I Told You So
A few days ago, as you may remember, I included, in an extended gay-rant, the issue of the lack of education about LGBT issues. Well, today something came up to prove my point.
In English, we were discussing Romeo & Juliet and whether or not they would have been able to maintain a healthy, lasting relationship, had they not died. Someone brought up the point that teenagers are by definition not entirely sure of themselves yet and still working on figuring themselves out, so for all we know, either Romeo or Juliet might turn out to be gay. This seemed to surprise one boy, who said, with complete conviction, "If one of them was gay they wouldn't have had sex!"
There are two possible ways to interpret that statement, neither of which are very cheering. On the one hand, he may simply have meant that if someone is attracted to people of the same sex, then he or she would not bother having sex with people of the opposite sex. While this may seem like sound and logical reasoning, it is not. In reality, because of the social estrangement associated with being queer, many queer adolescents go through a period of "pretending to be straight," during which they may date and even have sex with members of the opposite sex, in order to try and force themselves to meet the straight criteria. This can result in serious issues, such as unplanned pregnancy, illness, or emotional scarring. Of course, the boy in my English class probably has no idea about any of this and he probably has no idea that his daily behavior can contribute to the forces that prompt queers to hide this way. On the other hand, he may have meant that, in his eyes, queers are incapable of having sex with or pleasing members of the opposite sex. Classic damaging "logic:" That guy is gay! He's less of a man that I am! Therefore, he cannot please women as well as I can!" Which, once again, could be remedied by actually *teaching* kids the useful facts as well as ways to avoid and counteract homophobia.
At the time, the statement actually made me quite angry. However, I later had a long discussion with my best friend, who said that those who don't have a lot of background knowledge in queer matters probably wouldn't be able to find anything wrong with that statement. She agreed with me that it was ignorant, but she kept me from getting really angry about it. So now I'm just a little frustrated, and I would like to point up that I am henceforth justified in my "lack of education" argument.
Okay, I'm officially exhausted and physically *need* to sleep. So, quick summary of today: I got a 100% on the math test I took on Monday, I had my math presentation, and I handed my amazing vocabulary project, which is an original script in the Shakespearean style, employing 10-15 words from our vocabulary from Romeo & Juliet. That was *incredibly* fun to write. Hopefully it will be a great success.
I *cannot* keep my eyes open any longer.
In English, we were discussing Romeo & Juliet and whether or not they would have been able to maintain a healthy, lasting relationship, had they not died. Someone brought up the point that teenagers are by definition not entirely sure of themselves yet and still working on figuring themselves out, so for all we know, either Romeo or Juliet might turn out to be gay. This seemed to surprise one boy, who said, with complete conviction, "If one of them was gay they wouldn't have had sex!"
There are two possible ways to interpret that statement, neither of which are very cheering. On the one hand, he may simply have meant that if someone is attracted to people of the same sex, then he or she would not bother having sex with people of the opposite sex. While this may seem like sound and logical reasoning, it is not. In reality, because of the social estrangement associated with being queer, many queer adolescents go through a period of "pretending to be straight," during which they may date and even have sex with members of the opposite sex, in order to try and force themselves to meet the straight criteria. This can result in serious issues, such as unplanned pregnancy, illness, or emotional scarring. Of course, the boy in my English class probably has no idea about any of this and he probably has no idea that his daily behavior can contribute to the forces that prompt queers to hide this way. On the other hand, he may have meant that, in his eyes, queers are incapable of having sex with or pleasing members of the opposite sex. Classic damaging "logic:" That guy is gay! He's less of a man that I am! Therefore, he cannot please women as well as I can!" Which, once again, could be remedied by actually *teaching* kids the useful facts as well as ways to avoid and counteract homophobia.
At the time, the statement actually made me quite angry. However, I later had a long discussion with my best friend, who said that those who don't have a lot of background knowledge in queer matters probably wouldn't be able to find anything wrong with that statement. She agreed with me that it was ignorant, but she kept me from getting really angry about it. So now I'm just a little frustrated, and I would like to point up that I am henceforth justified in my "lack of education" argument.
Okay, I'm officially exhausted and physically *need* to sleep. So, quick summary of today: I got a 100% on the math test I took on Monday, I had my math presentation, and I handed my amazing vocabulary project, which is an original script in the Shakespearean style, employing 10-15 words from our vocabulary from Romeo & Juliet. That was *incredibly* fun to write. Hopefully it will be a great success.
I *cannot* keep my eyes open any longer.