basically the entire “sexuality as not your personality” trap is to say “be as heteronormative & visibly unreadable as possible, allow assumed/compulsory heterosexuality & its learned practices to define you, and only mention that you suck dick when appropriately prompted to do so”
sucking dick here being used as a metonymy for a variety of queer sexual practices that, while all important, are not as linguistically funny as the phrase “suck dick”
the proposal of “queer characters in fiction that aren’t defined by their sexuality” appears outwardly harmless or even good but is to me codified and toxic in some way I can’t articulate right now… help?
"aren’t defined by their sexuality" is an incredibly different standard when applied to heterosexuality than when applied to homosexuality (and furthermore, entirely different when applied to heterosexual men then to heterosexual women, but that’s another articulation)
to use a fairly explicit genre example, heterosexual male action heroes frequently have heterosexual plotlines, motivations, sex scenes, lines, their behavior and actions and interactions and character history is built not only from all the other components, but from their heterosexuality. for some reason my first example is always demolition man, where Stallone has an entire, uncomfortably lengthy scene about Real Straight Fucking and not this namby-pampy future sex with wires and condoms
for gay men to not be defined by their sexuality is to usually be essentially asexual, maybe in a relationship but it has to be coded off-screen, included in throwaway lines (the “my boyfriend will love this!” bit from Paranorman being constantly praised as a GREAT EXAMPLE when tbqh I found it to be pandering horseshit), but definitely not too sexual, definitely not too “gay” in a way that visibly marks them as so (nevermind that heterosexuality for men is so linked to virility and machismo and ‘natural’ maleness and yet this behavior is never treat as “shoving their heterosexuality in your face”)
Did anybody ever claim that Superbad suffered from making characters who were defined by their sexuality, even though the entire film is about teen male heterosexuality?
Straight men (and to a lesser extent, straight women) get to be as visibly straight as they want to be in as many ways as they want to be but in order for queer characters to not be “defined by their sexuality” they usually have to completely fucking forsake any mention of it that might make audiences uncomfortable for longer than three seconds of screentime.
don’t like. Word it like that. Don’t use the word manic to describe those people. but yeah I hope
it was a play off the ‘manic pixie dream girl’ turn-of-phrase which yeah now that youve pointed it out is inappropriate, i’ll lop off the ‘manic’ part
queerness as choice is really important as an alternative narrative because it offers an opportunity for us to make our identities subject to our selves, to feel in control of something we’ve been so stigmatized against wanting, something we embrace and chose and cherish and love and something we attained through struggle against a world telling us to ignore it
"become a girl" funny internet meme fucking reinscribes that back down as a goddamn one-size-fits-all moral imperative as if confused fucked up queer kids need another boot on the back of their necks
Subtitle to my new theory piece, “Fucking the Invisible Knapsack”
the main thing social justice dialogues on the internet has taught me is a lot of people think the word ‘privilege’ has a ‘d’ in it