Friday, June 18, 2010

Neither Queer nor There.

Gays these days! What’s up with all the hatin' on Steven and Tiwonge? Sure, young love is fickle. One minute you’re all Romeo and Romeo, embracing lifelong incarceration for the man of your dreams. Next thing you’re hot-footing it back to your home village, trotting into the sunset with some hussy named Dorothy.

Jawellnofine, love hurts. But why is the rest of the world acting like they’ve been slapped in the face?

Let me tell you something: if I had the whole of Malawi threatening to give me a spanking – and not the fun kind - I’d also let Dorothy munch on my Mbatata cookie.

And I don’t think that would delegitimise the relationship that came before.

There’s a funny trend going on here; the assumption that a) being gay is absolute and b) there’s no choice involved. That it’s some kind of biological finality made null and void the second someone displays any ambivalence or looks at their orientation from another vantage point. And the second they do, blam! There goes any claim to support. Because obviously they can help it, the little ingrates.

So personally, I’ve found a breed out there I hate far more than homophobes. And that’s the type who trumpets, righteously, that gays shouldn’t be judged because they can’t help it.

Seriously? That’s the best defence you can come up with?

Every debate around homophobia has some do-gooder tacked on the end, bleating lamely that homosexuality appears in animals or that some chemical explanation has been found for it in humans. But intentions aside, are they any better than their homo-hatin’ brothers and sisters? Their logical process is both patronising and fundamentally flawed. I’ll rather take an honest-to-goodness conservative any day. At least they have the balls to nail their colours to a mast. But limply cooing that the poor gays can’t help their abnormality, and then patting yourself on the head for being such a stand-up, open-minded guy? Stick it, bru. We don’t need your pity.

People claiming gayness is a biological absolute belong in the same category as the so-called Caster Semenya supporters who kept snivelling that she was a “real girl”. Just take a moment and think about what you’re saying. That Caster would only be okay if she weren’t intersex? That being gay wouldn’t be okay if there were an element of choice?

Here’s another news flash for you, my friend. There’s always a choice. Sexual bonding is fluid and many people the world over – regardless of orientation – are married to, or sleep with people they aren’t 100% in love with. It can be done. Whether they are in an arranged marriage or married for money or the romance died or perhaps they just made a poor choice of partner, staying there always boils down to free will. People prioritise what they need most. For some, this is status, morality, convenience, acceptance or even basic safety. For others, it’s love.

But that’s not the point. The point is we should be allowed to explore our options. We shouldn’t be open to dissection by either homophobes or homophiles. It’s nobody’s bloody business but our own.

Moreover, the idea of absolute sexual orientation – betrayed by any exception to a person’s general preference – is tripe. Many of us have the capacity to fall in love not with a gender, but an individual. I know many people – myself included – who have been attracted to both men and women in varying degrees, depending on who they were. I know many people with powerful attractions to the same sex who manage, happily, to love partners of the opposite sex, and vice versa. Being gay isn’t a physical abnormality that leaves you totally unable to connect with someone of the opposite sex. Ultimately it’s a sexual preference, i.e. what you prefer. An orientation, i.e. where you place yourself. Yes, there are gay people who are only attracted to the same sex and straight people who are only attracted to the opposite sex. But they’re on two ends of a spectrum. The rest of us fall somewhere in between, and we shouldn’t have to hide behind “I can’t help it” to justify our choices. Or commit to one gender for life to validate public support.

Those who say gays should be accepted because they can’t help it – because the poor lambs just can’t bear someone of the opposite sex – are still reading from the same moral rulebook as any homophobe; they’re just on a different page. They still aren’t seeing that choice or no choice, no one has the right to tell others what to do.

Our legal system is here to prevent people and animals getting hurt. No more, no less. It prevents injustice, violence, and abuse of beings who can be overpowered into sex against their will. It is not here to make moral statements about private relationships between consenting adults.

So please, defenders, next time you’re feeling magnanimous and handing out badges for Pat a Gay Day, please remember that we are not ill and we are not children.

And then, for the love of Pete (and his partner Gerald), just shut the fuck up.

-----

*In case you've been living under a rock, Steven Monjeza
(26) and Tiwonge Chimbalanga (20) were a Malawian couple recently imprisoned for being gay. After massive international protests, they were pardoned - only for Monjeza to leave Chimbalanga and begin a controversial relationship with 24-year-old Dorothy Gulo, rumoured to be a prostitute. According to news reports, they plan to marry.

