| |
|
Of course I can't ask the characters in the ad what pronouns they prefer. But I can find them both fabulously sexy, without needing to know exactly what their 'real' genders are meant to be. Just like in real life.
I agree, about the character in the gown (as we are calling hir). I tried to say that much above, here:
I suppose in that respect my sexual response to the character is that I'm happy to be fooled by such a creature.
You may dislike the word "fooled", but I meant something similar to what you're saying, I think.
Tell you what, miss wonderstarr, why is it important to know the proper gender of the characters, or the person at the bus-stop? I'm not saying you can't make any judgments about gender, I just wonder why it's so important right here.
I think in this case it was... not important, but worth thinking about whether the double-reveal was intended to, and was likely to be read as, returning the situation to a "safe" straight sexuality, stripping the transgressive disguises away in a scenario of "hey it's OK, we're a straight guy and girl anyway so let's hook up". I don't know if that was the intention but it was one of the readings that occured to me:
actually of course the double-reveal presents a solution to the "problem" that the first one poses. We thought it was a man pursuing a beautiful woman: the romance/lust narrative dead-ends when both are shown to be men. But the possibilities open up again when the first man becomes a woman. The actors play this very well I think, and the unveiling of the woman seems to be met with suggestive smiles on both their parts, as if to say "OK... well, maybe we can get it on after all"... However, I'm just taking my own reading from this and perhaps there are other, more interesting interpretations of the story
I'm A Lady also suggested, I think, that the intended meaning of the ad's conclusion was normative heterosexuality.
I'd dump it in the reactionary camp, not only because commercials aren't revolutionary as a rule but also because the subtext I read is:
She: I'm afraid we won't be shagging, because you see, I am a bloke, and two blokes shagging is icky, bad and makes God cross.
He: Aah, but you see, I am actually a bird, so let us away and have good clean heterosexual sex.
You opened up that conclusion in what to me was an interesting way. I think you raised a good point.
why is it important to know the proper gender of the person at the bus-stop?
Well... for convenience and shorthand? So you can say "that man was in the queue before you?" or "that's the woman who works in the laundrette?" You could say "the person with the yellow coat" or "the individual who's coughing now", but just as I might sometimes say "that Asian guy" or "the white guy" about someone in the street without checking how they self-identify in terms of ethnicity, I do use gendered pronouns to try to make it clear quickly who I'm talking about.
I really don't want to sound baffled here (and it might sound like I'm questioning your approach, which I don't intend) but I'm afraid that kind of use of "him" or "her" for quick reference is quite usual for me and I'd thought that it was quite usual for most people. |
|
|
