I’m not so interested in what sparked off the exchange that I want to quote in this post – a discussion of celebrities “inching out of the closet”. As the uber thread on Missy Higgins’ sexuality here demonstrated perhaps, there’s a fair amount of prurience associated with discussing the truth of the sexuality of a celeb who may be in the process of “inching”. I think that has to be taken into account when arguing for either disclosure on the part of those in the public eye, or the visibility/representation arguments for depicting same sex attracted people in pop culture – which are in any event more complex than often stated (the “role model” thing is somewhat problematic, for instance). I did like this interchange between Pam Spaulding of Pandagon and a commenter:
It’s just nobody’s business but theirs. For a nation of starf*ckers I realise that’s a heresy, but it seems to me that normalising being gay is tied in with acting like being gay is normal. Which may mean for some keeping their private life private. Like normal people do.
I’ve rarely seen the obvious comeback better put:
but the problem is, normal people don’t …
“Normal� people talk about what they did over the weekend with their spouses.
“Normal� people discuss aspects of their social lives (who they are dating, socializing with).
“Normal� people put pictures of their sig other on their desks at work.
Heteronormativity allows these expressions to occur without judgment. When someone who is gay does any of the above, it can be considered normal, subversive, or offensive (to the point of getting one fired/beaten up/killed, for example) depending on where you are. The celebs we are talking about don’t face that level of risk, yet they cling to the closet door.
I’d add “Normal” people don’t mention every date they go on to their clients.
If you’re a muso, or actor, or model then the whole bloody world is your client. Part of what you’re selling sometimes is the idea that your song is directed at the girl or boy in the front row and so on and so on. When you’re a performer, the whole world is full of ‘clients’. So it would be nice if there were a bit more mystery about the sexuality of some of the straight folk in the public eye.
BUT I agree, “normal” people don’t hide their marriage (marriage is a public act) they wear a ring, everyone hears about their wedding plans over the lunch table, and sometimes they have photos of their last family holiday on their desk. I used to job and desk share with a woman who displayed a photo of her husband and sons in the spa on their last holiday in Queensland. I don’t think displaying your partner semi-naked is “normal” at work but no one else had a problem with it.
Famous people seem to fall into two categories of ab-normal: they talk about everything (or are exposed and followed by the paparazzi) or they talk about nothing (and go to great lengths to avoid any discussion of their lives).
To some extent I agree, and wish every one who could, would come out. Especially non-pop star celebs, eg sports stars, so there can be a plethora of same-sex attracted role models for the younger glbti folk.
However, I don’t think anyone should be outed purely for the reading pleasure of the Who (k)New Idea Weekly readers. Everyone, including pop stars, deserves to take the process of coming out to one’s self, one’s family, one’s fan base, at their own pace.
I reserve outing for the true hypocrites, those people, generally US Republican politicians, who say one thing and do another (and do it in airport toilets with undercover cops.)
But yes, challenge the heteronormativity where ever. I do it all the time.
Subvert the dominant paradigm!
I <3 Pam Spaulding. Her blog is awesome, and I love how trans-inclusive it is.
Some straight people keep their private lives private, to the point where nobody knows whether they’re straight or not. I don’t think anyone would quibble with their right to do so. Why should a gay person feel some kind of social responsibility to be open about their sexuality? Regardless of one’s level of same-sex attractedness, and regardless of the political climate, surely one’s sexual identity is a matter purely for oneself.
Of course, gay people shouldn’t have to keep their love lives a secret, any more than straight people. But how does bullying someone into coming out help that cause?
And this subject becomes a bit boring beyond inscription ,and encryption.Seeing I am not a Missy fan ,nor barely conscious of her,I hate who I need to hate,and do not like to have to see things in myself to survive.There are just too many professionals setting the standards of what is ill,incl.not accepting bi or gayness, that the whole atrocious stuff is unacceptable.Why is it coming out!?Seems somewhat boring to me.And once your seen a lesso a gay or two etc. What is the need to focus on the ones that sing or something!?.What about the hairy nosed non practicising hetero choir of non anaemics..coming out?Havent you remembered I am your choir master!?Or the haters of Centrelink one boy band impersonators of Muhamid Ali against the phraser!?We will make the news!?
