![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
taffimaiSo, yesterday I posted this question to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
adwd, the lj community for the discussion of Any Dream Will Do:
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-18 01:21 pm (UTC)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...