Kristin Scott

I’ve noticed a fairly new trend in mainstream film and television that seems to reflect the younger generation and those within it who believe that sexual identity is more fluid than categorical. Or perhaps these shows reflect a growing acceptance of various sexual identities, but also a struggle with the various ‘cultures’ that often accompany sexual labels. When I say “younger generation,” I’m referring primarily to those who are now in their early 30s and younger.

The films/TV shows that I’m thinking of are those that have incorporated a number of storylines and characters that resist categorizations of gay, straight, lesbian, or even bisexual, but rather seem to seek out more fluid sexual identities and ways of being. They seem to abound on television now, but below are two examples (one television, one film).

Cashmere Mafia, for example, a new show on ABC, explores this issue with the character Caitlin Dowd, played by Bonnie Somerville, as she struggles with not just her sexual identity, but also the accompanying labels, boundaries, and social “rules” of being a lesbian. It’s clear that while she seems to enjoy her relationship with another woman (though that has its challenges in other ways), she seems to struggle more with the lesbian ‘culture’ than with the sexual nature of the relationship itself.

Or a recent film I saw on television a few nights ago entitled, Puccini for Beginners (a really witty and intelligent film that I highly recommend), in which an avowed lesbian, Allegra (played by Elizabeth Reaser), suddenly finds herself within a love triangle (with a man and his ex-girlfriend). Allegra doesn’t simply begin to question whether she really is or isn’t a lesbian (in fact, she spends an inordinate amount of time declaring her lesbianism - and some may argue thou dost protest too much), but the situation leads her to challenge the idea of categorization itself.

For quite a few years now, I’ve heard younger people talk about how they don’t want to label themselves, how it doesn’t matter “what” they are, or just seem to fluidly slip into a variety of dating scenarios without much fuss or discussion. So while the concept itself (of sexual fluidity) is certainly not new, these shows/films are beginning to bring these ideas into mainstream media with characters who don’t fit into any of the sexual “molds” so to speak, and/or characters who seem to resist all categorizations, preferring, instead, a certain sort of sexual ambiguity.

Of course, the old arguments remain . . . they just can’t make up their minds or it’s a cop-out (better to be “fluid” than gay), but I wonder how many of those arguments are more about old internal defense mechanisms kicking in than truth. I really don’t know. I grew up in an era in which being anything other than straight was a huge challenge (socially, politically, sexually, etc.), so my generation was too consumed with either attacking or defending any kind of sexual or gender ‘deviation’ or variation from the “norm” to give this idea of sexual fluidity any sort of real consideration.

And then there are a few recent articles and books that seem to suggest that sexual fluidity is more linked to women than men. I’ve not yet read it, but a new book from Harvard University Press, Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire, “argues that for some women, love and desire are not rigidly heterosexual or homosexual but fluid, changing as women move through the stages of life, various social groups, and, most important, different love relationships.” Instinct tells me that if this is true, it’s likely more a social phenomenon than a scientific one, but a number of other articles (most notably from the New York Times) asks whether women even have sexual orientations or explore the scientific nature of sexual fluidity.

In any case, it seems to be a topic that will be much discussed in the future . . .