Reader comments · La Roux: ‘I’m not gay, straight or bisexual’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


La Roux: ‘I’m not gay, straight or bisexual’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I love people who refuse to be shackled by labels, and resist being forced to define their sexuality in arbitrary terms.

  2. Simon Murphy 10 Feb 2010, 12:42pm

    I find people like LaRoux tiresome.

    Look at this load of rubbish:

    “I don’t have a sexuality. I don’t feel like I’m female or male. I don’t belong to the gay or straight society, if there is such a thing. I feel like I’m capable of falling in love with other people. I’m not saying I’m bisexual, I’m just sexual!”

    Someone ‘without’ a sexuality eh?

    Sounds serious. Hope she’s been to see the doctor.

  3. Pumpkin Pie 10 Feb 2010, 12:56pm

    Goddamn pansexuals…

    Seriously, this stuff always irritates me. What Jackson describes is bisexuality. Honestly, what is this pansexuality malarkey? Unless you’re also attracted to different species, pansexual just seems to be another word for bisexual.

    Now, I agree with you in principle, JohnK, but when the term is something as broad as “attracted to males and females”, then I just don’t get how people feel stifled by that. Bah, humbug.

    I know I’m being a miser, but it just disappoints me that so many bisexuals are so reticent to embrace their identity (I may just be talking about a name, but without that name, it’s kinda hard to form a community). I can totally see where it comes from: for people who’ve never experienced this weird gender hang-up that monosexuals have, the very concept of a sexuality can seem a little bizarre. Even so, there’s a name for people without gender hang-ups: bisexual. I wish more people would use it. :p

    PS: If anyone here does consider themselves pansexual, and not bisexual, it would be interesting to hear why. I don’t know everything, after all. Maybe I’m the one who’s missing something.

  4. I can see why – after struggling with labels like straight or gay for many years – some bisexuals feel like rejecting labels altogether. But unless bisexuals and the bisexual option become more visible (and some of the disgraceful stereotypes are challenged), bisexuals are going to continue to struggle with their sexuality.

    Come on La Roux, enough with the airy fairy stuff, just admit it! As Pumpkin Pie says, what does pansexual mean? Attracted to other species? The universe in general?

  5. When she gave an interview to Heat mag, she was quite insistent that she wasn’t a lesbian – “Sorry, I’m not” she said as she seemed to complain about girl fans fancying her, yet now she seems to be covering all bases. I wasn’t the only one that was pissed off with her attitude in that interview. Maybe she’s widening her market – or regretting narrowing it.

    No, she shouldn’t have to label herself, but I think this comment says more about her than it seems. She obviously had quite strong feelings about herself.

  6. Pumpkin Pie 10 Feb 2010, 2:08pm

    After my earlier grumblings (I meant it more in a humourous way than out of any real irritation), I just felt the need to comment on the other part of her interview: gender.

    This is genuinely fascinating stuff. In a broad sense Jackson could be described as genderqueer or androgynous. I just like giving things names, but it those are some pretty broad terms. I see myself the same way, so it’s neat to see someone else who’s bisexual (or thereabouts) AND genderqueer/androgynous (to give it a broad name).

    This bit in particular really caught my interest: “weirdly, I want to look like the people I fancy.” I get the exact same thing! It feels so bizarre sometimes. Let’s go for the hetero sterotype: manly man and girly girl. Manly man does not like manly men, he likes girly girls, and vice versa. Knowing this, they each play up to their own roles in an attempt at courtship. Similar things happen in gay pairings. They tend to be more even than straight pairings, but you still get tops/bottoms, butch/femmes, whatever. Act one way, seek the other.

    Not me people like us, though. I don’t act masculine, and I don’t date masculine types either. In our world of opposites attracting, this does not help me very much on the dating front.

    Good point about the whole “straight or gay” issue. That probably left some people with a wariness for labels.

    If I’m thinking of the right interview, wasn’t she just annoyed that some of her fans thought she was a sex-mad lesbian and liked throwing their undergarments at her?

  7. Pumpkin Pie 10 Feb 2010, 2:10pm

    …And I have no idea why your names are now hyperlinks to Twitter pages. That’s kind of odd.

  8. if she isn’t labeling herslef, then she could be a trysexual.. try anything but once .. quote infmaous Samantha Jones of Sex and the city.

  9. Pumpkin Pie (8): Interesting note about @names being auto-linked to Twitter pages. I wonder who thought of that “feature”.

    About words for sexuality, I think
    – It’s fair enough that people don’t want to be pigeon-holed into
    a label
    – It’s ironic that there are labels (eg. “pansexual“) for
    such people
    – It’s important for all of us not to be too sensitive about
    labels. For example, should we now say “LGBTQAPP” for “Lesbian,
    Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning (depending on
    your reading), Asexual, Pansexual and Polysexual
    ” ? I’ve been
    criticised in the past for shortening LGBT to “gay” because
    many people haven’t any clue what “LGBT” means. And I’m not
    the phrase “sexual minorities” which we use in Japan would find
    favour here either.