** This piece has also been published by TheDailyMaverick.co.za. Be a pal and give them some love, because they rock.

6 comments:

  1. i understand that madonna is going to sing 'express yourself' at the wedding...?
    m.

    ReplyDelete
  2. M, I've been thinking about this a lot since reading it last night. As someone who has historically batted for both teams, naturally I agree with your point. But just some other thoughts:

    (1) it's interesting how we (and i use 'we' broadly as liberal society and the queer community) often seem to be more comfortable applying the 'sexuality is fluid' point to explain female behaviour than male. Partly this is obv because it's less 'threatening' somehow, and therefore more common, for women to experiment with their sexual identity than men (which sadly probably owes something to the trivialising of women-woman sex (it's not 'real' etc)).

    (2) I can understand why it has been expedient for gay advocacy to push the 'sexuality is innate' line. The minute you start conceding that there's a choice-based element, you open yourself up to the crazy right demanding you undergo behavioural therapy (or worse) to enable you to 'choose' differently. It has also been part of the attempt throughout the history of the gay rights struggle to frame gayness as something on a par with race: and in this way to de-legitimise its criticism in the same way that you can't criticise someone for being born black. I think the idea of sexuality involving choice is a complex and nuanced one for people used to thinking in absolutes, even for people who aren't versed in the grammars of identity politics in the way that we who are steeped in liberal-arts (haha) backgrounds are. So from the perspective of trying to get an urgent, indeed life-dependent message out there (that rights for gays are legitimate) to the widest audience possible, I think gay rights campaigners have been largely correct to take this approach.

    I think this particularly in terms of religion extending its tolerance to gays, in the way that the Anglican church has done: to say that ‘God created and loves all his subjects, and he created me gay’ is a way of getting round some of the obvious contradictions between orthodox religion and homosexuality, and is one that seems to have resonated with some success . In more liberal African countries this approach has been a lifeline. While there’s obviously a case to be made for ‘God created me with freedom of choice, and I choose to love my own sex’, I can understand how you get on to stickier theological ground in that regard and it’s not a message consumed as easily.

    (3) In specific regard to Steven and Tiwonge, I think we are on more difficult turf. I would deeply love to believe that Steven is simply acting on a fluidly-held sexuality. But in this particular context, I think it would be disingenuous to suggest that there is no coercive element behind his decision: and in a situation where you are making your ‘choice’ based on whatever will allow you to live free from imprisonment and assault – is that really ‘choice’ at all, in the way we’re discussing it?

    On the other hand, I'm conscious that perhaps I'm approaching this from a paternalistic Eurocentric perspective as: that obviously *i*, as an educated liberal person, can make these kinds of sexual-identity choices in good faith, but it's unthinkable that a rural Malawian would be able to do so in the same way. I hope that *is* the case (that I'm being paternalistic and Eurocentric and generally SHIT), but I retain doubts.

    Apologies for a ‘comment’ almost as long as your blog, and thanks again for the v thought-provoking post.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Don't apologise, I think you are absolutely right. I agree with you that there was probably a huge element of coercion in Steven's choice to run off with Dorothy - but I think that's just it. My point was more, well, let's not point fingers at him: he had the whole of Malawi up his ass - I don't blame him. And if he chose personal safety over love, I think that's valid, and doesn't suddenly make him "not a real gay". Does that make sense?

    i.e. I think I was more just peeved that people seem to think he owed it to them to put his ass on the line as some kind of gay mascot, and I don't think that's fair. I think what IS unfair is that he was put in the position to have to make that choice at all.

    Re: your point (2) I also agree that this is strategically the most sensible way to approach the situation - just as I think that Steven chose the most sensible approach in his particular set of circumstances. My issue is, though, the fact that this approach is necessary at all. Call it a whine, if you will :)

    Your first point: Yes, that is interesting. I don't have an answer for you, though. Perhaps your next blog post...?

    Thanks for the equally thought-provoking reply.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh one more thing - I think I didn't make this clear enough in the blog itself - I also think sexual bonding is fluid beyond orientation itself; i.e. even if you are straight and married to someone of the opposite sex, maintaining that bond ultimately becomes about choosing them, and your family, and your stability, etc, over being 'in love'. So I think even for straight people many of their sexual choices often become about security, safety, social acceptance etc.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great that this appeared on maverick m.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hmmm - well they apparently loved it and wanted to use it, but that was a week ago and it's not up yet. So we'll see if we still love them in a few days.

    ReplyDelete