What Is Sexuality? Bisexual, Monosexual, Asexual: House/Wilson

Part of an email debate between me and Carle, based on an essay a fan wrote about how House/Wilson are “gay.” (This was written circa 2011)


Carle:
OK. so. you're married to another man. OK. that means you are living a  gaymosexual life. (and I did NOT say "life-STYLE". it IS a life. physical, legal, self-evident.) perfectly obvious. bald fact on the    face of it. now. you say you are bi-sexual. OK. fine. so you are living/married to    just one person. OK. now, are you claiming to be bi-sexual because you watch straight porn? OK. so that means that if I watch a gaymosexual  act, I am, perforce, bi-" even if, while I am married to a woman and have a monosexual relationship with her?   


Me:
 Depends on whether or not it gets you off.  Being aroused and climaxing to gay porn is an act, not an intent.  Even if you are in a monosexual/heterosexual relationship.  The fact that only your own body is  involved makes no difference.  It's realization.  Otherwise they wouldn't  arrest people for having pedophiliac porn on their computers.  Or the men    who like to watch women in high heels squash small animals.


Carle: 
It is, in point of fact, masturbation. it is, in point of fact, a MONOSEXUAL ACT, despite the motivation. the only choice is to put your hand on your genitals or not. the gay leap forward is putting your hands on ANOTHER'S genitals. you can't seriously say that fantasizing is the same thing as doing, can you?  can't buy that. intent vs. act. this IS philosophy 101. start with Aristotle’s "entelechy" and let me know where you finish.

Didn't look it up, did you?

And catholic religion as well: venal sin vs. mortal sin. everything is 'potentiality'  UNTIL it is realized. so then, anyone claiming to be bi-sexual who does not engage in bi-sexual ACTS, vis-a-vis, to cross    that line from intent to realization, is merely fantasizing and fetishising (at the extreme) and not REALLY someone who has made an active choice in their practices.


Elisa:   

Stepping down from the intellectual platform:  There are too many variables in human beings to exclude such an enormous gray area.  Many of the men in my father's generation were too highly “programmed", as you would say, to easily make that choice. There was a writer in my memoir class in his late 70s who wrote fascinating pieces about life as a closeted homosexual.  He was married, with children, defined  himself as straight, but went into the Village, where the roles were as codified as the most rigid (pardon the pun) of leather queens, down to what ties you wore. THEY SAW THEMSELVES AS HAVING NO OTHER CHOICE.

Carle:
Right. you have a choice today whether you want to drink or not. you CHOOSE not to, right? so, someone who never had a drink can't be an alcoholic because they never drank. can't be an addict because they never touched drugs. can't be bisexual because they only have sex with an opposite-gendered partner every once in a while, after procreation, but spend all their time looking at gay porn.  an alcoholic or an addict is either active or inactive OR in recovery. whichever way you want to label it, it comes down to CHOICE. the only exclusive condition is one that NEVER acted nor acts upon their desires.

CHOICE. Just because they SAW no other choice that means there wasn't one? They CHOSE to have a HETERO relationship, enter into a marriage contract, sire offspring--regardless of excuses. THESE ARE CHOICES. I can call myself a "writer" because I write. I cannot call myself a published author because I am not published. (OK. maybe that has more to do with the publishing industry.) now, I said that to say this: given the CHOICE, would I prefer to simply be a writer? no, because the second label means success. (in varying degrees, sure. but some material reward is associated with it so let us not go into the fine print.) To be a "successful" bi-sexual, I would have to go from fantasizing about it to doing it. by the same token, you can call yourself a straight black male, but "go slippin' on the down-low" just for a bit one the side. that makes you bi. but if you do it without having sexual intercourse or bj's from your wife, then you are "becoming" gaymosexual. but, again, that is a choice.  so, I will give you this: someone may BECOME EXCLUSIVELY GAY in their choices, but that does not invalidate PAST CHOICES. and, if you choose again, that label in invalidated because of its exclusivity.  are we or are we not responsible for the choices we make in life? yes or no?


