Queer Flirting and Heteronormativity in “The L Word”

This academic essay was written in 2019 for a Language, Gender, and Sexuality course at University of California Santa Barbara.

Source

The perpetual trek for equal rights for LGBTQ+ persons has resulted in an increase of Queer representation in the media. While depictions of cisheterosexual relationships continue to dominate, many scripted programs have arisen that feature Queer relationships and flirting. Due to the relative newness of Queer depictions in the media, what kinds of linguistic practices are used in scripted flirting between Queer women and what does their flirting indicate for the future of LGBTQ+ media representation? The L Word is a perfect example of a scripted program created to feature Queer female relationships for a Queer audience. Because of its foundation in female Queerness I chose to transcribe and analyze a clip from episode 505 in which two characters, Shane and Cindy, participate in a flirty interaction. In this 2 minute interaction Shane and Cindy (hereby referred to as “S” and “C”) utilize deniability, innuendo, and heterosexual gender norms to convey flirting.

Deniability

Deniability is one of the most salient features of S and C’s flirty interaction and is often an important part of flirting in general. Deniability allows for ambiguity and ambiguity allows for the reshaping of events. In the case of rejection, deniability maintains the protection of one’s sense of self; if one were to be rejected they could claim they were never flirting to begin with. Deniability also allows for an interlocutor to disengage without having to overtly reject the other because rather than saying “I don’t want to flirt,” an interlocutor can less directly remove themselves from the interaction without it being classified as outwardly flirty (Zimman, Feb 1 2019).

S and C maintain deniability in their interaction by refraining from language that explicitly conveys interest in the other. Rather, both parties use language to engage in what at surface level could be interpreted as small talk. For example, both women ask the other “How are you?” and both respond with a form of “I’m doing good” to open the conversation (lines 1–3). In general asking “how are you?” is regarded as polite, but in this case it carries an unspoken flirty intention between the two. If someone were to ask about the nature of the interaction S and C could each claim they weren’t flirting — they were just chatting. Under the guise of deniability it is the basal context of the interaction which makes it flirty rather than the actual language used.

Innuendo

Within S and C’s interaction there are 6 instances where innuendo is used to convey flirting. Innuendo is a powerful linguistic tool to communicate flirting because it indexes sexual relations whilst maintaining deniability. All 6 innuendos in S and C’s interaction are related to food. It is also worth noting that “eating,” i.e cunnilingus, is a typical sex act among Queer women, which makes words related to food strong indicators of flirting.

C first tests the water through innuendo on line 8 by saying “You should try a new blend… so much more flavorful.” The word “flavorful” is insignificant on its own but when paired with the proposition “you should try…” allows for a flirty interaction in which C is able to offer S “something” edible. C then goes on to use a variety of stronger innuendos that don’t require a proposition pairing. She mentions “muffins” and “lady fingers” as “delicacies [she has] to offer” (lines 10, 14, 16). Being that “muffin” is a word socially regarded to index female genitalia, C’s use of the word indexes her own genitalia and, regardless of the underlying sexual implications, maintains deniability in that the conversation is literally referencing food rather than her actual “muffin.”

S, too, utilizes the linguistic tool of innuendo though she does so in a way different to that of C. In response to C’s offer of “muffins” S says “…you should think about giving out a sampler so everyone gets a taste” (line 17). Just as C wielded the term “flavorful,” S’s use of the word “taste” indexes cunnilingus whilst maintaining deniability. And just as C used innuendo to indicate an offering to S, S used innuendo to indicate C make an offering. There are ideological relevancies in this kind of propositioning because it implies one party be the “taker” and one the “giver” of sex.

Common social ideologies of sex strictly feature heterosexual relations and include viewing women as “giving” or “offering” themselves to a man who in turn “takes” from them (Zimman, Feb 22 2019). Because both S and C proposition C as the party to “offer” and S as the party to “take” they are embodying heterosexual constructions of sex. This kind of representation of heterosexuality doesn’t quite make sense in the context of a Queer target audience because the very nature of Queer sex, which is the kind of sex S and C are referencing, challenges heteronormative social constructions of sex. It is problematic that within a show intended to highlight Queer relationships the dialogue reflects prevailing heteronormative conceptions of sex.

