Sexual identity getting difficult to keep straight

sweetnpetite

Intellectual snob
Joined
Jan 10, 2003
Posts
9,135
By Matthew Gilbert, Globe Staff | July 1, 2004

Claire Fisher is straight -- or is she? As season four of "Six Feet Under" unfolds, the show's caustic art student is fanning her fires for a slamming lesbian poet named Edie. Meanwhile, Claire's terminally bummed ex-boyfriend, Russell, is chasing after her, despite his gay tryst with their bombastic professor, Olivier. And by the way, Olivier is now having a full-on hetero affair with the HBO show's mother from Freudian hell, Margaret Chenowith.

ADVERTISEMENT
Talk about switch-hitting. These days, it's getting harder to hang sexual-orientation labels on TV characters, particularly in the backroads of cable. Writers on "Queer as Folk," "The L Word," and "Nip/Tuck" have been boldly creating men and women who fall somewhere between the extremes of the Kinsey scale -- exclusively homosexual and exclusively heterosexual. They're pushing their series and their viewers beyond the more familiar black-and-white portrayals, the either/or sexual construct. Think of the unique Arthur, also on "Six Feet Under," who behaves more like an elderly auntie than a young man. The show has been amusingly noncommital about his sexual identity, leaving the Fishers and the viewers to wonder whether the funeral assistant is straight, gay, or simply "A" -- as in asexual.

This blurring of the lines of sexual orientation is a step beyond "Gay TV," the trend that has ridden a few waves of buzz in the past decade, first with the "Ellen" coming-out episode in 1997 and again recently with "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." The sexually indefinite characters aren't closeted gay men and lesbians, running from their true selves, struggling to accept the inevitable. They're more curious-seeking than that, and less tortured. They're "Questioning," as a number of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender organizations have put it. Yep, TV is beginning to include the LGBT and Q community in its electronic embrace.

The most notoriously unresolved character may be Jenny on Showtime's "The L Word," who ping-ponged shamelessly between men and women throughout the series' first season. First, she cheated on her boyfriend with an exotic cafe owner; later she courted both sexes, deeply uncertain about her desires. But the most unexpected fence-jump came a few weeks ago from a lesbian on Showtime's "Queer as Folk," Lindsay, who had an explosive extra-relationship sexual experience with a man. Lindsay was as surprised by her hetero dalliance as the show's viewers, who'd experienced her as a "committed" lesbian and one of little Gus's two mommies.

Indeed, this kind of sexual ambiguity asks more of viewers, who've grown comfortable with the sort of gay-straight split embodied by "Will & Grace." We can become disoriented watching a character's sexual dis-orientation. On Internet boards, fans of "The L Word" have been critical of Jenny's ambivalence, impatient with her flighty back-and-forths, wanting her to land. She's viewed as the Anne Heche of TV's lesbian clique. And her psycho-sexual vagueness challenges gay people as much as it does straights, as it suggests that the separatist, "we're-completely-different" paradigm may not be iron clad. That's why it's especially provocative to find "questioning" characters on gay niche series such as "The L Word," which are geared toward affirming community and not unsettling it.

Another ambitious plot on "Queer as Folk" this season involves its untamed teen character, Hunter. Adopted by a gay male couple after surviving on the streets as a hustler, Hunter appeared to be as homosexual as the men who paid him for sex. He even had a crush on the show's hunky top dog, Brian. But Hunter had a difficult announcement to make to his parents: He had a girlfriend. It was played for sweet drama and mild comedy, unlike the teen sexual shiftings on FX's "Nip/Tuck," which featured an over-the-top and overwrought lesbian-bisexual-straight triangle last season between Matt, Ridley, and Vanessa. It was hard to keep track of who wanted whom in the angstful teen menage a trois, which made "My So-Called Life" look like a laugh riot.

One of the funniest and strangest sexual-orientation riffs occurred this spring on "The L Word" with Lisa the "male lesbian," a straight man who fully identified as a lesbian. Further twisting expectations, the very sincere Lisa has an affair with Alice, a bisexual character who, in a meta-twist, is played by openly lesbian actress Leisha Hailey. Can you keep all that straight?

