*sigh*

[taffimai]

So, yesterday I posted this question to adwd, the lj community for the discussion of Any Dream Will Do:

Does anyone else think it's a bit odd that we've only seen the Josephs' girlfriends identified on air? I don't think it's terribly likely that of the 100 boys who made the finals, none of them had a boyfriend to bring into the audience to cheer them on.

Do you think the show's producers are avoiding the issue? Or that the Josephs are concerned that it would bias the voting public against them? Or did I miss something?

What followed was extremely interesting and more than a little infuriating. There were basically four responses, all with varying degrees of wrongness:

Reaction 1: "Why would you think that any of the contestants are gay?"

Oh, for god's sake. There were 100 initial contestants on the show. Statistically, 10 of them should be gay. And to be honest? It's musical theater. In a group of men interested in breaking into musical theater, you're probably going to have more gay men than the 1 in 10 in the general population. Is that a stereotype? Of course. But there's still some truth in it.

Reaction 2: "Oh my god, why are you making this into an issue?"

Because it's interesting. A significant number of the top 100 contestants had profiles done with their parents/grandparents/girlfriends/wives and as the show has progressed the production has definitely highlighted the contestants' girlfriends in the audience reaction shots and in family interviews. No one has had a boyfriend or male partner identified on camera and it feels like the message is, "Look, they date girls, they really really do!"

Now, I can see a few possible explanations:

A. Simple coincidence: Whichever contestants are gay either happen to be single or have boyfriends who aren't interested in appearing on camera. While this is possible, I don't find it likely given the size of the group.*
B. Protection: It's for the contestant's benefit, as showing a male partner could have a negative impact on the voting.
C. Homophobia within the production team.

Personally, I'm leaning towards B. But regardless of the actual explanation, the conversation is worth having. To imply that it's a non-issue smacks of homophobia.

Reaction 3: "This can't be purposeful on the part of production team because John Barrowman and Graham Norton are involved in the project."

Seriously? You think that one of the judges and the presenter have the ability to affect the production in that way? And if it's a benevolent we're-protecting-the-boys-from-a-homophobic-voting-public policy, why would you think that John or Graham would have a problem with it?

Reaction 4: Discussion of which contestants are gay and which are straight.

Oh my god, this was not the point of the question. Not to say that I don't have my theories, but it wasn't what I wanted to discuss. Unfortunately, the conversation devolved into speculation and offerings of insider information and RPS and general badness to the point where there was a call to have the original post deleted. Which I agreed with.

So. Thoughts?




*One caveat: I'm making an assumption that the gay UK culture is as concerned about visibility as the gay US culture. If this assumption is faulty, that makes this explanation much more likely. If the assumption is accurate, I think that at least one couple would have wanted to be shown on camera just for the sake of visibility.

Comments

[fandom-me.livejournal.com]

I agree with both your assessment of the most likely reason for lack of seeing the boyfriends/girlfriends on the air, and the reason for the response to your question. It seems pretty likely to me that they also picked the people who had the prettiest/most generally socially acceptable girlfriends. TV just isn't that open to diversity and I really can't see John being a judge having ANYTHING to do with it - not really. He's already a known entity.

[taffimai.livejournal.com]

Phew, I was beginning to wonder if I was totally out there.

And yes, it's definitely been the case that the most attractive girlfriends have had more screen time.

[fandom-me.livejournal.com]

You're not out there - people just get twitchy about weird things. Sometimes it's homophobia, sometimes it's OMG don't speculate about real people, and sometimes it's just plain old "Why do you expect me to think?". Frankly all of them annoy me to varying degrees and in various ways.

[thebratqueen.livejournal.com]

...It's a reality show about casting the male lead for an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical about a guy who wears a funky coat.

How are any of the contestants STRAIGHT?

[solitude-82.livejournal.com]

So straight men can't be into musical theatre? That's sort of stereotypical isn't it? I'm all for the idea that some of the guys are gay because statistically there will be some gay men if you stick a lot of them in the same room together. But there will also be some straight ones, if you don't give in to normal gay stereotypes.

[taffimai.livejournal.com]

She was being ironic.

[taffimai.livejournal.com]

Heh. I think technically it's a rainbow coat.

[miss-zedem.livejournal.com]

I agree with most of your ramt - and the getting into speculation about which ones are gay sounds totally out of order!

