Queer

PALETA II

28

“...policewomen, female engineers, “gay” soldiers (I fInd this double queer) and “lesbian” moms (double queer, too)... Okay, so I hope this made sense. If you still are confused, then you must be gay. Pun intended...”

by MARYKNOLL D. MENDOZA

To hell with boners and wet pussies, this one’s distinctive.

Most people wonder how homosexuals get to grow in numbers when their pairs don’t even have the capability to bear children. Some people think of how they could practice birth control, or could they ever.

When this idea crossed my mind, I can think of no other way but to be zapped by the ray gun (who zaps gay men) in Zombadings: Patayin sa Shokot si Remington—a movie pretty famous among the Lucban community. But seriously, how on earth does a ray gun know whom to zap? How can you tell when someone is involved in a queer relationship? Why do you even care if they are queer?

By queer, I mean not the derogatory and pejorative word used to depict homosexuals. I am referring to the postmodern refusal of an individual to contain itself within gender role assignments, or the lack of identification and orientation to socially crafted stereotypes that brand individuals based on their behavior in society. These pigeonholes use the overriding culture as a standard of what is “straight”, “gay”, or “lesbian”.

Everyone can be queer. Yeah, it’s not just a “gay” thing. By this, I’m denoting that even heterosexual individuals can do queer activities by deviating from their expected gender roles. Say, a “straight” man arranging flowers for a living. Society usually associates flower arrangement with a woman: pinpointing it as a feminine activity. But when a man transcends cultural expectations on what he should be doing, he flouts the governing culture that men should only be involved in menial labor and macho stuff. You know, testosteronepacked things that involve projecting one’s alpha maleness. But a knack for arranging flowers does not automatically make him a “gay”. Unless you are a medieval chauvinistic bigot who still believes in constipated conservatism, truth can be that he’s stereotypically “straight”. Moreover, the words “gay” and “straight” have a lot of assumptions to prove. Those words are

29

funny.

So, queer is not “gay”, but “gays” could be queer. Matter of fact, they already are, because they’ve long defunct from society’s gender role assignments, since I don’t know, men did some butt lovin’ in good ol’ Sodom and Gomorrah. These “gay” men and women love people from their own sex. They simply refuse to try the other side, which is different from what society expects from them. Other examples are policewomen, female engineers, “gay” soldiers (I find this double queer) and “lesbian” moms (double queer, too).

Okay, so I hope this made sense. If you still are confused, then you must be gay. Pun intended.

I know for a fact that many of us have our own gaydars. We got neurons that are highly specialized on determining if a guy is someone we could date or someone whom we can have our kulutan sessions with. 7th sense, perhaps? But with the fast-paced perception of sexuality, our gaydars are constantly challenged. It has become formidable to delineate the queer from the straight.

However, due to the presentation of homosexuality in the Filipino-made queer movies, it appears to me, or at least the one’s that I’ve watched, homosexuals are downgraded to creatures who cannot di-

PALETA II

30

vorce love from lust in a relationship. You know, like, no sex, no exposed male sex organs, none of the same sort. Frank but squeaky-clean love, I suppose. And it still works.

Most of our movies show carnal and hedonistic elements while tackling the distorted issue of homosexuality. Some even actually go to the extent of presenting lustful scenes even if it seems unnecessary to the content of the film. Why do they do it? I know not the reason behind such; maybe because the director can always conveniently invoke artistic license. Or a more believable reason that bothers me is their deeper concern for the sale ability and profit more than the quality of the film’s content.

So there goes the Philippine’s queer cinema. It’s starting to eat itself. It’s beginning to preserve the very things that try to reduce its value. This could have been a prospective strong vehicle to articulate voices. Sad. We could have had utterly disprove the common perception of people regarding “gay” love—that it’s the result of raging hormones derailed from the “straight” path.

It’s not about oral, anal or whatever acrobatic form of lustful sex. It’s not about testosterones satiating hedonistic desires. It’s simple and atypical. Nothing strange, nothing controversial, completely normal. It relatively shows that love precedes all the other things. Love is the cause and not the effect; and it is definitely not an artificial byproduct.

It’s like breathing fresh air that represents a different but considerably valid point. This is something not remote from reality. Seriously, if all you wanted to see are boners and wet pussies, I’ll say the porn industry can better cater you.