one of my favorite movie moments of the past decade has got to be that moment in x-men 2 when iceman and the rest of the teen mutants are hiding out at iceman’s house and his mom asks, him “have you ever tried….not…being a mutant?” like it would just solve everything.

i went to see the movie with a whole posse of my best friends, and was sitting next to one who happened to be gay, and he burst out laughing. i mean the whole theater was laughing, but it was even more pointed coming from sean. the question was the kind of thing that no doubt many a gay kid has had to endure from their parents, “well, have you ever tried… not… being gay?”

i think in general we like to assume that there are lifestyle choices we make, like listening to rockabilly, driving a harley, polyamory, veganism, white supremacism. and those we don’t, like what socioeconomic class we’re born into, our skin color, our gender, whether we’re good at math, and who we fall in love with.

technically, now more than ever before the once-immutable attributes of identity are becoming a choice. even those options that we did not pick for ourselves, that are dictated by genetics, hormones, or circumstance, are being challenged by the dissolution of outdated conventions and advancements in modern surgery. in a sense it’s almost like if you happen to have been born a straight female, and are still happy to be one, then it’s almost like it was a choice by the sheer act of compliance, if nothing else, when you take into account the varieties of gender and orientational mashups available these days.

i read dana boyd’s essay yesterday on “Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace” about the lifestyle segregations that seem to be emerging from the user adoption pattern of the two sites, and what really struck me was the following:

Most teens who exclusively use Facebook are familiar with and have an opinion about MySpace. These teens are very aware of MySpace and they often have a negative opinion about it. They see it as gaudy, immature, and “so middle school.” They prefer the “clean” look of Facebook, noting that it is more mature and that MySpace is “so lame.” What hegemonic teens call gaudy can also be labeled as “glitzy” or “bling” or “fly” (or what my generation would call “phat”) by subaltern teens. Terms like “bling” come out of hip-hop culture where showy, sparkly, brash visual displays are acceptable and valued. The look and feel of MySpace resonates far better with subaltern communities than it does with the upwardly mobile hegemonic teens. This is even clear in the blogosphere where people talk about how gauche MySpace is while commending Facebook on its aesthetics. I’m sure that a visual analyst would be able to explain how classed aesthetics are, but it is pretty clear to me that aesthetics are more than simply the “eye of the beholder” – they are culturally narrated and replicated. That “clean” or “modern” look of Facebook is akin to West Elm or Pottery Barn or any poshy Scandinavian design house (that I admit I’m drawn to) while the more flashy look of MySpace resembles the Las Vegas imagery that attracts millions every year. I suspect that lifestyles have aesthetic values and that these are being reproduced on MySpace and Facebook.

i’ve heard sooo many people that fit danah’s demographic description complaining about the “sub-par aesthetics” of myspace, but it never even occurred to me (and certainly not to them) that perhaps these reactions to visual composition were not really their own, but rather determined by the aesthetics of their lifestyle/background.

even if it’s possible to justify conscious identity/lifestyle choices as deliberate, how the hell do you justify the UNCONSCIOUS ones that way? and just how many of the choices we think we’re making for ourselves are actually predetermined in this unconscious way?

i’ve found that an easy way to explain how identity marketing functions is through the example of the clothing styles people choose. there’s so many styles of clothing you COULD be rocking, and yet you choose the kind clothing you choose, and not ALL the other styles. so…why is that? because you feel that this particular style expresseses something about who you are to other people.

so clothing is a tool for expressing our identity, essentially but who we want to sleep with is determined by biology? perhaps neither of these is this cut and dry. my bioanthropology professor used to say, “everything is 100% nature. and 100% nurture.”

so what about our choices about whether or not we like hardcore drum ‘n bass or reggaeton or sex and the city or tofu?

is our “taste” 100% our own, and 100% not our own?

now…. who likes bon jovi?