Glenn Greenwald: Equating sexual orientation with "sex life"

[meegbear]

Perhaps it's naïveté, but I've been amazed by the outraged objections of many Good Liberals to the mere discussion of Elena Kagan's sexual orientation. Without realizing it, they've completely internalized one of the most pernicious myths long used to demand that gay people remain in the closet: namely, that to reveal one's sexual orientation is to divulge one's "sex life." From the first moment that Ben Domenech wrote his now infamous CBS post mistakenly stating that Kagan is "openly gay" -- something which a slew of Good Liberals at Harvard also long believed -- the furious reactions have been extremely eye-opening about how many people continue to equate sexual orientation with one of those dark, sexualized topics that all polite and decent people should be willing to avoid.

In objecting to Andrew Sullivan's argument that asking about sexual orientation is completely innocuous and legitimate, Kevin Drum offers one of the most extreme examples yet of this well-intentioned though harmful confusion, which I had really thought (but no longer do) had been left behind in the 1980s (which is why classic 1980s closet defender Ed Koch is now also advocating it). Kevin wrote:

I get why Andrew feels this way. And if that really were the only thing off the table, he'd have a point. But here's a short sample of other questions that are generally off limits when you're interviewing public figures:

* So, have you ever had an affair?

* Do you masturbate when your wife isn't around?

* Have you ever had a three-way?

* Do you download a lot of porn from the internet? Or do you prefer buying it old school on the newsstand?

* I think Asian guys are really hot. How about you?

Notice a trend? They're all related to your sex life. And they're all generally off limits unless (a) you've put it on the table yourself, (b) there's a specific reason to ask about it, or (c) you're part of the gossip circuit where nothing is off limits in the first place. I mean, this is common sense. If you're interviewing Ricky Martin or Silvio Berlusconi, that's one thing. If you're interviewing someone who's obviously eager to talk about their sex life, go to town. But if you're interviewing a Supreme Court justice or the CEO of Goldman Sachs, you just don't bring this stuff up. Come on.

I find it truly unfathomable that people still think this way. As Sullivan says: this "could only be written by a straight person" -- and not just any straight person, but one who does not really believe their rhetoric about gayness being a value-neutral attribute.

Kevin has written before about the fact that he is married and that his spouse is female ("My wife, Marian, is a systems analyst in the MIS department at Lantronix. We've been married since 1991"). When he wrote that, or when he introduces his wife, does he actually think that he's revealing things about his "sex life" -- let alone things on par with: "Do you masturbate when your wife isn't around?" or "Have you ever had a three-way"? To ask the question is to illustrate how inane is the suggestion. At most, one knows from Kevin's revelation that he is heterosexual, but not anything about his "sex life" -- i.e., how many times a week does he have sex, how many partners does he have, what positions does he most enjoy, what type of women does he find attractive, etc. etc.?

Identically, if an individual introduces their same-sex spouse, or self-identifies or is identified as being "gay" or "lesbian," are you actually learning anything about their "sex life"? No. I've written before about the way the Defense of Marriage Act denies my right to have my same-sex partner, a Brazilian national, obtain the same immigration benefits as opposite-sex spouses of American citizens. When doing so, did I reveal anything about my "sex life"? Of course not -- at least no more so than when someone like Kevin reveals that he's "been married to Marian for 18 years."

The fact that someone would equate "are you gay?" to "do you download a lot of porn from the internet?" is astonishing to me. The latter question really is about someone's "sex life," while the former is about who they are. The premise that being gay is about one's "sex life" has long been the foundation of the dictate that gay people remain closeted (we don't need to have your "sex lives" rubbed in our faces; keep that to yourself). I don't mean to single out Kevin here; the point he's making -- being gay is about your "sex life" and thus should be deemed off-limits unless the person voluntarily raises it -- has been repeated over and over during the last month by countless people who fancy themselves quite progressive on gay issues.

<snip>

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/19/homophobia/index.html

[Lerkfish]

1. kicked and rec'd -- we should really be beyond this by now

but I edited to add: apparently it was off-base to investice Clarence Thomas's sexual harrassment of underlings... the hue and cry from the republicans on that...ironic

[QC]

2. Excellent point. Much of what has been said here about l'Affaire Kagan is staggeringly insensitive,

if well-intentioned.

Equating sexual orientation with "sex life" is just ugly, and it's only done to LGBT people, and often by people who think they are being kind but would be furious if anyone applied the same reasoning to them.

(Just imagine the reaction if someone said, in response to being introduced to a coworker's spouse, "Please, I am not interested in your sex life! The various ways in which you two stimulate one another's genitalia are of no interest to me. Just so you do your job I am happy!")

[QC]

9. Kick! n/t

[Starry Messenger]

3. k & r

[Solly Mack]

4. k/r

[Echo In Light]

5. K/R

[QC]

6. Kick!

[Lilith Velkor]

7. This article helps

I have been very confused about this issue for the past week or so. I didn't know what people were talking about when they said that straight people's sexual orientation had to do with their entire being or essence or something - I thought being straight simply meant that you fuck people of the opposite sex. I mean, if some dude rolls up and says, "This is my wife," I'm gonna assume she's fucking him, or at least was at one point, and that they live in the same place.

When acquaintances find out I'm bi, they don't ask me about threesomes or benwa balls or anything like that, they're just like , "Oh." and that's that. But I can see how rude things can be said to people who do not have my reputation for ferocity.

Now I am starting to understand the nuance between orientation and sex life. Thanks for posting this. :thumbsup:

[Prism]

8. I've been trying to make this point for a week and a half here

People, quite honestly, do not care in the slightest how offensive it is.

Alerts on posts repeating this attitude have gone unanswered.

A mod posted an article full of this attitude and refused to acknowledge how deeply offensive it was.

People do not care.

[struggle4progress]

10. What's insensitive is: "We're entitled to ask about the sexuality of an unmarried successful woman"

Why isn't she married? Doesn't she have a boyfriend? Maybe she doesn't like men? She doesn't look much like Miss America to me: could she be a Sappho-girl?

I really don't see a whole lotta daylight between that crap and asking Is she a bull dyke or a lipstick lesbian? or asking Does John Roberts suffer from uncomfortable irregularity? or asking candidates to describe their most awkward sexual encounter

It's inappropriate. It doesn't matter what candy-ass bullshit distinctions one wants to draw about whether asking about this is the same as asking about that. It's just rude and inappropriate. I don't care what high-minded political motives anyone wants to claim by wandering anywhere near any of that territory. It's asinine, rude and inappropriate

[QC]

11. Kick! n/t

[tbyg52]

12. Aw, too late to rec this excellent thread. Kick. nt