the awesome/terrifying freedom

it's a long one today folks, bear with me, but lydia asks me some great, well thought-out questions:

1. Suppose he isn't gay, but constant speculation has an effect [on] his career either positive or negative - would you consider that to be a shame? a victory somehow? What if it enhances his career but irritates him for the rest of his life?

i guess my hope is that gay speculation amounts to nothing much , and it's a testament to societal progress that gay speculation seems to do just that: nothing much (other than earn a person a few more gay fans and lose a few hardcore christian fans). i don't think tom cruise or ricky martin's careers have suffered. but then there's your question of enhancement.. it sort of goes back to my earlier discussion about straight men playing gay roles because it gives them respectability. if clay is actually straight, yet irritated that his success may be due to his gay behavior.. well that'd be like brad pitt resenting his face and body for helping his acting career along. if you resent the thing that brings you success, you'd best come to terms with it or switch careers. it would be great if it were true - that straight men had to pretend to be gay in order to be successful.. but in a country where rick santorum's statements have no effect on his ratings, we're not quite there yet. regardless of whether or not he's gay, i consider it a victory that someone with such nelly traits has become so popular.

2. Suppose he is gay but prefers to have his sexuality remain his personal business-do you feel that you have some sort of obligation to out him?  Does he have the right to keep it private or does celebrity negate those rights?

this is another sketchy issue raised by the mark foley camp. are democrats who cried 'invasion of privacy' when it applied to clinton suddenly willing to sacrifice an enemy candidate's privacy because it will benefit them? my feeling is that sexuality, like gender, is a question of being , not a question of privacy. i talked a little about this before, that to keep sexuality private means never answering basic questions such as 'who are you attracted to?' 'what type of person do you see yourself in a long term relationship with?' being cagey about these kinds of questions renders a person basically characterless - just ask anyone who was in the closet for an extended period of time (which is why the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy has been a dismal failure: it goes beyond privacy and asks gay and lesbian people to fundamentally deny who they are.) take a moment to observe straight people for a day and realize how casually their sexuality is revealed 'she's hot.' 'i had dinner with my girlfriend last night.' even photos of significant others on someone's desk reveals sexuality. right wingers cry 'i don't want to know what's going on in your bedroom!' when we can tell a lot of things about their bedrooms just by looking at their cubicle. i'm not trying to 'out' clay so much as explore different perceptions linked to sexuality. i look at clay and see a perfect picture of myself at 18. regardless of whether or not it's true, i'd like others to see him from that perspective as well. as for celebrity status - well i think the level of interest in a person is directly proportional to their invasion of privacy. i don't know if that's right, but i think it's safe to say that if people aren't trying to find out about your private life, then you're not much of a celebrity.

3. General question - The Commonwealth of PA is truly an equal Opportunity employer and when I was hired here 15 years ago, for the first time in my life I became acquainted with and befriended by large numbers of gays and lesbians. My church, a Mennonite one, had it's pastor removed from the Central Mennonite Committee for allowing gays and lesbians to join and worship and I have many friends there as well. Most of mu friends would cause nary a blip on anyone's "gaydar" because they seem to be exactly like any straight person. I've also known a couple of "geeky" guys who aren't gay but are effeminate and are frequently the object of speculation about their sexuality, much to their irritation.  Oddly enough, straight guys from my congregation are now the object of speculation just because they worship at our church!

Now (finally) the question - When you assume Clay Aiken is gay simply because of what you've seen of him on TV, aren't you really just promulgating a stereotype? A stereotype that irritates a lot of gay and straight people? You aren't questioning Ruben's sexuality when he's a) never had a girlfriend b) is constantly hugging and touching Clay and c) in interviews repeatedly says how much he loves him.    What gives?

i'm so glad to hear that you've met and befriended some homos! i hope they've been nice. we are a fun people.

first lets explore what stereotypes are: something conventional, formulaic and oversimplified. traits are inherently stereotypical. swishy hips and a lisp are sterotypical, and are not uncommon in the gay community (especially in areas where gay men do not need to fear persecution). but clay's gayness has a level of detail that goes beyond simplification. like the character of jack on 'will and grace,' he has stereotypical traits, but is not himself a stereotype because of the complexity of his character. each week that clay stayed on the show, he broke down the stereotype even more. he proved his talent, and became more rounded as a person each time we saw him. now, we certainly did see a lot of negative stereotypes on 'idol' during the preliminary rounds. tina fey referred to it as the 'gay delusion.' swishy homo after swishy homo paraded across that audition floor and fully embarassed themselves and the entire gay community. what's so fun to watch is clay's very first audition for simon and randy - you can tell just by the way they're asking him questions that they expect him to suck, because his image fits that of all the deulded swishys who came before him. the moment he opened his mouth to sing he broke the stereotype.

effeminate behavior, gay or not, has always been subject to ridicule - within and without the gay community. clay and ryan's popularity as effeminate males is a hugely progressive step for effeminate straight and gay men. it's a shame that 'causing nary a blip' on someone's gaydar is still seen in many parts of the country as some sort of behavioral victory. when i moved to florida for grad school i became a student of straight behavior. i reinvented myself as the frat boy i always wanted to date - buffed up, wore abercrombie and baseball caps, got the 'looks' down (you know, that whole jerking of the head when you look to the side thing).. and i set off nary a gaydar. thank god i now live in a place (and am at a place psychologically) where i can be myself (somewhere in-between nelly musical theatre fag and chauvinistic gym rat) and not care if i'm setting off any gaydar.

ryan seacrest is straight. sorry guys. i believe him because he has been candid and comfortable about the whole issue since the beginning, and has had a great time teasing us about his gay image. it's clay's avoidance of the issue, more than his image or behavior that makes me wonder a lot.. what if he is gay and is contractuallly bound to stay in the closet? what if he wants to answer all these questions, but can't? it sounds ridiculous, but britain's 'pop idol,' will young was asked to go back into the closet before trying to pursue a career in the us. what if clay is a gay man who hadn't come out to his family yet, and has now found himself suddenly locked in the closet by unexpected fame? there's a lot of possibilites.

ruben does fit the three criteria you've stated, but the key difference is that he's not sexually ambiguous. nor does his joshing with clay carry a minutia of the weird sexual spark in that moment of silence between clay and ryan seacrest. with ruben it seems to truly be a brotherly love.

i've rambled.. thanks lydia for your questions. i love exploring this stuff.