There have been one or two un-boxed-in characters on the networks, too, including Judith on CBS's "Two and a Half Men," who remains unsure of whether she's a lesbian while those around her try to guess. When they deliver an ambiguous character, the networks generally play it for comedy, most cleverly with actor David Cross's sexually nebulous husband on Fox's "Arrested Development." But the cop drama "Homicide: Life on the Street" broke new ground in the late 1990s, when Detective Tim Bayliss found himself drawn to both men and women, calling himself "bi-curious." It was one of those admirable network moments where the writers rejected conventional definitions. Confidently, they put aside their cardboard cutouts in order to admit the wonderful shadings of real life.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/li..._identity_getting_difficult_to_keep_straight/
 
I have long felt that the "great divide" is not between straight and gay, but between those with "firewall" gender preferences and those whose desires are fluid. That's not simply an argument for "bisexuality" as stereotypically envisioned as a "50/50" position; rather, it's a suggestion that for some people, gender is one of a number of factors operating in sexual desire, and that while it plays a role, it does not hold supreme power over other considerations.

Shanglan
 
The other day I sort of got jumped on for saying that 'everybody is bisexual.' One poster said this was disrespectful to homosexuals because it implies that they 'don't have to be gay.' Or something to that effect. The thing is, I said everybody is bi, and I do believe that to be essentially true. However, I don't think that 'bisexual' is synonymous with 'could go either way.' I think that left to nature, we would all be able to enjoy relationships/relations with either sex, but that doesn't mean that many of us wouldn't have a strong preferance in one direction or the other.

By 'everybody is bi' what I really mean is that we are all sexual- not heterosexual, homosexual or even bi-sexual. However, since we live in a world that lables sexuality as such, bisexual is essentially the working word I have to use.:)

Also, I *don't* necesarily think that homosexuality isn't a choice. (so sue me) I think that for some people it *is* and for some it perhaps *isn't* but that we have a right to make that choice and to be protected whatever the choice may be. The rights of gays. in my eyes, does not rest on the argument of weather or not it's a choice. I have my oppinion about it, but it's really a mute point as far as I'm concerned.
 
Your initial post is confusing to me, Sweet, since I don't watch enough television to get the references. So I'm going to skip it, and look just at the second.

Whether it's a choice or not, you say, has no bearing on whether it is right for all people to have equal rights before the law.

The legal benefits of marriage are the ability to inherit, the ability to ensure continuity of care of one's minor children, the ability to make each other beneficiaries of insurances or to include each other in health plans (by virtue of being family members), and finally, legal standing as next of kin in decisions about health care procedures and about children.

I have to agree that all people should be able to place themselves in these advantageous legal positions. Therefore all people should be able to secure those legal benefits of marriage. Similarly, any discrimination against people for reasons of sexual orientation is just stupid, besides being wrong.

You seem to say that it doesn't matter, it's moot, whether there is a genetic or only a personal predilection for one gender or another, or how thorough the bias is, if the question is whether sexual orientations should affect equality before the law.

Good. Now what's all this about a television show?
 
cantdog said:

You seem to say that it doesn't matter, it's moot, whether there is a genetic or only a personal predilection for one gender or another, or how thorough the bias is, if the question is whether sexual orientations should affect equality before the law.

Good. Now what's all this about a television show?

:)

Just that tv shows are starting to show characters that are not easily defined as "heterosexual" or homosexual. The new emerging trend seems to be characters who refuse to be pigionholed by any such lable on their sexuality. (hmm, sounds like porn, lol)
 
There's a long joint-project I'm doing with an artist friend right now wherein the main character is hopelessly in love with one of her teammates, but later on discovers that he is not in fact a he and thus must battle between her overpowering love for the person and what she had believed about her sexuality.

Personally, I have a very firm belief that love can trump previous assumptions about one's sexuality and that sexual nature is not as important as genuine love. This does not mean I believe the greedy heterosexual belief that every cute fag or dyke just can't wait to get straight for the right person.

But that's just me.
 
Lucifer_Carroll said:


Personally, I have a very firm belief that love can trump previous assumptions about one's sexuality and that sexual nature is not as important as genuine love.

But that's just me.


I agree with this so much basically becuase I have personal experience of it! I fall in love with people regardless of their gender it seems and although this did cause me some consternation the first time I fell for a woman I just go with it now - I used to label myself as homosexual but now I dont use labels at all - I am me and my sexuality is as much a mystery to me as it is to all my friends and family!

