![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Labels and sexuality
I finally watched Bob and Rose, a show created by the same person as Queer as Folk. ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cgwriting, this might be of interest to you in the sense that it echoes our conversation about wanting to read about gay people falling for opposite-sex people for once.
First off, on the purely personal level: I like Queer as Folk much better. The take on the two shows is quite different, but on the whole, even though Bob and Rose is more unconventional, Queer as Folk still has my preference - the ending is much better, for one thing, I think things ended too smoothly in Bob and Rose. But mostly I think I'm emotionally attached to Queer as Folk in a way I'll never be to Bob and Rose.
That being said, what is Bob and Rose about? Bob is gay. He and Rose fall in love. Bob isn't bisexual. He was born gay, he is gay, and he will be gay, as he says himself. But he loves Rose. As his mother says, her gay son is dating a straight woman - "that's equality for you!" It's nice to see a situation that has been done times and times again (coming out as gay) in reverse: Bob has to come out to his parents about being straight, to his friends too. And Rose has to deal with her friends and family knowing that she is dating a gay man. Not also that, but the two of them have to deal with insecurities in their relationship that are present in any couple, but made worse by their special circumstances. It's brilliant.
Also, special kudos to Holly, the character of one of Bob's best friends. I think English people have a knack for creating real characters, up to their horrible-ness. Holly is possessive and will shy from nothing to keep Bob from having long-term relationships - in the end she's just lonely and afraid of being left alone, but where American television would make that extra clear, here she is still hatable-while-not-hated for the whole of the series, and it is only at the end that she redeems herself, but not in a big way like the American would do, like it's not a big redemption, it's just that for once she does the right thing. (Don't get me wrong, I love American TV, and I know that what I write is much closer to American TV than to British TV. Doesn't mean I don't recognise its shortcomings (and that of my writing).) The same goes for Bob's ex. Both of them are so delightfully, remorse-freely selfish. So real.
Back to the point of labels - so yes, I watched that series this weekend, and I started reading "Vice Versa," a book about bisexuality. I never thought I'd actually find it interesting, but it is, immensely so. And I've only just read the introduction and the first chapter so far. It's a true study of bisexuality, the different kinds of bisexuality and the politics of bisexuality, etc. And so, those two things have made me realise that no matter how open-minded you think you are, you still label people.
In case you had any doubts, the "you" in the above sentence refers to me. I still label people. I don't like it that saying "I have a girlfriend" means people think you're gay when - hello, bi here! But I do the same. We all do. We need labels to make sense of the world around us, so we sum people up with those labels pending further information. It's only human, really. But sexuality cannot be labelled. It's fluid, ever changing. It's a flux, not a denomination. Something that comes and goes. And I have to wonder about the right-ness of putting so much importance on sexuality to define ourselves.
"I'm gay. I'm bi. I'm straight. I'm *insert whatever*." Okay, great. But that does not tell me anything about who you are. Of course, in our society there is no way to make less of a big deal of sexuality, not when alternatives to "straightness" are not widely accepted - and even when they are accepted, it is out of actual acceptance, it's not just a given. Straightness doesn't have to be accepted, other sexualities do. I'm not naive enough to be saying that "hey! we shouldn't care about sexuality! it doesn't define a person!" because sure we shouldn't, but in this world here, there is no way around it.
But still, all of this is making me think about it. Bob who is gay and dating a woman. Bisexual meaning people attracted to both genders and open about it as well as married people who secretly have same-sex lovers; to me the latter would be gay, not bisexual. It's just an example of how labels aren't even the same for each person that uses them.
