If you missed it earlier, be sure and see von’s defense of Lincoln over at vox popli.
Today, however, another debate over the 16th President is brewing.
A while ago I attended a seminar where four giants of the contemporary theater were discussing their craft and how it relates to social issues, in particular AIDS. Among them was the irrepressible Larry Kramer, who wrote "A Normal Heart," and who rants like a banshee when fired up. In one particular monologue he raised an audible guffaw from the audience when he noted that Abraham Lincoln was a gay American. Kramer doesn’t take audible guffaws at his announcements lightly. He was immediately fired up, challenging the audience to defend their skepticism of this claim. It seems Larry knew more than he revealed to us that night.
In a new book titled The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln, C.A. Tripp (a psychologist, influential gay writer and former sex researcher for Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey) concludes that Lincoln was indeed homosexual (others, including Carl Sandburg have hinted at this, only to have such passages in their books later edited out, it appears). From the review of Tripp’s book in The New York Times:
The subject of the 16th president’s sexuality has been debated among scholars for years. They cite his troubled marriage to Mary Todd and his youthful friendship with Joshua Speed, who shared his bed for four years. Now, in a new book, C. A. Tripp also asserts that Lincoln had a homosexual relationship with the captain of his bodyguards, David V. Derickson, who shared his bed whenever Mary Todd was away.
In "The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln," …Mr. Tripp…tries to resolve the issue of Lincoln’s sexuality once and for all. The author, who died in 2003, two weeks after finishing the book, subjected almost every word ever written by and about Lincoln to minute analysis. His conclusion is that America’s greatest president, the beacon of the Republican Party, was a gay man.
Mr. Tripp’s conclusions are not without their critics, however. Among them is Harvard professor emeritus David Herbert Donald, considered the definitive biographer of Lincoln,
But in "We Are Lincoln Men" Mr. Donald wrote that no one at the time ever suggested that he and Speed were sexual partners. Herndon, who sometimes slept in the room with them, never mentioned a sexual relationship. In frontier times, Mr. Donald wrote, space was tight and men shared beds. And the correspondence between Lincoln and Speed was not that of lovers, he maintained. Moreover, Lincoln alluded openly to their relationship, saying, "I slept with Joshua for four years. " If they were lovers, Mr. Donald wrote, Lincoln wouldn’t have spoken so freely.
Methinks he doth protest a teensy bit too much. But, alas, it’s not so simple, a former student of Mr. Donald, sides with Tripp:
Michael B. Chesson, a professor at the University of Massachusetts at
Boston and a…former student of Mr. Donald’s, wrote an afterword to Mr. Tripp’s book supporting his thesis. The book is "enormously important to understanding the whole person," he said in an interview. He likened the criticism to early objections to Fawn Brodie’s 1974 biography of Thomas Jefferson in which she claimed that Jefferson had children with his slave Sally Hemings; later genetic studies suggested that they had at least one child together. Finding the truth is a sacred principal for historians, Mr. Chesson said, adding, "It’s incumbent on us as scholars to present to readers material if historians have ignored it or swept it under the rug because they don’t agree with it."
And the debate will rage on. For me there are two interesting questions raised by the assertion that Lincoln was gay. What effect did it have on his presidency and what affect should it have on us in the present.
Regarding his presidency, another former student of Mr. Donald (who clearly must have many, many former students who also agree with him, it should be noted), Jean H. Baker, author of "Mary Todd Lincoln: a Biography" (who also wrote the introduction to Tripp’s book) noted that Lincoln’s homosexuality would explain his tempestuous relationship with Mary Todd, and "some of her agonies and anxieties over their relationship." Further, she said (a bit unconvincingly, I"ll admit)
[Lincoln’s] outsider status would explain his independence and his ability to take anti-Establishment positions like the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation. As a homosexual, she said, "he would be on the margins of tradition."
"He is willing to be independent, to do what is right," she said. "It is invested in his soul, in his psyche and in his behavior."
That’s debatable, of course, and were I heterosexual, I think I’d find it a bit insulting, but on the second question…assuming, for the moment, Tripp was right, Larry Kramer’s latest comment would seem on target and highly relevant:
"It’s a revolutionary book because the most important president in the history of the
United States was gay," he said. "Now maybe they’ll leave us alone, all those people in the party he founded."
I like to think that, as with Alexander the Great, in the end it really doesn’t matter who Lincoln did or didn’t sleep with. Yes, I mean that to cut back across the debate. Lincoln accomplished amazing things. I really don’t care if he was straight, and his bedfellows were just friends, so long as his legacy lives on.
Strictly speaking, if it were true, wouldn’t Lincoln be bi, not gay? Also Alexander? Or does the term gay encompass that?
I’m straight, so maybe I’m off the mark here, but if Lincoln did have romantic feelings for Speed, but never consummated them (for whatever reasons), he’d still be bi, right? It would just be harder to prove.
Strictly speaking, if it were true, wouldn’t Lincoln be bi, not gay?
Excellent question. I think it would come down to whether or not Lincoln was physically attracted to Mary Todd or simply married her and had children with her because he felt he had to. Personally, I’ve only met one person in my life who convinced me they were bisexual. All others were straight or gay and just struggling to realize which.
Strictly speaking, Votermom, Lincoln shouldn’t be described as either gay, or bi, or indeed straight, because those concepts didn’t exist in Lincoln’s time.
But given that there have been 43 Presidents so far, it would really be amazing if none of them had sexual feelings for other men. (According to Kinsey statistics, most likely at least 8 of them did.)
That Lincoln had sexual feelings for other man ought to be as irrelevant to Republicans today as Mary Cheney’s being a lesbian ought to have been irrelevant*. What makes this an issue is that for far too many people, the suggestion that a man is sexually attracted to other men is regarded as insulting.
*Which, too patently, it’s not.
That’s debatable, of course, and were I heterosexual, I think I’d find it a bit insulting,…
Why? I’ve frequently speculated on what it must be like to have a sexuality that a significant portion of society, and possibly of one’s family, considers to be a perversion, and the courage it must take to be open about it. And I suspect that knowing society’s, um, preferences about sexuality and accepting a contrarian view of it must give one the opportunity to become more open and independant than most.
In a blog discussion about gay marriage last year, I mentioned that I thought that the couples waiting in line to be married in San Fransico were heroic, for the reasons I mention above. One hawkish fellow sneered at that, and said that these people weren’t heros, the soldiers on patrol in Iraq were heros, because that took courage. I agreed that they too were heroes, but wondered whether given the choice, how those young soldiers would pick between going out on patrol, or telling their families and fellow soldiers that they were gay and living with the consequences.
I value bravery as a trait, and would like to think myself courageous, but I think I’d pick going on patrol.
Personally, I’ve only met one person in my life who convinced me they were bisexual. All others were straight or gay and just struggling to realize which.
In a discussion with my grade-8 son yesterday about an openly gay classmate of his, he mentioned a support group for bisexuals. In a moment of poor judgement, I snorted and said “There’s a group that doesn’t need any help, they’re having sex with everyone, what’s the problem?”
Yeah, I know.
I think it’s a mistake to characterize Lincoln as “gay.” He may very well have slept with men (I don’t know one way or the other, and I don’t know how you’d prove it outside a statement from a participant). The concept of a “gay-straight” binary is a 20th Century invention — perhaps an accurate invention (to an extent), but just not applicable outside of the current culture. To say that Lincoln was gay implies a whole series of political and social realignments, which simply aren’t appropriate or accurate for the time. Historical truth is not an exercise in taxidermy.
von
(According to Kinsey statistics, most likely at least 8 of them did.)
You’re assuming a random sample in perhaps the least random sampling in US history.
Ahh, I see Jes made my point while I was typing it. Sorry for the redundancy.
As for the “there’s no such thing as bi” meme: Maybe in the “primary alignment” sense, but not in the behavioral sense. Else, how would you explain the opportunistic homosexual behavior in prisons and on board ships; sexual practices in Ancient Greece; etc.
Anarch: You’re assuming a random sample in perhaps the least random sampling in US history.
But nothing about how Presidents are selected eliminates gay or bisexual men. So random sampling seems appropriate.
Edward: Personally, I’ve only met one person in my life who convinced me they were bisexual. All others were straight or gay and just struggling to realize which.
Analogously: “Personally, I’ve only met one man in my life who convinced me he was gay. All the others were straight and just struggling with their sexuality.”
If you don’t meet people who are willing to come out to you as bisexual, Edward, it may be because you are unwilling to acknowledge that bisexuality really does exist.
And here I’m going to inject my opinion, which (to be uncharacteristically brief) boils down to this:
This doesn’t change a single important thing about Lincoln for me. Discussion of his sexuality perhaps contextualizes his actions and his life, but it doesn’t add to or detract from what he did.
As always, YMMV.
Part of the reason it is important, I think, is that part of the negative stereotype of gay men is that they are effeminate, cowardly, weak. So when there are historical counter-examples it breaks down the stereotype.
Even when historically, like in the case of Alexander, there was no straight/gay concept, it helps because people will always look at history through their own biases. Scholars (historians/anthropologists, etc) try not to, but even they struggle with it.
Why? I’ve frequently speculated on what it must be like to have a sexuality that a significant portion of society, and possibly of one’s family, considers to be a perversion, and the courage it must take to be open about it.
I think the answer is in your statement, double. Lincoln was not open about his preferences.
I too found those in SF heroic, for the same reasons you state. Speaking of being heroric or going on patrol, though, there’s also a great op-ed piece in the Times on how while some soldiers (“challenging an Army policy that extended their tours of duty in the Middle East”) are fighting in courts to get out of the military, gay soldiers who were thrown out via the assinine “don’t ask, don’t tell” are fighting in court to get back in. Doubly courageous in my book.
D-P-UG: “There’s a group that doesn’t need any help, they’re having sex with everyone, what’s the problem?”
Being routinely accused of promiscuity or told they don’t “really” exist? Yeah, I can see that bisexuals don’t need any help.
Votermom: Part of the reason it is important, I think, is that part of the negative stereotype of gay men is that they are effeminate, cowardly, weak. So when there are historical counter-examples it breaks down the stereotype.
There I agree with you. It’s a reversal, and a useful one, just because people like Slarti are still rare. (Slarti, I agree with you – don’t make yourself change your opinion on that account.)
Being routinely accused of promiscuity or told they don’t “really” exist? Yeah, I can see that bisexuals don’t need any help.
Yeah, I know. Like I said, poor judgement.
D-P-UG: ?Yeah, I know. Like I said, poor judgement.
*re-reads your comment*
Um, yeah. Sorry. It’s a bit personal for me: I have a lot of bi friends (including my sister) and while I remain persistently monosexual, I find I really get annoyed when I see my friends slandered or their very existence denied.
Back to Lincoln!
*raises hand* Demonstrably bisexual here.
I’ve always found the assertions that people are either gay or straight to be profoundly annoying. Just about anyone who genuinely identifies as bi will patiently (or not-so-patiently) explain that it is not a zero-sum condition. Different people have different levels of attraction to different genders under different circumstances.
I am a bi man engaged to marry a heterosexual woman. Previously, I was in a poly relationship with a nominally bi woman primarily attracted to women who bonded closely enough with me to form a relationship but otherwise dated women almost exclusively. I prefer women but can be attracted to the right man; I (generally) find men sexually attractive but have stronger romantic/emotional feelings for women. It’s not the sort of thing you can quantify as a gay/straight binary choice, nor even really as a linear scale: Kinsey was doing the best he could with a subject that’s a lot fuzzier than most people think.
And DPU, while I know you didn’t mean any ill by telling your son that “they’re having sex with everyone”, I’d like to extend a personal request that you don’t repeat that sort of thing to him again. You’re his father and it is, of course, your choice to raise him as you will–but seemingly harmless comments like that help form lifelong misconceptions and stereotypes.
Bisexual != sleeps with everyone, no more than heterosexual means you sleep with everyone of the opposite sex. It just means you have a wider range of people towards whom you’re /capable/ of feeling attraction.
</rantypants>
I’ve always found the assertions that people are either gay or straight to be profoundly annoying.
Noted. Thanks for the eloquent explanation. As I wrote above, one person I’ve known has convinced me he is bisexual, but so often others (and there were a few years there a while back when being bi was a trend here in NYC and most of those who claimed they were, were simply posing…and yes, most of these were 20 somthings, so….), given a few years and support by their friends, later announce they are either straight or gay. I’ve seen that happen so many more times than the other way around (the person who convinced me he was bi was 50, so I figure he knew by then who he was attracted to).
As I wrote above, one person I’ve known has convinced me he is bisexual, but so often others (and there were a few years there a while back when being bi was a trend here in NYC and most of those who claimed they were, were simply posing…and yes, most of these were 20 somthings, so….), given a few years and support by their friends, later announce they are either straight or gay.
I hear this a lot. And there are definitely a fair number of people who experiment with bisexuality just because it’s cool/trendy/etc. But I have to wonder how many of those people ended up “admitting” that they were gay/straight not because they were, but because they felt pressured to “choose” one or the other precisely because of this kind of attitude. I wonder if they’d reach the same conclusion if they were treated with the attitude of “you’re just attracted to who you’re attracted to”.
I’m not singling you out here, Edward, nor trying to bust your chops, and I’m sorry if it comes across that way. This is a sore spot of mine, probably as much so as gay issues are for you.
Jes: Um, yeah. Sorry. It’s a bit personal for me: I have a lot of bi friends
No problem. It was a stupid remark that I made.
Catsy: And DPU, while I know you didn’t mean any ill by telling your son that “they’re having sex with everyone”, I’d like to extend a personal request that you don’t repeat that sort of thing to him again. You’re his father and it is, of course, your choice to raise him as you will–but seemingly harmless comments like that help form lifelong misconceptions and stereotypes.
Yeah, I know.
To reiterate – as soon as I had said what I said, and gave myself an open handed thunk to the forehead, I corrected myself and told him that it was a stupid joke. In context, he has just entered highschool, and we were discussing the homophobia that he’s seeing. In his words, “It’s just like grade five all over again.” Paradoxically, one classmate is openly gay, and seems to be accepted without much harrassment. The homophobia seems to be aimed at theoretical homosexuals or something, but actual people are off-limits.
Either way, my son doesn’t like it.
Edward: given a few years and support by their friends, later announce they are either straight or gay
Me, I think simple politeness dictates that if someone tells you what their sexuality is, you take their word for it.
Nevertheless, I’m unconvinced by people who claim to have been converted from one sexuality to another – whether it’s a bi man saying “No I’m gay now” or a gay man saying “No, I’m straight now”. I knew what my sexuality was by the time I was 19. I can conceive that someone might discover sexual feelings they never knew they had in later life – but not that sexual feelings would just go away when not wanted.
Most of my bi friends are currently in monogamous relationships. Those who are with people of the same gender note that they’re assumed to be gay: those who are with people of the opposite gender note that they’re assumed to be straight. Sometimes they struggle to remain out about their bisexuality despite the overwhelming presumption that “you’re gay now” or “you’re straight now”: but sometimes they don’t, for many reasons – including not wanting to make their partner feel uncomfortable.
Those who are with people of the same gender note that they’re assumed to be gay: those who are with people of the opposite gender note that they’re assumed to be straight.
Interesting — I wouldn’t assume that a friend who married a tall blonde therefore felt no attraction whatsoever to short brunettes; not sure why this would be different.
OTOH, I have no trouble believing that what someone finds attractive can change over time, whether it’s discovering an attraction that wasn’t felt before or losing an attraction that was.
I’m not singling you out here, Edward, nor trying to bust your chops, and I’m sorry if it comes across that way. This is a sore spot of mine, probably as much so as gay issues are for you.
Not at all. I think there’s a bit of bigotry among gays towards bisexuals…kind of a presumption that they’re trying to have it both ways and making it harder for gays. I recalled being furious at David Bowie when he announced he was not gay or bi, just straight now, because it made it look to many folks as if being gay were simply a choice or fashion statement, as it had been for him. I’m learning to be less militant as I get older.
Jes is right. The appropriate response (and despite what I’ve noted I believe(d) here, this is how I respond in real life) is to “take their word for it” when someone tells you their orientation. My personal anecdotes are NOT data.
D+Ungood–
An openly gay eigth-grader? What is that, age 12 or 13? You’d have a hard time convincing me that he or she has an understanding of sexuality and homosexuality deep enough to form an identity at such a young age. I suspect that this kid has been sexually abused in some way and is either identifying with or rejecting the sexuality of his/her abuser.
Props to you for talking to your kid about sex, though.
An openly gay eigth-grader? What is that, age 12 or 13? You’d have a hard time convincing me that he or she has an understanding of sexuality and homosexuality deep enough to form an identity at such a young age.
Maybe a 13-year-old is still uninformed about the subtlties of human sexuality, but I knew quite well at that age who I was attracted to.
An openly gay eigth-grader? What is that, age 12 or 13? You’d have a hard time convincing me that he or she has an understanding of sexuality and homosexuality deep enough to form an identity at such a young age.
Well, it’s in the remote past, but I remember some fairly intense sexual feelings when I was around eight years old and onward, and no sexual abuse was involved. Your results may vary, of course, but I knew my preferences at that time, and so I think I’ll give the benefit of the doubt on the issue.
But nothing about how Presidents are selected eliminates gay or bisexual men.
Says who?
There’s no overt selection bias, I’ll grant you that, but that’s a very very very different contention.
Interesting — I wouldn’t assume that a friend who married a tall blonde therefore felt no attraction whatsoever to short brunettes; not sure why this would be different.
Simple numbers: IME the overwhelming majority of those in a MF relationship self-identify as heterosexual and the overwhelming majority of those in a MM or FF relationship self-identify as homosexual. If I didn’t know those people, I’d assume as such too; different story if I knew them, but I don’t think that’s what Jes was talking about.
The acid test, though, is whether a) the couple felt free to correct me, and b) how I reacted to that correction. Living in Madison, I’ve learned that the easiest thing to do when putting one’s foot in one’s mouth like that is to laugh, say “Stupid me for assuming” and pretend it doesn’t matter — which it doesn’t.
different story if I knew them, but I don’t think that’s what Jes was talking about.
Re-reading, you’re probably right — I originally read it as saying that people who knew that they were self-identified as bi were now thinking they were either gay or straight.
Lincoln gay, that’s child’s play. How about Paul (but only 10% of his Corinthians)! I’m reading retired bishop John Spong’s autobiography and the section i read last night concerned he and another scholar making the case why Paul was gay and I must say they made a good case. And i personally think one’s sexuality is of importance because being gay is at my core, it’s innately who i am. No one could ever hope to understand me autobiographically if one didn’t know this fact.
“I recalled being furious at David Bowie when he announced he was not gay or bi, just straight now, because it made it look to many folks as if being gay were simply a choice or fashion statement, as it had been for him. I’m learning to be less militant as I get older.”
This is it, I would guess. Bisexual people are politically inconvenient for people arguing that:
1) Sexual orientation is not a choice, and as far as sexual behavior goes, “pretend you’re straight or be celibate” is a cruel and unjust choice.
and
2) Legal acceptance of gay equality won’t lead more people to become gay.
I believe both those things, but they are oversimplifications. I’m sure there are plenty of bisexual people who end up in happy, contended heterosexual marriages, and there are probably some who never have a same sex relationship and are perfectly okay with that. (I married my first boyfriend and that worked out pretty amazingly, so….) I also have wondered if the few “ex-gays” who really do seem content to live as heterosexuals aren’t really just bisexual. If you treat gay people equally, there’s less incentive to do that. And someone who’s mostly straight might also end up experimenting; someone who’s gay might admit it to themselves sooner. So if you’re measuring individual incidents of hot man-on-man or lady-on-lady action, yes, there may well be an increase. (I would guess those are also more likely to be within a monogamous relationship though.)
caveat: I seem to be pretty much all straight, so I speak from utter ignorance here except for one bisexual college roommate. So I apologize if I offend.
My roommate definitely did feel pressured to pick one team or the other–she would always wonder after a relationship ended or began what it said about her sexuality, whether she would always have a sort of extreme “grass is greener” problem. I tended to think, maybe it says less about your sexuality then it says that you haven’t found the right person yet. But it’s not something I know much about.
I’ve heard–I don’t know whether this was in Kinsey or elsewhere–that in surveys women are more likely than men to have some attraction to both sexes, while men are more likely to be 90%+ gay or 90%+ straight. Assuming that’s accurate, I wonder if that’s a biologocial thing or if it’s because it’s more socially acceptable. Because Lord knows if you read about Ancient Greece….
As for Lincoln, just keep Gerald Allen the heck away from the Memorial. Actually, I’m somewhat skeptical–but do you guys remember when people were talking about this poem written by a teenage Lincoln? I think it was Tripp who discovered it in his papers.
I will tell you a Joke about Jewel and Mary
It is neither a Joke nor a Story
For Rubin and Charles has married two girls
But Billy has married a boy
The girlies he had tried on every Side
But none could he get to agree
All was in vain he went home again
And since that is married to Natty
So Billy and Natty agreed very well
And mama’s well pleased at the match
The egg it is laid but Natty’s afraid
The Shell is So Soft that it never will hatch
But Betsy she said you Cursed bald head
My Suitor you never Can be
Beside your low crotch proclaims you a botch
And that never Can serve for me
It’s not quite Walt Whitman, of course.
I wonder if Gore Vidal’s historical novel on Lincoln would be written a little differently today.
Katherine, you know someone will ask Vidal what he thinks about this new book and i’m sure he won’t hesitate to give a comment. He has left Ravello and lives in the Hollywood Hills now that his lover passed away so he’s quite accessible.
Historical truth is not an exercise in taxidermy
no doubt. but, maybe you meant “taxonomy” ?
no doubt. but, maybe you meant “taxonomy” ?
Cleek, apply that lower standard that we all apply to blog comments. 😉
(Or, yes, of course. Although the thought of a bunch of stuffed historical figures …)
I think a great many historical figures ought to get themselves stuffed while still alive. I know I’ve been invited to.
And i personally think one’s sexuality is of importance because being gay is at my core, it’s innately who i am.
That’s not necessarily true of everyone, though. I’m reminded of Paul Bowles, who almost surely slept with more men than women (and, his wife, Jane Bowles, more women than men), but repeatedly refused to say that he was gay — indeed, frequently expressed puzzlement at the question. (As in, “why does everyone think I’m gay?”) Now, this may simply be evidence of Mr. Bowles’ peculiarities and repressions — after all, Gore Vidal said his autobiography, “Without Stopping,” should be renamed “Without Telling.” But I suspect that he’s not alone in viewing sexuality as of little consequence.
When poorly done, investigations into historical truth can be exercises in taxidermy–we fill them with stuffing and make them pose the way we want.
‘viewing sexuality as of little consequence’ sounds like something a straight person or a married person who sleeps with men might say.
If straight people in general truly did that there would be no discrimination against gay people, both socially and legally.
Which is a good thing, no?
This is it, I would guess. Bisexual people are politically inconvenient
Pin pon. Katherine wins the (ahem) booby prize! 😀
I think this is at the heart of a lot of anti-bi prejudice–but a lot of it, I think, is also our need to pigeonhole people, to force them into binary categories and marginalize fence-sitters. As an intellectual exercise, I challenge you (everyone here, that is) to compare the hostile attitudes towards bisexuals with the hostility often directed at political independents. People like Mike Totten, for example, or (perhaps a poor example) Andrew Sullivan, who don’t hold views or act in ways that allow people to assign them to one side or the other. They routinely get sandblasted by whichever side they’re holding to account at any given time. Or hell, for a local example, our own von: how much shit does he get for blasting Democrats one day and Republicans the next, depending on the circumstances?
The more I think about it, the more I think that the same fundamental flaws are behind the common hostility towards both bisexuals and political independents. We don’t like what we can’t easily categorize, quantify, or assign to one side or another, and we tend to assume that the perceived “fence-sitters” need to pick a side–or at least need to figure out which side they’re on.
for people arguing that:
1) Sexual orientation is not a choice, and as far as sexual behavior goes, “pretend you’re straight or be celibate” is a cruel and unjust choice.
and
2) Legal acceptance of gay equality won’t lead more people to become gay.
Bah. That’ll teach me to post when I should be going to bed. Let me finish quoting the other points in Katherine’s post, respond to them, and then I really sleep. 😛
1) Sexual orientation is not a choice, and as far as sexual behavior goes, “pretend you’re straight or be celibate” is a cruel and unjust choice.
2) Legal acceptance of gay equality won’t lead more people to become gay.
*takes a deep breath here* Time for me to say something unpopular.
I think a certain amount of sexual orientation /is/ a choice. I also think a certain amount of it is very much a fundamental part of who you are. The fact is, we simply don’t know what wires someone to be attracted to one thing or another. Some of it is unquestionably environmental. Some of it is equally unquestionably not. And sometimes it changes over time, with or without external influence.
Ultimately, I think what environmental and cultural factors affect more than anything else is what a person feels comfortable with. Much as gay rights advocates deny it because it’s a political liability to say so, someone raised in a culture and/or family where they’re taught homosexuality is okay and acceptable /will/ be more likely to be receptive to the idea. They’re probably more likely to experiment with it. But–and here’s the big but–nobody who is not /already wired in some way/ to be attracted to the same sex is likely to do any more than experiment. You don’t fall in love with the same sex and form a life-long bond, or get overcome with an irresistable urge to fsck like bunnies, unless there’s a part of you that already leans that way.
Does being raised with gay or gay-friendly parents tip the balance a bit? Sure. So your daughter’s incrementally more likely to have a crush on another girl in college, or your son might try sucking a little pole with his best friend. As far as I’m concerned, that’s okay, and we shouldn’t be afraid to admit that that’s okay.
Yes, I know. Admitting that a gay-friendly environment might lead to more gay people gives the religious right ammunition. You know what? /Fsck/ them. The ones who will put up a fight because we admit that are the ones who /already/ believe it and will oppose our rights no matter what.
I was absolutely shocked to find that the term “original Log Cabin Republican” had not, as of yet, been introduced into the thread.
Too obvious, norbizness. We’re all much more, um, subtle, here.
I certainly don’t think it’s 100% genetic. Just because there are environmental factors doesn’t mean it’s a choice, though. Mental illness has both a hereditary and environmental component, but it is not a choice.
(N.B.: it is obvious to everyone that I do not consider being gay a mental illness, and find it shameful that is was once classified that way, yes?)
Slarti, it would be good if straight people stopped discriminating against gay people. If it is because everyone’s sexuality is considered important and worthwhile or because one’s sexuality matters little, it’s six of one to me if the discrimination ends.
Some of it is unquestionably environmental.
Catsy,
Homosexuality exists in every country I’ve ever visited or met people from. What’s the evidence that it’s partially environment? Serious question.
‘viewing sexuality as of little consequence’ sounds like something a straight person or a married person who sleeps with men might say.
Well, both of your narrow points may very well be true, but the broad point is that sexuality is not necessarily a defining characteristic for everyone. I admit that even I occasionally forget this — heck, I’m a guy and I do try to fulfill the stereotype — but we are more than our sexual organs. Or, perhaps better put, we are things in addition to our sexuality.
What’s the evidence that it’s partially environment? Serious question.
Prisons. Ships. Ancient Greece. Again, I’m of the view that sexuality is a continuum, with most falling mostly on one end or the other, but relatively few at 100%. We’re fooling ourselves if we don’t think that sexuality is eternally static or purely hereditary.
Or, in the words of “South Park”: Everyone’s a little bit gay. (Not to be confused with its other famous maxim, “Everyone has AIDS”.)
Prisons. Ships. Ancient Greece.
The first two represent environmentally influenced behavior, not orientation. The third represents the long-lost last great hope for mankind. ;p
von, the thing that always makes me laugh about people discounting sexuality like that is i am not gay because of who i doink, i’m gay because of who i fall in love with. That has major ramifications all over the place in my life as it does with everyone. It affects how i have children, how my relationships are cemented, even silly things like where i can dance with a date and whether i can hold hands in public or show affection.
People play down sexuality when theirs is practiced with total ease and nonchalance. They think sexuality is what is done behind closed doors. That’s not one’s sexuality, that is one’s sex acts. For gay people, everything is made a sex act, from a photo on your desk at work to nervous looks of in-laws when you are with their children to the one bed you must ask for in a hotel.
We’re fooling ourselves if we don’t think that sexuality is eternally static or purely hereditary.
Erm, remove the “don’t” from that one.
On Ancient Greece, incidentally, I don’t want to overstate my case. The “permissible” forms of homosexuality were extremely limited: Generally, it had to be between an adult male and a youth, and penetration was a no-no. Other cultures that tend to accept certain forms of homosexuality also almost always adhere to the second rule: the “penetrator” is universally of higher social status; the “penetratee” is not.
Feel free to take the above segue into the anti-female agenda that one can read into all this — and, from there, a nice discussion of the Earth Mother/Sky Gods dichotomy, as well as Jungian archetypes in general.
Ok, Wilfred, I now get (and concede) your point.
Von, have i ever told you how smart you are 🙂
It’s a great pity that sexual polarity has been politicized into an “either/or.” I remember in the mid- to late 1970’s (before AIDS, in other words) bisexuality was pretty much taken for granted. Patti Smith got off a very good line at the time about sexuality in general; something about if someone had a gorgeous mouth, she didn’t care if that someone was male, female or her own sister: they had a gorgeous mouth.
A person’s sexuality is informed by their emotional history, emotional state, and other ephemera. I have, at various times in my life, in various moods and heads-spaces, felt purest lust for both men and women.
I know women who were, or who truly believed themselves to be, lesbians – until they happened to fall in love (romantically and sexually) with men, at which point they were confused. Happily, they were also determined to follow their bliss, so to speak, and shrugged off the apparent turnabout in orientation. Generally they said, “Looks like I’m bi. How about that.”
As for Lincoln… look, he was a vastly intelligent, complicated, sensitive fellow, who happened to be married to a nutcase. He also lost a son. There’s a lot going on here: the need for a peer’s companionship and solace; a thwarted and grieving need to nurture and cherish; plus all the strains of dealing with a civil war. People don’t keep their sexuality in a box and their everything else in other boxes. It’s very easy to see how Lincoln, feeling himself to be very much alone with horrible burdens, found solace in an unconventional way.
And, in fact, I’m not even sure how unconventional it would have been. There was a recognized custom among women at the time called a “white wedding” or a “Boston wedding,” where basically two women lived together as if married. Now, whether those always were, or were acknowledged to be, lesbian relationships as we define them today, I don’t know. It might have been thought to be an “old maid” thing. I also don’t know if there was a similar sub-rosa custom (that everyone knew about and just didn’t talk about) for men.
Human sexuality is a lot more compicated and interesting than just how the plumbing gets used.
“Human sexuality is a lot more compicated and interesting than just how the plumbing gets used.”
It is at that.
In novels, in plays, in movies–I get attached to male and female characters alike. But it often happens differently, and one way you could describe it would be to say that I am more likely to identify with a female protagonist but I am more likely to fall for a male protagonist. It’s not sexual in any physical sense; it’s not even really romantic. But there is some difference, and I would guess it’s connected to the fact that I fall in love with men and not with women.
And there are a lot of previous descriptions of same sex friendship that now sound vaguely or not-so-vaguely romantic to us:
“I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”
Or Celia in As You Like It:
“I did not then entreat to have her stay;
It was your pleasure and your own remorse:
I was too young that time to value her;
But now I know her: if she be a traitor,
Why so am I; we still have slept together,
Rose at an instant, learn’d, play’d, eat together,
And wheresoever we went, like Juno’s swans,
Still we went coupled and inseparable.”
I don’t know much about male sexual orientation in 19th century America, but the idea that Lincoln shared a bed with a man for at least two periods in his life, whether or not they were involved sexually, and it was a source of gossip but not that big a deal–that seems like it probably tells you something.
and it was a source of gossip but not that big a deal–that seems like it probably tells you something.
Clearly the insistence of those who identify as “gay” to be “out and proud” has changed the landscape. Having said that, the argument that men attracted to men and women attracted to women were not persecuted until they started flaunting it in peoples’ faces (not what you’re saying here Katherine, I know, but parallel to your point and something I’ve seen a bit too much of lately) is not true. If it were all more or less “don’t ask, don’t tell” we wouldn’t have had the recently cast-aside sodomy laws on the books.
In my experience talking with friends who are gay men or lesbians, I speculate that being gay is much more predetermined for men than it is for women. (Please note the percentages are pulled out of thin air) It would be as if being a gay man is 95% genetic while being a lesbian is more like 65% genetic. A large percentage of lesbians known to me report really bad experiences with men that contributed to their seeking the company of women. The converse is typically not true among gay men.
Von, have i ever told you how smart you are 🙂
Not frequently enough! 😉
Although the thought of a bunch of stuffed historical figures …
I saw that at disneyland.
A large percentage of lesbians known to me report really bad experiences with men that contributed to their seeking the company of women. The converse is typically not true among gay men.
I gotta say that my anecdotal experiences accord with Sebastian’s. (I think that Katherine made a similar point, above, so three makes a trend.)
so three makes a trend
get your bakery-fresh menage a trois jokes here…
“Clearly the insistence of those who identify as “gay” to be “out and proud” has changed the landscape.”
I don’t think it’s only that, though…I think it’s a general change in how we think of and talk about sex in general, and the sex lives of our leaders in particular.
I also think that while both the gay rights movement and homophobia are reactions to the other, it would not have occurred to me that an organized, out gay rights movement came first. ACT-UP didn’t invent the pink triangle; police were raiding gay bars & arresting people long before Stonewall.
In my experience talking with friends who are gay men or lesbians, I speculate that being gay is much more predetermined for men than it is for women.
I think it’s more that women are taught (I mean at a social-conditioning level) that what we desire is unimportant. There is considerably heavier social conditioning on a teenage girl to be “interested” in boys than there is on teenage boys to be “interested” in girls. (I’m not talking about sexual attraction, which I assume is equivalent for both sexes: I’m talking the kind of social interaction that goes on among teenage girls – “Which Beatle would you marry?” – “Who do you fancy, David Soul or Paul Michael Glaser?” and so on) and the corresponding pressure to “go out” with boys. Women and girls are not socially encouraged to go for who they are sexually attracted to in defiance of social convention: the idea that women feel overwhelming sexual attraction (and that this is okay) is genuinely recent: and further, while gay men are disapproved of, they’ve never been invisible to the extent that lesbians are.
(Case in point: half a dozen times in my life I’ve met someone who was just drunk enough – or sufficiently socially inept – to ask me face-to-face “So what do lesbians do in bed?”* I can’t imagine anyone asking a gay man this question: or a straight person (except as a sarcastic retort).)
Many lesbians end up getting married to men because they have no alternative. Or because they know of no other alternative: everyone gets married, and when a woman is asked “do you really want to marry him?” it’s usually in terms of “do you really love him?” not “Are you really sexually attracted to him?”
Many bisexual women end up getting married to men and never show up on any survey because it never occurs to them that their feelings for their girlfriends before they got married counted for exactly as much as what they felt for their husband.
I doubt if a woman’s sexuality is more fluid than a man’s (a better way of putting it than Sebastian’s, which implies that being gay is something abnormal). But you’d certainly never prove it in a culture which puts so much pressure on women to ignore their sexual feelings in favor of what they ought to feel.
*If you’re interested, my polite reply to this rude question is “Read, sleep, watch TV, listen to music, sometimes make love – what do you do?” I have a few impolite replies, too.
“A large percentage of lesbians known to me report really bad experiences with men that contributed to their seeking the company of women. The converse is typically not true among gay men.”
Might these be connected with who is expected to initiate sex and who isn’t?
A surprising number of women I know had some pretty bad early experiences. I’m not talking about any serious trauma here, just, things don’t sound like any fun at all.
(I would be much less likely to have conversations about these things with men, so I only have half the data set).
Katherine: A surprising number of women I know had some pretty bad early experiences. I’m not talking about any serious trauma here, just, things don’t sound like any fun at all.
Ditto. Also, I know several lesbians who report perfectly fine early experiences with men – they had a good time, it was just that (as they realised when they woke up and discovered girls) men were not who they really wanted.
There is considerably heavier social conditioning on a teenage girl to be “interested” in boys than there is on teenage boys to be “interested” in girls.
Umm, having been a teenage boy once — albeit, increasingly long ago — let me say that this was not my experience. Homophobia was pretty rampant, accepted, and was easily the norm. A “fag” was not something you wanted to be; being called a “fag” (or an equivalent) was a challenge that you had to address.
Indeed, even in fairly liberal places (such as the college town where I spent most of my growing-up years), there was a huge distinction between the theory of not hating and despising gay men (“Oh, sure, live and let live”) and the actual reaction to actual, perceived gay men. Outside of those fairly liberal places — well, there wasn’t even the theory.
Although I hate to speak for others (or outside my experience), I’m pretty sure that the gay male readership of the blog will back me up on this one. Or maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised, and discover that they all had wonderful growing-up experiences.
Umm, having been a teenage boy once — albeit, increasingly long ago — let me say that this was not my experience.
I did go on to explain exactly what I meant by “interested in”, and that “interested in” is not the same as “sexually attracted to”. AFAIK I know, teenage boys are not encouraged to spend their time discussing how they can make themselves more attractive to girls, nor which female pop star/actor they will marry when they grow up. That you didn’t appear to get what I meant does suggest to me that this state of “interested in” was not part of your boyhood experience.
Jes,
With all due respect, could it seem that social conditioning seems ‘heavier’ because in this case, you are the person being conditioned? I’m not sure how to parse the idea of social conditioning being more directed at one gender than another, except for the argument that men are supposed to be ‘dominant’ and so it is not conditioning, which gets us into a lot of interesting, but ultimately unprovable socio-biology. But if one’s choice of sexuality is more the result of socialization than internal factors, it could be that heavier social conditioning is directed at the males which would then account for the belief that women are more likely to be attracted to both sexes rather than just one. As I said, unprovable, but as likely from the external evidence as some sort of pre-determined genetic bias. (I leave aside the internal evidence of how we feel because I think that people can justify anything, unfortunately)
Oh, I would say that there is more pressure on a boys NOT to be interested in boys than for girls NOT to be interested in girls. But that’s a slightly different issue.
