*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
Right, now that I have that out of the way, it was Brittany who was saying it. She made a t-shirt for Santana that said “Lebanese” instead of “lesbian” so I guess I can’t be too picky about the words that come out of her mouth.
But, just ARGH. She’s not bi-curious. Bi-curious is when you want to explore the possibility that you’re attracted to the opposite sex to the one you already know you’re attracted to. She’s been making out (and scissoring, aparently) with Santana for quite a while.
So, uh, yeah, that just annoyed me. But we already know that we can’t particularly trust Brittany’s voice so it’s not really something I can really complain about… it was just… unnecessary, maybe?
Deconstructing Glee 
I think it’s important to respect a person’s (or a character’s) choice of word with which to identify. If Brit says she’s bicurious, then that’s what she is. Santana says she’s a lesbian, then that’s what she is.
I think the whole beard thing was way more distressing.
Hmm. You have a good point and I agree with you that we should respect the terms that someone chooses to identify with. However, while I can see the beard thing as being typical of Santana’s character, the choice of bi-curious seemed to me more like a choice of the show’s creators than Brittany’s character.
That depends on which authority you chose to accept. If you’re going by the show’s creator then the characters have no voice of their own and they’re simply mouth pieces for the writers.
I think it’s more interesting to view characters in a way that is autonomous to the writers when it comes to them informing the audience about themselves. The writers use tropes and references that make us able to understand and identify with the characters.
I would like to be able to take what the characters say at face value, but the knowledge that Glee is treading unfamiliar waters when it comes to presenting LGBTQ issues in a high school setting on regular television makes me aware that they don’t necessarily have the leeway to allow the characters to be true to themselves.
I’m going to have to disagree. “Glee” is really inconsistent with characterisation and can really suck when it comes to representation because they undermine the very thing they try to be subversive about and I think they allow themselves a lot of sexist, racist, ableist, transphobic and homophobic language under the guise of being “edgy” or “more real” in the context of what amounts to hit and miss attempts at musical comedy.
So with all that, I only have what the characters have to say about themselves to go with, because otherwise I have nothing to trust when it comes to the show.
Fair enough 🙂
I would agree in the case of a real person. In the case of a character I think we can be more analytical, especially a character who regularly comes out with insane things like Brit does.
I mean, say when Kurt says “I’m not gay” to Finn. He hasn’t done anything that would prove otherwise, even though we all strongly suspect it. So you leave it as “what he said.”
But in the case where someone has wanted a full-on relationship with another woman, and is currently dating a man, it’s hard to watch and wonder if the show is trying to downplay her bisexuality.
I think we need to make a distinction between what the character says and what narrative says. Kurt’s narrative has been that of coming to terms with being gay and coming out and being proud. At the point where he says “I’m not gay” he is lying. Characters, like people, lie. Not everything they say should or needs to be taken at face value, yes, however Brit here is talking in a moment of honesty with Santana who is having trouble coming to terms with being gay and the narrative clues us in that she’s being honest.
I’m reminded of when Willow from “Buffy” said she was a Lesbian, when clearly, through narrative and show continuity she was bisexual. Still, that was the word she chose and what one can critique and be critical of is Joss Whedon (Ryan Murphy in this case) representation of bisexuality – i.e. it’s there for titillation until the “real” sexuality is discovered gay or straight. Which, as a bisexual-queer person, pisses me off.
I’m going to leave the bi-discussion because it’s something I personally wrestle with and probably have huge blind spots as a result. I just think bi curious is a strange way to describe what we’ve seen of Brit’s character.
More interested in what you think about the “beard” issue.
Personally, I abhor the notion of “bi-curiosity” as it implies one experience with one gender is an “experiment” rather than an actual genuine experience. But never mind that now.
The “beard” or “The Lavender Wedding” has a very problematic history. It’s a common trope that is presented as comedy when in fact it carries a huge baggage concerning lying and denial, which I think is a very bad message – especially concerning, that at the moment we have five queer characters, two of which are side characters (Blain and Dave) and are oppositional in their dynamic when it comes to Kurt, upon whom the queer narrative lies. Then we have Santana who, despite going about it in her own, shall we say unique, way is trying to bring forth an amnesty by denying her own truth to herself (she might be out to herself, but she’ll never be able to be fully “authentic” if she doesn’t let go of Brit who seems far more accepting of Santana than Santana is to herself.
The other thing that is interesting is that Brittany, due to her character’s “dumbness”/naivete, has some weird blind spots about sexuality. (The protection thing w/Kurt, what is dating vs not-dating w/Santana.)
I don’t know what the writers were going for — it kind of bugged me, because my understanding of the word bi-curious was similar to yours. But I can also see Brit as legitimately describing herself as curious, about everything – sex with girls, sex with guys. Despite all the sex that she has, I feel like sex is really nothing at all to her, and that it does not have anything to do with who she loves, or who she says she is dating.
Now, the word bi-curious generally does not mean that, but she mis-uses words all the time.
tl;dr – Brit doesn’t fit the standard definition of bi-curious, but it might not be a bad word for her character to use to describe her own self, if you take it to mean “curious about sex with multiple genders”.
Yes. In my head, she’s one gigantic example of malapropism, and that’s why I was so hesistant with this post. Because it’s Brittany, and yes, her cat may be reading her bi-curious thoughts in her diary. lol
If you look in the New York Times, page 1, of August 23rd, it shows you the statistically study that bisexuality means you are aroused by both genders. So for brittany, bi-curious means she doesn’t understand what she wants and how she wants to settle. When a person says they are bi-curious, it does not mean they want to explore with another or the same gender, necessarily. It may mean they are still confused, as I said before, about how they feel and what they want.
Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/health/23bisexual.html