Author Archive for Jeffrey Spencer

Myth Busted!

From one of my favorite webcomics, Abstruse Goose.

Also, for those of you who live under a rock and don’t know who the Mythbusters are: go here. And start TiVoing it!

On a side note, I know Reed has been posting more intermittently and has left The Gaytheists in our capable (?) hands. Unfortunately, I have been a little bit at a loss for ideas. I think it’s because I don’t always actively think about politics and religion because I start getting angry, then I get stressed out and can’t deal with my life anymore. So if anyone has something they’d like to see me rant about and/or make fun of, leave me a comment or tweet me with some inspiration.

Big Whoop

So, it’s old news now, but Sean Hayes is gay! I know. In reality, it’s older than old news, but even as confirmed-via-interview news, it’s pretty old. This is a post I’ve been mulling over for a while and just haven’t had the time to sit down and write, so here you go, even if it’s a little outdated.

The news itself isn’t earth-shattering, surprising, or really all that exciting. It’s the build-up that’s been more interesting. As is pointed out in the Vulture piece, a lot of The Advocate’s cover article about Hayes concerns his secrecy about his sexuality over the past decade or so, even as that magazine itself worked so hard to out him. From the beginning of Will & Grace’s success, he wasn’t playing ball:

Suddenly everyone wanted to know if Hayes himself was gay and how he felt about playing a gay character. Faced with the very real prospect of jeopardizing his chance at landing straight roles down the road, he started reciting stock answers, variations on what he told the Detroit Free Press early on: “When I play a gay character I want to be as believable as possible. And when I’m playing a straight character I also want to be as believable as possible. So the less that people know about my personal life, the more believable I can be as a character.” And Hayes never pretended to be something he wasn’t; he never walked some pretty woman down the red carpet or faked a straight relationship.

So even now, having won their story, The Advocate still can’t resist taking a few shots at his “stock” answers. But what is so wrong with saying “I don’t want to talk about it because that’s my private life”? The problem The Advocate, and the gay community, seems to find with such a viewpoint is that they feel every gay celebrity has some sort of responsibility, some obligation to help the “greater good.” Hayes knows this, and shoots back at The Advocate a little bit:

“Why would you go down that path with somebody who’s done so much to contribute to the gay community?” he asks. “That was my beef about it. What more do you want me to do? Do you want me to stand on a float? And then what? It’s never enough.”

To be honest, I really side with Hayes (or whoever else): your business is your business. Most people feel he did it to protect his career and bankability as an actor. To avoid typecasting. If that’s the case, then that’s sad, but it’s still his business. It’s only in recent years that out gay actors have been embraced by the mainstream, and there’s still work to be done. It’s all rosy right now for Neil Patrick Harris, and I would never want to take any of that success away from him (I’m a huge HIMYM fan), but it probably helped that he was already playing the womanizing Barney Stinson when he came out. I’ve heard Ellen DeGeneres talk about how difficult it was to find work after her sitcom ended. So in some regards, we’ve come a long way, but it’s still hard for a gay actor to get mainstream leading roles. It’s an unfortunate truth that being gay in Hollywood is a label.

It comes from our country’s celebrity obsession. We aren’t content to watch a performance and let it speak for itself. We had to know if Brad and Angelina had more going on behind the scenes. We want desperately for our leads to have a romance that we can follow off-screen. Who’s cheating on whom? Who’s having a baby? Who’s going on a bender and shaving her head this week? Then, in turn, we project these qualities onto every character that person plays. This is all part of the problem. See, because being straight is considered the “norm,” it’s assumed that when someone plays gay, he must be gay! Hayes pointed this out in an early interview:

“I’m an actor first. I’ve played straight characters—the husband or the guy who gets the girl—in almost every commercial I’ve ever done, and nobody’s ever asked me if I’m straight. Now that I’m playing a gay character, everybody asks if I am gay.”

