Skip to main content

Captain Jack, positive bi role model



I was living in the States last year when the new series of Doctor Who came on, so I never saw any of the new episodes. This week a friend lent me the DVD box set of the whole series, so I've been spending the week watching them. They're great. I love the fact that a Doctor Who fan, who clearly knows what makes Doctor Who great, has written the new series. I also love the fact that that person is Russel T. Davis, the writer of Queer As Folk. Fantastic.

Anyway, another reason I'm loving the new Doctor Who is the character Captain Jack, played by John Borrowman. (By the way: phwwahr! - and you thought this was one of those intellectual Unitarian blogs, not some big old queen drooling over actors - don't worry I'll get back to that soon). Apparently he's getting his own series, called Torchwood.

The character is also bisexual. And the first bisexual character I have ever seen in the media presented in a positive light. He's not 'mixed up' or 'confused' or moaning about not knowing whether he's gay or straight. He's simply positively bisexual, exuding confidence, charming, and chatting up men and women in different places in time and space. OK, so maybe he's suggested to be a bit promiscuous, but in no different way than a straight character would be. He's like James Bond, just bi.

When Rose first realises Jack is bi she asks the Doctor about it, he simply shrugs and says 'Hey, he's a fifty-first century guy.'

It's such a positive presentation of bisexuality. Jack is presented as being somehow whole and and natural, at ease with himself. It's liberating, and I hope 13 year old kids watching this with their parents are liberated, and know that it's OK to be bi. In fact, it's kinda cool. I wish I'd seen these episodes of Doctor Who when I was 13.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Drop the Free Christian!

Let me preface what I'm going to say by first saying this: I am a Christian. It's taken me a long time to be able to say that, and to know what I mean by that, and I'm very lucky that in the Unitarian church I have been given the space to come to that decision in my own time, on my own terms. But I am a Christian, I'm more Christian now than I have been for years. Now: I want us to drop this "Free Christian" from our title. It's a silly phrase that we need to get rid of. Why? "The General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches" is a long and unwieldy title. It would be much better if we traded under something like "Unitarians in Britain." It gives the impression that there are two separate and distinct groups: "Unitarians" and "Free Christians," this is not the case. It's not that there are Unitarians (who are not Christians) and "Free Christians" who are not Unitarians. There are not two dif...
21 comments
Read more

Clergy-wear during protests

OK, I'm wandering into the territory of Beauty Tips for Ministers here, but a couple of recent conversations have brought up the issue of what clergy should wear for protests. I know a number of Ministers who only wear clerical collars for protests. The logic is that it's important to identify as a Minister when you're supporting something society doesn't expect clergy to. So Ministers will wear a collar at gay prides or pro-choice rallies to make this point. Now I could understand this if it you wore a collar going about your general business, and also did during a protest, but I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of wearing clerical wear ONLY for protests. The seems to be something worth exploring. I have said before that I'm not in favour of special titles or clothing for religious leadership, mainly because Jesus explicitly said this was a lot of nonsense. Religious leaders should not need these articial crutches. I have no problem with certain liturgical c...
11 comments
Read more

Is humanism theologically tolerant?

OK, well this might be controversial, but I feel the need to say it. Is humanist tolerant? Please note I'm not asking about humanism within society. Clearly humanism certainly believes in tolerance within society and I'm forever glad they are often the only people in the media calling for a separation of church and state. No, what I'm talking about is descriptions of Unitarianism like this and adverts like this , discussed at Peacebang here , which say that humanism is one option, Christianity is another, God is one option among many. The trouble is, humanism, by definition is theologically opposed to theism. This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism. These two traditions may be vastly different, but Buddhism, by definition , is not opposed to Christianity, and Christianity, by definition , is not opposed to Buddhism. But humanism is consciously defined in opposition to Christianity and theism. So to say that humanism and theism can bot...
14 comments
Read more