OUTING HETEROSEXUALITY

Here’s the thing. Lately, I’ve been writing predictable things about predictable events and I am on the verge of sending myself to sleep. It isn’t that the things I have been writing about are not important, it is merely that I was almost on the edge of persuading myself that the political scene, which needs a united citizen front, was more important than other less obviously political issues--although political they certainly are.

The shame!

I of all people should know better. The civil rights movement in the U.S. told women to stop talking about gender issues because first the fight against racism had to be won. The feminist movement frowned at women of colour raising their issues, insisting that first the fight against the patriarchy had to be won. The nationalist movements in Africa insisted that feminism was a corrupt and decadent western import, and that first we had to capture our earthly kingdoms, and achieve our panAfricanist Nirvana, before we started looking at “side issues.” And those of us who are interested in our contemporary political dynamics have fallen into the same pit of not tackling the prickly, the uncomfortable questions now: we are waiting to win the larger battle before we clean our house. There is always another battle or another issue, and the matters that matter to the foot soldiers are postponed for yet another day. Yet, these issues ARE the battle. We fight for freedom --and do not imagine we are doing anything less--because it is the freedom to live our lives the way we want, from the jobs we choose to the people we fall in love with. If we cannot tackle them, then we are not equipped to tackle anything. What are the lines of difference we draw? For what do we engage, argue, participate and in some heroes' cases, take awful risks? For what?

Thus, I am not going to wait until we’ve sorted out our ideas of citizenship and its prerogatives, rights and obligations; the limits of government and the appropriate restrictions on its officials; the freedom of the press and our strategies to safeguard both that and the right to speak. I have been meaning to speak to the supposedly unanimous and united front that we present to the mere whisper of an idea of a suggestion of a sexuality(ies) that does not follow the missionary position sex-is-for-the-purpose-of-reproduction-only-and-any-other-type of-sexual-activity-will-send-you-into-the-inferno heterosexuality. Did you get that? Homosexual, bisexual transsexual, gay, queer, lesbian, transgender, cross-dresser and so on and as Judith Butler says, on and on have, exactly the same standing (I think there's a horribly dirty pun in there somewhere) as heterosexuality does. There are lots of ways, of being and of expressing our sexualities. There are no contracts that have to be signed so that you can only be one type your whole life. None of them is better than others. None of them is more moral than others. None of them should be subject to state intervention or restriction because one of the very few things history has worked hard to let us possess is our own bodies. What you do when you get nekked and necking is just your business: you own your materiality, your embodification, your body. I can feel the collective shudder from here. Chill out! What is the problem? No one is making you do anything you don’t want to.

Here’s what I think: if the parties to the sexual interlude are adult, intend harm neither to each other nor to themselves (at least, not unanticipated or non-consensual harm) or to other parties, how could it possibly be our business what it is they do in the stronghold of their private space? Don’t bother thinking: the answer is NONE.

I’ve wondered why it is that a)men are not nearly as freaked out at the idea of women on women encounters b) men are practically frothing at the mouth at the idea of a gay man coming near them or anywhere near them and are often driven to violence against people they suspect of embodying this crucial difference in sexuality c)women who don’t particularly approve of homosexuality aren’t that worked up about it? So why?

a and c are going to have to wait for sharper minds than mine, but b) I think is caused by the idea that every gay man will suddenly be helplessly attracted to our homophobic straight guy, and, unable to resist himself or his urges, will jump him as soon as they meet. This is tantamount to being against heterosexual sex because it promotes man-on-woman rape and violence. The futility and fatuousness of this nonsense! The other thing, and I do so love being able to write this, is that straight men have a small corner of their minds (heavily repressed) which wonders whether a homoerotic event and perhaps even a homosexual one may, after all--sotto voce!-- be a rather interesting episode in their life of desire. I have in mind the unspoken and unheard echoes of single-sex boarding schools. C’mon, pretending the pink elephant in the middle of the sitting room isn’t there isn’t actually going to make it go away. Don’t worry; I myself went to a woman’s college in a town that has earned the reputation of being the lesbian capital of the world. I am quite capable of looking women over once, twice and even thrice, but then, women are always checking each other out. I would not have exchanged this experience, and its lessons, for the world.

Honestly (and I must admit that I borrow /steal this from the comedian Bobcat) I think much of straight male violence against gay men is an inversion of the part of themselves that they are trying to destroy. The part that says, oh you gorgeous man, you are so attractive to me that I am going to have to beat you to a pulp to stop myself from ahem, jumping your bones because I am a PERFECTLY NORMAL MAN and do not, ever, find other men attractive.

Here's the hook, somewhat late: Do you think Mugabe didn’t know about Canaan Banana? So what do we make of his pronouncements on this issue?? If you do not understand this reference, do your homework. The results will enlighten and intrigue. This issue speaks to others of Mugabe's pronouncements, but as Mental once remarked, I am not about to go into the pro- anti- useless and endless dichotomy. I just wanted this thought-factoid out there.

Your sisters, your brothers, your friends, your colleagues, your cousins, your nephews,your nieces, even your parents, are trapped in a prison more violent and restrictive than any physical restraint. They are not heterosexual, or they are not only heterosexual and for this you have made them pay a price that should not be required. They are trapped in the swamp of public opinion which threatens to take away their person-hood should they admit, for a moment, that perhaps their desires are different from yours. Will you sacrifice them to bigotry and prejudice.? Whence then, your moral authority?