It’s not fair, but it’s reality. And can any of us fault him for not wanting to deal with it? The double standard he mentions is also a little silly. In a recent blog post, one of my favorite tweeters, @BroadwayGirlNYC, recently pointed out the ridiculousness of the media’s obsession with people’s sexuality, addressing Hugh Dancy’s performance as a gay man (well, really two gay men) in the play “The Pride”:

Why does every interview I read with Hugh Dancy have to ask whether he had any hesitation in playing a gay role, or about whether people around him were concerned about him playing homosexual onstage? Not once have I EVER seen an interview with a gay actor where they asked the same questions about playing straight, and they do it ALL THE TIME. Dancy is a professional ACTOR — it’s his life’s work to pretend to be something he’s not in real life. Why the obsession over kissing another dude, as if it’s the most deplorable thing in the world? Grow up, media. Ask Hugh Dancy about some issues people actually care about: like whether Claire Danesever calls him “Jordan Catalano” in bed. (link)

See, in this case, they can’t just attack him with questions about his own sexuality, seeing as he’s married to a beautiful movie star (*phew!*). So instead, everyone gets to ask him how it feels to be a macho, masculine, normal straight guy playing a gay character. Was it awkward for him? Wasn’t it icky to kiss another guy? How could he possibly look at another man and pretend to be attracted to him without immediately going limp-wristed as he immediately felt all testosterone drain from his body?As BroadwayGirl points out, it’s his job to find those feelings, wherever they come from. It’s not a matter of whether he can drum up sexual attraction for his costar. But, as I pointed out earlier, Americans want to believe that everything they see is real, that every rom-com couple is in love on- and off-screen. They simply cannot accept that a man who, in his private life, carries on relationships with men could possibly play a convincing straight man. And they won’t believe it, so they won’t go see the movie, so the studio doesn’t cast him. On the flip-side, they don’t understand a heterosexual actor so secure and fearless (and dreamy!) that he will go to that place without fear of destroying his “image.” In the end, actors become afraid to come out, fearing pigeonholing by casting agents or rejection by the public. It’s a personal decision, and one no one has any business judging it.

I know there are a lot of people who will be angry with me, who feel like it’s every gay person’s duty to spread the truth that being gay is fantastic, who need to march and shout it from the rooftops. And that’s fine. But deciding that that’s not for me does not make me a self-hating gay or mean that I’m not proud of who I am.  I have never felt like I “owed” something to the gay community. I don’t generally come off as gay (I’m not trying to be rude here, I just don’t really possess the signals that Americans, fairly or unfairly,  generally associate with gay men), and I don’t consider it my duty to come out to everyone I meet in every conversation. If I happen to mention an argument I had or trip I took with my boyfriend, that’s fine. I like TR Knight’s stance on the topic when he was outed: “While I prefer to keep my personal life private, I hope the fact that I’m gay isn’t the most interesting part of me.”

In my opinion, the less we talk all the time about our gayness, the less lurid and different it will seem to everyone. We say “we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it,” and let’s own those words by getting used to it ourselves. Outlets like The Advocate wringing their hands over a new actor’s sexuality only perpetuates the sentiment that a gay actor is different from every other actor and that, until we know whom he sleeps with, we don’t know enough about him. My goal, as far as my sexuality is concerned, has always been to show everyone I meet that I’m no different than they are and can’t be defined by one thing. I’m smart, funny, stubborn, kind, incredulous, and infuriating. The fact that I also happen to be gay should be kind of mundane and, well, old news.

Another Day, Another Gay Political Scandal

This time, not only does it come from my home state of New York, but it involves a Democrat! Representative Eric Massa is stepping down over allegations he harassed a male staffer. To be honest, I hadn’t really been aware of this. Gothamist covered it, so it came up in my RSS feed, but I must have skipped right past it. It doesn’t help that we in the city generally ignore Albany politics; the only state politics anyone here seems interested in lately is the Paterson debacle.

Truthfully, it’s a pretty unexciting story, but worth talking about because of a few odd twists. The basics are old hat: married politician harasses and gropes male staffer, denies any wrongdoing, then realizes he’s fighting a losing battle and steps down.

