Unweaving the kinky rainbow

June 23, 2008

Ah, I’ve got a knack for pseudo-poetic Wortspiele.

Yesterday, a good (male) friend of mine came outta the closet (do Brits say cupboard?). Nasty day. Poured his heart out to me. I’m flattered that he trusted me so much (but watching “Les Filles du botaniste” probably helped to establish some air of hm… general supportiveness)that he decided to come out to me first, but gosh – never have I seen a man cry that much, and that’s saying something because I’ve seen all episodes of 士兵突击 [shi4bing1tu1ji1] (Soldiers Sortie – don’t ask).

Homosexuality is a topic dear to my heart (again, don’t ask) – after all it’s one of the most visible bastions of hypocrisy and moral extremism.

Everyone so sickeningly tolerant but thats only due to pluralistic peer-pressure. Wehe, if a relative turns out to be queer, though… An approximate 10% of the population (any population!) is estimated to have homosexual tendencies. Yet everyone automatically assumes ye’re straight. Whatever. 随便。Besides, being manly or womanly enough is one of the greatest concerns of modern citizens as if there’d never been a emancipatory movement. Irony is a means to emphasise that you above things. (Remember Dr McKay?)

Even the better TV series revolving around gay topics (what are gay topics anyway? AIDS? Lube? Fisting? Booze? Pink?) are horribly stereotypical even though they aim to be sarcastic. Unfortunately, you’ve gotta bear in mind that the average TV viewer doesn’t take the things he sees with a grain of (usually iodized) salt. And on the other hand you get tear-jerking movies like above-mentioned Daughters (no incest implied), Fingersmith or Chunguang Zhaxian.

Ach, screw them all. (Not to be taken to literally. Consent is crucial, if you catch my drift.)

A taiwanese term for “gay man” translates as “comrade” – what a cute euphemism?!

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Unweaving the kinky rainbow”

  1. Benni said

    (Just before beginning: I worked a lot with French today, so I guess I will not get on with the word order =/ )

    Erm…first of all, there’s one thing: I’m not gay, but I can really identify with the idea of loving without regard to the gender or other generic elements.

    Most of TV films and series are very superficial, especially in treating issues that aren’t that simple (by the way, the spanish film “glue”, a modern Coming-Of-Age movie, is very impressive, treating those issues as a subordinate plot). Today, Sexual Education aims at making clear the biological elements of life, but homosexuality isn’t that clear, especially biologically, therefore the Education blinds it out. In that way, making sexuality normal makes the blinded parts “abnormal”. And, as you said, tolerance is, above all in sexual issues, a peer-pressure-thing and some kinda “mercy” – hypocrisy is the right word -, cos gay people are that “abnormal” but it’s not their fault, so they are like “handicapped” – that’s a bit sick =/.

    In my humble opinion, this system even works for the broad mass, because you always need tricks to make people think in an appropriate way (empathatism is a rare thing…). But on a private sphere, this is completly cumbersome; –
    Gay people are, just like any other human being and above all, emotional beings. It is often believed, that this pithy stereotype of a sexual being is all the whole thing of being gay. By the way, it’s just the same with erotomania, with addictional love, with bisexuality, polyamory, and so on. It is like saying: “Look, a German … oh no, he isn’t fat and bullying – must be a polish man, he steals!” or “Look, a woman! Like she’s weak and needy…” .

    What is more, love is something, that becomes more and more a part of our abstract thinking, it’s no longer an issue of our sexuality and that is the point, that people should get on with. And I wait with all my impatience for the film, that points out the ridiculousness of our society, thinking in stereotypes and making it impossible to love like we should have the possibility to do so.

    And in my humble opinion and as a last point, it is anything but the right way to seperate people by their sexuality. Thinking in categories builds walls that make it completly impossible to life as free as we could do; so, to say: “I’m not gay” only means, that there is no sexual interest towards men (which I would have encountered yet ._.” ). But I’m able to love – at least, I think I’m able to ;).
    To refuse this insight to ourselves is some kinda simplistic and lacks of freedom of mind.

    Gosh, don’t think, there was only one clear sentence ._.” .

  2. taohuayuan said

    Thanks for your insights (sorry for not approving your comment for ages, must have overlooked it) . I don’t think I could agree more!

    You mentioned stereotypes. It probably goes beyond these stereotypical notions when it comes to gays. Most people automatically reduce them to that sexual aspect. Even subconsciously. Quite a few can’t detach themselves from explicitly imagining their (queer) interlocutor’s very sexual behaviour. Obviously, with a straight person, one probably wouldn’t waste any time pondering this unless there was something more “going on”. Consequently, dealing with a human being you yourself have reduced to his/her genital functions is more than just awkward and I can understand why it puts some people off. But it’s their own entrenchment in our culture of non-acceptance (nowadays conveniently covered up by political correct slogans that are just as futile as CCP-propaganda) that created this problem in the first place.

