Setting It Straight

If you didn’t love Daniel Radcliffe for playing Harry Potter, taking his clothes off in Equus, or for embracing gays both in The Daily Beast and British gaymag Attitude, you’re either a very ungrateful gay, or I’m gonna pretend you didn’t know about any of this. Nevertheless, along comes another chance to jump aboard the DanRad-loving bandwagon; a sit-down with MTV to, among other things, talk gayness. Maybe it’s because I know he’s faced with it time and time again, but I have never seen any straight guy being as easy about this issue as he is. After telling a mildly amusing anecdote about somebody on the web accusing him of having ‘a gay face’, he gets the question back as a hypothetical, as in whether he thinks it would be a problem for someone playing Harry Potter to come out. And here’s the thing; after having letting slip out that he’s in fact straight, he doesn’t for a second feel the need to reaffirm that. It’s there implicitly, of course (‘If I were gay…’), but still. When he talks about how coming out is an important step in a gay man’s life, he erects no wall between himself and that experience, it’s just something he understands and accepts intuitively. The gay community should be grateful that he has taken up our cause.

It would be perfectly understandable if he had struggled a bit more with finding the right answer to such a question. In some ways, it might even have made it easier for him if he had found the question intimidating or insulting. Then he could have just laughed it off, declared his straightness and moved on. It would have told us that he thought the question was too far out to elicit a more thorough response. It’s easy because you don’t have to care about what neither nor straight people think of your answer. If you’re aiming for what Daniel Radcliffe actually did, however, things get much more complicated. If you feel like you have to qualify your statements in a straight context all the time (‘Not that I know anything about being gay’,  ‘As a straight man I…’ etc), people might not get that you’re also extending an hand to the gays. And likewise, if you spend too much time emphasizing that you have nothing against gays, for some people that will invariably drown out the message that you yourself are straight. It’s not fair, for sure, but it happens all the time. Radcliffe seems pretty confident that he’s striking the right balance, which in return makes it more convincing and reassurement for the viewers.

I’m speculating, but I kind of think this is a generational thing. Surveys routinely find that young people are less likely to think that homosexuality should even be an issue with their friends and family, and at the same time, they’re most deeply engaged in advancing gay rights. Young enough to have experienced and gained from the progress that their predecessors fought for, they’re having a hard time understanding why this should be anybody’s business at all. Because they sense that they’ve got history on their side, they may also be less uncomfortable about questions of their own identity, no matter how straight they may be. If this analysis, which doesn’t imply that homophobia doesn’t still exist as a problem, is correct, then it could also help explain why people of a different generation, however gay-friendly, seem to struggle more with hitting the right balance. At least when it comes to getting their point across in a way that satisfies them.

Consider, for example, the English former soccer star Graeme LeSaux. For reasons so odd I’d love to write them off as laughable (going on a vacation with a team mate, reading a quality newspaper (!)), he was routinely subject to anti-gay bullying both on and off the pitch. In an interview with Attitude in 2008, promoting his autobiography, he had some really interesting thoughts 0n the challenge of being thought of as “representing a community without being part of it”

At the times I was playing it was difficult for me to deny that Iwas gay and respond angrily to my abuse without being disrespectful to the homosexual community. I never believed that there was anything wrong with being – I have no prejudice in me whatsoever. It was about the environment that I worked in. I felt that if it came to be accepted that I was gay, I’d be unable to continue as a professional footballer.

(…)

I’m not a standard bearer for the gay community, and I’m not gay. But in talking about homophobic abuse it feels like I’m representing a community without being part of it. It instantly creates a difficulty. I would be upset if someone got offended. But equally I feel like I have to stand up for who I am. Most people will take that in the spirit in which it’s meant. But I worry that some might think, well, what’s his problem with being called gay? There’s nothing wrong with it, but I’m not.

And there is definitely nothing wrong with what LeSaux is saying. While their situations are not completely comparable, I guess what sets Daniel Radcliffe apart in this context, is that he doesn’t feel the need to articulate that he’s walking the same tightrope as LeSaux. But in addition to making me love them both for their understanding and sympathy, their thoughtful handling of such delicate matters made me think about the question itself. Of course, ‘are you gay?’ is a terrifying question for gays who aren’t ready to come out yet, or even for people who are but just haven’t told anyone before. But how about those who say ‘no’  because they simply aren’t gay?

