An article from the UK’s Daily Mail bears this title: How I went from committed lesbian to a happily married mother of four. It describes British comedienne Jackie Clune’s winding testimonial as a woman who, once “committed” to her lesbian identity, decided to “try men again” after growing tired of lousy relationships and rigid, self-imposed stereotypes. In a 2005 article from The Times entitled Love, etc. Clune called lesbian culture “dictatorial and intimidating” and “the opposite of the sapphic fluffy nirvana [she] expected.” She married a man and finally had a family, something she “never thought possible” as a lesbian.
The title of the article has the first red flag. Clune describes her girlfriends and her former self as being “committed lesbians.” As if being attracted to the same sex makes one a member of a club they then must commit to. This is as absurd as thinking that when one comes out they are given a copy of the mysterious “Gay Agenda™” or that if they “convert” others into members they’ll be rewarded with new toasters. More stereotypes and generalizations follow. At first attracted to men as a young woman, at age 22 Clune made a very important conscious decision.
I had studied feminist literature at university and it opened my eyes to the possibility of sexuality as a life choice.
She then “threw [her]self into the fullblown lesbian lifestyle – gay clubs, bars and pubs:”
From 1988 until 2000 I lived in lesbian households, drank in lesbian pubs, went on gay rights marches and viewed my long-term future as being exclusively with women.
During those 12 years she entered into several long-term committed relationships with women. Usually, if it’s a male ex-gay telling the story, they’ll say they entered into multiple short-term sex-centric trysts with men, because this is what is stereotypical. But among female gays, it is the long-term relationship that is the stereotype, and it comes with its own set of constricting features. This is just the beginning of Clune’s stereotypes and sweeping generalizations.
The women I went out with were by and large more inclined to be insecure and to need reassurance and I found myself in the male role of endlessly reassuring my girlfriends.
She complains of having terrible, “turbulent,” “exhausting” relationships with women – as if this is unique to lesbian relationships.
Back home, we would then spend the next four hours arguing about our relationship and my feelings of loyalty, fidelity and so on. It was never-ending. It may sound prosaic but when you add female hormones into the mix, the problems are even worse. Can you imagine waking up beside a woman when you’ve both got raging PMT?
Wow, it’s a wonder they even let us gals vote. But Clune goes further, blaming lesbians outright for their own woes.
I also believe the very fact of being in a lesbian relationship adds to the problems of jealousy and insecurity. With so few role models and no cultural support, it’s hard to know how to behave or what expectations are reasonable.
Well, as time goes on, there are many more role models and much more cultural support. But the solution to the problem is stated right there: Be more supportive of someone’s same-sex relationship and provide more positive role models. Other people’s negative reaction to a gay relationship can hardly be blamed on the people in the relationship. They’re only doing what is natural to them, and harming no one else.
Don’t worry, Clune views the male set with just as much disdain.
I am convinced that while men are usually entirely driven by sex when it comes to choosing a mate, women are often attracted more by the emotional side of the relationship and I was excited by the close bond a relationship with another female could bring.
…
Unlike most men, women, of course, offer each other endless support and there’s hardly ever any lack of communication.
It’s not that I stopped liking men, just that I felt a relationship with a woman would be a richer experience. After all, given the choice I would choose a woman over a man for a really great chat, an inspiring conversation or to share emotional problems with. A physical relationship with a woman seemed a logical progression. [emphasis mine]
“All men are this, all lesbians are that” seems to be her schtick, in not so many words. Same-sex attraction for her was her entire identity, replete with stereotypical lesbian relationships, bar and pub hopping, and militant dykiness. In the words of Katy Perry, she “just wanted to try [it] on.” And try she did, for 12 years, engaging in a rigid stereotypical lifestyle that would leave anyone tired.
A quick Google search shows that several anti-gay news sites and blogs have picked up Clune’s story, labeling her an ex-gay, even though she admits she never was truly gay and does not give herself any label except “straight.”
The article is featured at the Exodus blog and ex-gay Randy Thomas is delighted, of course. He feels it confirms his belief in his version of a “post-gay world.” But he is only reiterating his incorrect use of “post-gay.” Peterson Toscano, well-versed in Queer Theory, explains its true meaning in a thorough blog post. Randy (and Peter Ould, who first attempted to re-coin the term) use post-gay as a label for someone who tries to change their sexual orientation but is unsuccessful. The term post-gay is one that sounds like said person is “over” calling themselves gay and having gay sexual activities, but not quite able to honestly call themselves straight (or even opposite-sex attracted). People like Randy and Clune only see being attracted to the same sex in terms of specific aspects of gay culture, such as Pride parades and gay-centric clubs.
