As Muñoz writes, queerness “is not simply a being but a doing for and toward the future. Queerness is essentially about the rejection of a here and now and an insistence on potentiality or concrete possibility for another world” (1). He pivots queer time away from its death-drive and opens up what Katherine Behar might call the erotics of generative thought, the “welcoming wrongness” of creation within foundational uncertainty. And that uncertain creation is ethical, understood not as “right responses to a radically exteriorized other, but about responsibility and accountability for the lively relationalities of becoming, of which we are a part” (Dolphijn and van der Tuin 69). Behar argues that such speculative praxis involves “welcoming wrongness” as we play polyamorously with ideas. She writes that

Being wrong in this way is radical, political work. It means setting aside truth and correctness in favor of being artificial and botched, all to make room for an erotics of generative thinking and doing. The underlying wager is that right thinking gets worked out in the doing of the making.

Only in willingness to be all kinds of wrong can we arrive at being in the right, in the ethical sense. (18)

The erotics of generative thought—and ethical creation—is material and embodied in everyday queer life, if we entangle Muñoz and Barad. It is an erotics of instantiation, an ecstasy of belonging-with. And as I belong-with the troubled/troubling histories of lesbian separatism, I face my own entanglement of longing and ecstasy. Gayatri Gopinath writes that through Muñoz’s utopian vision, “we access that sense of astonishment in the everyday, as we see both the gray urban landscape and indeed our own lives anew, filled with the always deferred potentiality that he names as queerness.” This attention to the everyday, along with the idea of futurity (and thus agential being-with) as emergent, brings together new materialism and Munoz’s utopia. It points us in a playful way toward “making future matters.”

Behar notes that such welcoming wrongness, such play, is both feminist and decidedly queer. I'd add that holding queer time(s) in polyamorous embrace instantiates revelatory moments that bring forth our co-relations in an ecology of becoming. For me, that embrace pushes toward a being-with of multiple histories and moments of nostalgia, of a complicated dis/identification with lesbians before me. In the case of MichFest and other utopian lesbian separatist sites, that embrace worked queerly, cutting together-apart the idea of "woman" and diffracting it along more generative (and ethical) lines. It is in this sort of everyday utopia created in the aftermath that I see the “potent fusions and dangerous possibilities” Haraway promised in her “Cyborg Manifesto.” It is in this entanglement that I pause and breathe the being-with of this story.