  10. Sigh. She’s gay. La Roux meet Mika.

  11. La Roux seems to have admitted she is Julie Bindel :D

  12. Hi Pumpkin Pie – yes, that’s the one. Fair enough to object to girls waving their breasts at you when you’re trying to sing, but there was something about her tone when making those comments that read, to me, as rather nasty.

    “Act one way, seek the other”

    Interesting. I’m someone who likes the similar rather than the different too (I’m girlie and I like girlie girls). I know the saying is ‘opposites atrract’ but I’ve found that not to be so true. Has anyone noticed how couples often look similar facially? Sometimes it’s as though they recognise their own familiar features in another and go for that. Not sure why. You raised a good point there, Pumpkin Pie :)

  13. Simon Murphy 10 Feb 2010, 3:43pm

    “La Roux meet Mika.”

    Dreary old Mika is now ‘officially’ bisexual.

    Apparently when his 2nd album was such an enormous flop he decided that being someone ‘without a label’ was not very attractive to many in his potential audience. So he revealed his bisexuality.

    Too bad his career was already flushing down the pop toilet.

    I predict the same fate for the asexual LaRoux – the woman who admits that she has no sexuality. She sounds like such a boring date.

  14. I agree with Pumpkin Pie (3)

    She sounds pretentious. She must understand that she will be described as bisexual considering she is attracted to both males and females. I don’t get why she’s so precious about it.

  15. I love the new category of . . . “TrySexual”

    Perhaps this will suit her better since it is less like a label, and more of an attitude . . . (He says tongue in cheek)

  16. Simon Murphy 10 Feb 2010, 4:49pm

    I find people who say ‘I don’t like labels to be desperately annoying’.

    It strikes me that they say it in a manner designed to say ‘Oh I’m above all that. I’m ever so evolved me’.

    Whereas the reality is that they are too cowardly to identify as one of ‘those dirty queers’ for fear of offending their audience.

  17. Simon . . . would that be “Designer Labels”

  18. I think she has a fair point though about not wanting to be labelled. Being in the pop biz as well, if she says “I’m gay” or “I’m bi”, then it would be the usual junk printed by the rag-mags. Besides, sexuality and gender-identity are very complex, certainly far more than just the straight/bi/gay or male/female labels.

  19. Simon Murphy 10 Feb 2010, 6:42pm

    The rag mags will print junk about her/him (see what I did there?) regardless of how he/she identifies. It’s the pop music business. They will print whatever suits them.

  20. Brian Burton 10 Feb 2010, 8:32pm

    Well, Children of Pink, I find LA ROUX too hilarious for words!!!!

  21. For me, the insistence that “bisexual = attracted to men and women” seems kind of limited. Homo = same/similar; hetero = different; I am attracted to some people, and some of them are like me and some of them are different in terms of sex, gender, gender identity and orientation. Seems to me that bisexual is a term that can encompass everything “pansexual” and “omnisexual” claim.

    Anyway, La Roux’s going to find herself the object of scorn for a lot of people heavily invested in binary thinking around gender. It really does seem to bring out the worst in people. Good luck to Elly in dealing with that.

  22. “Anyway, La Roux’s going to find herself the object of scorn for a lot of people heavily invested in binary thinking around gender. It really does seem to bring out the worst in people. Good luck to Elly in dealing with that.”

    Anon . . . my sentiments exactly

  23. Seems needlessly nitpicky to me. In terms of sexual orientation there are 4 empirically recognisable categories to fit into, straight, gay/lesbian, bisexual and asexual. Even most trans people would put themselves in one of those categories, so why insist on yet more categories which amount to the semantic equivalent of reinventing the wheel?
    Name one thing on the sexual venn diagram that isn’t covered by one of those headings and I’ll take it all back, but for my money she’s just being needlessly pedantic, pretentious and evasive. Next she’ll be calling herself “the artist formerly known as LaRoux”.

  24. Brian Burton 11 Feb 2010, 8:44am

    Flapjack, This is why this whole piece is a big load of Cock!

  25. The Menstruator 11 Feb 2010, 1:49pm

    Well you do your thing… La Roux, but you aren’t getting my money or time. You keep taking the cash from the straights and the gays and keep riding that cash fence. Maybe one day someone will love you. F-ing Loser.

  26. re: bi- vs. pansexuality – I’d say bisexuality implies attraction to only the two “conventional” genders, whereas if you call yourself “pansexual” you’re more explicitly covering everyone in between as well.

  27. To back up the commenter above me, someone, that is indeed the definition.
    My friend identifies as pansexual, as it is more expansive than bisexual- she isn’t just attracted for males and females, but to trans and all of the community. Accepting of those that identify by alternate labels.

