Kreayshawn and Azealia Banks - a mini study of media and bisexual women

The meat of this post was originally posted to my tumblr in response to a post by bisexualftw in which they said:

I don’t like how @autostraddle / @kcdanger used Kreayshawn’s GQ interview to rhapsodise about sexuality.

When someone mentions being bi it’s not an invitation to philosophise. I’m not an expert in these things, but it feels like derailing to me.

God, it’s so exhausting when every mention of nonmonosexuality becomes a conversation *about* nonmonosexuality.

I might try writing some ‘what if people blogged about gays the way they blog about us’ spoofs.

link via @bisexcellent

This caused me to look at the Autostraddle article in question, another article by the same author about Azealia Banks, as well as the articles those were based on.


This is very interesting.

The article linked is very suspicious in its tone. I do understand that the blogger is generally suspicious of Kreayshawn. I know next to nothing about rap but there is a definite issue of appropriation re: white rappers and yes, even though I always go with accepting the way people define themselves, I do raise an eyebrow at coming out in a men’s magazine. Not to mention the way she put it makes me roll my eyes.

So I wondered how much of the tone of that article was due to the blogger’s dislike of the person in question, which made me read the post that was linked in the article, written by the same author about Azealia Banks.

That article is mainly about music, and her sexuality is mentioned only in passing:

She just got signed to Universal Records and was profiled by The New York Times at the beginning of this month, where I guess you could say she came out as bisexual. “I’m not trying to be, like, the bisexual lesbian rapper,” she told them. “I don’t live on other peoples’ terms.”

The NYT article in question says this:

The aggression in “212” is palpable, not just in the beat but also in the crass lyrics, in which she asserts her dominance over a male opponent. Ms. Banks considers herself bisexual, but, she said: “I’m not trying to be, like, the bisexual, lesbian rapper. I don’t live on other people’s terms.”

This is interesting in so many ways.

“I guess you could say she came out as bisexual.” To be fair, this might refer to the fact that it can’t really be called coming out - it’s arguable if she’s even really been in. I can’t help reading it as a hesitation to call her bi, though, especially considering that this is the only time it’s mentioned. I’d except a sort of, “Yay, a queer woman rapper!” reaction, but it’s neither in the article nor in the comments.

The NYT article - oh wow. Female queerness is presented in connection with aggression towards men and Ms. Banks doesn’t get to be bi, oh no. She only gets to consider herself bi.

Returning the the article about Kreayshawn, the author mentions that Azealia Banks “came out” as bi, and adds: “but wrote it off as irrelevant to her musical persona.” I feel like this is kind of harsh, as I read the statement as just not wanting to be pigeon-holed. I’m not sure this is strictly a bi thing, though. I think I’ve seen a kind of backlash against famous gays and lesbians, too, if they make similar statements or don’t want to become activists or politicize their lives.

It looks to me like there’s some kind of double standard at work here, like if women we respect come out as bi we’ll grudgingly acknowledge it but not really talk about it, but if it’s a woman we don’t respect, her sexuality is something to be doubted, questioned and turned into a topic for debate.
Perhaps the most damning paragraph in that article, IMO, is this:

How seriously are we going to take Kreayshawn’s sexuality? Probably as seriously as we take Kreayshawn. It probably won’t play into any sort of esoteric discourse about the intricacies of female sexuality. It probably won’t make it into any great academic papers of our time. This of course has nothing to do with a hierarchy of various sexual orientations — whether she identified as label-free, bisexual, queer, lesbian, pansexual or anything other than straight; she would still be Kreayshawn. But it is a segue into a discussion about female sexuality, and it is a conversation that we’re always having. Are we invalidating sexuality that’s unsure of itself or that refuses to define itself or addresses itself casually? It’s something we need to think about.

Why would it be a topic for academic papers, though? Why would one person’s sexuality start some great debate about female sexuality? I think this kind of thinking is definitely something you only see about non-monosexual identities. It’s like the very act of defining ourselves is somehow a political act.

The author clearly anticipates accusations of this, or she wouldn’t have added that disclaimer up there. But whether she believes it or not, I just cannot imagine someone coming out as lesbian sparking this kind of theorizing - not on Autostraddle.

And what the author says about sexuality that’s unsure of itself etc. makes me uncomfortable. Kreayshawn’s own words don’t seem unsure to me, although they do speak clearly of a lack of involvement in or knowledge of bi politics (“I’m not that gay.”) I understand what the author means about a sexuality that refuses to define itself (we only have GQ’s word that she’s even bi) and her sexuality is definitely not a politicized identity, there’s nothing out-and-proud or get-used-to-it about it. Still, people should be really damn careful when they use these words in connection with bisexuality, because damn.

A final note: I really fucking hated this line:

Her coming out may be labeled as bisexual, but the implications of “I can find love in any sort of person” hint at something more.

Because it reeks of a narrow definition of bisexuality and frames other non-mono identities as somehow “more”.

(Original post)