As I began to put the pieces together of reading this text, I started to put analyze certain words. “Sex in Public” is not about sex acts but sexuality in the public sphere. Sex seems natural but it is actually constructed. this definition is mediated by the public; Sexuality generates a multitude of relations, therefore institutions are saturated with intimacy and desire even when they aren’t explicitly “Intimacybelongs at home, and it is alluring . Linked with ideas of “the good life” Connected with the “wish” for normalcy or uncomplicated personhood where ethics is usually abstracted from Because of heterosexual culture, practices that don’t feel especially sexual or familial collaborate to produce a social norm; but intimacy can be neither heteronormative or sexual. Feelings are political and so Berlant and Warner want us to examine feelings critically queerness is a way of life, introduces queerness as culture. It is deprived from being called a culture because queerness cannot have and so their space is limited. Always offers an alternative to normativity. culture there is a distinction between culture and lifestyle; public vs private; Not simply zones where sexual acts are made public but encompassing the culture at large ;What Berlant and Warner suggest is that the world is fixed according to heterosexuality, mainly the rules of good  and nice examples of families. There exists a whole set of accepted social behaviors that give good couple from the bad couple. Normal behavior is any group of social codes that everyone agrees is accepted and well practiced and beneficial to society A home is for a family. A family needs good credit to get a home. A good family saves money for vacations. A good family goes to Disneyland for vacations. Disney characters have family values. Buying products that have family values is good. Etc. If you don’t have a family, a heteronormative society tells you that you must be depressed and desperate in need of support and encouragement. A heterosexual couple might not be having any sex at all, but they are still heteronormative if they are behaving in the way a “good” family should. Heteronormativity starts with the proper, missionary sex between married folk, but it is far more concerned with how you behave outside the bedroom. “Hormonormativity” is a big term that describes the behavior of normal gay couples as they want to marry and raise kids and act  “just like everyone else.” If heteronormativity is privileged over all the other social orders, and if it has a changeable of damaging consequences,  like Berlant and Warner says then how do gay couples challenge that order well and successfully?

A first thought when reading this article is, how did we get from the “science of ideas” to the production of meanings and a system of illusory beliefs? Marx, being someone who is known for taking a word and twisting it to his benefit, has expressed the more obvious definition of  ideology but for anyone who looked further, they would not necessarily think of it as a full science of ideas. The article doesn’t blame Marx completely as it states the transition and development of language as a key factor in why we have the definitions we do now. We seem to get lost in translation with the different variation but it strikes me that Williams is trying to differentiate and explain but there really isn’t that big of a difference. Ideology has to be a natural science and that is understood but that also leaves room for it to have definitions that include illusions and class systems. Natural and social sciences go hand in hand and that could be a large reason ideology was able to evolve into something much different than originally planned. The article mentions ideology taking the place of Metaphysics and that definitely leads strait into Marx so there was no surprise that there were later different versions classified by Marx.

Ideology in the sense of right and wrong is the easiest to understand. Our ideas, interests, and conflicts are all apart of our consciousness that wasn’t believed to be unlocked until and ideology is bestowed upon us. At the very least that’s what the article wants us to understand. That’s a bit on the dramatic side but thats to come with Marxism. consciousness, in it’s truest form, plays a large part in understanding ideology. Marx believed in changing the world instead of interpreting it and that ties together all the variations of ideology. What we believe, whether it be about class structure, personal opinions, or unrealistic notions, we are still trying to make others understand why we believe what we do while also trying to change their ideologies. We no longer interpret and feel empathy; instead we push to change the world to make it better in our eyes. Ideologies are literally our ideas and how we display them for the world to see. Williams is aware of that and yet still felt he needed to explain every aspect in hopes others would get a better grasp on the world.