You know what I miss? I miss attractive fictional lesbians.
Don’t get me wrong, there are some good-looking contemporary lesbian and bisexual characters and in some cases they’re even portrayed by attractive ladies. But in fiction they are still not attractive, to me. The key point here is; to me (keep that in mind before you attack me). They’re good looking and all, and on rare occasions the character is even meaty and complex, but still not attractive.
I’ve been thinking more and more about this as “visibility” increases. References of female homosexuality or bisexuality, both oblique and explicit, are becoming almost common, or expected even. TV shows and films are meant to fill their politically correct quota of token egalitarianism. Something that usually results in throw-away lesbianism (or more often bisexuality). But again, despite the much more frequent occurrences, most of the fictional female homo/bisexuality leaves me feeling either indifferent, or worst case scenario, disgusted.
Then I think back to when I was a kid(ish). I think back to that time when I was an adolescent closet-dweller only just discovering myself and the fiction that came with the community I started seeing myself as a part of. All those cheesy or artsy-fartsy or even bad lesbian movies and the occasional TV character. There weren’t that many of them, but the majority of them were surprisingly attractive. They had something, there was something about them that drew you in. You might not have liked them, or even loved them, but you were attracted to them. Not in the purely physical sense, but there was a pull there. Something that went beyond appearances and made sure you felt a lot of complex and varied feelings. The only thing they never left you feeling was like an object or a plot-twist (at least not in regards to the movies, television is another tale).
That got me thinking. What’s changed? Am I the one that’s changed? Which obviously I have. But maybe it’s more than that? Maybe I’m not the only one that’s changed.
As I contemplated that, it struck me how true this is and how much and how very little has changed when the mainstream deals with female queers. Cause that’s the main difference here, I think; mainstream dealing with queers. Today I’m trying to get my fix of queer culture from a predominately straight pusher (unlike those movies that were made by and for lesbians - where are those movies today?). Because the lesbians and bisexual women are now woven into the tapestry of the heteronormative and of mainstream fiction. But the thing is that this is not really an attempt at creating diversity as much as it is yet another way of a ruling culture of assimilating sub-cultures into their conglomerate. This isn’t new, far from it, it’s basically the foundation of how culture as a large scale concept works. Just look at the Romans, those muttafukers were experts at it, they made a living and a life-style out of it and as a result they ruled large parts of the world for many many years. Instead of ignoring an enemy or simply fighting them, you suck out the marrow of their culture, you gobble them up and drown them in your inclusiveness. They took what could benefit and enhance their own culture and drowned the rest by including without accepting. They take what they see and make what they want of it without trying to understand the culture they’re partly reproducing. And it’s not just the Romans, it happens all the time. It’s one of the driving forces between a dominant culture and its sub-cultures. The strongest culture is never the one that wins the most fights, it’s the one that has the largest appetite and ability to assimilate the sub-cultural buds that threaten to sprout off into independence.
That’s what I’m seeing right now. That’s why lesbians in fiction have become so unattractive, because they’re no longer lesbians as I personally used to understand the word. These characters that often proclaim themselves to be gay or bi is just another way for the amoeba that is the current ruling class to oppress. They take the characters and the idea behind them out of their cultural context (the LGBT community), strip them of the complexities that made them relatable and change their audience from one predominately gay to the mainstream cluster we’re all told we belong to (but very few do). And in the process these characters become another way for the hetnorm to re-establish itself by controlling and telling the story from their point of view, sweeping the rug from under the feet of those who oppose it. History written by the winners, so to speak. So looking at the female queers that do appear in fiction lately it actually does not surprise me that the majority of them all come across as het-foreplay, because honestly that is what they are. They’re not female queers, they’re what the mainstream think a female queer should be; and just another way of establishing who sets the rules and controls the board. Amd it ain’t the femqueers that's for sure. As a result the heteronomative has successfully taken fictional female homosexuality and made it unattractive to female homosexuals. I think this is what they call; getting owned!
So yeah, I miss the time when fictional lesbians were attractive.
Is this all me, or do you recognise what I’m talking about?
I’ve been thinking more and more about this as “visibility” increases. References of female homosexuality or bisexuality, both oblique and explicit, are becoming almost common, or expected even. TV shows and films are meant to fill their politically correct quota of token egalitarianism. Something that usually results in throw-away lesbianism (or more often bisexuality). But again, despite the much more frequent occurrences, most of the fictional female homo/bisexuality leaves me feeling either indifferent, or worst case scenario, disgusted.
Then I think back to when I was a kid(ish). I think back to that time when I was an adolescent closet-dweller only just discovering myself and the fiction that came with the community I started seeing myself as a part of. All those cheesy or artsy-fartsy or even bad lesbian movies and the occasional TV character. There weren’t that many of them, but the majority of them were surprisingly attractive. They had something, there was something about them that drew you in. You might not have liked them, or even loved them, but you were attracted to them. Not in the purely physical sense, but there was a pull there. Something that went beyond appearances and made sure you felt a lot of complex and varied feelings. The only thing they never left you feeling was like an object or a plot-twist (at least not in regards to the movies, television is another tale).
That got me thinking. What’s changed? Am I the one that’s changed? Which obviously I have. But maybe it’s more than that? Maybe I’m not the only one that’s changed.
As I contemplated that, it struck me how true this is and how much and how very little has changed when the mainstream deals with female queers. Cause that’s the main difference here, I think; mainstream dealing with queers. Today I’m trying to get my fix of queer culture from a predominately straight pusher (unlike those movies that were made by and for lesbians - where are those movies today?). Because the lesbians and bisexual women are now woven into the tapestry of the heteronormative and of mainstream fiction. But the thing is that this is not really an attempt at creating diversity as much as it is yet another way of a ruling culture of assimilating sub-cultures into their conglomerate. This isn’t new, far from it, it’s basically the foundation of how culture as a large scale concept works. Just look at the Romans, those muttafukers were experts at it, they made a living and a life-style out of it and as a result they ruled large parts of the world for many many years. Instead of ignoring an enemy or simply fighting them, you suck out the marrow of their culture, you gobble them up and drown them in your inclusiveness. They took what could benefit and enhance their own culture and drowned the rest by including without accepting. They take what they see and make what they want of it without trying to understand the culture they’re partly reproducing. And it’s not just the Romans, it happens all the time. It’s one of the driving forces between a dominant culture and its sub-cultures. The strongest culture is never the one that wins the most fights, it’s the one that has the largest appetite and ability to assimilate the sub-cultural buds that threaten to sprout off into independence.
That’s what I’m seeing right now. That’s why lesbians in fiction have become so unattractive, because they’re no longer lesbians as I personally used to understand the word. These characters that often proclaim themselves to be gay or bi is just another way for the amoeba that is the current ruling class to oppress. They take the characters and the idea behind them out of their cultural context (the LGBT community), strip them of the complexities that made them relatable and change their audience from one predominately gay to the mainstream cluster we’re all told we belong to (but very few do). And in the process these characters become another way for the hetnorm to re-establish itself by controlling and telling the story from their point of view, sweeping the rug from under the feet of those who oppose it. History written by the winners, so to speak. So looking at the female queers that do appear in fiction lately it actually does not surprise me that the majority of them all come across as het-foreplay, because honestly that is what they are. They’re not female queers, they’re what the mainstream think a female queer should be; and just another way of establishing who sets the rules and controls the board. Amd it ain’t the femqueers that's for sure. As a result the heteronomative has successfully taken fictional female homosexuality and made it unattractive to female homosexuals. I think this is what they call; getting owned!
So yeah, I miss the time when fictional lesbians were attractive.
Is this all me, or do you recognise what I’m talking about?