I think Sweets is right though - the media are beginning to get the idea of fluid sexuality.
 
I don't think of sexuality as "set" I think of it more as a scale with total heteroesexuality on one end and total homosexuality on the other. There are some people who live on the end of the scale and to them, the notion that everyone is Bi is an insult. They are exclusively and without any inclination in the other direction homo or hetero sexual.

While there are those who live on the ends, there are a great many who live somewhere else along the scale. People who are Bi-sexual, as in no preference whatsoever sit on the very middle. I think they are a very small group.

The housewife who is happily married, but has an occasional fantasy about this woman she knows is probably very close to the end of the scale. The fellow who had this one homosexual experience but is married is probably a little closer to the middle than her, but still far closer to the end of the scale than the middle.

Everyone falls somewhere along the scale, but only those on the very far ends are locked into place. I had a very butch lesbian freind once who woke up one day, realized she was really in love with a guy whom she had been freinds with since college. They are happily marrie dnow & she dosen't philander, nor does he. Conversely I've talked to a lot of women who read my stories and find themselves intensely curious, where before they were just vaguely curious.

I think for the people on the very ends of the scale, the concept of fluid sexuality is impossible to grasp. I think for people nearer the middle, the concept of exclusive attraction to one or another is equally difficult to grasp.

I don't think you should be attacked for your opinion SnP. I think if you were, you were getting it from people who live near the ends of the scale and who really can't fathom your viepoint.

-Colly
 
I don't know that i was attacked persay, more that I got a stern lecture as a reply:)

I know some people *think* that they are on the extreme end, but pretty much everybody has has sexual thoughts about or attraction to someone of the same sex however brief and fleeting. Some question their sexuality because of it, some repress it, and some just simply embrace it. Some who embrace it then disclude any possible 'heterosexual' impulses while others do not. I think that this too is a product of our 'homophobic' (sorry joe) society. When a person's identity is wrapped up very strongly in being 'straight' or 'gay' it is very difficult for them to acknowledge any feelings or tendancies that might contradict their identity. Like the woman whos identity is *so* wrapped up in being a good mom who won't admit to ever having negative feelings about her children. Society places a *lot* of importance on sexuality and orientation (mostly the importance of being and acting straight and 'gender correct') Therefor it is often difficult not to pick a side and cling to it rather millitantly, ignoring any evidence that might suggest something different. Straights can't let people (or themselves) think they are 'queer' and gays can't let straights (or themselves) think that with a little 'interviention' they can be 'normal.' Most of this, I feel is fairly subconscious, not to many people are all that introspective about *why* they are the way they are. They just assume that they are right and everybody who disagrees with them is wrong. Sexuality these days is a war, and gays and staights both often feel that there is no room to appear 'wishy-washy.' But apparently, that is changing. Or at least starting to. So that's a good thing.:)
 
ps. thanks Collie (and others) I appreciate your comments.

I'm over to dita's thread now about America!:)
 
I (predictably) think that it is both possible and evidentiary that people can be, simply, straight or gay. To say "everyone is bi" is hard to prove, first off, and flies in the face of what little study we have on the matter (primary sources, and many, would disagree with the statement... but all it takes is one to disprove "everyone being" anything).
 
I have to go with Colleen and Joe on this one. I don't care for the "everyone thinks X but some won't admit it" argument in pretty much any context. It's inherently unprovable and founded on the assumption that one's own thought processes must be mimicked by everyone else. This is projection; it tells one a great deal about the speaker, but doesn't really say that much about other people.

I don't have a problem with taking someone at his/her word when s/he espouses a "100% one gender" preference, whatever gender that is. I don't see any reason to assume that that person is lying, unless perhaps his/her behavior suggests that. I don't have a problem with believing that some people are gender-specific ito a high degree; I just know that at least one person (me) is not.

Shanglan
 
And then there are people who operate on a whole different set of definitions as to what "Sexual identity" is. Is is which gender that visually can turn you on? Is it which gender that you could consider having sex with? Is it which gender you are capable of having romantic affection towards/falling in love with? These does not neccesarily match.