    Then again, gays aren’t much wiser than those opposed to them, managing to permanently inhabit the “kinky corner” (CSD etc.). They even have the guts to create rifts within their group, bashing bisexuals (just check the lesbian lonely hearts ad section and count how many mention “no bi!”), lesbians calling gay men irresponsible (those bloody preconceptions!) and it’s no more fun vice versa.

    And as soon as someone tries to “rehabilitate” gays, they arrive at the “innate”-argument. Ah, right, so every short-haired girl who doesn’t cross her legs is lesbian and every boy who dares show empathy is gay. Sure. We are so civilized. (Do I come across nihilistic? *sigh*)

    “(which I would have encountered yet ._.” )”
    Which gender a person feels attracted to is not necessarily fixed, I should think. I recently read an article in a (non-popular) psychology mag about there being phases in life in terms of sexual orientation.

    Isn’t it strange that it’s perfectly possible to discuss this issue in general terms, lumping individuals together under the umbrella of “gay”? Is it acceptable for “outsiders” to use these terms at all, at least in such a generalizing way? Or perhaps it’s worse to use them as “insiders”. This way or the other, segregation takes place, on purpose or not. That’s why I have mixed feelings about, let’s say, LGBT youth groups and the like. Solidarity might be just fine, but is there really the need for an all-gay volleyball match or barbecue evening (apart from the dating opportunities…)? That isn’t to say that the people there aren’t nice and welcoming, still it’s makes me somewhat uneasy. The need for such groups perfectly shows society’s shortcomings.

    On the other hand, shrugging off the issue by saying “ah, well, it’s all about love, gender shouldn’t really matter” (I think you expressed it more appropriately, so that’s not what I’m referring to) is somewhat off the mark. (Physical) attraction does matter, not only on a biological level.

    What’s even worse than the sexual orientation issue is the sexual identity discussion. It’s just disgusting to see the lengths people go to fit in. And the jokes that arise from the made-up clash between men and women. It’s utterly ridiculous. I fail to see how anyone can laugh about slapstick a la Mario Barth, not because thanks to the women’s lib movement people should be above such trivia (well, they ought to) but because it’s such braincrap.

    Oh that note, I’m gonna stop rambling already.

  3. taohuayuan said

    And, regarding SexEd, I can’t remember hearing anything about homosexuality in Biology class, can you? I have the nagging feeling we only covered that topic mentioning it alongside pedophile tendencies.

  4. Benni said

    We mentioned neither pedophily nor homosexuality =/. In fact, we only dealt with that condom-and-fertilization-stuff. But isn’t it funny that, nowadays, one can juggle those two things, because it’s apparently not “nature’s holy will”? I mean, even pedophile people aren’t that dangerous, but it is very simple (but above all, it is simplistic) to make pedophile and paederast synonymes. And even then, the difference between must be clear – at least, that is the unaccomplished expectation.

    “We are so civilized.”
    Yeah, I think, that’s quite the point were we stuck on. Our modern civilization was never able to cope with its own problems, because our modernity thinks itself untouchably made out to be perfect. Even the “innate”-argument – because you just mentioned it – is, in my humble opinion, alomst more crackbrained than the “anal phase”-argument. I mean, I know, in our society one necessarily is in need of explanations to every single fact, but those theories are the self-same thing as saying onanism would make people become blind.

    By the way, I totally agree that gay people aren’t apparently much wiser. I’m sadly not so well-informed about the diffent communities, but I think it is also a big problem, that only those gay-pride troupes make a clear appearance. It’s nothing wrong with celebrating their appropriate right to be what ever they want to be, but in the first place, it is impossible to look beyond and in that way, gay recalls always that picture of naked guys on a colourful truck…

    “Isn’t it strange that it’s perfectly possible to discuss this issue in general terms, lumping individuals together under the umbrella of “gay”?”
    I couldn’t agree more. But it is the most innate nature of our own to lump together things and people with even a few coincidences – as I said, “we Germans”, “those gay people”, “men and women”, “those muslims”, “punks”, “mothers”, “murderers”, “old people”… Hey, I’m a guy, you are a girl – why is it even possible to talk to each other about all the world and everything under the sun !_!.

    By the way, it is very funny that you earn comments like “But you are a guy!” when saying “Women’s emancipation is a good thing.”. And also you can’t make people as they ought to be – unfortunately. That Mario-Barth-humour is even more braincrappy than it could be, but that’s what the broad mass sadly needs nowadays. To me it is more alarming – even if I natch agree with you the whole line – that this braincrap is called to be artistic, something everybody can identify with (I remember someone semi-prominent saying, it was funny to recognize oneself in his jokes – poor people), cos that makes it in some way appropriate and – as you said – it should not be.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: