I imagine it will be the first of many poor jokes/comments about Portia de Rossi and Ellen de Generes who yesterday honoured their relationship by marrying each other. The fact that they are both women is (of course) of interest but 9's morning program made the obvious comment. Ellen wore pants, Portia wore a dress. "Oh," said the idiot anchor, "does that mean Ellen wears the trousers?" "I think it does" said Karl the straight-man.
Then, I suspect, they both realised they had strayed where they probably shouldn't go.
We were told Portia wears the pants sometimes (how do they know?), then we were told Ellen was coming to Channel 9 soon...and wouldn't that be a hoot as she was absolutely fabulous...and so talented ( should they have added 'for a lesbian'?)
What gets me is why same sex relationships have to be interpreted in the parameters of male-female relationships. It is generally accepted, for example, that one of the reasons why numbers of women go into same-sex relationships after having been in different sex relationships is that they want a relationship that is on a better footing. It is often because they long for companionship, rather than the war of the sexes that they find themselves wanting to be partnered to a woman rather than an adversary.
Of course we men have some difficulty understanding this, and we make so many of the rules.
My feelings?
In a world where there is too little love and commitment, I wish all those
who seek it well. And I wonder why so many of us are hateful about those who
look in different places for what we ourselves long.
2 comments:
What gets me is why same sex relationships have to be interpreted in the parameters of male-female relationships. It is generally accepted, for example, that one of the reasons why numbers of women go into same-sex relationships after having been in different sex relationships is that they want a relationship that is on a better footing. It is often because they long for companionship, rather than the war of the sexes that they find themselves wanting to be partnered to a woman rather than an adversary.
Or it could simply be that there is a social stigma attached to lesbianism, though it is different from and (possibly) less severe than that attached to male homosexuality. That's not to say that it isn't severe. But I think lesbians, like gay men, would feel the same kinds of social pressures to remain closeted about their sexuality.
The way I see it, whereas our culture tends to draw a hard and fast distinction between "normal" male relationships and homosexuality, the distinctions between "normal" and homoerotic women-women relationships is a lot more fuzzy. Female homoeroticism is couched in terms of "experimentation," as well as, not unexpectedly, entertainment for men.
Why do same-sex relationships get interpreted in term of a male-female dynamic? I blame Plato (the notion that men and women "complete" each other), via Christianity. But there is also the butch/femme aspect of lesbian culture.
I guess my point is that while I am not doubting the homo-erotic nature of F-F relationships, many men don't easily get that there is more to relationships than who puts what where.
I am not suggesting either that sex is the only thing that M-M relationships are on about. Though many are. It seems to me many gay men I know just want to screw anything that stands still long enough to let them do so.
I actually want to see a wider theology of relationship which allows us to say that the idea of 'partnership' is not gender bound.
I am inclined to think thaty humans are completed in relationship. But, relationship needs to eb a wider idea.
I also want to tease out ideas abotu where children come in all this, and I tend to think 'monogamy' is the way to go. [The alternatives it seems to me blur the issues dramatically and fundamentally...but I am still processing this]
Post a Comment