#L
 
Liar said:
And then there are people who operate on a whole different set of definitions as to what "Sexual identity" is. Is is which gender that visually can turn you on? Is it which gender that you could consider having sex with? Is it which gender you are capable of having romantic affection towards/falling in love with? These does not neccesarily match.

#L

Excellent point. Are you sure you're a liar? Be honest, now.

Shanglan
 
I haven't seen any of those TV shows, but still applaud them wholeheartedly.

It may be total-bullshit-street-wisdom-myth, but my own small experience confirms that the gay-bashers are either sheep (within their peer group), or else insecure in their own sexuality - and the latter have been the most dangerous.

If these progs help to make it seem OK to be ambi to some extent, then that might make lots of people safer!

Eff
 
BlackShanglan said:
I have to go with Colleen and Joe on this one. I don't care for the "everyone thinks X but some won't admit it" argument in pretty much any context. It's inherently unprovable and founded on the assumption that one's own thought processes must be mimicked by everyone else. This is projection; it tells one a great deal about the speaker, but doesn't really say that much about other people.

I don't have a problem with taking someone at his/her word when s/he espouses a "100% one gender" preference, whatever gender that is. I don't see any reason to assume that that person is lying, unless perhaps his/her behavior suggests that. I don't have a problem with believing that some people are gender-specific ito a high degree; I just know that at least one person (me) is not.

Shanglan

My conclusions are not drawn simply on projection but from many things that I have [i forgot the word I wanted here!- not experienced or seen... help me out here!] observed- that's it! Ok, it's the same as seen:)

When I was a teenager for example, there was always a letter from some girl saying in effect "I've started having some feelings or attraction toward another female! Am I gay?!"

Always the girl was assured that her feelings were perfectly normal and healthy but that they didn't mean she was gay. That everyone (or nearly everyone) has these kinds of feelings at some point in there lives.

(Now this is not one letter, I've seen it many times over the year)

Now, I simply reinterpret the data. Rather than saying it doesn't mean necessarily that you are gay, I interpret it to mean that it's healthy and normal to have sexual feelings that are labled as gay. As it is normal and healthy to have sexual feelings that are labled as straight. But instead of saying *but don't worry, it doesn't mean you are gay* my interpretation is *sure* you are gay to a certain extent, as we all are or as we would be if we were healthy and normal. (that's in short supply anyway!) And it's ok!

So, I know some people think it is bad logic to assume that those who say they feel differently are being dishonest- but is it any better to assume that people are being honest? you can't *know* either way, but we do know that people are dishonest with others as well as with themselves, especially when there self identity is so stronly tied to something.

When we are in a rebound relationship for example, or using someone to get back with an ex, we often don't admit it to ourselves until later.

And so I draw my conclusions, my theory, from my observations and from what I know about human nature. Just as a person might say something like "we all feel sad sometimes, but some people don't admit it." (and I know some people who don't) HOW can we *really* know that everyone feels the same emotioins as us? I guess we can't- but for myself I whole heartedly believe that there are aspects of the human condition that are universal to us all. And I consider 'bi-sexuality' to be one, because I think that 'bi-sexuality' is really 'sexuality' without words or definitions, before we labled it and fractured it into 'heterosexuality' and 'homosexuality.'

But there is so much morality and cultural pressure put on the issue, it is really difficult for many people to consider such a thing, let alone accept it.

I think it's a theory that at least diserves consideration, if not agreement from all quarteres. We cannot know for a fact that evolution is truth either, but it is accepted as scientific nonetheless, and many other theories are based on it's foundation. It is often considered *fact* when in reality it can never be more than a theory unless and until a time travel machine can be instructed to travel back and watch it happen!

so my theory or worldview is that all people are inherintly 'bi-sexual' or 'sexual' before it was splintered into categories and labled as right or wrong. But often this is deep down as we all have been conditioned in the morality of the matter, the current beliefs and biases and cultural taboos.

Someone famous said, "The only sex that is unnatural is no sex."

And that's pretty much what I believe. (Particularly amoung Humans)
 
AH! MY EYES!!!

We've only had the first two seasons of Six Feet Under up here in Canada, and now I find out that in season four, Claire has issues with her sexuality?! I've been specifically avoiding going to the HBO website for fear of accidentally learning something out-of-turn about the show. And now all that diligence of mine ruined by one careless post! Somebody please wipe that bit of knowledge from my mind!
 