I’m apparently a week and a half late on this, but it’s mildly related so why not:
I am so unbelievably angry about the report about abstinence-only education programs. (I only read it today after seeing it on the Daily Show.) I always assumed those programs to be more or less useless, but I had no idea they were malicious. 50% of gay male teenagers have HIV? HIV can be spread through sweat and tears? (And Dr. Bill Frist cannot come out and say that’s false on national TV?) Mutual masturbation causes pregnancy?
I watched “Kinsey” a few weeks ago and thought the abysmal state of knowledge about sex back then might have been a tiny bit exaggerated. Now, though….
That movie is obviously controversial–PBS has refused to let it sponsor the News Hour for that reason. Its leading critic is a woman named Judith Reisman, also recently seen testifying on Capitol Hill about the dangers of “erototoxins.”
According to the New Yorker a few weeks back,
What is going on here?
AFAIK I know, teenage boys are not encouraged to spend their time discussing how they can make themselves more attractive to girls, nor which female pop star/actor they will marry when they grow up.
As a former teenage boy, uh, yeah, most of my male friends spent an inordinate time discussing how they could make themselves more attractive to girls (read: “get laid”), and which female popstar/actor they would marry when they grew up (read: “would bang if they had the chance”).
The fact that our hormonally-challenged intellects parsed these concepts differently from yours — viz. your distinction between “interested in romantically” and “sexually attracted to” which, and this is crucial, is a distinction that typically doesn’t exist in the mind of teenage boys — doesn’t, in any way, mean that we thought about them any less… and likely, quite a bit more.
Could discrimination against bi-sexuality be a form of jealousy?
i will confess utter ignorance as to the sexuality of bisexuals beyond what i’ve read on this thread. but i would guess that most americans believe that bisexuality means multiple concurrent bedpartners.
an amazing amount of porn directed at men involves MFF threesomes. some involves MMF threesomes. whether this is sociological or biological i will not even speculate.
but if the porn market in any indication (see marginal revolutions blog for discussion of the wisdom of markets), then a strong element of het. male sex fantasies includes a particular type of bisexuality.
it could be the case, therefore, that there is a certain amount of subconscious jealousy of those who lead lives that most people only fantasize about.
but i’m just guessing.
Francis
Well, if Lincoln was gay, let’s hope Oliver Stone doesn’t get wind of it.
“Case in point: half a dozen times in my life I’ve met someone who was just drunk enough – or sufficiently socially inept – to ask me face-to-face “So what do lesbians do in bed?”* I can’t imagine anyone asking a gay man this question: or a straight person (except as a sarcastic retort).”
Unfortunately I have been asked that question. And I have no idea what lesbians do in bed. 😉 No, I’ve been asked what gay men do in bed, I suggested that if they wanted to know they should rent some porn, though I suppose if the questioners had been cuter….
Just to clarify on another point, a seemingly large number of lesbians I know had REALLY AWFUL experiences with men: like beating them nearly to death, threatening them, setting fire to cherished possessions. Also, most gay men I know knew or should have known they were gay very early. (I’m in the should have known category. I had crushes on guys very early in life but didn’t have a mental label for a crush on a non-girl. There really is something to the idea that it is tough to think about what you can’t label. I woke up one morning and had one of those heart stopping revelations–I thought: If I were gay that would explain alot.) That isn’t as true with my lesbian friends–though Jesurgislac’s explanation of women being conditioned not to worry about their own desires as much might come to bear.
Other random observations–I knew it was ‘bad’ to be a fag long before I knew what it meant.
…is it just me, or does ObWi have a really amazingly high percentage of GBLT commenters/members?
Oh, and incidentally… I knew I was sexually attracted to men as early as about 12 or 13. Though I didn’t really understand what it meant, and even when I did was deeply confused about the fact that I liked women more.
It took until I was 17 or so before I figured out that I was bi. That was when I came out to my father, right about at the same time he came out to me. 😛
…is it just me, or does ObWi have a really amazingly high percentage of GBLT commenters/members?
…Discuss?
😉
Sebastian: Unfortunately I have been asked that question.
Good God. Okay, that’s a first for me. Why are people so unimaginative? My less-than-polite but very sincere response the first time someone asked me that question was to laugh my head off because I thought they were joking: I kept saying “Use your imagination! Think about it!” while the other person kept saying “But I don’t know!” (It was after that incident that I developed my polite response, since laughing in their face obvious wasn’t going to work.)
Well, if Lincoln was gay, let’s hope Oliver Stone doesn’t get wind of it.
Amen to that, Roxanne.
…is it just me, or does ObWi have a really amazingly high percentage of GBLT commenters/members?
It may be a reflection on the fact that every ObWi poster — past or present — has been gay-rights friendly. (That includes, amazingly enough, each of the conservatives and putative conservatives: Sebastian, Moe Lane, me.) I like to think that this is somewhat a “safe place” in that regard; without, of course, demeaning or overshouting folks who believe that their religion prohibits homosexuality. Safe for one group need not mean dangerous for another.
Hmm. I remember back in the ‘everyone is bisexual, deep down’ days, having a friend of mine tell me this, and thinking: hmm; is this true? I didn’t seem to be bisexual, but presumably one possible explanation for this was: I had just repressed my attraction to women, and that’s why I couldn’t detect it. I tossed this idea around for half an hour or so, and decided that as far as I was concerned there was no functional difference between (a) my being deep down heterosexual, and (b) my being deep down bisexual, but having so thoroughly repressed my attraction to women that I couldn’t find it at all, even in forms like undue defensiveness on the topic.
Later, I had a very good (female) friend who had had lots of fun with men, but had, as she put it, decided that she’d rather be romantically involved with people who felt comfortable talking about their emotions, and had thus more or less decided to date women. This makes it sound fairly cold-blooded, but as best I can tell it was an accurate description of her decision, and she was, when I knew her, very happily in love, long-term, with another woman. I was at that time well and truly exasperated with the guy who was then the object of my affections (who reads this blog, heh heh), and oddly enough almost all my straight female friends were also exasperated with guys in strikingly similar ways, so I did get her point. But it was not, for me, a choice, though I remember thinking at the time: gosh, if only it were.