One caveat: I'm making an assumption that the gay UK culture is as concerned about visibility as the gay US culture. If this assumption is faulty, that makes this explanation much more likely. If the assumption is accurate, I think that at least one couple would have wanted to be shown on camera just for the sake of visibility. I think I said something about this yesterday, but possibly not very clearly. My experience of gay culture here is this: there are a few activists in the Peter Tatchell mode, but mostly there are just people like JB, Graham Norton, Amy Lame, Sue Perkins, who openly admit their sexuality but don't make a big deal out of it. The vast majority of gay people in the UK I would say fall into this category. So I'm not surprised to see no evidence of furthering the cause. We just don't really do making a scene here.

It's far more likely, in my opinion, that if there is a gay guy still involved, or one who at least made it to the last 100, that once he's working there'll be some sort of 'oh by the way I'm gay'. That's what happened with a Pop Idol winner a few years ago - he wasn't involved with anyone during the show, so nothing was said about it, then he came out later to a loud chorus of 'yeah, and?'. Except from the blue-rinse, right-wing brigade who had a coronary, but no-one pays any attention to them.

I find it highly unlikely that the producers are deliberately editing out boyfriends, not just because of GN and JB, but because I genuinely don't think it's necessary. The demographic of viewers, the fact that it's musical theatre, the people involved, the fact that it's the BBC (who have a pretty good track record of standing up to people who complain about stuff like gay kisses), all make me think that there genuinely are no boyfriends, or if there are, they've chosen not to be on screen for whatever reason.

Hopefully that makes sense...

[lonelybrit]

Agreeing with this comment. We do have a couple of folks who want to make a point about being gay and fair play to them. However on the Beeb I've never felt it was really that much of an issue. On a different show hosted by a different TV corporation then yes, I'd agree that maybe the no show of any boyfriends is deliberately selectively, but on the Beeb and with folks like JB saying how they really enjoy being on the show, I don't think that's the case in this instance.

[miss-zedem.livejournal.com]

Yep - ITV is much more likely to pander to the Daily Mail readers I reckon. If this question had been about non-visibility of same-sex partners on You're the One That I want or whatever ITV's rip-off of ADWD is called, my answer would have been completely different.

Your 'English' icon is awesome by the way - is it gakkable? It just appeals to my inner-linguist enormously!

[lonelybrit]

*grin* Why thank you, it does amuse me somewhat. It's utterly gakkable so long as you credit thefunkyicon as its creator =)

[taffimai.livejournal.com]

Thanks, this mini-thread was really enlightening.

[taffimai.livejournal.com]

That makes perfect sense -- and makes me more than a little jealous. *considers moving to the UK for the 47th time*

[miss-zedem.livejournal.com]

There seems to have been a big shift in attitudes in the last ten years - of course there are still homophobes here, and the Church occasionally pontificates on it being a sin - but for the most part, people seem to have realised that *shock horror* gay people aren't a threat. The visibility of gay people in the media, like JB, has helped enormously, but in general society seems to have become much more accepting. I occasionally read with horror the actions of the Christian right in America - a country that I always grew up thinking was far more liberal than Britain - and it makes me grateful I live here. Not many things can achieve that!

I'll stop hijacking your thread with my politics now - sorry about that!

[athousanderrors.livejournal.com]

haha, see, here was me all ready to comment, and you said everything already. Hmph. :P

But yeah, basically; being gay is not a big deal. Well, ok, possibly the wrong phrasing. But we certainly seem to have less 'militant' gays in the media. Yes, there might have been "OMG WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO???" reactions when, for example, Queer As Folk first started. But that was years ago now.

Shows like Torchwood, with an openly bi-sorry, omni-sexual, leading man, just show how far we've come. No one CARES who he's shagging. He's a hero. And the public love him.

Honestly? I just think that the gay finalists (and I think there's probably at least one) either don't want to be outed on TV because they think it will hurt their chances/they've been advised not to, or they just don't have a partner to be shown in the crowd shots.

I would like to think it's not the first, though. Although there is the stereotype of 'musical theatre' boys, I don't know why they would think that coming out would hurt their chances. Unless they think they'll lose the teenybopper vote if said teenybopper can no longer maintain her delusions that she's going to marry him...

[natlyn.livejournal.com]

The hijacking of a conversation is always frustrating.

[taffimai.livejournal.com]

I know!!!