeply rooted to be correct. Reading this text and seeing the idea of heterosexual culture being prevalent in our world it made me think of Althusser’s theory of interpellation. From the moment we are born the idea of heterosexuality is embedded within us. Since we are trained from birth to believe that heterosexuality is right while other sexualities are wrong these thoughts are not our own. This ideology about sex and gender is something we have been taught. We have been interpellated about a lot of our thoughts.Heteronormativity is not just about sex but the sense of rightness that is embedded in things. It is seen as communal and is then imagines through intimacy, coupling or kinship. This idea of community is troubling to people of the gay community.

            Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner also speak on how some laws encourage heterosexual culture and helps it become reinforced. If one thinks about today’s society and looks at the things that are legalize and what is not it is shocking. It is shocking to know that most states only recently allowed for same sex marriages to be legal. The idea of heterosexuality as normal and correct can still be found in many places. It was a point in the text that heteronormativity gets its ideology through the “institution of intimacy”. Even though intimacy is supposed to have a sense of privatehood it is mediated by the public and makes “sex in public” seem out of place. According to Berlant and Warner institutions of intimacy are offered as a vision of the good life for those who are destabilized.

            Berlant and Warner also touches upon the types of people who are oppressed by this idea of heteronormativity. According to the text, “The nostalgic family values…and Clintonian familialism seek to increase the legal and economic privileges of married couples and parents”, this portion of the text exemplifies that heterosexual culture is being reinforced to fit values that society deem important like family. This text is not about having sex in public but about sexuality and what is heteronormativity described as.

With an outlook grounded in psychoanalysis, desire is never simply desire. Slavoj Zizek’s “Courtly Love, or, Woman as Thing” offers a perspective about romantic and sexual pursuits that is rooted in an asymmetry between subject and its object, how projections of ones’ ‘Thing’ will inevitably fill up the ‘black hole’ that is their object, whether transcendent, medieval lady or hardcore dominatrix and usually renders the woman-object passive. In discussing Zizek’s article, I could not help but be reminded of similar theories regarding desire, especially Rene Girard’s theory of mimetic desire and how both are essentially rooted in the fundamental idea that however this passion or Lacanian ‘objet petit a’ comes to be mediated, it is always a black hole and an empty symbol indicative of the constructed falseness of these human interactions. “There is more truth in the mask we wear, in the game we play, in the ‘fiction’ we obey and follow than in what is concealed beneath the mask” (2410-11).

Mimetic desire differs from Zizek’s theory in that it is centered around a triangle, in which there is a subject of desire, its object, and a mediator whose principles or behaviors the subject seeks to imitate in its pursuit of the object. The object of desire is the least important element of the triangle, as the complex relationship between the subject and its mediator; whether an internal rival for intimacy or an external ideal that crept its way into the subject’s consciousness; reveals more about the root of desire and its intentions. For example, in Gustave Flaubert’s nineteenth century magnum opus, Madame Bovary, protagonist Emma Bovary takes up an adulterous relationship with a rich landowner, but she is obsessed with the notion of romantic fantasy and the escapist thrill that comes with occupying the role of ‘adulteress’. Her mediator stems from a fervent habit since childhood of reading popular romantic literature and extracting elaborate fantasies about luxury, wealth and romance from them. Rodolphe, the dashing landowner whose intentions are far less based in romance than they are in his own sexual pleasure, is the culmination of all of these ‘Things’ for Emma. It’s clear that she does not really desire him per se, but the opulent fantasy that he represents.

Zizek speaks about how the object of desire is constructed not only by obstacles that are essential to increasing its value, but “a network of detours, approximations and near-misses” (2413). By Zizek’s own example, the play Cyrano de Bergerac is predicated on those detours in mistaken identity and falsehoods of the self (plus, Cyrano must literally imitate another man in order to gain Roxane’s affections, a twist of fate that would please Girard to no end). Zizek’s points about desire show up in Madame Bovary just as well. Emma Bovary is infatuated with a law student, Leon, who shares her bordering-on-sentimental fantasies that mainly exist in literature. But, their adulterous relationship does not begin until much later in the novel as it appears initially inaccessible through a series of missed chances, goodbyes, buried opportunities and other obstacles, including her lackluster husband and Emma’s first lover, in the way which only serve to increase Emma’s infatuation with a person who literally mirrors her projections back at her.

Whether it is a Girardian or Zizekian reading of literature, both texts about desire interact with each other in fascinating ways that lay bare how romantic and sexual passion for another can become slant towards ourselves and a way to fill up that cavernous black hole with our own hopes, dreams, fears and resulting projections from things that swirl around in our collective unconscious. Either way, real love or elaborate fantasy, it scares the hell out of us.

Sex in Public by Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner discusses about sex mediated by the public. Heterosexual culture is a big part of the discussion as it is deeply rooted into our lively hood that it became normalized. There is a sense of rightness when thinking about heterosexual relationship compared to other sexual relationship. Berlant and Warner describes this rightness as heteronormativity and they believe it is “more than an ideology or prejudice or phobia against gays and lesbians.”(Berlant & Warner, 554).

From the moment we are born, heterosexuality is involved. Even laws encourages heterosexual culture. “”New welfare and tax “reforms” passed under the cooperation between the Contract with America and Clintonian familialism seek to increase the legal and economic privileges of married couples and parents.”(Berlant & Warner, 550) This shows that heterosexual culture is reinforced. Furthermore the government repressed the LGBTQ by censoring adult entertainment. Adult establishments are restricted to reserved districts and mustn’t be within 500 feet of another adult establishment or house of worship, school, or day-care center. This will make adult establishments shut down by tons which can affect homosexuals because homosexuals may go to these adult establishments to hook up. With the closing of these establishments, homosexuals and heterosexuals will mingle together. Looking at statistics of hate crime can show this not being a good thing. “LGBT people are targeted for violent hate crimes at a rate of two times that of… Muslims or black people, four times that of Jews, and 14 times that of Latinos.”(Greve, 1). However technological advancements can help LGBTQ. With apps that allow people with similar or same interests to connect with each other instead of going to a dimly lit and shady store to meet up. I also believe society is accepting LGBTQ  much better than before. Based on statistics, entertainment industry and news media are more on friendly side for LGBTQ. (Pew Research Center, 1). These two cultural forms can help change what the masses think of LGBTQ and therefore help lessen the hardwired notion of sexuality. These cultural forms are able to reach large amount of audience which can influence their view. Also in 2013, 92% of Americans has become more accepting to LGBTQ.(Pew Research Center, 1).

In the beginning, Berlant and Warner wrote about Time‘s picture what the future of an American can look like. They talked about how it is nothing more but to scare the public so the public can be organized. Time‘s believes that during the 21st century interracial reproductive sex  will happen as a massive scale. With mass scale of interracial reproduction, everyone will be the same which create a family like feeling. A family like feeling that “displaces the recognition of structural racism and other systemic inequalities”(Berlant & Warner, 549) and the intimacy can help distract outside noise. However feeling unhappy in a heterosexual relationship will not solve any of these situation. As Marx wrote about forced labor, it can be applied to sexual relationship. Being in a relationship you do not desire will only alienate you and probably cause more harm.

Bibliography

Greeve, John. “LGBT America: By the Numbers.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 13 July 2016, www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/blog-post/lgbt-america-numbers.

“A Survey of LGBT Americans.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project, Pew Research Center, 13 June 2013, www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/06/13/a-survey-of-lgbt-americans/.

Berlant, Lauren , Warner, Michael. “Sex in Public.”
http://sites.middlebury.edu/sexandsociety/files/2015/01/Berlant-and-Warner-Sex-in-Public.pdf