Now, what does that mean? Not so literally gay-ness. Well, I sometimes feel that language is quite limiting and then I have to discribe something with a word that may not fit literally but maybe in a broader sense. And I am not the only one doing it: during one of my classes we read Kate Chopin’s brilliant novel “The Awakening” (what, you haven’t read it yet? do.). We read it in a context of New Orleans literature, history, politics and culture and had so far read mostly history. So, to compare some of the uglier instances of history (i.e. Slavery) we had to conduct a common ground, thus we referred to Edna Pontellier’s marriage as a kind of “slavery.” The word is not fitting if you look at the distinct markers of slavery, but we have yet to come up with a better word. So, I guess we could refer to not-so-literally slavery to make everybody happy – except for the woman in it. (I wonder by the way if this lack of words may not often be confined to “women’s problems”; maybe the expatriate writers of the 20s had the right idea, we do need an own language even if just to irk man-kind *g*).
Okay, so, not-so-literally gay-ness. What do I mean by that. I give you an example: I sometimes see a lesbian on the street which I find – from afar – really great looking (maybe even hot) and when this lesbian comes closer I discover that it is a man – most likely a straight man – and I think, wow, he looks like a lesbian, dresses like a lesbian, walks like a lesbian – so we may as well call him a lesbian. You know, the whole, if it quacks like a duck, it’s probably a lesbian… but it is also not-so-literally gay-ness.
I have another example: sometimes we encounter a person who we feel is deeply unhappy about something in his or her life. They do not talk about this unhappiness, sometimes because they were not brought up to talk about their feelings, sometimes because they are deeply ashamed, but sometimes because they simply do not know why they are so unhappy. There is something inside that they hide even from themselves (I am not sure if this is a problem of an older generation but I would almost argue that it is probably more severe in Germany than in the U.S. because we are not quite so enthusiastic about psycho analyses – which is not to say that I would trust psycho analyses with every problem but I think it would at least be a way to discover patterns in this unhappiness and maybe come up with a way to help…). I call these people closeted. That does not mean that every single one of these people is gay and does not know it, it does mean that there is something really deep inside them that they cannot deal with. Not-so-literally gay-ness.
And I have another example (I do love language, y’know, and so I think a lot about words). I know it has become a taboo to say “That’s so gay!”, at least here in the U.S.. We do use the German version in Germany (“Das ist so schwul!”) but I would say, less often. I also use this phrase, usually with an uplifting connotation since I think gay is great, so I use it positively but I am sure there are people who would find something wrong with that as well. So, when I look at this picture of Kristen Stewart:
and say: That’s so gay! it is neither to say: she is a lesbian! nor to imply that that is a bad thing. It is (you guessed it) not-so-literally gay-ness!
Homosexuality (as all labels we attach to people) has its markers by which we identify it. Sometimes a situation or a person who might not fall into the actual category may show markers of this label but that does not mean it is the actual thing – but it also does not say it is not, right! That’s what I mean by not-so-literally gay-ness.
And now we can talk about how hot that picture of Ms. Stewart is…
Recent Comments