In-betweens, ambiguity and bisexuality

[salinea]

mechaieh posted a transcript of the sermon she gave at her Unitarian Church on the subject of bisexuality

Here's the blurb :

"Ambisexuality"

As individuals whose sexual preferences do not fit neatly within traditional "either-or," "all-or-nothing" beliefs about relationships, bisexuals often face unflattering assumptions about their personalities and morals -- including negative perceptions about their refusal to declare or accept what seems to many to be a simple choice. As individuals whose spiritual needs do not fit neatly within traditional "either-or," "all-or-nothing" beliefs about creeds and covenants, Unitarian Universalists often encounter unflattering assumptions about their personalities and morals -- especially perceptions about their refusal to declare or accept what seems to many to be a simple choice. This morning, we will take a look at how to welcome ambiguity and complexity, and why bearing witness matters so much.

Go read the full transcript here

I find this subject fascinating, not only the topic of bisexuality (which mechaieh spoke about wonderfully) , but the idea of comparing sexual orientation with other identity categorizations and when they are or appear too vague, or too "in-between" and the difficulties and prejudices people face because of that.

skuldchan's rant about gender identities answering an article about "feminized male" in Japan makes me think along the same way as well.

As humans we tend to think in oppositions. We classify everything around us. Dark or light, female or male, dead or alive, yin or yang, good or bad, old or young, hot or cold, wet or dry etc. Symbolical systems of categorization almost always end up pairing things in opposites.
There's a certain laziness in this way of thinking that often lend itself to easy amalgams. Such as thinking that anything that doesn't belong to one category, must belong to the other one. And that something that does belong to one category, cannot belong to the other.

Thus when something, someone pretends to be somewhere else, either because it doesn't belong to either or because it belongs to both (or because of something more complex even), we're intellectually suspicious of it.
We can't find a proper place for it. We reject it. We consider it as dangerous, strange, unwordly, impure, false etc. It's like it escapes us, a slippery object that our mind cannot quite grasp.

A bird is a bird, but a bird that doesn't fly isn't as much a bird as one that does.

Reality is complex. It often doesn't fit quite as nicely in systems of categorization.

People have faith, or they don't.
Except for the people for whom the question is answered differently. Some people don't know if they believe or not. Some people believe in some things, but not especially in god(s). Some people, like my father, answer the questions by saying that they try to believe. Some people don't think that question of the existence of God is relevant to the attachment to a religion because a religion is also a community, a set of values, a culture. Some people believe in a symbolical way where other people believe literaly. For some people the answer changes day to day. In anthropology class, I've been taught that for lots of people there were no contradiction between going to Church one day and worshipping a Loa the same night (and the Voodoo and Christianism syncretism is only one exemple of the possible interactions and integrations of religions)
Simple question, complex answers.

Part of it is because, like for sexuality, we don't quite know what is the question. Is it about what someone genuinely believes (who they're attracted to ?), what they actually practice (Whom do they have sex with ?) or how do they self-identify ?
In many ways, it's rather rude to go ahead and tell someone "No, since you're ****, you MUST identify is really ****" for something as intimate and important to people as religion or sexuality is.

But sometimes, people are not interested in what is polite. They're too busy filing, ruling, and tagging. Giving names to all the animals in the garden of Eden. Once things have a name, once they're surrunded by rules and boundaries, we feel like we can own it, control it. Even if we know nothing of it. But it's useful. Cognitively, it allows us to manipulate concept, even without puting a real content into it.

But sometimes, it make us miss the real truth, the complexity of it. Think of Joss' point when he comments Hush :
"That language can interfere with communication, because language limits. As soon as you say something you've eliminated every other possibility of what you might be talking about."
Either it's one thing, either it's another. And you can't be both, you can't be neither. If you are, well... you're taboo, not kosher, you're in a state of liminarity that must be surrounded by precautions, purifications and rituals of passage. You might be the lowest of the low or you might be sacred, but either way, you're not One of Us.

All right, you get the picture, now I shall tie this all to fandom, must I not ?