But what Clune describes is far from “post-gay” – it is a world obsessed with labels and roles.
While I’ve thought that Exodus would use shared menstrual cycles as a way to recruit future ex-lesbians if they had a clue at *all*, I have to say I find Clune’s invocation of shared PMS insulting in the context of the rest of the paragraph. Actually, like you, I find the whole thing insulting. I’m bi; I never abandoned any identity. I was bi with a boyfriend, a girlfriend, both, and now a wife who I’m monogamously married to. I did, however, love the people I loved as people and not sets of ridiculous expectations who I had to change for.
I’m sure the lesbians of Great Britain breathed a sigh of relief that Clune no longer counts herself among their number. This feeds my belief that it’s same-sex attracted people who are bad at relationships in general and good at fault-finding who are inclined to become hateful toward other sexual minorities, whether they identify as “ex” or write articles like this. I hope for her husband and childrens’ sake that she’s not quite how she portrays herself in this article.
Randy (and Peter Ould, who first attempted to re-coin the term) use post-gay as a label for someone who tries to change their sexual orientation but is unsuccessful.
No I don’t. If you’d bothered to properly engage with what I write you’d have seen very quickly that is not what I mean by “post-gay”. My perspective is much more about moving beyond viewing the world in classifications on the gay/straight binary scale. You can be post-gay if you’ve moved entirely from 100% gay to 100% straight in the eyes of the world, or if you’re still exclusively homosexual in your attractions.
You might not agree with my categorisation, but at least have the courtesy to represent what I say accurately. Come on XGW, you can do much better then this.
Peter, a truly post-gay worldview abandons labels- ANY labels – altogether. ironically, the label “post-gay” would cease to exist as well, except in the context of academic discussion. People wouldn’t call themselves “post-gay” or label their worldview as post-gay. They especially wouldn’t label themselves “Christian on a post-gay journey,” as Randy does. He is not on a post-gay journey, he is on an ex-gay journey, because it is gay attraction he is trying to leave behind, not labels and social constructs. If you have to give yourself a label, you are not post-gay. You are still as obsessed with labels and where you are on that “100% gay to 100% straight” continuum. A post-gay world does not care where on the continuum you are. A post-gay world doesn’t bother with such things.
Emily,
Yes, in Mark Simpson’s “post-gay” perspective you’re entirely right, but you’re still missing the thrust of my comment, which is that you have misrepresented what I mean when I say “post-gay”. You demonstrate that by saying “You are still as obsessed with labels and where you are on that “100% gay to 100% straight” continuum. This shows me (and others) that you haven’t bothered in the slightest to understand what I’m arguing on my site. You just assume that I’m trying to disguise an “ex-gay” approach with different language. That couldn’t be further from the truth. You are letting your prejudices and biases get in the way of rational analysis.
As I said above, you can do much better then this.
When I came out as queer, i did NOT expect to find a “fluffy sapphic nirvana” awaiting me. Just the opposite, actually.
I found that I have much of the same joys and difficulties that any person of any sexuality has.
Seriously, this girl set herself up to fail. I mean, how many lesbians or queer women out there actually expected a perfect, utopian feminist existence to suddenly appear??
Emily K
This story seems to be the very weird opposite telling of the ex-gay story. Straight woman decides for political reasons to be a lesbian. Ex-gays generally try to live as heterosexuals/celibate/closeted/whatever due to religious reasons. In any case, some sort of outside influence causes theses people to live unnaturally.
As time goes on, their underlying nature is incompatible with their choices leading to greater stress and unhappiness. This straight woman decides to accept herself as straight and finds some happiness in her life. She is not at all unlike all the ex-gays who give up on the “fluffy heterosexual nirvana” and accept themselves for who they are, finally giving themselves a chance to be happy.
In many ways, this woman’s story so undermines Exodus and other ex-gays that it is hard to imagine that Ould and Thomas would be calling attention to it
I mean, how many lesbians or queer women out there actually expected a perfect, utopian feminist existence to suddenly appear??
Since when are youth and naivete exclusive to heterosexuals? 😉
I think john’s comment hits the nail on the head re. this being the opposite of Exodus’ goals.
Although I would add that I don’t agree on Jackie Clune being “straight.” Bi, yes.
I’ve read some articles before from Jackie Clune on this subject, her going from women to a relationship with a man, and while some of it I disagreed with, I don’t remember anything which was as harsh as some of this article. I wonder if it’s also because of the Daily Mail, which, as the Stephen Gateley controversy last year showed, has a poor history on the topic of homosexuality.