Heteronormativity is precisely what makes coming out so hard for many people, regardless of their celebrity status. I’m lesbian and it took me until I was 25 to finally figure it out / accept it and come out. Compared to what many gays and lesbians go though the pressure from all the hets in my life that made it very difficult to own my sexuality and be comfortable and out with it were peanuts. But it still took me until I was 25, and I feel one of the most basic rights any person has is the right to time and personal space to work out who they are and when they want to come out – and that might mean deciding they never want to.
I don’t believe Missy Higgins’ or anyone else’s celebrity status changes this. We’ve got no idea what she’s personally going through, no idea what her family’s attitudes are, no idea if she’s actually sure of anything internally, and exactly no idea of what it’s like to have to go through the process of determining and deciding whether to go public with your sexuality in the public eye. I don’t see not facing a ‘level of risk’ that includes personal death or injury as some kind of serious benchmark to hold celebrities against – what are we saying?- “Your emotional turmoil doesn’t count because you’re famous! Unless you face death or maiming, coming out is peanuts!”
I’m with Alice from the L word, who in a recent episode (season 5-5), outs a closeted male basketball star after seeing him at a closet celebrity party. Why does she out him? Not “on principle” but because she sees him giving an interview where he expresses hatred of gays. So she outs him as a hypocrite & because of the damage he’d done.
I can’t find the transcript, but what she says is to me spot on – there’s nothing wrong with being in the closet, it’s everybody’s right to choose when they come out if at all, and that includes people with high public profiles. But if you’re a celebrity and use that profile to express strong homophobic views, the gloves come off, because as she points out, ordinary people die when celebrities use their status to reinforce heteronormativity and homophobia. That’s where the death and maiming risk part comes in.
That’s the correct balance for me – not some view that somehow because you’re a celebrity you are no longer subject to the normal and often very difficult feelings that go with working out and living your sexuality, and should be out on principle.
“there’s nothing wrong with being in the closet, it’s everybody’s right to choose when they come out if at all, and that includes people with high public profiles. But if you’re a celebrity and use that profile to express strong homophobic views, the gloves come off”
An ethics of ‘outing’, well expressed. I think this is an interesting position.
Slightly off topic, but I have a problem with the figure of the closeted man or woman being somehow an object of pity or ‘drama’ for straight audiences. There is a definite trend towards the depiction of this scenario in popular culture, which I find a little disturbing since it’s really about confirming the ‘enlightened’ status of a straight audience, while ignoring the real obstacles faced by those who come out. The same goes for the closeted person as a figure of fun: for example I find Derek Faye a funny character (in the Catherine Tate Show), but I can’t help but feel that the closeted have become fair game in a disturbing way.
Personally, i have always drawn away from the black and white argument when it comes to matters of sexual attractiveness. Sometimes it even strikes me as bit clubby with only two firmly representative teams, in the league, making waves.
Hypocrisy is always a rip off but ambivalence understandable. Deciding who is sexy is an individual thing and changes from day to day, regardless of gender, in my world view.
I wonder whether those who would demand gay and lesbian celebrities come out of the closet would take the same approach to sexualities that are even less socially acceptable – polyamory, or various fetishes etc. It’s only because society has already moved so much on gay and lesbian rights that this argument even seems plausible.
This is why bisexuals are the best. [/snark]
In terms of identity politics, it’s great to have so many celebrities as possible Out about, and even querying, their sexuality, although it does reinforce the notion of a One True Sexuality that you get when you’re born, share with one person at a time, and then dies with you unchanged.
I heard someone say a few weeks ago (not in real life, silly! on the internet! reality’s useless for interesting people!) that modern sexuality is what the market steals, and then sells back to you. In this case, maybe the outing of celebrities is just another way to a advertise a commodity.