Some time ago, in a discussion with silvertistel about why i wasn't surprised that the interest into slash came mainly (though not only) from Fandoms that were focussed on Science Fiction and Fantasy. Because most of the time, SF interrogates the nature and the boundaries of what it means of being human by creating categories that are similar to humans, but Other nonetheless. Robots, elves, mutants, aliens, vampires, cyborgs, werewolves, etc. are all categories of being that are not quite one thing, nor another.
In fact, main protagonist of most Fandom stories as well as mythological narratives are figures belonging to two worlds, partaging in dual natures, split between several sides.
They are children of God and mortals. They're vampires with a soul. Or dhampirs. They're half blood. They're tricksters. They die and they are reborn. They're stuck between Heavens and Earth. Or Earth and Hell. They're magical, yet mundane. They're both, either, neither.

In slash, similarly, we interrogate the boundaries of gender and sexuality. We don't take a character's sexuality at face value, we question it. To write slash you must consider any character as bisexual. To writ fanfics out of canon pairing, you must consider any relationship as potentially sexual in nature.
Even if it crosses through categories that should be held separate or opposite. Such as mentor/student, antagonistic pairings, or incestuous ships.

That's why it's transgressing, even when it's not particulary subvertive. Simply because it's crossing a boundary and redefining categories to say that there might be a sexual connotations to any relationship between two characters. It puts us a vague, confusing world where anything or anyone might be considered as a sexual being. Scary.

But false ?

Simple question, complex answers.

Comments

[laurus-nobilis.livejournal.com]

Reality is complex. It often doesn't fit quite as nicely in systems of categorization.

So very, very true. I don't have much to add to this, since you said it really well and I agree.

In many ways, it's rather rude to go ahead and tell someone "No, since you're ****, you MUST identify is really ****" for something as intimate and important to people as religion or sexuality is.

... tell me about it. *sigh* It's not just with religion-and-sexuality, either. "You're religious? But you're studying Biology!" *headdesk x infinity* Trying to mention Pasteur, Mendel and a long etc. doesn't work. I've tried.

Like you said, it's mostly lazyness. People won't listen if it will force them to think.

[etrangere.livejournal.com]

Urgh, I hate it when people play the religion vs science card. It's so utterly stupid ! Why should they oppose ?

[twhitesakura.livejournal.com]

I think a person who is bisexual sees the world more fairly than others in some ways. They are able to appreciate different types of beauty and fall in love regardless of gender. But at some point in our lives, we always end up making choices and it's hard to be both instead of just one or the other. I like girls, and for me, it's not a choice. I would look at someone who is bisexual and think, is she dating me for the long term? Why would she when she can still settle down with a husband and have kids and have an acknowledged marriage? It may seem like a shallow question or insecurity, but I can't help but think that. People who blur the lines are rarely understood, but I believe they have a certain amount of freedom in choice that others might not. I think it's really impossible to categorize people, but that's how most of us make sense of the world. And I don't mean to offend anyone who is bisexual with my statements. I have bisexual friends and they are great people! =D

*Hugs to all kind people, regardless of gender or sexuality*

[etrangere.livejournal.com]

*nods* I know I've hears this point from other people before, about choosing one. I can only say what mechaieh said in her speech : there's as much chance of being faithful and staying with one person in long term with a bisexual person than there is with a heterosexual or a homesexual. After all, there's always other people around, who might be attractive, and might offer other possibilities of choice in life.

I'm bisexual and I've never been interested in mariage at all (not that this is related to each other) I'm sure other bisexual girls who could be potential SO for you might feel the same way ^^
When you choose to live with someone, make a deep commitment to them, you always end up making choices, having to renounces some things... this works regardless of whether it's a heterosexual couple or a homosexual one.

I don't know if we (bisexual people) see the world more fairly. I guess, yes, we see it differently. In many ways, I have a lot of difficulty understanding how not everyone can not be bisexual ^^ I know it's silly. But I assume if you can see someone is beautiful (girls can always assess each others'beauty, regardless of sexual orientation, right) then you should be able to be attracted to them, no ?
Yet, obviously it's not the case, and it does puzzle me.
It's one of the reason I like slash.

