In defence of Gronk and pansexual desire
Sunday night I was busily tweeting every time Rob Gronkowski did pretty much anything for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers during the super bowl. Not that I usually throw virtual panties at Gronk, but I was in the mood for some light-hearted Twitter fun. For those who don’t know Gronk, he is the maven of puckish humour, a seriously good football player, and general all-round decent human being. Oh, and one of the few high-profile men who I crush on.
I made a passing gif comment on another person’s anti-super bowl tweet along the lines of yes, but… Gronk! Her reply was “Poor thing, testosterone really fucked up her skull.” All in the spirit of humour and good taste, and I had a good laugh about it. However, it got me thinking about how being expressively pansexual in public is complicated. On the one hand I am predominantly into the ladies, prolifically sapphic, and generally focus my energies on my queerness. On the other, well, Gronk, and a handful of other men who turn my head from time-to-time.
During my teens I went to an all-boys school, exclusively dated and fancied women, and due to my Christian upbringing had no conception of queer desire in any shade or hue. It coloured a lot of my language, understanding, and mode of being, to the point that even finding a guy attractive was a shock to my system. It took me a long time to admit to liking men, and it was not until my mid-twenties that I actually had my first and only female/male heterosexual relationship (though it was very much a queer one due to various gender dynamics).
Even now I have to catch and give myself permission to actively like men. I don’t like labelling my sexuality because my tastes and desires are so fluid, which is why queer just sits right. However, if I had to pansexual would probably be closest, as I just don’t know who my tastes will settle on. That Gronk ticks some boxes was a surprise to me, but maybe it should not have been.
The case for the defence, your honour. Honestly, it is more than Gronk’s looks and smile that I find attractive. I actively dug down into my attraction trying to work out why, purely because I did not want to just be a fan girl crushing. Turns out he is actually very smart (tick), does a lot of charity work (tick), and is happily married (not so much tick as really cool). For all the puckishness he presents on social media, he appears to be a decent guy. Yes, I know that all celebrities curate their image, and doubtless he does have a less appealing side, but for an offhand crush he seems on of the better ones.
So why do I feel like I must defend myself in the face of the comment? I do not know, maybe because I was surprised that another queer person would say such a thing. Or maybe because I have spent such a long time dissecting my own attraction to guys. I definitely don’t feel attacked, but I do feel on the defensive, as if liking Gronk somehow suddenly made me a lesser queer person. I know deep down this is not true, though given all the likes on that response it made me introspective. Hence this post.
In the end my sexuality is my business, and who I crush on is as ephemeral as the wind. Yet, as soon as I make any public statements of course it is bound to be critiqued for taste. It is all in good humour, and on this occasion I definitely saw the funny side, however, maybe just accepting a person’s tastes should just be enough. I don’t know. All I do know is that Gronk makes me smile in that fan girly crushy sort-of-way, and while there is certain no accounting for it, I just roll with the puppy eyes.
