« Cast-o-rama | Main | They want your blood »
Post-everything
June 13, 2006
Via Fleshbot, I found myself procrastinating from writing while reading Am I Gay? - an advice website for people who write in with scenarios, thoughts and desires and want to know if this makes them gay.
I read a few but quickly lost interest (well, that’s not totally true – I was plenty interested in the act of procrastinating, so I kept reading, even though I was rolling my eyes). My reaction overall was – who cares?
Ok, yeah I know, this is a bit dismissive of people’s struggles with identity. I do have at least some respect for people and their personal journeys, but I can’t help but wonder why people are so keen on defining things, and why particular actions are what define identity.
The trend in risk reduction theory and education these days is to separate the act from the identity. Is AIDS a gay disease? Well, it’s possible to seroconvert through unprotected anal sex, which can unite semen with blood through tiny tears in the anus – and this is a kind of sex that many gay men like to have. But guess who else has anal sex involving penises and buttholes? Straight people. Cuz you know what? Everyone has an ass.
Ok, butthole diversions aside, the point is that acts don’t equal identity. This means that being a dude who likes anal sex doesn’t necessarily make you gay, and furthermore that even if you’re a dude who likes anal sex and one time tries it with a dude, that can’t make you gay either, because gay is an identity, not an act.
And furthermore (my, I’m soapboxy tonight) and back to my original point – what the fuck is the big deal anyway. What’s the concern over what “makes” someone gay or straight (or the amorphous realm of bisexual)? It’s all about what people think, probably. But seriously, who gives a shit? Sexuality is what happens between you and the people who you choose to experience it with, and it’s no one else’s to decide what it means and its really no one else’s business. (Unless you write about it on the internet. Doh!)
So is my thinking a sign of things to come? Well, I’m probably not THAT awesome, but I can hope. Maybe I should write a Letter To the Future about how I expect the concept of sexual identity to dissolve by year 2150 or some shit. And then pat myself on the back for a point well philosophized. But I think we’re starting to see a bit of this change in The Youths, where sexual identity is becoming more playground, less gospel.
Posted by Dacia at June 13, 2006 11:51 PM
Comments
I’m inclined to agree with your indignation, for the most part. But I’ll disagree about the “no one fucking cares part” in saying that the gay revolution has moved out of the bedroom and into pop culture, threatening to permanently alter gender roles. There’s a lot happening in the public eye, and society is quickly turning into a Pet Shop Boys song. I think the media is screwing things up a lot by exploiting homosexual culture (“Queer Eye For The Straight Guy”) and making a mockery of heterosexual culture (“He’s Just Not That Into You”). So gender roles are a bit confusing at the moment.
That website does sound dumb. Is it really going to help anyone make that determination? No. They’re probably just selling lots of ad space.
Posted by: Brian Van at June 14, 2006 11:16 AM
What makes you gay?
Wanting to fuck people who are your same sex. (Or if you want to fuck people of both sexes, then mostly wanting to fuck your own.)
We make the simplest things far too hard sometimes.
Posted by: Sigivald at June 14, 2006 05:14 PM
Your argument sounds a lot like the gay pride sermon that my gay male minister gave at church last week (Unitarian, natch!)
Basically, he went into some history about terms, discussed how they are very modern, mostly political in nature, and very bad at describing people. That “gay” tells you an extremely small amount about anyone.
He also discussed the usefulness of homosexuality in community (human and other mammals.) He is awesome.
Posted by: Jennifer at June 14, 2006 09:51 PM
I think there’s a flaw in the “gay is an identity” model. In a patriarchy that disfavors same-sex attractions and conduct, some people will run from the disfavored identity, and reducing its application to those who affirmatively claim it reduces its usefulness.
I also think that it ignores a disconnect between sexual and romantic attractions. The two map closely but nowhere near perfectly. There are plenty of people that have sex with both men and women, but that only feel romantic love for members of one sex; and some people who are asexual but still want to share their lives with a romantic partner. I think it is more useful to think of “sexual orientation” as the term is generally used now as consisting of related but separate components; a sexual and an affectional orientation.
That leaves aside the sexual and affectional orientations of folks who play and partner with transpeople (broadly understood to include genderqueers).
Posted by: Thomas at June 15, 2006 04:48 PM
The Butthole Surfers should do an entire album of chamber music called Butthole Diversions. That is all.
Posted by: litlfrog at June 15, 2006 05:19 PM
Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth… Ebotte
Posted by: Ebotte at November 29, 2006 06:01 AM
