it seems that this is my week to have conversations about sexual identity. consider this entry a kind of corollary to yesterday's. this time the topic of conversation was sparked by a statement to the effect of, "i'm an atypical gay as i do not let my sexuality define me." now, to that point i had merely been observing the chat, but for me a statement like that is like throwing a big t-bone steak in front of a starving dog. so i dove in. i'll spare the details of the chat and just go to my key concern. i'm not sure how well served we are when lgbt folks make statements that give the appearance that they are holding their sexuality at arm's length.
i should preface any additional remarks by stating that back when i was coming to terms with my own sexuality, i read quite a few books on sexuality (many in the realm of the relationship of christian faith and homosexuality). the central premise of all of these books was that sexuality is not just an aspect of who we are but it is a central, defining aspect of who we are. one only need to look at how virulent the debate is around topics like gay marriage to see the validity of that point. who we are attracted to, who we love and engage in intimacy with goes to the deepest places of our psyches and drives so much of how we see and operate in the world (want more proof of this dynamic -- flip through a mainstream magazine and see what aspects of ourselves that advertisers try to reach most often).
i'm aware that the comment voiced in chat really had little to do with sexuality and more to do with stereotypes (a fact that was clarified by the additional conversation), but i think the point still deserves to be explored as it's not the first time that i've witnessed gay men making this statement. it's fine to declare one's individuality, but i just think it's a little absurd to do it at the expense of recognizing the integral aspect of sexuality to one's identity, particularly when i would submit that such a bifurcation between sexuality and identity is a main contributor to anti-gay bias and homophobia. such trappings as being promiscuous, going to clubs, and loving show tunes are not tied to our sexuality. they may be ways that many gay men choose to express it, but to do so is not de facto "letting one's sexuality define them."
i whole-heartedly support choosing to live our lives in ways that are true to who you see ourselves to be (as long as that is done in a way that does not abuse, harm, or infringe on the inherent rights of life, love, and liberty of another individual), but i just think that living a life of integrity can be done as well, if not better, by embracing our sexuality as a central definer of our respective identities.
2 comments:
There's a difference between "i do not let my sexuality define me" and "my sexuality doesn't define me". What was the speaker implying with the word "let".
And why does he think that this disallowance makes him "atypical"?
good point in the nuance. however, taken in context with the other points being made in that particular conversation, i'm fairly certain he actually meant the latter more than the former. i would guess the reason he thinks this disallowance makes him atypical is the same reason that other gay men with this perspective that i've encountered have -- they believe that most gay men behave in a certain way and for some reason they associate that form of behavior with the person's sexuality. for example, in this particular instance, it was pretty clear that this guy felt that promiscuity was such a form of behavior, not recognizing that such behavior is really how a person chooses to live out their sexuality but is not determined by it.
even with the nuance, i think the former is an impossible construct. i would submit that our sexuality is so integrated with who we are as people it cannot help but define who we are. in fact, even when we act in opposition to what we believe is how we should behave based on sexual identity, our sexuality is still playing a key role in shaping who we are.
Post a Comment