Note: I do not endorse the view of guys mentioned above. Although I did once hear a story, which stupidly I never tracked down, about a study that showed that while women process emotions through one of the ‘higher mental functions’ parts of the brain, men have a bipolar distribution: about half are like women in this respect, and about half process emotions through what, if memory serves, the story described as ‘a part of the brain that does not differ markedly from its counterpart in reptiles’.
Von: Moe Lane
Not so much. As I recall, Moe couldn’t understand why anyone who wasn’t gay themselves would see Bush’s stance on gay marriage to be a reason to vote against Bush – granted, that’s not a hostile stance on gay rights, but it’s certainly not “gay rights friendly” – it’s a classic “I’m all right, Jack” attitude.
Damn.
No, I should not have made the above comment about Moe Lane when he wasn’t around to refute it.
Sorry, everybody: and apologies to Moe, should he return to read it.
“The more I think about it, the more I think that the same fundamental flaws are behind the common hostility towards both bisexuals and political independents.”
Maybe, maybe not. I think people get very tired of “even the liberal New Republic….” or “even the liberal Michael Totten” or “even the conservative Andrew Sullivan”. Democrats seem to see, say, McCain or Snowe as refreshingly independent, and Lieberman as disloyal, while Republicans seem to see the opposite. To the GOP Jeffords is a traitor and Zell Miller is a hero and to Democrats quite the opposite. (Not that I’m relativistic about this–it is totally beyond me how anyone could prefer Zell Miller to Jim Jeffords.) So when it comes to politics I think it’s perceived disloyalty to one’s own or former “side,” rather than independence, that annoys people. It also has something to do with the writers and politicians themselves, of course–it’s not a coincidence that Michael Totten and Andrew Sullivan get more angry email than, say, Jim Henley and Dan Drezner. They write more polemics.
I think a better parallel is the controversy over the census adding “mixed race/other” as a category in their surveys.
This is a good discussion. I think Katherine’s post, on socialization of girls, touches on the complexity that the issue of gender roles brings to straight/bi/gay question.
It would be nice if we can just look at sexual orientation in itself, but for too many people, sexual orientation is tied to gender which is tied to a role in society. That’s why they feel threatened by homosexuality; for the same reason they feel threatened by women in powerful positions. Men are supposed to have the power, women are supposed to be subservient. It’s the “natural order”. If you have a same sex male couple, it means that one of the men in it is subservient; a same sex female couple means that one of the women in it is dominant. *rolls eyes*
They can’t see people as individuals first and male or female second.
For an antidote to my post about Judith Reisman and general pessimism on gay rights, see Michael Kinsley:
I think he’s wrong about some acceptance of gay people being the price of admission–there are the Falwells, the Reismans, the Dobsons, the Family Research Councils, the Coburns, the Santorums. But this is more because the press doesn’t do their homework on these groups and people, than because of a flaw in Kinsley’s overall argument.
I have made a similar argument myself, in arguing that no, Human Rights Campaign and Hilary and July Goodridge didn’t ruin everything by going to court; and no, it’s not suicidal for some prominent Democrats to support for gay marriage, full stop; and yes, it is a mistake to restrict ourselves to federalism arguments we don’t really believe.
And this was why I started caring about this issue so much in the first place: here was an opportunity for things to change for the better for once. I remember maybe two years ago, hearing a (straight) friend of mine tell a conservative mutual friend that our kids would look at bans on gay marriage that same way we looked at bans on interracial marriage. That hadn’t occurred to me. I supported gay marriage pretty much all along, but I thought it was a pretty minor issue.
I think it’s easy sometimes for liberals to forget how much we’ve won.
I mean, look at civil liberties. I’m reading some of the Supreme Court cases on free speech during World War I right now. They sent a presidential candidate to jail for criticizing the war, sentenced him to ten years. That could never happen now, and it’s not so much because Bush and Ashcroft have a strong commitment to allowing dissent that Wilson and Mitchell Palmer lacked, or even because the Supreme Court has changed, as it’s because people simply wouldn’t stand for it. Can you even imagine what the reaction would have been if Ashcroft had tried to lock up Howard Dean for ten years?
That said, I don’t think we can sit back, assured that time is on our side. Time is neutral. Things do not inevitably get better. But I think we on the left know that now, having seen it illustrated in graphic detail every time we read the news for the last three years. We are probably in greater danger of hopelessness than complacency these days.
Even in our gay friendly country people openly wonder about ‘who is the male and who is the female’ in a same-sex relationship. But then again: they sometimes wonder about that in heterosexual relationships too 😉
AFAIK research has shown that children of homosexual parents are more open for homosexual behaviour, they might experiment more, but the percentage that actually becomes homosexual (holebi as the Belgiums say) is not higher than the percentage with heterosexual parents.
Homosexual friendly climate does not create more homosexuals either. Nor do homosexual teachers, politicians, neighbours, friends… Sports seems to be more or less the only area here where being gay is still a taboo.
In my experience it is very hard to talk about “THE” homosexual since, just like us heterosexuals, they come in all sizes and all varieties. I have a friend who is not normally attracted to women but has desperately fallen in love with this specific woman and has accepted that sex is not the highlight of her relationship – but I have heterosexual friends in similar relationships.
I have a friend who had the occasional girlfriend but just thought he had a low libido – till he met his current husband and everything clicked in place.
I have friends who have always known their orientation, I have friends who discovered it later in life. None of the lesbians I know IRL had bad experiences with men and none of the women who *had* bad experiences turned gay. But that is only anecdotal of course.
I tend to believe that sometimes people just fall in love with an individual, no matter what the gender is. Some people don’t recognize their feelings immediately. But most people have a pretty clear understanding of what gender turns them on as from the time they start being turned on. Though that does not always stop them from experimenting to make sure that is what they feel.
I am in love with Johnny Depp, but am otherwise demonstrably straight.
As you were.
Question is what you would do if Johnny fell in love with you too 😉
Marjolein
I am in love with Johnny Dep,….
Back off there girlfriend! There’s a line ahead of you!
😉
Hey. Depp was certifiably tasty in Pirates of the Caribbean.
A friend of mine saw Depp lunching with Keith Richards just before filming of that flick began…it hadn’t occured to me that’s who he’s doing until she said that, but clearly it is.
Clearly. I believe he even acknowledged this.
And Richards will play Jack Sparrow’s father in the sequel, so I hear.
And Richards will play Jack Sparrow’s father in the sequel, so I hear.
Who would have thunk that Richards would live long enough to actually look good for his age?