Sweetnpetite...

you wrote:

"... We cannot know for a fact that evolution is truth either, but it is accepted as scientific nonetheless, and many other theories are based on it's foundation. It is often considered *fact* when in reality it can never be more than a theory unless and until a time travel machine can be instructed to travel back and watch it happen!..."

~~~~~~~~~~

May I be so rude as to suggest that 'Evolution' is indeed a fact and truth and even 'absolute truth'..at that?

Yeah...I figured so...

I could just play devils advocate here...as each and every seem to agree to a basic premise that gender identity is an inherited characteristic. That people are 'born' that way.

Even if is were just opinion, the vast majority believe that homosexuality is an aberration. Or does that come as news to this cloistered clan?

And the Psychiatrists bible, the DVM, up until 1973 classified homosexuality as an illness. Or does that also come as news?

Suppose you are wrong? Suppose just for the sake of argument that what you call 'extreme' heterosexuality is not extreme at all, but the natural evolution of gender. Male/Female.

A plethora of television sit-coms and soap operas, created by an industry overloaded with creative gays all seeking a niche in the media market place certainly get all the play in the likewise 'liberal media'.

Now...read that again...you will find no 'gay bashing' or homophobia exhibited anywhere. Right?

So don't start with the name calling already.

Sweetnpetite...the reason that Evolution is a fact and not a theory, is that we dug up the bones, tracked the evolution within each species, by the remains in progressive eras , carbon dated the material and did all the 'scientific method' things to prove the hypothesis.

There are still areas of Evolution that remain but a theory, as to why a human bottleneck at a certain time, why the dinosaurs went extinct and why the mammoths went extinct at about 13,000 BC...there are many theories involving each event.

But there is no question that Evolution per se, is indeed a fact cataloging the history of life on earth, flora and fauna alike.

I suggest that the same sort of scientific research, when applied to human sexuality will provide the fact that heterosexuality is natures absolute concerning gender and that homosexuality is an aberration

Yeah, I know...crawl back under my rock...

amicus departs...
 
Originally posted by sweetnpetite
My conclusions are not drawn simply on projection but from many things that I have [i forgot the word I wanted here!- not experienced or seen... help me out here!] observed- that's it! Ok, it's the same as seen:)

When I was a teenager for example, there was always a letter from some girl saying in effect "I've started having some feelings or attraction toward another female! Am I gay?!"

Always the girl was assured that her feelings were perfectly normal and healthy but that they didn't mean she was gay. That everyone (or nearly everyone) has these kinds of feelings at some point in there lives.

(Now this is not one letter, I've seen it many times over the year)

Now, I simply reinterpret the data. Rather than saying it doesn't mean necessarily that you are gay, I interpret it to mean that it's healthy and normal to have sexual feelings that are labled as gay. As it is normal and healthy to have sexual feelings that are labled as straight. But instead of saying *but don't worry, it doesn't mean you are gay* my interpretation is *sure* you are gay to a certain extent, as we all are or as we would be if we were healthy and normal. (that's in short supply anyway!) And it's ok!

So, I know some people think it is bad logic to assume that those who say they feel differently are being dishonest- but is it any better to assume that people are being honest? you can't *know* either way, but we do know that people are dishonest with others as well as with themselves, especially when there self identity is so stronly tied to something.

When we are in a rebound relationship for example, or using someone to get back with an ex, we often don't admit it to ourselves until later.

And so I draw my conclusions, my theory, from my observations and from what I know about human nature. Just as a person might say something like "we all feel sad sometimes, but some people don't admit it." (and I know some people who don't) HOW can we *really* know that everyone feels the same emotioins as us? I guess we can't- but for myself I whole heartedly believe that there are aspects of the human condition that are universal to us all. And I consider 'bi-sexuality' to be one, because I think that 'bi-sexuality' is really 'sexuality' without words or definitions, before we labled it and fractured it into 'heterosexuality' and 'homosexuality.'

But there is so much morality and cultural pressure put on the issue, it is really difficult for many people to consider such a thing, let alone accept it.

