Oprah’s not gay
July 19, 2006 by thinking girl
Have you heard? Oprah and Gayle are not gay. Really. They swear. In the latest issue of “O” magazine, no less. It’s all over the net and TV. Oprah’s not a lesbian. Just so we’re clear.
Why is it that the questioning of one’s sexuality is such a touchy topic? It goes to the heart of gender roles, that’s for sure. It’s a personal matter, also true. And being anything other than heterosexual in this society means having less power. Not good.
My anonymous emailer recently suggested that I might be a lesbian, simply because I’m a feminist. This pissed me off. It actually didn’t piss me off because he was questioning my sexuality, but because he was linking being a feminist to being a lesbian, and that being both (or either) was a negative thing. I don’t really care if people are uncertain about my sexuality. I’m not, and that’s what matters. If someone thinks I’m a lesbian, it doesn’t mean I’m never going to have sex again. It really doesn’t matter at all.
What I find offensive is not the presumption about a person’s sexuality. It’s the underlying attitudes toward homosexuality/bisexuality/transsexuality that are problematic and offensive. Which is why I am disappointed that Oprah finds it necessary to defend her heterosexuality. It seems like the only group that it’s still politically correct to be prejudiced against is gay people. And “accusing” someone of being gay (hate that term, “Accusing,” like gay people are guilty of a crime of some sort - although in many places they are due to outdated laws) is a sure way to undermine their personal identity and social status.
Sexuality is really tied to personal identity, isn’t it? I wonder why whom we have sex with has become so intricately tied to who we are as people. Why should this be so? Why should it matter? It’s a topic I find very interesting. What do you guys think?
i agree with most of your post…
not sure if oprah is “defending” herself though, or simply pointing out a fact… i mean, what do you think the prpoer response would be to such questions? denying beiong gay isn’t putting down being gay - like in seinfeld “not that there’s anything wrong with that…”
as far as other people’s orientation - i adopt a sort of benign apathy towards it - i truly don’t care - not necessarily because of any grand or noble reasons - but because i am a live and let live kind of persopn; i have other things to devote my energy to - have enough to worry about in my life without worrying about whom is sleeping with whom, etc…
I think it’s mostly a question of not knowing what to do with someone one who sleeps with his own gender. People absolutely need to know the gender of someone to know how to interact with them; from that (and other) information they contruct a mental scheme of the person, basically reducing that person to a set of parameters or labels based on cultural givens, like gender, job, familial situation. Now if someone comes up and tell you that one of these parameter is not set as one though, one tends to be pissed. Hence the accusation. Like Homer said: “I like my beer cold, my women hot and my homosexuals flaming.” People feel cheated when they discover that someone is not what they thought they were.
Here too we find a matter of nurture vs. nature: how “natural” is it to see homosexuality as “deviant”? For my nephew, couples can ba made up of a man and a woman, two men or two women. In his entourage he just saw men and women together (actually, mostly apart), but figured two men could also be together, and asked his mother if there were such couples. In this 5-year-old’s mind, there’s nothing abnormal about that.
Sorry thinking girl, I’m really not very good company right now, I’m too wrapped up in my own problems at the moment. But, I want you to know I was here & thanks for the comment on my post.
It matters because sex isn’t just about sex, it’s about power. Someone who deviates from normal sex roles, i.e. gay males, are seen as less powerful; likewise, people who deviate from normal power roles, like Oprah (powerful black female) are painted as queer.
Though, in Oprah’s case, I didn’t actually realize that anyone thought Oprah was gay until she told us to stop thinking that she was gay. Now I think her article is having an elephant in the room effect
Speaking of Oprah, you might find this interesting: an article about contemporary male hip hop and rap artists in America. The article talks about Oprah’s criticism of the rampant misogyny in mainstream hiphop, and the way the machisto hip hop moguls have treated her in response. Pretty intriguing stuff.
By the way, this new blog is looking pretty slick!
hey guys, thanks for the comments.
Karenology, you’ve hit it - sexuality and power. And thanks for the link, that article was fascinating. I had heard of the kafuffle, and was very aggrevated by it, but this woman’s analysis is quite intelligent. And thanks - glad you like the new digs!
