As usual, the media (and hoi polloi, bless them) just have to see two guys hugging for them to immediately assume at least one of them is gay. The innuendo and rumour mills were going full blast after this report and these pictures in Britain's The Daily Mail.
Thing is, what do you mean by "gay"?
- You can lust after blokes but not necessarily love them or even like them
- You can love them, but find the thought of sex with them uninteresting or even icky
- You can be 95% heterosexual but there is one bloke who does it for you. But you love him and lust after him
- You can not much mind either way. An orgasm's an orgasm, a hole's a hole. Warm mouths or clever hands have no gender.
- You can prefer woman but if you haven't had it for a week/a month/ a year, a man will do (prison, the British Navy, etc)
- You can get close to other men and then express your affection in a physical and sexual way. But you aren't interested in anonymous sex or gay bars.
Now I don't know about the delicious Daniel Radcliffe. He may or may not be gay.
But younger guys who seem to be much easier about this than our generation was, aren't afraid to express their liking physically (which is not the same as sexually -- our society is so afraid of sex that they see physicality leading inevitably to sex. Which is rot) One of the pernicious side effects of generations of homophobia is that perfectly straight men are afraid to express their affection and love for other men. Gay lib is also straight lib. Accepting that men can love men (without it necessarily being sexual) will allow straight men to hug and kiss and cuddle with other straight men without wanting to fuck them silly. And of course, if they did find a wayward attraction, they might well enjoy sex with each other. Gay, straight, or just human?
But younger guys who seem to be much easier about this than our generation was, aren't afraid to express their liking physically (which is not the same as sexually -- our society is so afraid of sex that they see physicality leading inevitably to sex. Which is rot) One of the pernicious side effects of generations of homophobia is that perfectly straight men are afraid to express their affection and love for other men. Gay lib is also straight lib. Accepting that men can love men (without it necessarily being sexual) will allow straight men to hug and kiss and cuddle with other straight men without wanting to fuck them silly. And of course, if they did find a wayward attraction, they might well enjoy sex with each other. Gay, straight, or just human?
Daniel Radcliffe is very gay-friendly, and easy with gays. But that doesn't mean he finds men sexually attractive, any more than a gay bloke who likes women wants to have sex with them.
He's not a macho lumber-lumber "me big, me strong, me kill someone", but that doesn't make him gay. Even if he is acting a gay man.
If he be gay, though, he's certainly welcome to visit. :-)
If he be gay, though, he's certainly welcome to visit. :-)
1 comment:
Daniel Radcliffe IS NOT gay. He has a girlfriend for christ's sake! A girlfriend he is very much in love with. Just because his part in Kill Your Darlings is gay DOES NOT mean that he is. There are plenty of actors out there who have acted gay for a movie or television show, but they are not. Case in point, Allison Hannigan played a lesbian in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but she is not gay. She has a husband. So where is it written that she or Daniel is gay. They are not. People need to get over their freaking predjudices!
Post a Comment