This article has actually been swirling around in my mind for quite some time however, I couldn’t really find a way to voice my angle. It has been quite a hot topic for a while now, with a long list of celebrity types now publicly opening up about their sexuality. Everyone has an opinion on whether people should be expected to come out, myself included. I didn’t want to write a whole article that was just the same old rhetoric that everyone else was and still is spouting. I can see both sides (oh the shocker there) and I could easily fall on either side of the fence. Still, recent events have made me think about it again, not entirely the actual act of coming out, but the media attention it seems to attract too.

In the last few years, there has been a stream of names to hit the headlines because they have publicly declared their sexuality; Tom Daley, Wentworth Miller, Jodie Foster, Tim Cook, Gareth Thomas, Ellen Page, Jim Parsons and Zachary Quinto are just a few of those names. Each of these people caused a media meltdown by revealing something so personal about themselves. With each of these revelations comes the inevitable reaction from everyone else. From social media to newspapers, these reactions are laid bare. Some applaud those people in the public eye for their bravery whilst others show disdain at yet another celebrity that feels the need to share their personal life with the world at large. At this point, I think it is worth noting that I feel the fact I am in a position to have this discussion is a wonderful thing. The shroud of fear that once hung over people and prevented them from being truly themselves is slowly lifting. Surely, above all, that is a brilliant thing?

Personally, I applaud anyone who does come out publicly because I believe that it is important for everyone to have strong role models both in their personal lives and those from the world of celebrity that entertains and inspires them. Those famous idols often have an ability to touch a person without necessarily meeting them and so they can also have a positive impact and real source of comfort and help to someone in need. The fact that Tom Daley came out might have helped other young men to accept themselves and inspire them not to hide away, and this ultimately has an impact on society as a whole in making the world a more accepting, open and tolerant place. A state that all human beings should be working towards.

Nevertheless, the subject causes a divide in opinion and there are many that feel the opposite. There are those who simply couldn’t care less and can find no reason as to why a famous person coming out is filling out space in the newspaper. And therein, is the crux of this article. Is there a need for a person to publicly announce their sexuality? Why does the media seem to go into overdrive when it happens?

Just recently rap star Eminem appeared in the apparently controversial movie ‘The Interview’ and oh my days, didn’t that just cause a shit storm? Why? Because he ‘came out’… apparently… If you have been living under a rock you may have missed it, which is unfortunate, because Sony seems to have had any clips barred from YouTube. I would provide a link but it would probably just direct you to a blank video. Have a dig around and I am sure you might find a working link.

So yes, after that video, the media went bat shit crazy reporting about his ‘coming out’. Of course, they are very well aware of the fact he was performing in a film and therefore I would imagine that this is supposed to be tongue in cheek, but nevertheless, the media ran with the story. The part that really made me chuckle was that throughout the world of social media, people were actually buying it. The usual responses could be seen over and over… responses like ‘about time’ and ‘who cares’ dropped in by their thousands. Oh, the irony!!!

Bear in mind that this ‘interview’ was part of a film that is billed as a ‘comedic political satire’. To me, the whole section was a blatant jab towards the media and its obsession with sexuality. Therein lies the irony, because of the reaction. Almost to fulfil the expectation, the media and subsequently people the world over, went into overdrive. Whether Eminem is gay or not is not really the big issue here, but the reaction to it. As it is whenever a celebrity steps out of the closet.

Why are the media so obsessed with sexuality? Why is it always considered such big news? Subsequently, why do so many of us seem to buy into the obsession? (Be really honest with yourself about that last one!)

In some ways, it is an extension of the celebrity-obsessed culture we live in and our presumed thirst for ‘news’ about famous people. I often hear the term that these news stories hit because they are ‘in the public’s interest’ in some way suggesting that not only do we want to know, but we have a right to know this information. I am not entirely sure who feels we have a right to this information but it exists. What adds fuel to the fire is that en-masse people then buy into it and line the coffers of the various media outlets. Of course, the media isn’t supplying what we have a right to know but what makes them money. Whether it is the latest sex scandal or sexuality, we are guilty of buying into it. Would these stories gain so much traction if we stopped buying newspapers and visiting news sites? I think it is a safe bet to say no they wouldn’t. In one way or another, this makes us just as guilty. We provide the get-out clause to the media because they can very easily prove that there is a public desire to have this kind of information. I could digress further here but that would be a whole different article. My real focus here is the relationship between us, the media and celebrity sexuality.

I have to wonder, did these people truly want to come out or was there the weight of media pressure to do so. I think it is safe to say that certain outlets of the media often find information and use it to force a situation, apply pressure and make sure that a celebrity comes out. The career of anyone in the public eye often rests on public opinion. Politicians, singers, actors, sports personalities and even businessmen have their career potentially hanging in the balance depending on the public perception of that person. That public perception can be very easily swayed, distorted or utterly destroyed by the media at large. So if they have such ‘big news’ they use it to ensure money is made.

The media seem to make it their duty or mission to spend a lot of time and effort digging around for any kind of information that can be used to sell newspapers which they then use as bait to bribe a celebrity into releasing information themselves, often with an exclusive interview agreement (of course).

Casting my mind back, the case of Steven Gately was an instance where the celebrity was pushed into the situation, reportedly only coming out when he was contacted by a member of the press who was going to run a story from details offered to them by an acquaintance. It was reported as Gately being given the opportunity to break the news himself. Would they have not run the story had he asked them not to? I think it is safe to say that there was no chance in hell that would have been the case. Ultimately, he was pushed into revealing details of his private life in order to try and protect his public image and to an extent, control some of what was going to be hitting the headlines. (Will Young also found himself in a similar situation).

