Gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, queer.
On some level, we all want to be able to categorize each other; it is in our nature. As infants develop, they observe their surroundings and begin fitting people, places, and things into distinct groups. Animals, for example. If a child learns to identify a four-legged animal as a “dog,” it’s likely that he or she will apply the term to other animals that fit into their perception of what a dog is. A cat is a dog, a horse is a dog, an elephant is…a very large dog. We make lists and compartmentalize the things we learn because it helps us to better understand the world around us.
Sexuality is another way to categorize people (and ourselves), and that’s okay, to a point. I can’t deny that it isn’t something I wonder about whenever a new person comes into my life. I don’t spend hours contemplating, Is he? or Isn’t he? but I’m almost certain that at some point, even if it’s only for a few seconds, I think about it.
It also happens a lot with people that I’ll never meet, actors, for instance. I see someone in a film or on a television show; I like their performance; I want to know more about them; I dig for information (Google can be your best friend, or a very serious enemy, depending on how you look at it) and sexual orientation is always something I’m interested in. If I find it, cool. If I don’t, I bitch for a few minutes and then I get over it, because I know that at the end of the day it doesn’t matter and really, it’s not any of my business.
Ben Whishaw is a talented young actor who I recently became aware of. I saw him in Bright Star and fell in love with him a little, as I do with any actor who makes me laugh, swoon, and then sob uncontrollably in the span of two hours. I looked through his list of work and watched a few more of his film and television appearances. In most of these performances, he played a straight character. In Brideshead Revisited, he played a character that is never implicitly identified as “gay” but it’s strongly suggested that he is.
He plays gay, he plays straight. Whatever. I like him. I think he’s a great actor. His own sexual orientation has nothing to do with it and should never have anything to do with it. I have no idea what it’s like for him in the UK. I’m sure the question has been asked but I doubt that it was really an issue. The problem is that Ben Whishaw is in America now. He’s doing a play in New York called, The Pride. He’s playing a gay man! He’s going to kiss Hugh Dancy! Scandal! Only, you know, it’s not, because it’s a play, he’s an actor, and this is his job.
Whishaw recently did an interview with OUT Magazine, where he discusses The Pride along with some of his other work. The writer questions if his recent roles were “a subconscious desire to discuss his own identity” which I read as, “It may seem uncouth for me to ask you directly whether you are straight or gay, so I’m going to throw some psychology in the mix and see what sticks.” Maybe that’s the mark of a good journalist? I don’t know. Whishaw does recognize that he’s being interviewed by OUT (a magazine for “modern gay man”) but says, “as an actor you have total rights to privacy and mystery, whatever your sexuality, whatever you do. I don’t see why that has to be something you discuss openly because you do something in the public eye.” I agree.
I’m all for outing backwards politicians who lobby against equality but spend their time having same sex affairs (or any affairs, for that matter) and I do understand the need for visibility in the LGBT community, but I also respect most people’s right to privacy. No one should have to say what they are, one way or another. But people need their labels. They need to satisfy that urge to categorize: If he’s not gay and he’s not straight then what is he?!?!? Whishaw’s reluctance to be labeled could mean a lot of things: I’ll tell you when I’m ready. I’ll tell you when I know. Don’t push me. It’s just none of your business.
But instead of just leaving it alone, we push and unnecessary drama ensues. NY Magazine interviewed Whishaw and one of his co-stars in The Pride, Hugh Dancy. The first question that was asked of them is, “Did you have any hesitations about taking explicit gay roles?” According to OUT’s Popnography blog, the first question is actually, “You’re both straight. Did you have any hesitations about taking explicit gay roles?” Maybe it was a misunderstanding or maybe NY Mag edited the story, I’m not sure, but this whole thing has put Whishaw’s sexuality up for debate (especially since they pointed out that Hugh Dancy is married to a woman and should, therefore, be seen as straight, straight, straight!)
If he’s gay and choosing not to talk about it, people will call him a closet case and be angry that he’s letting people think that he’s straight (the straight assumption is alive and well in this country). Michael Musto of The Village Voice wrote, “Don’t you hate when a magazine’s angle is that a hetero actor is playing gay, and how very wild that is? Don’t you also find it distasteful when the magazine assumes the actor playing gay IS hetero? And what’s more, when the actor seems to go along with it?” Already we’re blaming and accusing him, when really, he’s the one being exploited. If he’s straight and choosing not to talk about it, people are just going to assume that he’s gay. Would that be okay?
All this because a man declines to label himself.
I don’t label myself.
I let people assume whatever they want to assume about me. I talk about boys enough for people to say I’m straight (though many of my lesbian friends talk about being attracted to men, so I don’t see how that’s really an indication of sexual orientation). I talk about
girls all the time, too. My best friend says I’m “Cristina-sexual” and if I had to call myself anything, that would be it. I reject labels not because I’m trying to be rebellious, but because labels are tricky. Once someone sees you as one specific thing, there’s no going back, and I don’t like that. I want to be free to love whoever I want to love, without any added fears or expectations from other people.