It seems that from the beginning Massa knew his political career was over. He announced last week that he would not be seeking a second term, but blamed cancer (he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma in the ’90s but has supposedly been “fully cured”). Of course, once the House ethics committee said it would be launching a probe, everything changed and he stepped down immediately. But there was someone else to blame this time: the Democrats! Yes, even a Democrat finds a way to deflect and blame it on the Democrats. This time it’s because Massa, who was a Republican but switched parties due to his opposition to the war in Iraq, opposes health care reform and this is a vast Democratic conspiracy to shove him out.

So that should be that, right? But the story only gets weirder. See, his behavior wasn’t like Ashburn going out to a gay club or Larry “wide stance” Craig trying to get some in an airport bathroom. These are things we expect from our closeted politicians. The Massa situation, on the other hand, lacks any confirmed sexual inappropriateness and is instead full of innuendo, locker-room gay subtext, and… tickle fights?

The first bits of this to come to light centered around his behavior and language at a New Year’s Eve wedding party. As Gothamist reports, Massa cleared the air about the incident on his weekly radio address:

I sat down at the table where my whole staff was, all of them by the way bachelors … One of them looked at me and as they would do after, I don’t know, 15 gin and tonics, and goodness only knows how many bottles of champagne, a staff member made an intonation to me that maybe I should be chasing after the bridesmaid and his points were clear and his words were far more colorful than that.

And I grabbed the staff member sitting next to me and said, “Well, what I really ought to be doing is fracking you.” And then [I] tossled the guy’s hair and left, went to my room, because I knew the party was getting to a point where it wasn’t right for me to be there. Now was that inappropriate of me? Absolutely. Am I guilty? Yes.

Battlestar Galactica references aside, it seems like an odd thing to say to your staffer while tousling his hair. Massa admits it was inappropriate, did not think the staffer found the situation uncomfortable, and asserts that it was another aide who complained. If all of that was the case, I would probably have to side with Massa. Of course it’s inappropriate, but I don’t think that comment alone should be considered enough to end someone’s career. He got a little drunk and let his homo side come out. I personally don’t think this is an earth-shattering violation of his staff. Maybe I’m wrong. But either way, it doesn’t stop there!

Now it’s being reported that Massa groped three staff members, an allegation Massa doesn’t exactly deny, but says was not sexual in nature. Because this involves a Democrat allegedly being forced out due to his opposition to health care reform, the conservative press is naturally turning him into a martyr. In turn, he’s been making the circuit on Fox News, explaining what happened to Glenn Beck:

Now they are saying I groped a male staffer. Yeah, I did. Not only did I grope him. I tickled him until he couldn’t breathe, and then four guys jumped on top of me. It was my 50th birthday. It was kill the old guy. You can take anything out of context.

So he didn’t grope anyone, it was just some innocent, manly wrestling and tickling! See, it really just depends on how you define groping. Oh, and this party took place at the townhouse Massa shared with his staff.

Wait, what?

Yes, my friends, the self-described “salty old sailor” was sharing a townhouse with five male staffers. To avoid D.C. rent, of course! Is it just me or is this thing starting to sound like Dude Dorm: Capitol Hill? His chief of staff was understandably livid and told Massa that the living situation was “not congressional.” Massa has admitted it was a mistake, and that he’d never been able to shake his Navy mentality.

So that’s about it. Seems like this guy has some tendencies he doesn’t quite want to deal with (and that extend back to his days in the Navy), was actually smart enough not to seek a random hookup, but lacked the common sense to not live with his staff and engage in homoerotic frat play. If you ask me, there’s got to be more to this story. I find it hard to believe that this would have blown up into what it has if, as Massa claims, “nothing sexual” ever happened. Beck asked him if more damning information, such as phone calls or text messages, was likely to come out. Massa said “sure there are text messages because we bantered back and forth all the time,” but of course claims they are harmless, not sexual in nature, and just “guy stuff” (my words). Even so, I’m having a hard time reaching the same level of indignation and schadenfreude I usually find in these situations. The whole story is just so sad and weird. It’s pretty obvious to me that he’s trying to avoid the muckraking that would have not only ended his political career, but quite possibly his marriage as well. When Larry King asked him if he’s gay, Massa wouldn’t answer, saying the question “insults every gay American.” (on a side note, what is it with tri-state politicians and this “gay American” line? Are we different from other gays?)

