Sexuality, in The Hobbit?

So there I am on one of the various facebook writing groups I frequent, and someone starts an "unpopular opinions" thread. This was already never going to end well, obviously.

It doesn't take long for someone to throw in "sexuality can be unimportant". I roll my eyes, because if any trope in the world is overdone, cishet privilege about what constitutes importance is overdone.

And then this guy in the comments agrees, and says that there are stories that don't call for it in the slightest - "The Hobbit for one".

And obviously, this is true! The Hobbit doesn't mention sexuality at all!

... um, until page 4.

"...long ago one of the Took ancestors must have taken a fairy wife."

Oops.

But that's the only one, right?

... no, not even the only one on that page.

"Not that Belladonna Took ever had any adventures after she became Mrs. Bungo Baggins."*

Oops again.

I could go on, but I'd only end up re-reading the whole of The Hobbit tonight and that wouldn't get this blog post written. Suffice to say that sexual orientation is referenced numerous times in The Hobbit.

"That's not sexuality!" cry the usual suspects.

Oh, no?

If the descriptions of Bilbo's various ancestors and relatives had mentioned one of his aunts taking a fairy wife, they'd call it sexuality, and probably cry about tokenism / corrupting children / the Gay Agenda, or whatever it is they're currently crying about.

"Sexuality" in books isn't just for LGBTQ+ people.

The fact that you don't see opposite-sex relationships as "sexuality" is an artefact of history and of your straight privilege, I get it. And it's hard to start seeing the wood for the trees, to get your eye in and notice what's been in plain sight all along. It's natural that you're going to feel a bit weird at first about seeing non-straight sexuality represented as casually and equally as straight sexuality has always been. Your discomfort is noted.

But.

Could.

We.

Just.

Move.

On.

Already.




Please.


* There is of course nothing to say that Belladonna Took was not bisexual, or indeed a lesbian hobbit who only married Bungo to preserve her reputation, and oh gods stop me before I write this fanfic

Intolerance, Tolerance, Acceptance

The three faces of the Equal Marriage debate

Despite my sexuality, it's not often I find myself feeling like part of a persecuted minority. Incidents of direct discrimination have been rare, and living in the UK since coming out (where civil partnerships were long-standing and same-sex marriage followed) has cushioned me from most experiences of being a second-class citizen.

The same-sex marriage "debate" in Australia has brought this safe space crashing down.

For the uninitiated, the situation is thus: the homophobic, heavily fundamentalist-influenced conservative Australian government, facing increasing pressure to allow a free conscience vote on an act to introduce same-sex marriage, decided instead to hold a non-binding postal plebiscite to gauge the public's mood. This was in spite of a number of well-conducted polls indicating majority support, and in spite of the dire warnings by a number of charities and lobby groups that this would open an extremely negative can of worms. Forging cruelly ahead, they have decided to give validity to the idea that it's okay to vote on other peoples' human rights.

Fun time to be a non-straight Australian.

Predictably, intolerance hasn't been hard to spot. The bigots' campaign has been as nasty as it's been illogical, accusing non-straight people of everything from child abuse to trying to destroy western society entirely. They've used the usual slew of made-up "statistics" and outrageous claims, peppering news feeds, letterboxes and windscreens with vileness across the nation. My exposure to it has thankfully, through distance and a carefully curated social media environment, been limited to seeing my friends and groups complaining about the horror of it.

Where I have found heartbreak (and I think my friends have too, straight and not) has not been on the line between intolerance and tolerance, but on the line between tolerance and acceptance.

For a long time now, Australia has been a society that is broadly tolerant of non-straight people. Apart from the vicious conservative fringe who are currently having a field day, most Australians accept that non-straight people exist, have jobs, have families, contribute to society. Gay pride parades are enthusiastically attended; civic buildings have been known to fly the rainbow flag; homophobic hate crimes are relatively rare. The overwhelming opinion is that being non-straight should not mean you are allowed to be harmed. Tolerance says, "You are allowed to live amongst us unmolested", and Australians have largely got that down pat.

Acceptance is something else. Acceptance says "you ARE us", and it is at this hurdle that I have lost friends and my friends have lost friends. This is the mundane rejection that stings most cruelly and has infiltrated every part of our daily social media life.

It's the hurdle of "I have nothing against gay people, but..."
It's the hurdle of "Why would they WANT to get married if they don't want to be like straight people?"
It's the hurdle of "Can't they just call it something else?"
It's the hurdle of "The etymology of marriage says..."
It's the hurdle of "I'm not religious but..."
It's the hurdle of "They already have de facto legal protection..."
It's the hurdle of "Traditionally, marriage has been..."
It's the hurdle of "Aren't there more important problems to solve?"

These are the people who have never unfriended me over my sexuality (there were a few who did, long ago, or who I unfriended when I discovered their views). They've been quite comfortable staying my friend, interacting with me, heart-reacting my posts about my stepson, asking and answering parenting questions, cheering on each others' achievements... all the while believing that I should not be married, that I was a second-class citizen, that I was not deserving of rights that they took for granted.

They're the people who would never say a bigoted word in their life, who would meet my wife with absolute pleasantness and grace, but will quietly return a 'no' vote because their pastor says so.

They're the people who are completely unable to connect their "I love you, but these are my beliefs" with the dehumanising viciousness of the 'no' campaign.

They're the people who, when pressed, will admit that they feel that marriage is the exclusive province of straight people, but will recoil from your response as though you have harmed them.

Acceptance means admitting that the people you're tolerating to walk amongst you are actually... people. Just people, who want to have access to the things that people do, like get married. It's been a shock to discover just how many people - nice, "tolerant" people who would protest vigorously against non-straight people being harmed - believe that giving non-straight people access to important social institutions like marriage is a step too far.

It's not enough to tolerate those who are different to you, allowing them to live in your world but refusing them access to its most significant social rites of passage. I am shattered from the effort of trying to convince people who apparently like me but do not understand that.