I am wondering why you feel it necessary to be as polite and sensitive as to say “Cecil does not know if they were lovers, and frankly does not feel it is any of his business.” when asked if the Singing Nun and her friend died together as lovers.
If a man and a woman, after living together for ten years, had committed suicide no-one would have any problems confirming that they were, or were not, lovers. This pussy-footing around the issue only further stigmatises society’s attitude to homosexuals and lesbians. And what exactly was “lurid” about this story, if not your perception about lesbianism?
Of course your reply was posted in 1988, so maybe after 16 years, you may not have displayed such reticence on the subject had it been written today. Nevertheless, it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_078.html
Why thank you. If it weren’t for your brilliant ability to stereotype, I would never have realized the truth about my wife’s sordid past with Suzanne Vega. I’m instituting divorce procedings at once.
John - Who has the “brilliant ability to stereotype”? Is it me, in my response to Cecil’s article or Cecil himself? If anything, I was trying to expose his unwillingness to discuss the couple’s possible lesbian relationship (which indeed could be seen as stereotypical of certain commentators). What is stereotypical about my doing that?
Well, I don’t know about Cecil, but from where I am sitting, at the time this was originally discussed, speculation about a gay angle probably would have had an effect of adding unnecessary luridness and sensationalism to the story, and “none of my business” was a valid answer. Why mention it at all? Although Cecil could have probably got away with saying just “let’s stick to what we can know from public information”.
This could be taken by an ill-disposed reader as implying that “entered into a lesbian affair” was part of the downward spiral.
Got it in one!
The word “stereotyping” must mean something completely different to you than how I understand it. I fail to see what I said that in any approached stereotyping anything! Did I make a single generalisation about anything or anyone? Did I describe the Singing Nun in a way that wasn’t precisely only about her? “Got it one” is NO answer to my question at all!
I think that Cecil’s point was that the questioner wanted to know why Deckers committed suicide, which could have been both asked and answered without the gratuitious comment about her partner. Adding the lesbian comment seemed to Cecil (and me) a bit of unnecessary sensationalism. (Especially given that she called it an “affair” – I would hardly use the word “affair”, which often connotates infidelity, to describe a 10-year presumably relationship.)
In fact, I would assert that your statement above supports Cecil’s position, albeit indirectly. If Deckers had spent the previous 10 years living with a man, the questioner would no doubt have omitted the detail because a straight relationship isn’t considered noteworthy. The fact that Haryse thought the alleged lesbian relationship worthy of note, as do you apparently, indicates a degree of bias.
If the questioner, and possibly you, consider it relevant to the suicide question, that suggests to me a level of unfair stereotyping (homosexuals are unhappy). Perhaps Cecil was actually being easy on Haryse by accusing her of simple sensationalism rather than the more serious charge of stereotyping.
“10-year presumably relationship” … oops. Omit “presumably”.
One final thought AdamAdam: although I don’t know if you are guilty of stereotyping (do you think Deckers’ sexual orientation is relevant to the suicide question?), I fail to see any convincing evidence of stereotyping in Cecil’s article. I suspect you are focusing on his use of the word “lurid”, which could be seen as indicating that Cecil has a low opinion of lesbians. But given the context, I think it’s clear that he is saying that the story is lurid, in its preoccupation with private matters. It is already lurid enough asking about the circumstances of the suicide (also a private matter). Throwing in the lesbian comment seemed designed only to make the story all the more shocking.
The story would be just as lurid if Deckers had a monogamous unmarried relationship with a man and the story called it an extra-marital affair.
Oh no. Of course not. Saying, “Two women live together, therefore they must be lesbians,” isn’t stereotyping at all. Nope. Not a bit.
May I point out that AdamAdam, in fact, made no assumptions at all about the nature of the relationship. He just said that, one way or the other, it should have been answered. It was the original correspondent, who, in her letter to Cecil, refered to the relationship as a “lesbian affair”.
That was exactly as I read it, FWIW.
John W. Kennedy -Saying that may be seen as stereotyping (though, not of lesbians, but of women who live together- and as that’s not an assumption that is widely made as far as I know, maybe it isn’t “stereotyping” at all), but I DID NOT ACTUALLY SAY ANYTHING OF THE KIND! As I suggested, you’re definition of stereotyping is very wide! And even the example you provide, and pretend I used is not really a true stereotype.
I did not assume anything. I was merely asking why the question of whether they were or were not lesbians could not or should not be answered.
sford- What I considered “noteworthy” was the strange avoidance of answering the questioner’s query “Did she commit suicide with her lesbian lover?” The relevance of this was IN THE QUESTION itself - I totally fail to see where the concept of stereotypifying occurs when asking if a lesbian woman died with her lesbian lover or not. And if her partner had in fact been a man, then it would still have been a relevant point - because they committed suicide together and that was what the questioner really wanted confirmed.