Sexuality in conversation
References to sexuality cropping up in everyday conversation is not unusual. It can happen whilst chatting about a hundred everyday topics. It happens at work, after work…everywhere. It’s routine and what’s more, it can be an instant icebreaker. Being relaxed about it implies that you’re not a closet fundamentalist who secretly assigns those who have sex outside marriage, procreation, religion, race, caste and inside condoms to eternal damnation, hellfire, slow torture in the afterlife, rebirth as a lab rat, eternally un-dead type of trauma etc. It means you wish fantastic and safe sex upon all your fellows. This instantly transports you into the fun-to-be-with category.
However, when this involves someone who has a sexual orientation or gender identity other than the conventional, the goal posts shift somewhat subtly. Many gender-content heterosexuals haven’t yet mastered the art of conversing about other sexualities/gender identities with the same degree of comfort that they bring to talking about their own. This leads to the following ploys being employed-
1. Ignoring the reference altogether i.e. pretending a momentary lapse of hearing and carrying on in a more comfortable direction;
2. Making a joke of various aspects of the appearance, manners, personal attributes and lifestyles of those with sexualities/gender identities other than their own. This can often involve slang catchphrases. If cornered, these people will insist that they are not homophobic or intolerant of gender dysphoria (often unconvicingly), but just find some things about people who are neither heterosexual nor comfortable with their gender phenotype ‘too funny’;
3. Admitting, calmly, to outright homophobia and prejudice. This can be followed by an uncomfortable silence, random others chipping in with their hitherto masked prejudices, or by the conversation being hurriedly diverted by a sensitive presence;
4. Talking about it briefly, with a shrug of the shoulder, a smile or a quick grimace, which is intended to convey (all at the same time) that ‘I am straight, I have no gender issues, I am broadminded enough to empathise with people who aren’t like me, but I can also understand where all the people who are uncomfortable about these issues are coming from, and so if you want to crack a joke about it, I'll be a good sport and laugh about it.' I used to belong to this category some time ago.
There is of, course, a growing number of people who deal with this without any discomfort. This post is not about them. The point of this post is a basic, purely democratic question. The references, when they crop up in conversation, is about someone else’s sexuality, someone else’s gender identity, someone else’s gender dysphoria (with it’s associated, often, devastating psychological and physical fallouts which the gender dysphoric person didn’t quite volunteer for, since it's well-established that they don't have a biological choice in the matter) and above all, someone else’s life and personal space. Why are others so uncomfortable about it? When you are more than uncomfortable, what on earth makes you think that you have a right to take a pseudo-moralistic, quasi-judgemental stance about it? When we are talking biological blueprints, what on earth does morality have to do with it?
Perhaps there is something about sexualities and gender identities other than your own that makes you just that teeny li'l bit insecure about your own sexuality and gender identity at some level. In other words, our external discomfort mirrors our sudden, unexpected and threatening (which could be related to socio-cultural backgrounds) internal discomfort with our own orientations. And carrying that a bit further, perhaps the intensity of your reaction mirrors the intensity of this internal tension.
Opinions from all positions are welcome.
P.S. There is something related and interesting being debated here.
However, when this involves someone who has a sexual orientation or gender identity other than the conventional, the goal posts shift somewhat subtly. Many gender-content heterosexuals haven’t yet mastered the art of conversing about other sexualities/gender identities with the same degree of comfort that they bring to talking about their own. This leads to the following ploys being employed-
1. Ignoring the reference altogether i.e. pretending a momentary lapse of hearing and carrying on in a more comfortable direction;
2. Making a joke of various aspects of the appearance, manners, personal attributes and lifestyles of those with sexualities/gender identities other than their own. This can often involve slang catchphrases. If cornered, these people will insist that they are not homophobic or intolerant of gender dysphoria (often unconvicingly), but just find some things about people who are neither heterosexual nor comfortable with their gender phenotype ‘too funny’;
3. Admitting, calmly, to outright homophobia and prejudice. This can be followed by an uncomfortable silence, random others chipping in with their hitherto masked prejudices, or by the conversation being hurriedly diverted by a sensitive presence;
4. Talking about it briefly, with a shrug of the shoulder, a smile or a quick grimace, which is intended to convey (all at the same time) that ‘I am straight, I have no gender issues, I am broadminded enough to empathise with people who aren’t like me, but I can also understand where all the people who are uncomfortable about these issues are coming from, and so if you want to crack a joke about it, I'll be a good sport and laugh about it.' I used to belong to this category some time ago.
