Living as a Lesbian, Jillian Michaels is in trouble for admitting that she’s not comfortable talking about her sexual preferences.
Jillian Michaels ought to be in trouble for promoting self-loathing and body hatred to normal females all over the Western world, but no one cares about that. Instead, she is in trouble for being a Lesbian who doesn’t like openly championing “the cause”–even though she does so. As Huffington Post reports, she recently had to give a “statement” that basically claimed, “That’s not what I meant.”
(Note: some of Michaels’ statements from the past would lead me to call her bisexual. But since her current known relationship right now is with a woman, I’m identifying her as a Lesbian at this time.)
HuffPo has the offending paragraph (with a bracketed explanation) from an interview Michaels gave to Health magazine:
I don”t know that I am [comfortable talking about being gay] now, to be honest with you. The gay thing has always been hard for me. When Heidi and I are out and somebody older asks, “Are you sisters?” I say, “We”re friends.” I guess it comes from thinking that they will be shocked or disturbed. Look, I wish I had some strapping football player husband. It would be such a dream to be “normal” like that, but I”m just not.
I would love it if I could take this as a sign Michaels knows that her relationship with Heidi Rhoades is immoral and is having some pangs of conscience about it. Maybe, but nothing in this statement proves that is what is going on.
What is more likely is that Michaels is not so stupid that she doesn’t recognize the artificiality of what she is doing, and thus finds it difficult to explain to the uninitiated. After all, Michaels and Rhoades are playing house with two children. Rhoades gave birth to a son and they adopted another child. Where does the pattern of two parents and children come from? You know it didn’t originate from homosexuals.
Adoption is a wonderful thing when necessary. But what does it mean for a same-sex couple? It means their entire life and lifestyle is dependent and derived from heterosexual reality. The son to whom Rhoades gave birth has a father. The daughter they adopted came from a heterosexual relationship. Their “family” is one hundred percent pieced together from other heterosexual relationships (which are also the origin of both of them).
So, according to Michaels, it would make a lot of sense to fit in that heterosexual pattern. But for reasons I won’t speculate upon, she doesn’t feel that she can and, not fitting in it, she doesn’t have a problem imitating it within the boundaries of her homosexual preferences.
But this is somehow shaming. The real evidence that some people have a problem with their consciences are all the homosexuals that objected to Michaels rather obvious and rational wistfulness. As far as “the homosexual community” is concerned, the imitations of heterosexual reality that homosexuals dramatize in their lives must be seen as self-evidently equal to their heterosexual counterparts. By expressing even a thought about fitting into heterosexual (and self-sustaining) culture, Michaels has threatened the fantasy.
To her critics, Michaels insisted that she only meant that it is easier to fit into heterosexual expectations—assuming that such expectations are nothing more than prejudices. But is that rational? Wouldn’t you expect a species that only continues through heterosexual reproduction to have heterosexual expectations?
Thus, even pointing out “heterosexual peer pressure” comes too close to acknowledging the heterosexual nature of humanity. Acknowledging this “dream” counted as disloyalty to the same-sex fantasy society.