L.T - my thoughts are with you babe. Take care. come back when you’re feeling up to it. (((((HUGS)))))
Mike - yeah, that’s the impression I got from Oprah’s denial: “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.” It’s just too bad that there is a need for her to make such a denial at all.
Marc Andre: yes, I think you’re right - homosexual people throw off the gender norms in such a way that disrupts our ideas about who they are and perhaps even who we are. But, the presumption is that everyone IS heterosexual - so there is a trust issue when we find out that someone is not hetero, like they’ve been lying all this time. It’s weird.
sounds like your nephew is being raised by an open-minded and accepting family. Nice!
so then, your objection is with the question, not the answer…i’ll buy that
and denial is a strong word - makes her sound if she is claiming innocence of a crime…
she was asked a question and she answered it…whether the question was appropriate or not seems to be the issue…her answer seemed tactful and honest…
Mike: well yeah, that’s kind of my point. That “denial” of the “accusation” idea. It is like being gay a crime that people need to clear their name of or carry the mark of lost power forever. It’s fine to be matter-of-fact about it, and I kind of think Oprah was being so as much as possible, but at the same time, it would be nice to see someone really famous and with power stand up and say, “what does it matter if I’m gay” rather than “don’t be ridiculous, of course I’m not gay,” which is the only reaction we ever seem to hear.
I did notice that the ex-lead singer of that ex-band Savage Garden (they had a famous song once, something about cherry cola) got married to his boyfriend of two years, that’s great.
On another note, how about Tom Cruise’s reclaiming his questionable heterosexual masculinity through the vessel of Katie Holmes? Rumors of Tom’s being gay have been floating around FOREVER, as well as rumors of his impotence because of his and Nicole Kidman’s adoption of two beautiful children rather than having their “own” (another term I find offensive). So, remember that the rumour-blame was put on Nicole for not wanting to physically carry and give birth to children because it would ruin her figure (yeah, a likely reason) but that this came only after the rumour that Tom was shooting blanks? IT seemed such a likely cover story (whatever!), about Nicole not wanting to have babies, because her public persona was so stand-offish and cold. And then they split, and Nicole seemed so much happier, and like she wanted to find true love, and then Tom came out jumping on couches over the ingenue Kate, and then BINGO! she was pregnant. So, guess the blame really must’ve fallen with Nicole about those babies after all…. because Tom’s hetero masculinity was saved via Katie Holmes’ uterus.
Thoughts?
um - cruise’s sexuality ought to be the least of his worries…
back to oprah - if someone asks a personal question - one has, imho, 2 options - answer it honestly or refuse to answer it… i don’t see how one is superior to the other… sad as it is, refusing to answer it would likely not allow her more privacy, but likely invite more prying questions…
p.s….
re:oprah - i am not sure why you can’t take her comments at face value - why you feel the need to criticize her for an honest answer to a question… you seem to be attributing motives to her that frankly, i don’t see…
Mike,
in some situations, it is more advantageous to answer more ambiguously in order to make the point that the question is irrelevant/inappropriate - for example this is usually the tack I take when people ask me things like why I’m not married yet or why I don’t want to have children. By defelcting these sorts of questions with a more general sort of “why on earht would you want to know somehting so personal?” it makes the point not to ask me such questions. But that’s not the point.
in terms of Oprah, I’m not NOT taking her comments at face value (although it’s hard to do so with such media spin all the time - is anything anyone in that business really true?). I don’t think her motives are anything other than to say, hey, I”m not gay. I’m just making a general frustrated comment that for crying out loud, who gives a shit anyway about Oprah’s sexuality, and can’t we stop obsessing about everyone’s sexuality in the first place?! And the only reason we are so obsessed with everyone’s sexuality is to make sure everyone is straight! So we know who has power and who doesn’t, so that we know how to respond to people accordingly. why should anything change about our opinions or how we treat anyone if we find out that they’re gay? nothing has to change at all! So if nothing has to change, then why should we be so obsessed? It’s just a general state-of-the-world rant rather than directed at Oprah specifically. it just happens that Op is a recent example.
well, again - the problem is with the reporter asking the question and not oprah’s answer…
because you choose to answer questions that are “too personal” in one way does not mean that everyone ought to…
i suppose what complicates things is that it is in her own magazine - where she is the boss… so perhaps for that reason one might wonder who was pulling the strings there to get the message out…
and to your point - who cares about oprah’s sexuality - i certainly don’t - i would not have realized there was even a question had you not posted this
Oprah can sleep with a woman or man. I don’t care. They also say that Mrs. Rice is lesbian. I don’t care either. It is none of my business…
Yes, why is that feminism is linked with lesbians ? I know many lesbians who are not feminists at all…and i know people who are the other way around.