Many gays have experiences coming out where friends or family simply refuse accept that they are gay, which is a tragedy. But generally, if someone says they’re gay, if your of over a certain age (“It’s just a phase” etc.) at least the conversation usually quickly turns to whether that’s a good (‘I’m so proud of you for telling me this’) or a bad thing (‘You are not my son’ etc) , not whether it’s a fact or not. If a person denies being gay, however, another dynamic comes into play. As long as society presumes people to be straight until proven otherwise, “suspected” homosexuality can be hard to disprove, because the person asking may be assuming that you’re only saying ‘no’ because of the social costs associated with being gay. The nature of the question, that no one else than the guy himself can really know for sure,  means that we have to ask ourselves if we even have a right to ask a person that question. We are used to think of not being respected as a gay man as an outrage, and it is. But these two approaches to handling the question of their own sexuality, made me think about how little attention the opposite point is getting. Championing diversity and personal freedom is not only about advancing gay rights, it’s also about taking on straight people who define heterosexuality so narrowly that people who for some superficial reason don’t completely fit their definition are automatically robbed of their straight identity.

Daniel Radcliffe and Graeme LeSaux both help to advance that point.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in gay and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Setting It Straight

  1. It’s been a long time since I’ve been here. It’s nice to be welcomed with an LOL-worthy first sentence.

    This post made me :) and I’m glad you’re shedding light on people who are, essentially, accepting.

  2. queerlefty says:

    Welcome back, Franz. You know I love your input.

    I love accepting people, and Radcliffe has a history of being really smart and open about these things. As a bonus, he may actually have a chance to educate some people.

  3. Bryan Borland says:

    OMG I can’t even wait to read the new blog post before I comment – I LOVE THE LOOK!!!!!

    • queerlefty says:

      Thanks, Bryan. By the way, I’m working on a piece on Tom Ford’s ‘A Single Man’ (in which he, among things, made Nicholas Hoult an instant contender for #1 on the March SMA) as we speak. Hopefully, It’ll be up sometime later today.

  4. Bryan Borland says:

    “I’m speculating, but I kind of think this is a generational thing.” Absolutely, and I’m damn jealous of the younger kids! But I’m hopeful, as well, because each young man and woman who comes of age brings us toward a majority of tolerance. It’s only a matter of time. You go, Harry Potter!

    On a semi-related note, there’s an interesting uproar in the US right now, because recently, Sean Hayes, the actor who played Jack on “Will and Grace,” came out, and GLAAD honored him with some sort of award. Many are upset because he waited until his fame-flame had all but burned out before going public with his sexuality (as “Will and Grace” ended its successful run years ago). So here’s a question for another day – do gay and lesbian celebrities have a responsibility to live openly in order to make it easier on the rest of us?

    • queerlefty says:

      I just read an interview with Hayes in The Advocate, and I totally get the point. Still, I’m really torn on the issue of GLBT perforners and their responsibilities as awareness-raisers. My instinctive reaction is to say, as I once did about Jay Brannan, that “I’m a bit weary of demanding something from a gay guy that I wouldn’t from a straight guy, no matter the benefits I think would result from it.”. But then again, straight people have the benefit of heteronormativity, so I guess the comparison is not particularly apt. Reading about US LGBT history has moved me more in the direction of the Harvey Milk tradition (emphasizing visibilty as a weapon of normative change), although I do not support outing people against their will.

      In the particular case of Hayes, though, I have some problems understanding what he really had to lose from coming out. His character on W&G was so flamboyant that I have a hard time imagining that putting up a straight face (so to speak) would somehow save him from the typecasting trap. And while I recognize that there is pressure associated with being a celebrity, I immediately feel like he had the chance to come out from a fairly safe and protected position. His fans would have rallied around him in a way that the insecure teen searching for a role model or just someone of his own persuasion could only dream of.

      I don’t know if this made any sense, but thanks for the question.

  5. jessiecarty says:

    I’m glad to hear that someone with as much credibility and/or celebrity as Daniel Radcliffe would be comfortable with the discussion. It’s why I like that Oprah is so embracing of the gay community as well. Can I just say, I love you guys :)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s