I'm writing this on my lesbian computer

One of the websites that I visit on a fairly regular basis is Television without Pity, which provides snark-laden recaps of popular TV shows. I’ll check it out if I’ve missed an episode of a show I watch, or sometimes I’ll read the recap even if I’ve seen the episode, just to see what the recapper has to say about it. They’re generally pretty entertaining, and it makes for good light reading on a lunch break (during which I never get to leave my desk).

There are always all sorts of polls strewn about the site, and when I went there today there was one on the main page that referred to an “upcoming lesbian kiss” involving Mischa Barton’s character on The O.C. I was annoyed by this, but not for the reason you might think. It was inevitable that such a thing would happen on The O.C., a show that wallows in primetime clichés like a pig in shit, but is supposed to be cool because it winks at us and goes, “Hey, I’m a pig! And I’m wallowing in shit! Isn’t that awesome?!” I’ll admit it did seem kind of cool in the summer of ’03 when there was nothing else on, but it got old fast. So yeah, the ratings-grab girl-on-girl action was expected. I am a little bit disappointed in Mischa Barton though, because now she’s going to lose her HL status--HL standing for Honorary Lesbian. I bestow HL status on straight (or presumably straight) actors who portray lesbians in the media in a positive way, and preferably make positive public statements about the role, but at the very least refrain from making negative statements, or going on press tours to make sure that everyone knows they’re not really gay, like Hal Sparks did when Queer As Folk started. He would definitely not be the recipient of Honorary Gay Man status, were I in the business of bestowing it.

Mischa Barton earned HL status as one half of television’s sweetest (only?) baby-dyke couple on the late and very lamented series Once & Again. (Incidentally, she co-stars on The O.C. with another HL, Kelly Rowan, who played a gay teacher in the TV movie The Truth About Jane.) Now she seems likely to have it revoked by partaking in this bottom-feeding behavior. I can’t really blame her, I suppose--I mean, the producers probably didn’t tell her, two years ago or whenever she signed her contract, that they’d be angling for a ratings spike with a girl-on-girl smooch at some point. And maybe she’ll disavow it or something. But I won’t hold my breath.

What bugged me, though, and what bugs me every time I see it or something like it, was the phrase “lesbian kiss.” Because, how can a kiss be lesbian? Women can be lesbian, other things cannot. A kiss between two lesbians is not a “lesbian kiss” any more than the car they drive is a lesbian car or the food they eat is lesbian food (um…vegetarian potlucks excepted, I guess). Like the song says, a kiss is still a kiss, regardless of whose lips are involved. I feel like “lesbian kiss” and similar phrases serve to reinforce the cultural concept of homosexuals as different, as other, as strange…as wrong. When you modify a noun, you are marking it as different from others of its class, and when the adjective in question relates to personal identity, you mark the bearer of that identity as different. And in most cultures, when it comes to personal identity, “different” means “inferior” or just “wrong.” A classic example is “male nurse” (which may or may not be dying out, but serves my purpose here): nurses are by cultural definition female, therefore “nurse” as a class cannot include a male, therefore the adjective must be appended. The resultant phrase is perceived as oxymoronic--it produces a sense of wrongness. This may not seem like a big deal (unless you’re a nurse who’s tired of having his gender be part of his job title, not to mention snarky comments about your career choice), but it can be insidious. Nowadays when we talk about marriage between two people of the same sex, it’s invariably referred to as “gay marriage.” To restate my earlier question, how can a marriage be gay? Answer: it can’t. Except for the whole Liza Minelli/David Gest thing; that shit was gay. Seriously, though, marriage is marriage, and the term “gay marriage” creates a second, inferior class of union that will never be on a par with straight marriage. Which, of course, is never “straight marriage” but simply “marriage.”

I realize that there are pragmatic concerns here, like how to talk meaningfully about marriage between same-sex couples without resorting to politically correct circumlocutions. I also realize that I’m skirting the edge of an abyss wherein reside linguistic monstrosities like “wimmin” (don’t get me started), and that I’m being far too literal-minded about language, which is never a good idea, even when it’s deliberate. I don’t really have any answers here (and you’ll hear me say that a lot). I’m just tired of hearing things like “lesbian kiss”--especially when at least one of the participants is friggin’ straight.