When people jump into conclusions like this..they are really ignorant and they are blind-folded by the so-called sterotypes and cliches and generalisations.
People talk about one’s sexuality only when one tends to go the other side of the heterosexuality. I don’t think so we ever talk about somebody and say ‘ wah you know…Mr.X is heterosexual’…mostly when people say that he is gay or lesbian or bisexual or transexual..i think they are discriminating or being some sort of pejorative implication is intended.
…Sexuality is really tied to personal identity, isn’t it?…
It certainly is. I don’t think that this is what you were driving at, but it strikes me as relevant that, even before we consider who one is having sex with, we make the person’s sex fundamental to our description of them. It’s almost impossible in English–as in many languages–to refer to somebody without specifying their sex.
Many years ago, when I was really into playing with language, I used to wonder what it would be like if we had gender neutral words to replace him and her, his and hers, etc. Of course, there is “it” and “they/them” (used as a gender neutral singular), but the first seems insulting and the second is occasionally useful, though very awkward.
I had seen a few books that made up words like “heesh” (he/she), or “hersh”, or something like that, but that was just wierd.
I thought a word like “ell” would be a good choice for the job. I would echo words like “elle” from French and “el” from Spanish. Anyway, I thought about it for awhile, then dropped it. There was no committee available to decree that the word was in effect.
Nowadays I am very interested in a theory of conflict (i.e.: conflict as a very general phenomena). One of the realizations I had was how large a role identity plays in all conflicts. (Obviously, because it plays a huge role in all social interactions.) There is a broad problem that occurs in every conflict–though it often goes unnoticed–which is what I would call the “entity-identity” problem. In essence, we must identify the person or party with whom we presume to be interacting (as we also do for ourselves)–but the truth is we are actually interacting with an entity that may bear some relation to the identity, but the two are rarely one and the same. In fact, the two are rarely very precisely or accurately defined. (The same very often applies to our self-identification–we often misrespresent our own identities, even to ourselves.) Anyway, the logic that drives many conflicts is often based on suppositions of identity, but in truth the relationship of the entities to the identities they are supposedly associated with are often quite unclear. People rarely seem to notice this wierdness, and if they notice it at all, they normally just disregard it even though the logic of many conflicts should evaporate with the admission that the identities are not particularly clear at all.
Anyway, all this to say that you make a good point. One’s sexuality can seem to get dragged into the identity definition. So, one of the problems with the “entity-identity” problem is not just inaccuracy in relating the entity to the identity, but also a tendency to add superfluous characteristics into the mix as well.
Not sure if it is clear what I am getting at, but you have pointed out a puzzlement of interest to me. Again, one that I shall have to chew on awhile.
By the way, did you ever see the movie Victor/Victoria?
Mike says,
“because you choose to answer questions that are “too personal” in one way does not mean that everyone ought to…” to which I respond, “yeah, yeah, I know… but maybe it should/could be considered as a possiblity instead of knee-jerk reactions that reinforce stereotypes.” that’s all I’m-a-saying.
Prash says,
“I don’t think so we ever talk about somebody and say ‘ wah you know…Mr.X is heterosexual’…mostly when people say that he is gay or lesbian or bisexual or transexual..i think they are discriminating or being some sort of pejorative implication is intended.”
yes Prash, this is very true. You don’t hear lesbians saying “I don’t care if he’s straight, so long as he doesn’t hit on me!” Heterosexuality is the default, and anything other than is a deviation from the norm in the minds of the narrow.