There is of, course, a growing number of people who deal with this without any discomfort. This post is not about them. The point of this post is a basic, purely democratic question. The references, when they crop up in conversation, is about someone else’s sexuality, someone else’s gender identity, someone else’s gender dysphoria (with it’s associated, often, devastating psychological and physical fallouts which the gender dysphoric person didn’t quite volunteer for, since it's well-established that they don't have a biological choice in the matter) and above all, someone else’s life and personal space. Why are others so uncomfortable about it? When you are more than uncomfortable, what on earth makes you think that you have a right to take a pseudo-moralistic, quasi-judgemental stance about it? When we are talking biological blueprints, what on earth does morality have to do with it?
Perhaps there is something about sexualities and gender identities other than your own that makes you just that teeny li'l bit insecure about your own sexuality and gender identity at some level. In other words, our external discomfort mirrors our sudden, unexpected and threatening (which could be related to socio-cultural backgrounds) internal discomfort with our own orientations. And carrying that a bit further, perhaps the intensity of your reaction mirrors the intensity of this internal tension.
Opinions from all positions are welcome.
P.S. There is something related and interesting being debated here.
posted by nevermind at 10:32 PM
3 Comments:
Not being comfortable about references to sexuality in everyday conversation does not necessarily imply that you are a closet something-or-the-other. Maybe for some that is the kind of conversation they can have only where they are totally comfortable, where they know that they will not be misunderstood. Take religion, for example; a conversation about it can go down a very uncomfortable road. So if one wants to avoid the discussion, it does not necessarily mean that one is a fundamentalist or a fanatic.
People with non-conventional gender identities: Yes, there is a lot of discomfort, due to various reasons. Some people genuinely don't understand this at all, hence their fear, misconceptions and opposition. Some don't want to acknowledge it, this is not something that "happens" where they come from or in their circle. And then there are those who think that just because it is not conventional, it is an abomination. Its the people in the last group who make the derogatory remarks and crude jokes. Their hostility is their discomfort, and I think that their attitude stems more from their sense of superiority about their own clear-cut and conventional gender identity rather than from any insecurities/internal tensions about their own orientation.
And yes, it gets that much easier to express their hostility and disdain because it is someone elses life, someone elses personal space.
But there are still many facets to this issue. For example, I don't agree with the stigma or taboo attached to this. A person should have the freedom to live a gender role they can identify with, and to live so with dignity and acceptance. Nobody has the right to take the "pseudo-moralistic, quasi-judgemental" stance against it and deny the right of another person be what they want to be. At the same time, it is not something I would wish upon anyone I know. It is a very hard road that the person has to travel, who is trying to discover his/her own true gender identity. Hence, I wish that people are spared this despair and trauma. Also, there is one situation where I find myself on the other side of the fence altogether, where I can totally understand non-acceptance or the difficulty in understanding the issue, and that is in the case of the spouse or the kids of the person who finally decides to come out regarding his/her own gender identity being different from the one which was shown to the world all along. I would understand if this relationship - that of the spouse with the person - changed in the light of the disclosure. The two could perhaps continue to love each other and be friends, but I wonder whether they could continue being in love, being a couple.
~N.
thinking about hindi films after reading your post. the ones that have started acknowledging the existence of homosexuality..but in a totally freak-making way. the gay man being the freak-other that the 'madrasi' or gujarati used to be in a punjabi symbolism dominated film industry. multiplied many times over in difference and joke-attracting ability.
maybe this is because the personality plus virility of the hero needs to be juxtaposed with that of this 'comic' character as well as that of the villain?
maybe because we need to feel secure in our normality by singling out someone as scapegoat who so clearly isn't one of us?
N, chill, the fundamentalist bit was a joke;-D
Re: the insecurity bit. i meant that something that is strange/unknown and pointing towards a way of being completely contrary to yours (which is the norm) can evoke the possibility that it's that tiny bit possible that you could also be/become/be made to become like that. the insecurity/tension arises from the sudden awareness of this possibility, which clashes with dearly held popular archetypes like the 'macho punju hetero male' for instance, as nikita has so conveniently pointed out (hey, thanks). and juxtaposition against an 'other' who is made to look funny/odd is a crude, self-affirming ploy that helps cope with the tension.
regarding the marriage/spouse bit, absolutely. maybe u shud watch tom wilkinson and jessica lange in 'Normal'. and hey, nikita, thot 'Page 3' did a pretty ok job.
Post a Comment
<< Home