Quite recently, I took exception to someone cracking a joke about another person. The epithet ‘fag’ was used, in description of someone who, whilst not openly gay, had that familiar camp attitude. Upon confrontation, the homophobe in question denied that he was spitefully homophobic, only that he had been “put off” by “a gay” in his secondary school. Naturally, this didn’t sit right with me either, and I continued to press the issue. Unsurprisingly, there were claims of exaggeration and excessive flirting from the secondary school gentleman which left a bad taste in the mouth.
This wasn’t a surprise to me, and whilst I resented his view that that was representative of all gay people, I was sympathetic that such behaviour would grate. I had met similar people- those who flirt incessantly, repeatedly offer sexual favours, and offer to ‘change’ people’s sexuality. We live in a society where all sexualities are accepted and so this behaviour is unacceptable and boorish regardless of whom the perpetrator is. I would be, and have been equally offended when heterosexual females throw themselves at homosexual males, so why was this person so deeply offended by one bad egg that they tarred all gay men with the same brush? Why did they pick up on this relatively rare personality trait and apply it to all people with a certain camp flamboyancy?
It is undeniable that the stereotypical gay man will be limp-wristed, flamboyant, and fashion conscious- this has been embraced by both detractors and those who celebrate homosexuality- and certainly all of those terms could be applied to the target of the original joke, but not every gay man fits that mould and I daresay that I’ve met many who hate the stereotype as much as any true-blooded homophobe. Years of Will and Grace, Queer Eye and other camp-indulgent medias have lathered this stereotype and made it a rare sight to see a gay man who doesn’t squeal or flap on screen.
There have been exceptions, of course. The first one that springs to mind is a bit part character from Friends (S01E08 – The One Where Nana Dies Twice) whom appeared to be perfectly restrained and comfortable discussing his sexuality. Fair enough. Professor Dumbledore also came to mind, but his apparent outing could be cynically viewed as a publicity stunt. For every Will we see, there are a thousand Jacks, and while I wish to stress that this isn’t a negative for the gay culture, it may be a negative for the gay men who don’t identify with them. What about the gay men who like sports, drink beer and build furniture?
America’s Modern Family is making decent headway into changing the stereotype. Whilst both Mitchell and Cameron are softer spoken, perhaps a little more effeminate than more macho characters in other shows, they are a departure from the histrionics and squealing so often found in mainstream media. They are a refreshingly realistic look at homosexual men and especially homosexual couples and anyone seeking to portray any aspects of gay relationships would do well to review how Modern Family handles it.
I feel it’s worth stressing that I have nothing against flamboyancy and campness- quite the opposite. For years homosexuals have been persecuted and people have been forced to hide who they are for fear of reprisal and repercussions beyond contemplation. We are finally living in a society where homosexuality is celebrated and not reviled and if people want to be exuberant in their actions and mannerisms then more power to them. My issue is that there is not a wide enough spectrum of gay men is being portrayed; instead producers and creative types are flooding any gay roles with the same cookie-cutter, fabulous and eventually tiresome characters. Perhaps directors think that audiences will fail to identify with these characters, or fail to recognise them as gay, so diluted have their perceptions become. Perhaps audiences need that sort of marker- after all, how can you praise someone for their forthcoming attitude to sexuality if they’re not demonstrably open about it?
What does continue to puzzle me is the casting of gay actors in heterosexual roles, and how these same gay actors don’t act in more gay roles. I am fully sympathetic to actors not wanting to be typecast consistently based on something as oblique as their sexual preference, but on the opposing side of the coin, I think that they have an obligation of sorts to try and expand the gay horizon- I can’t have been the only person to notice the narrow spectrum of gay roles on television and film. Neil Patrick-Harris, for example, has done no sizable gay roles, and even when parodying himself was portrayed as a drug taking womanizer.
Perhaps the lack of notable contra-gay roles is because there have been very few butch, macho gay icons. Think of gay icons, and you’re instantly drawn to think of Andy Warhol, Liberace, even Gok Wan. Their careers speak for themselves, but they are undeniably camp. The less exuberant but more famous, the more likely you seem to draw criticism and controversy- Freddie Mercury is a man’s man, but was struck down by HIV, James Dean was a Rebel Without a Cause, and the less said of George Michael, the better. Russell Tovey, of Him and Her and Being Human fame summed the issue up nicely; “The only thing I can give to young gay people is that when I was growing up there were no role models that were blokey, that were men. Everybody was flamboyant and camp”
So whatever the cause for this masculine bottleneck, it is only a matter of time before it is broken open. Until directors realise the broader spectrum of homosexuality that is available, it seems like we’ll be stuck with the fabulous stylists that are so omnipresent. Until then, one question still remains; there are plenty of gay males on our screens, but where are all the men?