And now even his friends on the Republican side are kicking him to the curb. Beck declared Massa had “wasted America’s time” when he wouldn’t say he was forced out of office by the dirty Democrats, but had made a mistake and was leaving of his own accord.

There’s one more tidbit here that I feel is worth mentioning, if only because it’s so ridiculous. Massa hates Rahm Emanuel. Hates him. Has called him “son of the devil’s spawn.” He related the story of a confrontation he had with Emanuel in the House gym over Massa’s refusal to support Obama’s budget proposal:

“I am sitting there showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel,” Mr. Massa said, adding that Mr. Emanuel poked “his finger in my chest, yelling at me at me because I wasn’t going to vote for the president’s budget.”

“You know how awkward it is to have a political argument with a naked man?” he continued.

hmmmm… that sounds almost exactly like the dream I had last night…

Of course, White House officials deny it ever happened and yadda yadda yadda.

The whole saga is just so bizarre. Reading through everything: the shared townhouse, the tickle fights, the fracking, the snorkeling, the excuses from cancer to health care to “salty” language, the naked chief of staff, the appearance on Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh blowing it up and promising to make it a “national story,” I honestly felt like I was reading the plot treatment for a new Christopher Buckley book.

So there you have it. The same old story with a few strange twists. I don’t know. Like I said, I’m having a hard time getting angry and self-righteous about this. The gay angle doesn’t even seem to be what everyone’s talking about. And now we’ll either have a special election or wait until November, when a Republican will probably take his place. What a strange world we all live in.

I’m Living a Lie Because I (literally) Can’t Tell the Truth

Over on Friendly Atheist our good friend Hemant Mehta has quoted a piece by Andrew Sullivan from The Daily Dish, which lays out what Mr. Mehta believes is the best argument for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Specifically, he pulls from the end of the piece:

Rich [Lowry] says that it’s no big deal to live hiding one’s sexual orientation. If you’re straight, try it for one day.

Try never mentioning your spouse, your family, your home, your girlfriend or boyfriend to anyone you know or work with — just for one day. Take that photo off your desk at work, change the pronoun you use for your spouse to the opposite gender, guard everything you might say or do so that no one could know you’re straight, shut the door in your office if you have a personal conversation if it might come up.

Try it. Now imagine doing it for a lifetime. It’s crippling; it warps your mind; it destroys your self-esteem. These men and women are voluntarily risking their lives to defend us. And we are demanding they live lives like this in order to do so.

He’s totally right. Unfortunately, I think it’s something many DADT proponents aren’t likely to try anytime soon, sadly. Because if they did, I am almost certain their view that DADT is “harmless” would change overnight.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the damage done by the stigmatization of homosexuality. It is the most egregious and overt example, to be sure, but this is a problem that invades every bit of a gay person’s life. For those people willing to imagine, here’s just an idea of what it’s like just getting through high school:

Think back to being a teenager. Now imagine never being able to bring your boyfriend home. Not just because you were embarrassed of your family or because you were worried that daddy wouldn’t approve or would give him a hard time, but because you feared what it would mean for your safety and your future standing in your family. Imagine not being able to bring who you wanted to your prom, because, even if you did work up the courage, it’s simply not allowed. You can’t talk on the phone at length, for fear of arousing suspicion. You can’t spend real time together, as everything has to be done behind closed doors. You don’t get to hold hands in the hallway. You don’t get to run to your parents to be consoled after a bad breakup. You have to be careful with gifts, notes, all the little romantic niceties of relationships.

One of the few benefits of your situation is that, because it’s someone of the same gender, your oblivious parents allowed you sleepovers. Naturally this has sped up the pace of the physical relationship, so you have strange views on intimacy and sex. You can’t talk to your parents, and your friends are also still figuring everything out; you really have no one to turn to. Your whole adolescent life is stunted. It’s awkward. It’s confusing. It’s lonely.

I remember that time being such utter torture; I can’t imagine it extending into my adult life. It’s one of the main reasons I went halfway across the country for school and then, when that didn’t work out, moved to New York.

