One of the things that disturb me hugely about the way homosexuality is perceived, is the fact that gays and lesbians are called “queer”. If you think about it, it’s rather an odd name to give to a group of people isn’t it? “Queer”- as if who they are make them strange. And from there, as if everyone else is not queer, and completely normal. And picking it up from there, what exactly is normal anyway?
I’m not even going to start discussing the law here, since I have learnt that no matter what side you’re on, it’s a long, cliché debate that refuses to end no matter what anyone says.
I don’t have a problem with gayness. In fact, being a girl, I have often wished I found the female form attractive, since quite obviously, there is not much to like in the male form (for further information on this, check out the part in that sucky movie “Gigli” with Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez in it where she’s doing yoga and he asks her why she prefers women). I definitely find women more aesthetically appealing than men, but regretfully, I have yet to be attracted to one. Plus women are too whiny sometimes; I don’t think I want to deal with that.
However, my view on what gayness is all about, i.e. “how does it start?”, “are you born with it”, “are you just imagining it”, etc. is slightly different. As far as I’m concerned, these questions don’t matter. And I don’t mean that in the “they don’t matter because they are humans too and we’re going to treat them just like one of us” way, although that would be great, if people thought that. What I mean is, these questions are of no consequence whatsoever even while looking at gayness in a supportive, scientific, rational manner.
I remember when I first thought of this. I was watching “Transamerica” – brilliant movie btw – and something Toby’ character struck me. He was a prostitute for both men and women, and he did not mind or like or dislike one more than the other. He had an aim, a sad one from most standards, but an aim nevertheless – he wanted to get to California, dye his hair blonde and star in gay porn. And the strange part was, he wasn’t gay, at least not by the definition we generally tend to give to gays. He had no problem with sleeping with guys, and no problem sleeping with girls. And he was definitely willing to try and sleep with Bree (don’t let me get into the goosies- the bad kind- the incest thing gives me) despite the fact that he knew she used to be and still sort of was, a man. And in the end, he does get a job as a gay porn star, and he doesn’t seem disgusted at all by kissing a guy (albeit a good looking one) even if he did have problems getting an erection despite a blue pill.
That movie made me think of homosexuality in a completely different way. Think of a marriage with one gay party. In general, this marriage would have issue, i.e. there would be kids in this little happy family. Now, if gay guys were attracted to guys only how on earth did he (to put it crudely) get it up enough times with his wife to produce at least three kids? And before yall start screaming and waving your arms about, let me clarify. I’m not saying the guy is imagining it, and he’s actually straight. What I’m saying is that the definition of homosexuality and gayness is very narrow. It can’t simply be understood as a situation wherein a person is attracted to a person of the same sex only. Not all gay people are disgusted by the thought of sleeping with someone of the opposite sex, although that may be the case with some.
In the same way, straightness is an over-rated condition as far as I can see. Quite simply, while I’m not currently, nor in the past have been attracted to women, the thought of being with a woman is not disgusting. It’s ok. I would prefer to be with a man as of now, but if I ever end up falling for a woman, I won’t think it’s weird.
I have read several period novels and history books, with references to homosexuality. And the thing is, in most or some cases, homosexuality isn’t just that. Someone may be attracted to both men ad women, and may in society not talk about the part that makes them gay. While no-one talked about it, it was acceptable (btw, yes I know of the term bisexual and there is a reason I’m not using it).
In fact, one’s sexuality should ideally not even be of any bother to society. As long as you’re not forcing things on people, what you do in your own bedroom (or kitchen, or living room, or floor) is your own business. It is with religion that the question of sexuality even becomes an issue. I don’t know what most religions have got against sex, but as far as Christianity is concerned, sex and any pleasure you derive from it (you should try not to though) should have one primary aim- to produce kids. Thus, the anti-contraceptive policy of the Catholic Church. And if you’re gay, dear God, you’re can’t produce the little rascals even if you wanted to!
As far as I have learnt of Hindu Jurisprudence, progeny seems to be the primary aim of a marriage here as well. But other than the prejudice that exists in modern society against homosexuality, historically, I don’t think Hinduism minded homosexuality too much, at least judging by sculptures in various Hindu temples. Or sexuality at all for that matter, since we did come up with the world’s best known sex-book. Relax, from this point onwards, I shall leave my organized-religion-bashing for another day.
Maybe we’re all just a little bit gay; and this next bit I can say with a bit more conviction- most of us who are straight, are probably straight because we’ve never wanted to try it with someone of the same sex, maybe we’ve never met some one who makes us want to try.
To sum up, my thoughts match quite accurately with this line from Trainspotting (I like the movie, btw. And definitely more than Slumdog Millionaire) – “if you ask me, we’re heterosexual by default not by decision. It’s just a question of who you fancy. It’s all about aesthetics and its fuck all to do with morality.”