This shoot was about my life and who I am as a person. It’s not about the fanfare….”
— Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) Jenner
It was, perhaps, only coincidental that the shy, elderly, Olympic decathlon champion and Wheaties box icon ended up on the cover of America’s glossiest glossy magazine attended by a squadron of make-up artists, costumers, publicists, drapers, lighting designers, endocrinologists, agents, and managers under the direction of supreme photographic commander Annie Liebowitz. And, perhaps, another coincidence that the E! Network is producing an eight-part reality show (“docu-series”) on the journey of America’s new transgender sweetheart from sweaty, hairy, testosterone-jacked athlete to air-brushed pin-up “girl.” I guess fanfare is sometimes just the unexpected cherry-on-top of life’s big creamy cake.
But doesn’t it all raise the question: why is it so important for the nation’s cultural stage managers to make the case that a life of sexual confusion is the highest-and-best way of being in this world? It’s everywhere. A day does not pass lately when The New York Times fails to run a front-page story about the triumph of transgender life. One easy theory might be that old chestnut about folks out on the “cutting edge” always needing a new way to épater le bourgeois, shock and horrify the middle class (into the recognition of their pathetic, mind-numbing dullness.) Maybe the middle class doesn’t have enough to think about with keeping a step ahead of the re-po man, or being billed $30,000 to give birth in a hospital, or working 70 hours a week.
The best explanation (not mine originally), may be that in a “liminal” moment of history, when great scary trends and events trigger society’s existential dread, all kinds of boundaries dissolve. And sex, being among the humanity’s most compelling drives, fraught with heavy cultural regulation, ends up being the means of expression for our collective anxiety over the dissolution of things. It also happens that America today is at once an exceptionally pornified society and an exceptionally puritanical one. Rome under Caligula did not have the internet, enabling 12-year-olds to spectate on every imaginable sex act. But neither did the witch-obsessed settlers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony have the equivalent of the young woman (Emma Sulkowicz by name) who idiotically lugged a mattress around the Columbia University campus as a combination political protest / senior art project to draw attention to her dubious rape case (which was dismissed by Columbia’s own administrative kangaroo court).
The tension between these forces of extreme prurience and extreme Puritanism must be immense, probably intolerable, especially for the young who, even in the most settled times, are beset by insecurity over their sexual development — of how to grow into a man or a woman in the world. It’s also interesting that we want to talk about “sexuality” all the time — if media chatter can be taken for public “conversation” — but only in highly circumscribed ways. Overstep the conventional thinking du jour, and you invite a tsunami of censorious opprobrium… which I will now proceed to do.
For instance, I would propose the theory that homosexuality is lately promoted as a desirable way of being in the world because it allows those who behave that way to avoid and escape a primary source of tension in human life: the difficult relations between men and women. These tensions inevitably fluoresce in adolescence, and so now the choice is offered to opt out. I’d expect gay opinion to argue that opting into that way of being in the world actually generates greater tensions and torments, and that may indeed be so — but it is often the case with avoidance behavior that it invites unhappy complications.
I would also propose that the Caitlyn (Bruce) Jenner spectacle represents “peak transgender.” Now that the culture stage managers have made the point that the paragon of maleness — a five-sport Olympic champion — can opt late in life to become a simulacrum of femaleness (with strange overtones of sexual availability, but to whom, or to what?), there’s nowhere further to go… we finally come to the actual long-sought edge of the cutting edge and drop off into an abyss.
Or maybe this is all just the result of life’s supreme test: keeping up with the Kardashians. After all those years of slip-sliding in Clinique Anti-blemish solution and L’Oreal True Match, poor Bruce just caved, surrendered, resorted to the tactic that could tempt even the most driven competitor: if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.
All right, now I will step aside and endure all the punishment I have invited for venturing to have some opinions on these matters.