Why anyone should have to hide herself from her boss or coworkers simply because she has a “wife” (or whatever word you choose to use) is totally beyond me. I feel lucky to work in a city and situation where this is an everyday occurrence; where I’m not even the only gay employee by far. My coworkers have met and are friendly with my long-time boyfriend, they chat with him when he comes to meet me for lunch, we’ve hung out after work.

I have a hard enough time knowing that many people in my country, heck, in my own family, believe unabashedly and unapologetically that I am a second-class citizen and don’t deserve the same rights they enjoy. They shrug their shoulders and say “that’s my belief and you have to respect it.” Their impudence with just that issue astounds me so much that if those same people were to tell me that their “beliefs” extend into my right to keep my job, I don’t know if I would be able to stop myself from smacking them upside the head!

So now that I’m done rambling, I’ll just say, to anyone who is in this situation, especially the men in women in military service, my heart goes out to you. I don’t know how you do it. I certainly couldn’t. I can only keep hoping that our long national nightmare will soon be over.

The Indefensible Defense of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

I think at this point we all expect “don’t ask, don’t tell” to, at last and way too late, be repealed very soon. What I find absolutely unfathomable is that there are still so many people out there who think it’s a perfectly reasonable policy. (I would have said I find it shocking, but the level of hate and bigotry in this country has ceased to surprise me.) I caught some snippets of a debate on the issue on CNN the other day, and the only argument anyone seemed to be able to present in defense of DADT is that boarding with an openly gay soldier may make other soldiers “uncomfortable”. Well, excuse me! As I tweeted shortly thereafter, that’s really their problem, isn’t it?

And this is where I see the fundamental hypocrisy in supporters of DADT. As I mentioned in a previous post, I come from a pretty religious (though supportive and loving) family, and, naturally, we have had arguments about sexuality. I will fight to the death anyone who uses the word “choice” regarding my sexuality; I didn’t choose this. That’s not to say I’m in any way ashamed of who I am, but as a 14-year-old gay Mormon kid, if I’d had the choice, what do you think I would have done? The rebuttal to this is always that, while we may not be able to control our urges, we can control our actions. For the moment I’ll leave aside the obvious offenses this line of thinking brings up, such as the automatic sexualization of any gay relationship or the assertion that I should be forced to live the life of a lonely spinster, and focus instead on the even more insidious subtext: the idea that anyone who is gay should suppress natural and healthy urges in order to to protect the conservative sensibilities of others.

How does this relate to DADT? Well, let’s put the shoe on the other foot for a second. Let’s say you’re a bigoted asshole who just can’t fathom having to live with A Gay. Well, why should you have to suppress your natural urge to spread hate and fear? Why should you be the one to keep quiet? While these people are saying that I should just keep my mouth shut and my legs closed for the rest of my life, they don’t feel that they themselves should be forced to to suppress any of their own feelings. So while I’m being asked to deny myself pleasure, companionship, and identity for some meathead’s comfort, he feels no compulsion to hold back his contempt and intolerance in the name of equality and nonviolence.

Now, couldn’t any DADT supporter turn around and say that if I want the right to live my life the way I choose and with whom I choose, without apology, that he should have the same privilege regarding his own bigotry? I’ve basically made that argument, right? Not quite. See, as I stated above, my sexuality is a harmless and natural urge. What I do in the privacy of my bedroom with my body is really no one else’s business. Besides offending prudish sensibilities simply through the knowledge that it’s occurring, it has no effect on the outside world. DADT has a huge effect, including the perpetuation of stereotypes, the mere existence of state-sanctioned bigotry and discrimination, millions of taxpayer dollars spent to enforce said discrimination, instances of extreme violence, detrimental effects on our national security due to gay people who will never enlist in an army that already has recruitment issues, the loss of intelligent, willing soldiers for no good reason, and the list goes on.

So no, bigots, I will not hide who I am, because you have nothing to fear from me. And if it makes you “uncomfortable” to share barracks with me, well, first of all, don’t flatter yourself, and second of all, that’s just your too bad. You can simply do what we’ve had to do for years: I won’t ask if my sexuality makes you uncomfortable, and you can not tell me if it does.