I think it's a theory that at least diserves consideration, if not agreement from all quarteres. We cannot know for a fact that evolution is truth either, but it is accepted as scientific nonetheless, and many other theories are based on it's foundation. It is often considered *fact* when in reality it can never be more than a theory unless and until a time travel machine can be instructed to travel back and watch it happen!

so my theory or worldview is that all people are inherintly 'bi-sexual' or 'sexual' before it was splintered into categories and labled as right or wrong. But often this is deep down as we all have been conditioned in the morality of the matter, the current beliefs and biases and cultural taboos.

Someone famous said, "The only sex that is unnatural is no sex."

And that's pretty much what I believe. (Particularly amoung Humans)

At the very least, what you've proposed as the reasons why you believer your theory to be true is bad science. No different than "I'm going to form a theory that people are psychic, just a little, from my experiences with psychic-like behaviors...o.k., now everyone's a little psychic, believe it because it could be true".

I don't mean to downplay the notion. I agree it might be worth a real study. But it has yet to have that, and in the meantime its pretty thin.
 
Quoting out of context is sophomoric...

"I suggest that the same sort of scientific research, when applied to human sexuality will provide the fact that heterosexuality is natures absolute concerning gender and that homosexuality is an aberration."

There is a difference...and you are not idiotic..just dishonest and misleading...and do you think others do not read?

For shame...is that the best you can do?

amicus...
 
Joe Wordsworth said:
At the very least, what you've proposed as the reasons why you believer your theory to be true is bad science. No different than "I'm going to form a theory that people are psychic, just a little, from my experiences with psychic-like behaviors...o.k., now everyone's a little psychic, believe it because it could be true".

I don't mean to downplay the notion. I agree it might be worth a real study. But it has yet to have that, and in the meantime its pretty thin.

Pretty thin yes. I'm just planting seeds. (From tiny seeds grow great oaks)

I'm not a scientist, and this wasn't a scientific paper, just a description of *some* of the things that helped me to form this idea. Nearly off the top of my head. I just hoped that it was enough to show that this was something that I've observed and given a lot of thought to- NOT something I just decided one day that I would try to prove true.

Let's say for example that science was able to prove this theory true. But I had not read the scientific papers, I did not know the evidence- I only know my own experience and ideas. I am still not being scientific, but in this case I'd be "right" (scientificly speaking) but it would still be 'bad science.'

I appreciate your post Joe. you were real nice this time:)

:kiss:
 
Not a scientific discovery (though science is my 'religion'), but just a query...

Doesn't 'civilisation' largely boil down to being civil to more and more different kinds of people: working on evidence, rather than prejudice?

Eff
 
fifty5 said:
Not a scientific discovery (though science is my 'religion'), but just a query...

Doesn't 'civilisation' largely boil down to being civil to more and more different kinds of people: working on evidence, rather than prejudice?

Eff

I think that civilization just simply means living in a group of others with established rules, norms and expectations. To suggest that any civilization is 'uncivilized' is basicly racist propaganda (in my book anyway).

Uncivilized would be what you would be if you grew up with no influence from any sort of society whatsoever.

Course I'm probably wrong, and amicus or Joe will probably correct me. But as far as I understand it, civilization=society.

I guess what it all boils down to is: You don't have to be 'civil' to be a civilization.
 
A few weeks ago, there was this "Open Mind Night" in my town, a special evening at a club, an evening dedicated to gay, bi, and straight people with an open mind. I considered going, to show support for love without boundaries, but in the end, I had to stay home because of a lack of money - and one helluva cold.

But I wonder - if I had gone, would I have worn a "I'm straight! I'm straight! You do whatever you want, but remember I'm straight!" - attitude, or would I have been able to relax and treat women I ran into at that place as "harmless" rather than "potential threats"? And why would I even consider lesbian or bisexual women as threatening or sexually aggressive, when I have no problem with shrugging off the potential threat of sexually aggressive men?

I don't think I'm the only one with this prejudice. Why do we assume that gay members of our own sex are much more sexually aggressive than straight members of the opposite sex?

I boast about having an open mind, but I got an eye opener from this. I'm more prejudiced than I knew. I'm trying to be open minded and fair, to treat people equally no matter what sexual preference they have, but I suppose I still have a few things to work on.
 
Back
Top