Mister P,
yes, I happen to think that sexuality is a construction linked very tightly with gender. I think we begin with physcial stuff - genitalia and other sex-identifying traits. (those with ambiguous genitalia present a problem right from birth, and are usually cut up to make things “easier” for them and their parents… although I’m told there is a no-cutting movement on the rise.) Then we assign gender based on genitalia, with a whole package of behaviours we prescribe and teach people to act out. Most of these behaviours are intended to display to others what sort of genitalia we are hiding beneath our clothing - genitalia that we obsessively hide and consider indecent, an interesting contradiction. some of these behaviours also show that we recognize and acknowledge the outward displays of sex other people’s hidden genitalia. Upon all of this, which is utmost in importance, we add sexuality-identity… heterosexual sexual-identity, as a default. Again, we like this to be as obvious as possible - as Marc Andre already suggested. And again, when sexuality is ambiguous, we don’t quite know what to do with that, so we encourage these people to pick a side - we can’t seem to accept the possiblity of true bisexuality (vs. experimental bisexuality). Perhaps the reason why it seems as though being gay is a very important part of a gay person’s identity is simply because that person has had to go against the norms of society in order to express themselves fully. I don’t know that heterosexual people feel quite so much this way, at least not until their sexuality is questioned… then it’s a major big part of their identity! (Like white people kind of don’t feel much that being white is a major part of their identity/cultural heritage etc. unless they belong to an ethnic or religious category, like Jewish or Italian.)
your entity-identity problem is very interesting. It seems benign in some cases - like “Oh, I thought you were such a snob when we first met, but I was wrong!” as an example. But in other cases, it can be quite alarming, like “Oh, I thought you were a woman when I made a pass at you, but I see now that you are a man!” I think in some cases, the entity-identity problem must be a problem because it throws into question not just the identity of the person with whom you are interacting, but also your own identity itself. Like here, where making a pass at a person who is really a man makes one question whether you are gay or straight.
Nope, I didn’t see Victor/Victoria. I did however see Ed Wood, and Johnny was the most perfect choice ever to play that role!
from your original post: “Which is why I am disappointed that Oprah finds it necessary to defend her heterosexuality.”
sounds critical of oprah to me…
even your later statements are kind of along the lines of “well, ok, she has a right to say that BUT….” and then qualify/equivocate/etc… why not recognize oprah’s right to say what she wishes unqualified by your own wishes…
agree or disagree with you, i always find your viewpoint and arguments interesting…
the one thing i do find somewhat bothersome though is that your posts everyone’s actions through a very narrow filter - a perspective which, to be sure, is relevant to much of our society - but is not relevant everytime to every action…
Yeah, I know. I do recognize Oprah’s right to say whatever she wants about herself and her sexuality. But still, I am disappointed with Oprah. Although she is just being honest, it would be great if she and Gayle had been a bit less OF COURSE we’re not gay (disclaimer: not that there’s anything wrong with being gay). There is still such a strong knee-jerk reaction to defend one’s heterosexuality. I don’t know, I know I’m saying the same thing over and over agian, but Oprah aside, the fact remains that social institutions are built on heterosexuality and that is problematic.
I’m glad you find my viewpoint interesting. I also find much of what you have to say in response interesting and helpful. But, I don’t know that my viewpoint is narrow. I’d say I’m fairly open-minded in contrast with many people. I do my best to be generous to people, and I do my best to consider arguments carefully before taking a stand on them, but I can’t help if I register disappointment at some times with the status quo. I try to present an analysis that is challenging to certain social institutions, and that is certainly not an approach that everyone will agree with - particularly if such analysis challenges social arrangements that are of benefit to them. So if that means my viewpoint isn’t applicable to all people in all situations, so be it. I don’t want to defend the majoirty ruling class - I don’t think they need it. I want to increase awareness that sometimes people aren’t even aware of their own prejudices because of the way society is set up. I want to bring equality to those who are oppressed. That’s what informs my viewpoint.
Hello,
Just wanted to let you know I linked to your blog in my column on CBSNews.com today. Thanks!
If you want to take a look, here’s the link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/25/blogophile/main1832268.shtml
Thanks,
Melissa
Wow! Thanks for reading, Melissa. I’m glad you found something worth quoting and linking to for your article.