Via DemFromCT of Daily Kos, Kevin Huffman of the Washington Post says
On Sunday, as I hunker down with family and friends for the Super Bowl, I can rest easy knowing that CBS is working hard to defend my heterosexual sensitivities. On the surface, heterosexuality doesn’t seem like a particularly distinctive trait or one in need of broad institutional protections, but many seem to believe that we heterosexuals are delicate souls.
The media, the government, the military — all are ready to head off potential sightings of gay people.
In the case of the Super Bowl, CBS has refused to broadcast an ad by the gay dating Web site ManCrunch.
Sometime soon I’m going to have to write a post about “privilege,” which while technically accurate as it gets, and also glaringly obvious to those who don’t have it, is also nearly-by-definition, completely invisible to those who have it. That said, I like the way Huffman’s point illustrates a really huge problem with the invisibility of being the “normal” against which all else is “other.”
What I really wish people would get is that heterosexuality is as real and durable an orientation as homosexuality. I mean, it’s a peculiar condition of imagining one’s self “the norm” that it’s hard to understand you’re the way you are for exactly the same reasons others aren’t. You’re that way by accident of birth a.k.a. nature.
And by not getting that you’re also going to miss that you’re not “normal” temporarily, you’re not “normal” by whim, you’re not “normal” because you were exposed to the “right” or “wrong” social influence, and you’re definitely not “normal” by choice.
Any more than any given sexual “the other” is.
And that’s the thing. Being gay isn’t a choice! And one of the coolest things about getting that is that if you just thought about it you’d get that your heterosexuality wasn’t a choice either.
And if more people got that they’d get that they really don’t need the media, the government, the clergy, U.S. Marines and the Canadian Mounties, and, especially, various posses of gay-panic-stricken vigilantes to protect their heterosexuality. Or anyone else’s.
Tags:
My question is, never mind
Submitted by Holly Pervocracy (not verified) on Sun, 2010-02-07 18:15.My question is, never mind gay dating sites—when’s the last time you saw an ad that wasn’t about sexuality at all that had a gay couple? When’s the last time you saw an ad for pasta that had a guy going “mmm, great dinner, honey” to his husband? And it wasn’t some big political statement either, it was just a pasta ad showing a couple that liked pasta?
I don’t know, outside of the ads in gay-community publications, if I’ve ever seen an ad like that.
[This is almost completely off topic but what struck me as really, really weird this year (I mean besides New Orleans playing really, really, really, really well) is that while I didn’t see the pro-misinformation, anti-abortion ad everyone was talking about it still might not have been the most offensive ad. I mean, seriously, “your automobile tires or your life…” and the driver thinks “wife” and throws her out of the car? Seriously? Or the handheld tv ad where tell a guy who goes shopping with his partner to “take off the skirt?” Bezeuzs! —fl]
Wow. Figleaf, I would not
Submitted by Sungold (not verified) on Sun, 2010-02-07 22:49.Wow. Figleaf, I would not have pegged you as a football fan! (And for those of you with naughty imaginations: I have no plans to peg any man in the near future, and most certainly not figleaf.) The great thing about the TV is that you can turn it off … and I did just that today.
I like this post, but I want to push you a bit further. The argument in favor of homosexuality being innate only gets you so far. It’s a weak defense, because how do we then account for bisexual people and others who fall between the lines – is they’re plural orientation innate, or is bisexuality just frivolous and not to be taken seriously? What about the many people who shift orientation in their lifetimes? Don’t they deserve equal rights, too? Or should they just straighten up and fly right (if you’ll pardon the pun)?
I had a bunch more thoughts about this (which I posted at my place). But basically, it comes down to the fact that people deserve to be celebrated whether sexual orientation is a choice or not. Anything less preserves the current hierarchy and locks in oppression.
I’ll say it’s a scale and
Submitted by Shadow (not verified) on Mon, 2010-02-08 15:45.I’ll say it’s a scale and that yes, you are born to be somewhere on this scale. But it might not be completely carved in stone.
Some people are attracted to both sexes as their ‘default’ and I see no reason why that shouldn’t be as legitimate as being heterosexual or homosexual.
I’ll agree that this is a subject that can certainly use some more light. And a subject that I find very interesting being a supporter of equal rights for LGBTQs.