However, I do think that... in what make people different from each others, gender is just one of them, and it's hardly the more important. Even dealing with "only one" gender, you face such a richness of variety, so many different people, so many ways to be. You've got as huge a spectrum of personnalities IMO.

Huh, I'm rambling too much.

Thanks for your comment :)

[busaikko]

Good essay! You hit my buttons with issues of sexuality, religion, and ambiguity (being one of those people with no nice niches on either issue that I fit into.) That you are either one or the other, and any declaration of 'both' (or 'neither') is too autre for words.

Cultural/ethnic identity can be added, I think. I'm here from Harry Potter fandom--yup, the tale that's made the word 'half-blood' popular again. A theme in Rowling that I folow keenly is the idea of destiny vs determination, and oftentimes I feel that Rowling falls too often on the destiny side. A House sorting seems to be based, largely, on family and upbringing; blood status is popular and widely known; people are more-or-less supposed to fit into their stereotypes and like it there.

Frankly, the culture I live in is very much like this. 'Are you American?' my brown-haired kids are asked. (Both were born here in Japan.) 'Do you understand Japanese?' 'Say something in English.'

The word for a child with one Japanese parent, in Japanese, is 'Half.'

We don't take a character's sexuality at face value, we question it. To write slash you must consider any character as bisexual. To writ fanfics out of canon pairing, you must consider any relationship as potentially sexual in nature.

Increasingly, I find myself questioning the cultural and ethnical identities of my characters as well: yet another attempt to make the fantasy worlds that capture me resemble the world I live in.

(ARGH. I'm putting this very badly--does this make any sense?)

[etrangere.livejournal.com]

Glad you liked it ^^

Yeah, I definitly think culture is one of those. Many people belong to several cultures and have to deal with not belonging fully to either, having to justify it to their peer of either. Also works for class issues, and 2nd and 3rd generations immigrants. I'm sure it's a theme in which most of us can relate to.
Myself, i'm only Jewish living a culture where it's one of the most integrated and mainstream minority, but I can still feel.

I find it very hard to know with HP if JKR really intents to adhere to those stereotypes, or whether she just presents Harry's and the WW's opinion of them realistically. After all there's all kind of ambiguities - that she definitly doesn't defend in interviews - to her characters and world that could make it argued either way.
Have you read sistermagpie most recent essay on that subject ? I think it touches a few of the things you mention in a very interesting way. Especially the theme of "token-ness".
I think one of the problem with the WW is it functions like a small village. It's a very small community, and everyone knows everyone, at least on reputation. So of course, belonging to an old family marks your whole identity in a way that people don't in urban social environment (where you can show off a different attitude and personna to your friends, co workers, neighbourgs, family, etc. without those clashing into each others) There's no real anonymousness (sp?) in the WW.

Japan is a country I've always been a bit fascinated by, but I wouldn't want to live there because I've got the impression the culture is a bit racist and sexist. (no meaning to offend)

Increasingly, I find myself questioning the cultural and ethnical identities of my characters as well: yet another attempt to make the fantasy worlds that capture me resemble the world I live in.
Yes, it's a very interesting thing to do as well. I sometimes see writers or commenters arguing for reading a character as relating to a specific cultural background. I've seen fics with Snape as Jewish for exemple (he certainly fit certain of the worst physical stereotypes common in European culture). Remus can be read as Other in that area as well as he so often is in matters of sexuality.
Don't you find it funny, for exemple, how in GoF the Parvati twins and Cho Chang wear some very obvious cultural clothes at the Yule ball too ? Obviously, in the book their cultural background is not at all underlined by JKR, in the movie, because they happen to belong to two specific foreign cultures, they have to show it off and look cutely exotic.

[busaikko]

Goodness, you took my incoherency and made it make sense!

I think one of the problem with the WW is it functions like a small village--excellent point! (Japan also has small-village mentailty!) In that sense, Muggle-born students have the advantage of being self-defining to a certan degree.

I'm always surprised that there are not more 'exotic' students: if purebloodedness is the main consideration for a marriage, I can easily see a WW culture with arranged marriages transcending all national/cultural lines (to a certain degree, the way royalty married in Europe). It would also be interesting to see the impact of the British Empire on the WW.

Oh, I'm talking too much.... Take care now!