Dylan Jones looks at recent regressions in the way gay-related stories are being reported.
There have been a few sensational stories involving gay men in the news this year. There was that whole Daniel May First Dates ridiculousness, which I think we’d all like to forget VERY quickly. In a similar vein was the scandal involving YouTuber Calum McSwiggan, which I’m sure HE’D like to forget very quickly.
Then a couple of months ago, there was the seemingly relentless coverage of the “married gay celebrity” who had a threesome, allegedly, in a paddling pool full of olive oil. It was made blindingly obvious who the celebrity in question was, but press laws prevented outlets from specifically naming him. “The unfaithful partner sought an injunction after learning a national newspaper in the UK intended to reveal details of his affair” the Daily Mail reported gleefully.
RIGHT, stop there. Firstly, assuming someone is “unfaithful” just because he sleeps with someone other than his partner, is a tediously unimaginative way of looking at things. They know nothing about the couple’s relationship. It could be an open relationship – a loving arrangement where they sit and have dinner together, then go off and sleep with other people. In fact, they’re both very cultured, artistic, eccentric people, so in all likelihood it IS an open relationship. Which is perfectly fine.
It’s typical of The Daily Mail, not exactly known for their sociopolitical diplomacy, to unblinkingly impose this heteronormative ideology (YES I WENT THERE) on our unnamed gay celebrity couple.
But quite apart from the usual old mainstream pigeonholing, we need to look at the way gay stories are reported. The headline of the Mirror was “GAY CELEBRITY WRITHED AROUND IN PADDLING POOL OF OIL WITH MARRIED MAN”. The fact that he’s gay shouldn’t factor into this. It’s a story about a celebrity threesome. The sexualities, or even genders of those involved don’t need to be stated. So why did they add it? To make it more outrageous, more shocking and, to some people, more grotesque.
The fact that this story got reported at all, is testament to the homophobia that still exists in the press. Straight footballers probably have paddling pool olive threesomes on an almost weekly basis, but that doesn’t get reported does it? And don’t even get me started on what goes on in Chris Brown’s poolhouse.
No, the aim of this story, pure and simple, was to paint gay men as selfish partiers who are incapable of living normal lives and looking after children. Much of the reporting emphasized the fact that the couple had children, stating that they posted pictures of their kids on social media frequently. Even mentioning this in the same breath as the word “threesome”, dredges back up all those archaic preconceptions of gay men as sexual deviants, and the much darker, underlying implication was essentially “are these children safe with these perverts?”
Which leads me nicely on to X-Men director Brian Singer. Back in 2014, a string of stories hit the press as reports came out of various “gay orgy parties” and an incident, according again to the Mail, where he “threw hundreds of dollars at a male stripper for lap dances.”
Again – if he’d been straight, and threw money at a female stripper, THIS WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN A STORY. I’m willing to bet that every straight film director in Hollywood has been to a strip club, given money to strippers, and probably done a bit of coke while they’re at it, but that hasn’t been splashed across the Daily Mail, has it? They paired the story with a report of model Michael Egan accusing Singer of sexually assaulting him when he was a teenager.
Now, I don’t deny that some of Brian Singer’s activities have been questionable. The countless quashed allegations of sexual assault. The pool parties with questionably aged boys. Most notably, the story of Shawn Ashmore, who plays Ice Man in the X-Men movies, and the reportedly unspeakably degrading things he did to get the role.
But again, even if all of this is true – it happens in the straight world all the time. It’s blindingly obvious that that sexual favouritism and grooming of young and underage actors and actresses happens in Hollywood constantly, and is an accepted fact of life within the industry. All you have to do to figure that out is read a Brett Easton Ellis novel or, actually, watch an episode of Gossip Girl.
More notable than all of this though, is the press’ attitude towards recent developments in the ongoing PrEP debate. The courts ruled last week that the NHS is allowed to provide PrEP to those who need it. The Daily Mail headed up the charge following the decision, with the front page headline “WHAT A SKEWED SENSE OF VALUES”, while Channel 5’s The Wright Stuff, started their discussion with the question “Should the NHS blow £20m on an HIV drug for gay men who won’t use condoms?” The Mail went on to say it would be “fraut with dangers” as it is “not 100 per cent effective.” They failed to mention that, whilst not 100% effective, it is 99% effective. So pretty much just as effective as condoms.
This is beyond questionable use of gay stories for titillation. It’s out and out homophobia, in its most insidious, exploitative form. In a rhetoric that’s darkly similar to the way press treated gay men during the AIDs crisis, we’re being painted as irresponsible hedonists.
Whilst I, in fact, am an irresponsible hedonist, so they’d be right about me, most gay men actually aren’t. Most gay men are much the same as anyone else. They like to sit on a nice Ikea sofa, drink a nice crisp glass of wine, and watch Strictly Come Dancing. If we were ACTUALLY all off having bareback orgies at all hours of the day, we’d never get anything done. There’d be a lot less hair salons around, and pride events would never get organized.
What The Daily Mail has done is illegal. It’s illegal to use the press to incite hatred towards a minority group, and that’s exactly what their tone and headlines are doing. They’re doing their best to drag us kicking and screaming back into the twentieth century. Why? Because it’s their job. They’re doing it to women too, and to immigrants, and to pretty much anyone else who’s not white, straight and called Clive.
That doesn’t mean we should accept it. We got where we are today by fighting against exactly this type of discrimination. And it IS discrimination. They’re criticizing us for wanting access to a product we’re fundamentally entitled to. We’re being treated as second-class citizens, as less than people. That sounds dramatic, but it’s true. So let’s not put up with it! Talk about it, inform people. And for god’s sake, the next time you trip over the Mail on your parents’ doorstep, chuck it in the bin.