  28. Emmarainbow 11 Feb 2010, 6:22pm

    Dear god, there’s so much pan hate in these comments, with the odd mumble against bisexuality/asexuality as well. >_<

    Genderqueer people exist, pansexual is a label that includes them. From what she says she's pretty genderqueer herself, it makes sense…

  29. Emmarainbow – I’m not anti- pansexual as such, I just don’t see the point in being sexually attracted to pans! I cook with them, they’re great for boiling rice, but I can’t see where they fit into any known pattern of human relationship.
    As I’ve said before, if bi-sexual, gay, lesbian or asexual don’t describe it, what the hell is pansexual? I think we covered all the bases already.
    Having sex with anything on legs is a subset covered by all the other categories already, as is being a hardcore closetcase with an aversion to labels. “Pansexual” is a hairsplitting subset category at best.
    Short of bestiality, necrophilia etc. name one other relationship between 2 consenting human beings which isn’t already covered by the major 4 categories.
    It just sounds like a pointless euphamism for bisexual people who don’t like labels.

  30. Pumpkin Pie 12 Feb 2010, 2:26am

    someone, Alchemu, and Emmarainbow

    Thanks for your input! This definition of the difference between pan- and bisexuality is something I’ve heard before. Unfortunately, I still disagree with it. There are straight and gay people who would date transsexuals, but having an alternate name for them would seem a little silly. And bisexuality has so many permutations that naming them all seems needless.

    I mean, I would date any cute transgirl, but some hunky studmuffin with beefy muscles? Meh. Maybe I’d have a bit of fun with him, but masculinity’s not really my thing. I’m mainly only interested in feminine or androgynous people, but I don’t regard myself as femosexual or androsexual, or whatever, because I see what huge scope bisexuality has. Hey, and I’m with you guys – I LOVE genderqueer people. Gender boundaries are fine and dandy for those who like them, but not me.

    Please don’t misunderstand, there’s no pansexual hate here. Just an apprehension for divisive names. Personally, I’m under the impression that the vast majority of bisexuals could be described as “pansexual”, anyway. Gender concepts don’t mean a whole lot to us. As I like to say: it’s all good. :p

  31. But bisexuality, as part of the name implies that there are only 2 distinct genders. What if people don’t conform to gender stereotypes, male or female, – what sexuality is attracted to them?

    So in my view pansexuality would cover all gender identities, not just male or female.

    Any thoughts?

  32. I think people who don’t feel they conform to either of the genders go on to reject the notion of sexuality as they see it to imply a gender.

    Which is true if you think about it. Gender and sex are different concepts, and if we accept X and Y to be appropriate sex labels, we could say that the main defining factor in sexual orientation is attraction to a sex, i.e. XX and/or XY.

    Still a pre-op “XY” transgendered women attracted to “XY” should label herself how? Does she take her XY sex to determine that she is gay. Does she take her female gender to determine that she is straight? Does she not fit any label?

  33. I’m sorry, pansexuality can cover anything. Men, women, family pets and household implements – iot’s an absurd notion.

    Someone should just sit her down and tell her to stop behaving like a knob.

    What is wrong with lesbia, gay and bisexual anyhow? If it’s an issue of sexuality (with humans) then that should pretty much cover all bases.

  34. I didn’t add the ‘t’ part to that because although I strongly believe transexuals should stand with us under that big ol’ gay umbrella theirs is ultimately a question of gender and not of sexuality.

  35. Actually labels are very important. They allow us to identify ourselves and find groups, friends and partners. Labels are at least for the the moment an intrinsic part of human life.

    Pansexual is just a form of bisexuality. It is best described as gender blind. Many bisexuals require both genders in their life, so they clearly are making gender choices. Pansexuals however, do not feel the need for both genders, and indeed make gender free choices.
    The “pan” also acknowledges that there are more than two genders, that there are many different mixes of male and female that produce a broad spectrum of gender. A pansexual would ignore gender, so may be attracted to androgynous, or trans people. A bisexual, on the other hand, would be less likely, since they prefer and distinguish between the gender binary.


  36. I do find some of these comments completely stupid but JohnK’s. pansexuality is when the person is attracted to the other persons PERSONALITY not their gender, while bisexuality the person is attracted TO the gender and not their personality. now if la roux doesn’t find anyone sexually appealing that’s her thing I don’t see how any of you have the right to stay anything against.and mr. simon murphy asexuality is common in the life cycle go back to school you learn it in biology.

  37. I think if she was straight she would have said she was straight. People do things like this as an easy way to brush off the question, it’s simply fence sitting. She doesn’t want to “stir the pot” for herself so chooses the easy option of saying the world would be a better place without all these labels, which is true, but in this case I feel it’s just a bit of a cop out really. I can understand wanting to keep your private private, but as a gay musician myself I will speak proudly of my sexuality whenever asked in the hopes it inspires more LGBT to be open in the music industry. I think we’re passed the point where you can just cruise in the closet for the sake of your own success. The kids needs role models! We need to be those role models! Staying in the closet or on the fence does those kids no good.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.