![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
arqueeteI've been following the slash drama being documented in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
metafandom, and a little while back a piece of meta was posted entitled "Captain Jack Harkness is not gay". Now, I am a fan of Torchwood and Jack Harkness, but where the post really hit me was in realizing its applications to my main fandom right now -- Spring Awakening (in this case applying both to the musical and the Wedekind play).
I think the Spring Awakening fandom as a whole has a bit of a problem we need to look at more closely. And that is how we classify our characters' sexuality -- specifically that of, for the purpose of this post, Hanschen Rilow.
For those on my flist who aren't Spring Awakening fans, allow me to explain who Hanschen is. Spring Awakening's poster couple is Melchior and Wendla, and a large portion of the story revolves around their relationship. However, there is also a sort of side couple -- Hanschen Rilow and his male classmate Ernst Robel, who have a scene where they kiss and confess their love to each other (well, sort of) in act two.
However, there is one thing that seems to throw a lot of people. And that is the scene in act one where Hanschen is masturbating to a picture. Of a woman. (The 2001 workshop makes reference to Hanschen also looking at men on other occasions, if I recall correctly. The original play has him only looking at women. The current show makes no references to any other pictures.)
Now, what disconcerts me is the reaction to this by much of my fandom. Which I've seen include the following:
1) He's gay. The picture of the girl is just experimentation/him settling for what he can get.
2) He's straight. Ernst is just experimentation/him settling for what he can get.
Another popular opinion which I think is fair and supported by canon is that he simply gets off on power and doesn't care about gender -- something which is sometimes substituted as the reason in the above two cases, which is even more disconcerting to me.
What I don't get is why so many people are so quick to vehemently jump on sides 1 or 2, not as possibilities and theories (which I'm happy enough to accept) but as the truth and see other options as ridiculous or wishful thinking or homophobia.
To me, the obvious assumption is not 1 or 2. It's that Hanschen is bisexual (or pansexual or omnisexual or some other orientation which encompasses both men and women).
There are people out there that don't believe bisexuals exist. I've known some. As a woman who identifies as bisexual, I have to be concerned that some people in my fandom may be doing the same thing -- or just not thinking hard enough about it, forgetting we exist. (And I'm not going to be a hypocrite -- this is a revelation on my part as much as I hope it will be for some others. I have always thought Hanschen was bisexual, but I too have taken the easy way out of just referring to him as being "gay" -- either just as a lazy umbrella term (and see the Jack Harkness essay I linked for some better discussion of that than I can give) or out of not thinking, considering we tend to think/talk more about the Hanschen/Ernst relationship than the more straightforward masturbation scene).
The truth is, I think, sexuality is complicated, and in life, we can't really know most people's sexual orientations. Mostly we can just trust them if they tell us, assuming they even really know themselves. Usually we jump to conclusions based on their actions (or stereotypes or lack of action) unless corrected. I think this is fair enough in fandom where we definitely have more right to get into characters' personal business than we do any real life person. However, if you're going to choose to label his sexuality, and if you're going to jump to a conclusion which makes many assumptions that aren't fact in canon -- such as points 1) and 2) above -- I don't think it's fair for you to be quick to discard other possibilities that have nearly the same amount of evidence (see 1 vs 2) or more evidence (which I think bi/pan/etc.-sexuality by definition does) than what you're assuming. You can argue points 1 or 2, and like I said, I can see how both could be possible, but I don't see how you can disregard the possibility of one or the other just because you don't agree or it doesn't align with your experiences, or claim that one or the other is "obvious" or that it even has to be one or the other.
Bisexual erasure exists. We as a society have a tendency to do it fairly frequently, I think, without thinking about it. In a fandom for a canon which is about sexuality to a large degree, I don't think it is very responsible for us not to consider whether we, too, are contributing.
metafandom, and a little while back a piece of meta was posted entitled "Captain Jack Harkness is not gay". Now, I am a fan of Torchwood and Jack Harkness, but where the post really hit me was in realizing its applications to my main fandom right now -- Spring Awakening (in this case applying both to the musical and the Wedekind play).I think the Spring Awakening fandom as a whole has a bit of a problem we need to look at more closely. And that is how we classify our characters' sexuality -- specifically that of, for the purpose of this post, Hanschen Rilow.
For those on my flist who aren't Spring Awakening fans, allow me to explain who Hanschen is. Spring Awakening's poster couple is Melchior and Wendla, and a large portion of the story revolves around their relationship. However, there is also a sort of side couple -- Hanschen Rilow and his male classmate Ernst Robel, who have a scene where they kiss and confess their love to each other (well, sort of) in act two.
However, there is one thing that seems to throw a lot of people. And that is the scene in act one where Hanschen is masturbating to a picture. Of a woman. (The 2001 workshop makes reference to Hanschen also looking at men on other occasions, if I recall correctly. The original play has him only looking at women. The current show makes no references to any other pictures.)
Now, what disconcerts me is the reaction to this by much of my fandom. Which I've seen include the following:
1) He's gay. The picture of the girl is just experimentation/him settling for what he can get.
2) He's straight. Ernst is just experimentation/him settling for what he can get.
Another popular opinion which I think is fair and supported by canon is that he simply gets off on power and doesn't care about gender -- something which is sometimes substituted as the reason in the above two cases, which is even more disconcerting to me.
What I don't get is why so many people are so quick to vehemently jump on sides 1 or 2, not as possibilities and theories (which I'm happy enough to accept) but as the truth and see other options as ridiculous or wishful thinking or homophobia.
To me, the obvious assumption is not 1 or 2. It's that Hanschen is bisexual (or pansexual or omnisexual or some other orientation which encompasses both men and women).
There are people out there that don't believe bisexuals exist. I've known some. As a woman who identifies as bisexual, I have to be concerned that some people in my fandom may be doing the same thing -- or just not thinking hard enough about it, forgetting we exist. (And I'm not going to be a hypocrite -- this is a revelation on my part as much as I hope it will be for some others. I have always thought Hanschen was bisexual, but I too have taken the easy way out of just referring to him as being "gay" -- either just as a lazy umbrella term (and see the Jack Harkness essay I linked for some better discussion of that than I can give) or out of not thinking, considering we tend to think/talk more about the Hanschen/Ernst relationship than the more straightforward masturbation scene).
The truth is, I think, sexuality is complicated, and in life, we can't really know most people's sexual orientations. Mostly we can just trust them if they tell us, assuming they even really know themselves. Usually we jump to conclusions based on their actions (or stereotypes or lack of action) unless corrected. I think this is fair enough in fandom where we definitely have more right to get into characters' personal business than we do any real life person. However, if you're going to choose to label his sexuality, and if you're going to jump to a conclusion which makes many assumptions that aren't fact in canon -- such as points 1) and 2) above -- I don't think it's fair for you to be quick to discard other possibilities that have nearly the same amount of evidence (see 1 vs 2) or more evidence (which I think bi/pan/etc.-sexuality by definition does) than what you're assuming. You can argue points 1 or 2, and like I said, I can see how both could be possible, but I don't see how you can disregard the possibility of one or the other just because you don't agree or it doesn't align with your experiences, or claim that one or the other is "obvious" or that it even has to be one or the other.
Bisexual erasure exists. We as a society have a tendency to do it fairly frequently, I think, without thinking about it. In a fandom for a canon which is about sexuality to a large degree, I don't think it is very responsible for us not to consider whether we, too, are contributing.