Heteronormativity and Gender Norms

After establishing C as the “giver” or “woman” and S as the “taker” or “man,” S and C twice more perpetuate heteronormativity and gender norms through innuendo. The scene concludes with C giving her number to S, yet even this representation of C functioning as the “giving” interlocutor is not as strong an example of prevailing gender norms than the lines that precede it. On line 18 C makes the following suggestion: “Why don’t you come over to our place this afternoon and we’ll cook you up something special.” Because C has already been established as the “woman” in the interaction it’s unremarkable that her character mentioned cooking. A woman cooking is a classic example of a socially constructed gender norm, so C’s offer to cook a “special” dish for S maintains gender norms despite their interaction being inherently Queer.

Even though The L Word is a program about Queer relationships, it appears to strongly embody gender norms and heteronormative standards through scripted flirting.

Queer Representation in the Future

Gendered and heteronormative scripting within a Queer centric program suggests that future representations of Queer relationships will continue to embody heteronormativity and gender norms. This is particularly unfortunate because the mere existence of Queer people and relationships challenges heteronormativity and gender norms.

S and C’s flirty interaction could have been scripted to be more Queer, so to speak, but in reality there was nothing to distinguish their flirting from that of heterosexual interlocutors. Deniability and innuendo were utilized to convey flirting between the Queer female characters. Whilst there is nothing problematic about Queer women referencing their “muffins” in the media, the embodiment of heteronormativity and gender norms within their relationships is entirely so. The fact that these norms persist in a show based on Queer relationships unfortunately indicates a future of heteronormative portrayals of LGBTQ+ relationships in the media.

Until Queerness is recognized as such, scripted media representation may continue to poorly represent LGBTQ+ flirting and relationships.

Appendix

Transcript from The L Word episode 505

KEY: Innuendo

*S arrives at C’s coffeehouse. C is outside taking an order.*

1 S: *sunglasses on, reaching head out of vehicle* Hiii. How are you?

2 C: *walking towards vehicle* Um, I’m good. Good. How are you?

3 S: Doing well. *removes sunglasses, holding coffee cup* Can’t complain. This is looking good, it’s new.

4 C: Oh, yeah. We’ve expanded.

*slight pause*

5 S: Ah I see you did the eh, drive thru window I remember Kit was talking about doing that.

6 C: Yeah, yeah. She told Don. Apparently LA lesbians like to do everything in their car.

7 S: That and they love their caffeine.

8 C: Mmm… *slight pause, S moves hand to her face* Planet coffee? Come on, that’s so tired. You should *moves hand away from face* try a new blend. So much more flavorful.

9 S: Oh yeah?

10 C: Mmhm. Plus we have — so many other delicacies to offer.

11 S: Really?

12 C: Yeah.

13 S: Like what?

14 C: Tarts, pie, muffins…

15 S: Mhm…

16 C: … lady fingers. I could go on.

17 S: Well then maybe you should think about — giving out a sampler so everyone gets a taste.

18 C: Yeah… You know why don’t you — why don’t you come over to our place this afternoon and we’ll cook you up something special.

19 S: Yeah?

20 C: Yeah.

21 S: Okay.

22 C: Okay.

23 S: Sure. *C takes cup from S and writes phone number on it* Okay, I’ll be there.

24 C: I’ll see you later.

25 S: Yes you will. *C turns to walk away* Have a good day.

26 C: Yeah, you too.

27 S: *S puts sunglasses back on and begins to leave* Yeah!

References

Zimman, Lal. “Language, Gender and Ideology.” Linguistics 132. UCSB, Santa Barbara. 1 Feb 2019.

Zimman, Lal. “Language, Gender and Ideology.” Linguistics 132. UCSB, Santa Barbara. 22 Feb 2019.

This academic essay was written in 2019 for Linguistics 132: Language, Gender, and Sexuality taught by Lal Zimman at University of California Santa Barbara. Copyright 2022 baayfree