And I’m not the only one. Maybe it’s turning into a generational thing, a group of young people who refuse to label themselves because they just. don’t. care. And that’s cool. That’s fine. If you want to declare yourself, you have every right to. At the same time, we need to recognize that people have every right not to label themselves, Ben Whishaw included.
In case anyone was wondering, “The Pride” opened yesterday and I will be seeing it during it’s New York run. If anyone wants to check out some of Ben Whishaw’s work, I highly recommend his film, Perfume: The Story of a Murderer.
I don’t even know where to begin with this piece. Brilliant is a word that comes to mind. You have generalized (in a good way) what most young and not so young people are feeling these days. Just because someone is a lesbian doesn’t mean she wants to be called a Dyke, or a butch. People just want to be themselves, and honestly, who gives a shit? Just let people be happy with themselves and screw the rest. Great Job Cristina.
I’m glad you liked this! I know that not everyone is going to agree with it, and that’s a good thing because we all have different experiences, but I wanted to speak to those who are purposely not defining themselves as one thing or another. I also wanted to let other folks know that a group of people like this are out there.
You bring up another great point here. Once you’ve defined yourself as that one thing, there are all of these subgroups. Butch. Dyke. Femme. Some people are comfortable with that and others aren’t and that should be okay.
What do people think of when they hear the word bisexual? Slutty. Indecisive. Closeted (“He only says that because he can’t admit that he’s gay!”) That’s a lot to deal with.
Great post Cristina.
You’re right, there is this dropping of labels that has been going on for the last ten years or so and it has been embraced especially by the younger generation. The labels go beyond sexual orientation to where your ancestors where born to whether or not the wife is the main financial support to whatever else ‘society’ expects to be the norm. Because as those labels are no longer needed for survival, are no longer seen as barriers or failures, no longer needed to identify your ‘tribe’, they no longer apply.
Also, ‘Perfume’ is an awesome movie!
If I could applaud in text form I would (ok fine *applauds*) ; )
Very well put and I totally agree. People are who they are and that’s that; me, you, all of us. It’s none of anyone’s business whether someone is gay/straight/striped/or polka-dot. If they want anyone to know either way, they’ll let ‘em know. One day the world will get it’s head out of it’s rear and we’ll all get along. ; )
Peace
That was hands down the stupidest thing i have ever read.
I agree with jon on this one. thank you for wasting my time.
Thanks, Kevin.
“Because as those labels are no longer needed for survival, are no longer seen as barriers or failures, no longer needed to identify your ‘tribe’, they no longer apply.”
I loved this. Again, I understand the need to do it and I find myself labeling people (and then feeling bad about it) all the time. If folks can exist happily under those labels, that’s great for them, but it doesn’t work for me.
Isn’t it? The visuals are stunning and I really enjoyed the story. One review I read said that the problem with the film was that the audience couldn’t feel for the character and I thought the opposite was true. I cared about him right from the start and rationalized much of what he was doing. Not that it was okay to do what he did, but I could understand why.
Thanks for reading this!
I keep thinking that in a few years, things will change. I guess I should be happy that the movements are still going and people are fighting for equality. DADT will hopefully be repealed soon. Progress! We’re getting there, it’s just taking a while.
I’d like to think that in fifty years, a lot less people will care about stuff like this. It’ll be awesome when this isn’t even an issue.
Sorry you didn’t like it, but thanks for taking the time to read and comment anyway.
No problem.
Sweetie, you took the words right outta my mouth! <3333333
Cristinia, last week i spoke at a club here in town about LGBT in the military, and gay military vets. It was very intriguing, and this is something i thought you might like, about DADT. It’s not the full thing, but at least it’s being recognized and mentioned again freely. http://www.365gay.com/news/pentagon-to-propose-way-forward-on-gay-ban/
Thanks so much for this. As usual, Obama is in a sticky situation and people are going to be pissed off either way.
Stuff like this is what I don’t understand: But Levin’s counterpart in the House, Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., has said it is not wise to impose such upheaval while troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Upheaval? Really? I’m not in the military but it seems that people who are in the military are aware that they are fighting with gay and lesbian officers. As long as everyone does their job, it doesn’t seem to be a problem. If anything, I think this would strengthen the bonds between officers because there’s less of a fear of being open about who you are.
I really enjoyed this article from The Advocate.
Thank you for commenting! Glad you liked it.
Yes, this is very true. We had many open gays and lesbians in our command (I will remain unnamed for privacy). Everyone pretty much just looked the other way. Just because they were gay didn’t mean they couldn’t turn a wrench just as well as you, so it honestly wasn’t that big of a deal. Many people even in our surrounding shops were obvious of this, but no one said anything. Why should they? So that person would be kicked out, and we would have just that much more work to be put on us in lack of that person? The sad thing is that some military vets are afraid to come out to the VA or their local chapter because of the fact they are scared they may still be discriminated against, and even lose benefits.