I’d like to thank the Academy…

In light of both the Super Bowl and Academy Award nominations coming up within the next week, as well as the imminent return of all my favorite reality shows (I know they’re trashy, don’t hate), I figured now was as good a time as any to discuss a certain shadowy figure who always seems to be given the credit for the outcome of such events.

It makes sense that an actress accepting an Oscar would thank her parents; chances are they provided her the genetic assets and education necessary to further her career. The same goes for her director, supporting cast, family, etc. All had a part in her success, no? Likewise, a star athlete, having just propelled his team to an outstanding victory owes a debt of gratitude to his teammates, coach, and cheering fans. But there always seems to be one person credited above all, despite a glaring lack of direct involvement and, one would think, questionable motive for being involved in the first place: God.

Let’s think about the first case for a moment. Ostensibly, the actress is thanking God for giving her the talent needed to win the award. My problem in this case is that it negates her years of hard work and dedication to her craft. Is she saying that if I pray hard enough, and if God loves me enough, I, too, can become an Oscar-winning thespian? On the flip side, she could also be insinuating that God was in the ear of the Academy, and garnered her votes necessary to win. Is this to say that the other nominated performers were somehow undeserving or less loved by God? If that’s the case, He must really hate Peter O’Toole, who has been nominated a record 8 times without ever winning one of those little gold guys. (He was given an honorary Academy Award in 2003, which I find a little surprising; wouldn’t you think the Academy members would be afraid of God’s wrath, giving an award to someone not hand-selected by Him?) Basically, at best one is giving credit for his hard work to some supernatural force and at worst is telling his colleagues “God loves me more than you.”

Hell, I didn’t even know God was such a film fan. I guess we shouldn’t expect a surprise win for Creation this year, huh?

I think this is even worse in the context of sports. A star quarterback spends years training to get to the Super Bowl, leads his team to victory, winning by a hair, and thanks God? Really? I guess he could be thankful for the genetic gifts necessary to… tackle the other team a lot? (As you can see, I have no idea how football is played). I mean, I’m all for a little humility, but take a little credit, dude! It was you who threw those passes, ran those yards, and scored those touchdowns! Either that, or God simply proved last year that he really loves Pittsburgh. Like, a lot. (Well, maybe not his economic side, but certainly his Iron City Beer-drinking, pierogie-snarfing side)

If the Saints win, does anyone want to bet that Pat Robertson will say this is God’s apology for Katrina, and that they’re even now?

And so we come to the most dubious arena for God to involve himself in: reality TV. In some shows, the situation is much as above. I remember Russell, winner of last season of So You Think You Can Dance, shouting a bunch of crap about God right after he was crowned. (I went from ambivalent about his win to distinctly less excited) So you already know my feelings there. What I always find amusing are the people on the competition shows like Survivor, Big Brother, and The Amazing Race who actually pray to God to help them win. Natalie, on season 9 of Big Brother, would regularly read the bible and, when her side of the house was in control, went so far as to dub them “Team Christ”. Come on, Natalie. Do you really think God has a vested interest in Big Brother? Maybe he just has a thing for Julie Chen. And if he is a fan, how do you think he feels about your position as a bikini barista? And there’s always that couple on The Amazing Race where the husband is a priest and the wife rambles on about how they have a “third teammate”. Really, honey? So that’s God helping you dig through the mud for a clue? Don’t you think it would be better to ask him for help with not throwing a tantrum on national television?

But even if there were a God, and he really did have nothing better to do than veg out in front of CBS, why do these teams almost never win? I guess He works in mysterious ways: killing 200,000 people in Haiti, stopping a privileged Midwesterner from winning $1,000,000. Man, the suffering some people must endure!

Let’s just put all of this in perspective. Even if we were to pretend God exists, wouldn’t you think He has better things to worry about than ensuring that U2 wins their umpteenth Grammy or that so-and-so can eat the most bugs on Survivor? So come on, athletes and artists, take a little credit! This is your accomplishment. And no, sweetie, God does not care whether or not you become America’s Next Top Model or the Next Pussycat Doll. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Anyone else excited for Wednesday?!

Somehow, I have more faith in the iSlate…

(the latest from I Can’t Draw Feet)