The main points that I got out of Chapter 1 is that the Child represents our future, but that this works against the notion of homosexuality because it goes against reproductive futurism. Therefore, the only way for homosexuality to become legitimized is with the abolishment of the Child standing as such a sacred image that is so essential to our future. I have never once before questioned the image of the Child. For as long as I remember, the child was always the icon for the future generations to come. It is with their survival and their actions that I saw to determine our future. It is interesting to see how the author starts to shake the foundation of the Child. He writes how "ifâ€¦there is no baby and, in consequence, no future, then the blame must fall on the fatal lure of sterile, narcissistic enjoyments understood as inherently destructive of meaning and therefore as responsible for the undoing of social organization, collective reality, and inevitably, life itself" (13). This negative alternative is basically the connotation that is given to the homosexual because of the status of the Child. Does this mean we have to redefine the Child, and therefore alter our image of the future? What is our future and who is the one who accurately depicts it?
This discussion is very concentric around the notion of sexuality which brings me back to the concepts of sexuality by Foucault. It fits in with what he was saying about how our society is trying to make our sexuality scientific, in order for it to be controlled, and productive in the sense of our reproduction numbers and the like. In that sense, the Child would be a socially-constructed icon. In which case, in the hopes of being free from these hidden workings of power, we should relinquish our ideas and suppositions about the Child, and embrace all sexualities, including homosexuality. Is that what the author is getting at?