OPINION: Born this way?
Josh Hutcherson, star of The Hunger Games, said to Out Magazine the other day:
鈥淢aybe I could say right now I鈥檓 100 percent straight. But who knows? In a fucking year, I could meet a guy and be like, 鈥榃hoa, I鈥檓 attracted to this person鈥�…I really love women. But I think defining yourself as 100 percent anything is kind of near-sighted and close-minded.鈥�
Hutcherson鈥檚 comments remind me of those made by Sex and the City star Cynthia Nixon from a few years ago, when she said that her sexuality is a choice. Hutcherson鈥檚 comments are similar – the idea that he has agency around his sexuality – a sexuality that is fluid. Nixon鈥檚 comments received a barrage of outrage. Many argued that her comments gave fodder to homophobes who use the 鈥榮exuality is a choice鈥� argument to continue discrimination and keep open camps for 鈥榞ay cures鈥�. There hasn鈥檛 been a similar outrage to Hutcherson鈥檚 statement. In fact Perez Hilton, who hit out at Nixon hard, even wrote an excited column about Hutcherson鈥檚 statement (perhaps because he is a man). But his statement should reopen an important debate.
鈥淲e鈥檙e born this way!鈥� This is the message we鈥檝e been trying to sell to sell in anti-discrimination campaigns. We have to stop discrimination because we couldn鈥檛 choose the fate of homosexuality – we shouldn鈥檛 discriminate against what is 鈥榥atural鈥�. Of course many see and argue that our sexualities (however you define that) are set by biology. But the argument is also seen as a clever political tactic – a way to take away one attack bigots use against legal rights.
But it is really problematic. 鈥楽exuality鈥�, however you define it, isn鈥檛 set. It is a fluid, moving beast that flows in a range of different ways across different times – whether it our attraction to people of different sexes, attraction to different 鈥榯ypes鈥� of people, or interest and experience in new sexual activities. 鈥淏orn this way鈥� sticks us into narrow boxes – telling us that our sexuality is set from day one. And in doing so it takes our agency – the ability to control our sexual choices and desires.
In political debates it also says that we only deserve liberation because of our biology. If we actively choose a sexual identity(s) and/or sexual experiences beyond the norm we can be discriminated against. In fact, we deserve to be discriminated against because we are going against what is 鈥榥atural鈥�.
The 鈥榖orn this way鈥� story needs to go. It not only takes away our agency around our sexuality, it also allows for discrimination against us when we try to use that agency. Sexuality is fluid in many ways, and we should be able to have an open and honest discussion about that.
I don’t know . . . have been thinking, sometimes, along these lines myself. Perhaps there is something “fluid” about everybody’s sexuality. When I, at 10, discovered mine, it wasn’t about other people at all. It just was. I was, I think now, asexual as an adolescent, in the sense that I never found anybody attractive. This caused great problems . . . as I wasn’t drawn to boys, some people jumped to the conclusion I must be drawn to girsl, and this was seen as bad. But, in truth, I didn’t find anybody attractive. I was 25 before I felt drawn to anybody at all. It so happened (?) that this person was a pretty, well educated American boy. Since then I have been straight. But I sometimes enjoy slash. Maybe some old distinctions should be scrapped? I don’t know really.
My goodness aren’t we very extremist today. You really need to take a breath, step down from the soapbox and understand that there are so many people who don’t fit into the homo/bi/hetero three boxes.
I feel it is more appropriate to interpret his comments as “I don’t know, I could be bi…just cause I haven’t met a guy I’m attracted to, it doesn’t mean I couldn’t be attracted to men”
Furthermore, this guy isn’t the one we should be railing against, he is actually on our side. Have we been fighting for so long that we don’t know who the bad guys are anymore?
I don’t think he was saying sexuality is a choice at all, quite the opposite. I think he was saying that it’s fluid and ever changing. Right now there are no men that he is attracted to but he is not opposed to the idea that in the future there might be a man that walks into his life that he finds attractive. He is keeping an open mind and saying that the heart wants what the heart wants and that no one can really tell their brain what that is. I think his opinions were very much geared towards the “born this way” way of thinking. I personally commend him for what he said. He is a cis gendered white male, and he is showing his support for LGBT acceptance and rights. I think it was beautiful.
I don’t think he said that sexuality is a choice, he merely said that people were attracted to the person, not just their genitals. Which is true.
It’s not because I’m not attracted to women that I might not, someday, fall in love with A woman. I believe there is a huge difference between sexual attraction and romantic attraction. They often go together but sometimes they don’t.
‘Born this way’, like ‘10% of people are Queer’ is a convenient (and clever) lie we’ve been spreading since the 70’s to combat bigotry. Unfortunately we must continue these lies because most Australians aren’t ready to hear the message ‘it’s ok to be different, weather you’ve chosen it or not’.