Me:

How much do we know about other people's private sex lives?  (Before the interwebs, I mean.)  I've had several friends in celibate marriages, something I never "got." I mean, what's the point?  These women generally weren't happy with the state of things, but only one had the courage to dump her husband so at the very least she could get a little sumpin-sumpin.

Wilson and House.  Art by euclase

Carle:

My favorite quote on this was from one of the last appearances of Kurt Vonnegut Jr. on Johnny Carson. when asked what he thought about gay liberation or somesuch (however the topic came up) he said, "I want to start an Asexual liberation movement. Can't you just see us? Thousands of happy smiling people walking down the center of fifth avenue with a big banner: 'HAVEN'T DONE IT IN YEARS AND FEEL GREAT!'"


Me:

Or heterosexually defined women who discover--yes, discover--that they are actually gay? (Their definition, not mine, so I'm not getting into semiotics.)   There are vast numbers of people who are hamstrung by shame, fetishes,  whatever to ACT on their impulses.  Also, where do the people who call themselves "asexual" (and they'll smack you if you call them otherwise) fit in?  Not even they know!  They argue about: can you be asexual if you kiss somebody/what level of contact is acceptable to be considered "asexual," etc.

Carle
SEE ABOVE

Me:
Writing all of this makes me feel so comfortably defined, I must admit. (wink)

Carle:
Now, I will grant that it is entirely possible for someone to, under extreme duress and reprogramming (sex slaves, repeated rape, prison environment, conditioned response, etc.) to be turned into one or the other. but that is due to behavioral circumstances beyond their    control. IT IS NOT AN ACTIVE CHOICE.    but let us extend the argument to "the closet". since...forever, I    guess, that has been the refuge of those too gripped by fear to openly declare their lesbingham/gaymosexual identity. fine. granted. no  argument. THEY ARE ______.  however, BI? see? doesn't work. if you have    sex with one gender, and eschew the other, for whatever reason/fear,  you are still _______________. so you say: oh, no, I'm really gaymosexual but I only slept with "her" because my family made me/needed respectability/wanted children, etc. ok. YOU MADE A CHOICE.    so? does that mean you can say you were REALLY A CLOSETED GAYMOSEXUAL BUT!--"played straight"? and, of course, could never be BI? no, that was just a sham!--I didn't mean it!--I didn't love her!---I loved the house carpenter!!!   


Me:
Responded to above.  A lot of sexuality presentation has to do with era, and to understand the choices, you need to understand the era.  Truman Capote was the exception, not the rule (speaking of EARLY in his career).

Carle:
Right. and he never nailed you? sorry. you did the deed?--you're BI, Whether you like it or not.

Me:
There are men who only had sex with their wives to have children.  And women who only had sex with their husbands to have children. That's not a sexual choice, per se, it's a practical choice, no matter what  it does to the lives involved.  I don't know if you did this as a kid, but when my friends and I discussed our parents' sex lives (to the tune of EW EW EW) we would decide they would have had to have sex the same number of kids they had, but no more. Of course for probably 75%--85%, let's be generous,that isn't true.  But for the other 15% simply because you had sex does not make you bi, especially if you only did it as a means to an end (jeez,can't stop with the double entendres) and hated every minute of it. Yes, it is a choice, but it is not made out of sexuality.


Carle:
AND AFTER YOU READ ABOUT ENTELECHY, SEE ABRAHAM MASLOW ON THE SELF-ACTUALIZED INDIVIDUAL. We can go 'round and 'round on this point. so where the hell DO you draw the line?      

But, and more important--who cares?

Me:
You do, for one.

Carle:
Still, in the House/Wilson debate, this is crucial so, until they settle into a married gaymosexual relationship, they cannot be considered gaymosexual. am I drawing straws here? Or setting up a "strawman" hypothesis? I think not. I'm just giving it a legal edge because the socio-gender-policy one is too vague and ambiguous.

Me:
And sexual orientation isn't limited to three options but is a continuum.

Carle:
OK. when you factor in shoes, the possibilities are endless. I sense this is not going anywhere. embryonically, we are ALL bisexual, the determinant chromosome not showing up until much later in the game.

The whole point, as far as I can see, is who gets to have the best label.