I'd like to say that from this day forth I shall not label anyone ever again. But I know I will, I can't help it, I'm a human being and a social being, anchored in this Western society where sexuality does define someone. But still, I like to think that I will remember, no matter the labels I cannot help but use, that no one should be reduced to those labels, that sexuality is not identity, that sexuality is fluid and varying and a living thing. And, mostly, that each person's individuality would require for us to use one label per person, because we are, none of us, the same.
cgwriting, this might be of interest to you in the sense that it echoes our conversation about wanting to read about gay people falling for opposite-sex people for once. First off, on the purely personal level: I like Queer as Folk much better. The take on the two shows is quite different, but on the whole, even though Bob and Rose is more unconventional, Queer as Folk still has my preference - the ending is much better, for one thing, I think things ended too smoothly in Bob and Rose. But mostly I think I'm emotionally attached to Queer as Folk in a way I'll never be to Bob and Rose.
That being said, what is Bob and Rose about? Bob is gay. He and Rose fall in love. Bob isn't bisexual. He was born gay, he is gay, and he will be gay, as he says himself. But he loves Rose. As his mother says, her gay son is dating a straight woman - "that's equality for you!" It's nice to see a situation that has been done times and times again (coming out as gay) in reverse: Bob has to come out to his parents about being straight, to his friends too. And Rose has to deal with her friends and family knowing that she is dating a gay man. Not also that, but the two of them have to deal with insecurities in their relationship that are present in any couple, but made worse by their special circumstances. It's brilliant.
Also, special kudos to Holly, the character of one of Bob's best friends. I think English people have a knack for creating real characters, up to their horrible-ness. Holly is possessive and will shy from nothing to keep Bob from having long-term relationships - in the end she's just lonely and afraid of being left alone, but where American television would make that extra clear, here she is still hatable-while-not-hated for the whole of the series, and it is only at the end that she redeems herself, but not in a big way like the American would do, like it's not a big redemption, it's just that for once she does the right thing. (Don't get me wrong, I love American TV, and I know that what I write is much closer to American TV than to British TV. Doesn't mean I don't recognise its shortcomings (and that of my writing).) The same goes for Bob's ex. Both of them are so delightfully, remorse-freely selfish. So real.
Back to the point of labels - so yes, I watched that series this weekend, and I started reading "Vice Versa," a book about bisexuality. I never thought I'd actually find it interesting, but it is, immensely so. And I've only just read the introduction and the first chapter so far. It's a true study of bisexuality, the different kinds of bisexuality and the politics of bisexuality, etc. And so, those two things have made me realise that no matter how open-minded you think you are, you still label people.
In case you had any doubts, the "you" in the above sentence refers to me. I still label people. I don't like it that saying "I have a girlfriend" means people think you're gay when - hello, bi here! But I do the same. We all do. We need labels to make sense of the world around us, so we sum people up with those labels pending further information. It's only human, really. But sexuality cannot be labelled. It's fluid, ever changing. It's a flux, not a denomination. Something that comes and goes. And I have to wonder about the right-ness of putting so much importance on sexuality to define ourselves.
"I'm gay. I'm bi. I'm straight. I'm *insert whatever*." Okay, great. But that does not tell me anything about who you are. Of course, in our society there is no way to make less of a big deal of sexuality, not when alternatives to "straightness" are not widely accepted - and even when they are accepted, it is out of actual acceptance, it's not just a given. Straightness doesn't have to be accepted, other sexualities do. I'm not naive enough to be saying that "hey! we shouldn't care about sexuality! it doesn't define a person!" because sure we shouldn't, but in this world here, there is no way around it.
But still, all of this is making me think about it. Bob who is gay and dating a woman. Bisexual meaning people attracted to both genders and open about it as well as married people who secretly have same-sex lovers; to me the latter would be gay, not bisexual. It's just an example of how labels aren't even the same for each person that uses them.
I'd like to say that from this day forth I shall not label anyone ever again. But I know I will, I can't help it, I'm a human being and a social being, anchored in this Western society where sexuality does define someone. But still, I like to think that I will remember, no matter the labels I cannot help but use, that no one should be reduced to those labels, that sexuality is not identity, that sexuality is fluid and varying and a living thing. And, mostly, that each person's individuality would require for us to use one label per person, because we are, none of us, the same.