Here’s an article she wrote in 2003, for the Guardian:
https://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2003/jun/14/comedy.artsfeatures
@ Carl: well, I’m inclined to believe that The Daily Mail has a poor history on a lot of things – a tabloid approach, imo.
I knew the “Daily Mail” was a right wing paper when i saw the movie “The Queen” a while ago. Tony Blair’s posse is going through all the statements made in newspapers concerning his response to Princess Diana’s death. One line stands out: “Even the ‘Mail’ was impressed.” Blair being Left-wing Labour Party, I thought “The ‘Mail’ must be like our New York Post or Wall Street Journal.” 😀
Yeah Emily, how dare you.
Just because Peter Ould misappropriates existing terms, and gives them his own special meanings, and uses them to dog-whistle doesn’t mean you’re allowed to just come out and say so. That’s what Peter would call an ad hominem attack. Not allowed. So don’t do it you prejudiced, biased, irrational young lady.
Personally I think it’s much more simple.
Randy and Peter don’t often use “post-gay as a label for someone who tries to change their sexual orientation but is unsuccessful”. Only on occassion.
Rather, they better seem to use the term and associated self-referenced clap-trap such as “binary scale” and “vector” and previously “exgay” to discourage any clarity around claims to have changed sexual orientation. It’s all part and parcel of the artful confusion.
Specifically, as some for examples, in Randy’s case to avoid examination as to whether he has changed his sexual orientation? In Peter’s case, to avoid examination as to whether he was ever homosexual to begin with; let alone changed from that? One could almost begin to suspect that manipulating words is the least of their inventiveness. Doubly so given that the happy-clappy side of Christianity has long relied on miraculous claims of What Jesus Did For Me as a marketing tool to outsiders and a status symbol among insiders.
Then again, I didn’t suddenly become gay while watching MTV at age 23, with no prior warning at all, and suddenly become not-gay little more than a year later after merely hearing a brief sentence uttered.
So what would I know?
Well, I know this much… Jackie Clune was, is, and will be bisexual. She can decide to help or hinder aspects of her sexuality, but this says nothing about changing sexual orientation.
(“Leaving Lesbianism” — does that sound like a long-lost E. M. Forster novel to you too?)
@Peter Ould
Emily seems to be doing just fine. I’ve always found it difficult to get a clear picture of your beliefs on this. From your post linked above:
Then there is this video you made on the subject which again, doesn’t help me very much to understand you — quite the opposite. Endless pontification just muddies the water. Of this I am certain, you have taken a term which describes one thing, and re-purposed it on your own to mean another. Again, this is confusing, deceptive even, and people are going to call you on it.
It’s like Grantdale said, it’s a term Randy and Peter use because they don’t like the term “gay” to be used to describe them. It’s a way to cop out and hide their true sexual nature. The muddier they make the term, the muddier our understanding of them becomes, and before you know it, they can’t even stand as a good Christian example of a “struggler” because we don’t even know what the hell they’re struggling with.
It’s all about the labels. Post-gay is about not needing labels, but Peter and Randy are so entrenched in them that they turn post-gay into a way to obsess about them rather than “move beyond” them.
Given the awareness of “late-emerging” sexuality (e.g., Meredith Baxter) one might be tempted to simply view this as a case of “late-emerging heterosexual attraction.”
However, I think it’s more likely the case posited by David Roberts: “Endless pontification just muddies the water.” My own experience (always subject to dismissal as “merely anecdotal”) is that there is a passive/agressive technique by which one can disrupt or derail a conversation by endlessly parsing “definitions of terms.” On long comment chains, such disruptors are generalized with the inelegant (yet apt) tag “trolls.”
Trolls lurk beneath bridges, out of the light, deep in the shadows, and sieze the unwary traveller. The area beneath a bridge (the poor having been banned from sleeping there) is usually muddied – it comes with the territory, which may also contain muck and some sod. Some Ould Sods may muddy the waters to a degree sufficient to be called “troll-worthy.”
How. Tiresome.
Being heterosexual and those relationships aren’t nirvana either. Who is selling what to who here?
We get sold that motherhood is the highest calling. We get it sold ad infinitum that heterosexuality is some magic attribute that makes you special, and then special to someone else.
There are plenty of broke down, can’t get a date…after five marriages why try again op sex relationships.
What does this woman want?
A medal, applause?
I, as an ever hetero am SO not impressed. Anybody that has to even TALK about how great their heterosexual life is…is trying to hard.
Most of us heteros don’t really have to think about it, practice or see arriving at it as a means to an end.
This woman is assuming somebody gives a crap. Wonder who THAT is.
@Regan DuCasse – did you have a chance to check out the article from The Guardian?
bit of a different take, I think…
https://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2003/jun/14/comedy.artsfeatures