The world over, there are those in the public eye that must wish they could keep their private lives exactly that but they must be living in fear that one day they will get a similar phone call. Some would say that this kind of invasion of privacy comes with the territory of being in the public eye and to a degree, I can understand that viewpoint. Whether I agree with it or not, people do buy into it and there is a big enough contingent that does feel they have a right to know for whatever reason. People always want to know more about their favourite or even least favourite singer, actor, politician etc.

Realistically, should it matter whether that person is gay or not? Of course, it shouldn’t! So should we care when a celebrity comes out? No, we shouldn’t. BUT (and notice how that was a big but), what should matter to us is that any person coming out should be allowed to do so on their own terms and not because a media outlet deems it so. No one should be forced into coming out to anyone unless they are ready for it. That is their own personal choice, whether to the mass public or in everyday life.

I feel this is especially important with a celebrity because they must feel an enormous and unjust pressure that they are going to be outed anyway. In the case of Tom Daley, the press had been speculating about his sexuality for long enough that even he must have known that eventually, he would have paparazzi following him for that photo if they weren’t already. He knew, especially after starting a relationship, that the press would eventually use it to sell newspapers. I can only imagine the kind of pressure he felt. Thinking back to a time before I told my family and friends, I wanted people to know when I was ready and comfortable in my own skin. I wanted to tell people when I felt it was right that they knew and I certainly felt the pressure to keep it hidden until I was ready. I was terrified of being ‘discovered’ and outed before I was ready. Ultimately, I wanted people to know on my terms. Surely in the case of Mr Daley, since he had little choice in whether that piece of ‘news’ was made available to the world, he did have the right to give up that piece of his life on his own terms? Until we live in a world where the masses (re: US) do not devour these bits of ‘news’ and fuel the media pressure we will always see this happen.

Knowing that at some point the media will out you must feel terrible, so why not beat the media to the punch and use the public thirst for this ‘news’ to be a beacon of hope. For all those that look up to a celebrity (or any other idol, we all have them), respect them or are inspired by them, it can be really positive message because it shows that no matter who you are, it is ok to be gay! Or not for that matter.

Whether we feel it is appropriate or not, whether we feel that it is of little or no consequence when a celebrity comes out, they are still human and they do have the right to come out on their own terms and also to be that hope to those that follow them. We all know that it shouldn’t be important if anyone is gay or not, but in this day and age, it is important that people feel comfortable enough to be themselves and be confident about how they feel and who they are. Any idol can instil that confidence.

So, the next time you see yet another article about the next celebrity who is ‘announcing’ their sexuality, rather than complain about its lack of importance, think about the fact that a) there may have been unknown pressure to reveal all and so they have the right to at least do so on their own terms and b) the people that it may give hope to and inspire. You might not agree (and you do not have to), but to someone out there, that bit of news about their favourite celebrity just made it that little bit easier to accept something about themselves in their own personal life journey.

Eeeeek, it has been eighteen months since my last post! I am not sure why it has been so long to be honest, although work does keep me busy...

It must give a person a truly remarkable feeling when they are able to give blood and potentially save another person’s life. I imagine that, despite feeling a bit dizzy and nauseous, there is a sense of pride that they could really be giving something back to the community. Of course, I wouldn’t know anything about it because, unfortunately, I am unable to give blood. Not because I have some rare genetic defect, or even because I have had a cold. I am not able to give blood simply because I am gay, or as the Give Blood website so eloquently states it; “men who have had sex with men”.

Obviously, I knew all this as old news, but beyond the HIV and AIDS issue, I have never totally understood their justification for it. With that in mind, I did a bit of reading on their website to try and understand the full scope of their reasoning. After all, they have a whole page set up to answer my queries. A statement which was issued in November 2011…

Deferral of Men who have Sex with Men from Blood Donation

The permanent exclusion of men who have had sex with men (MSM) from donating blood has changed to a 12 month fixed period deferral from the latest relevant sexual contact following an evidence-based review by the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO).
Yup. I knew about that bit.

SaBTO is responsible for regularly reviewing the major criteria for accepting blood donors and for recommendations to the four UK Health Ministers on blood donation policy.
Well, that is good. Regular review is very good. Although I do have to wonder how regular this ‘review’ is, considering the last statement was issued in November 2011.

SaBTO completed a review of blood donor selection criteria related to sexual behaviour in May 2011. Following this review, and based on recommendations from SaBTO, Health Ministers in England, Scotland and Wales announced in September 2011 that the blood donor selection criterion for men who have sex with men in those countries would change.

Previously, men who had ever had oral or anal sex with another man, even if a condom was used, were permanently excluded from blood donation in the UK. The change means that only men who have had anal or oral sex with another man in the past 12 months, with or without a condom, are asked not to donate blood. Men whose last sexual contact with another man was more than 12 months ago are eligible to donate, subject to meeting the other donor selection criteria.

Again, I knew all this already. What I really want to know is WHY?

NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) implemented the change at blood donation sessions across England and North Wales on 7 November 2011. The Scottish and Welsh Blood Services also implemented the change on this date.

At blood donation sessions, all donors are asked to complete a questionnaire called the donor health check, to assess whether they meet the donor selection criteria. This is to ensure that the supply of blood to hospitals is as safe as possible.

Of course, safety is paramount and so it should be but this still doesn’t tell me how or why my blood is less ‘safe’ than anyone elses?

NHSBT welcomes the review and the resulting change as it is supported by the most up to date scientific evidence. SaBTO's review concluded that the safety of the blood supply would not be affected by the change and we would like to reassure patients receiving transfusions that the blood supply is as safe as it reasonably can be and amongst the safest in the world.
Well isn’t that kind. They are reassuring the patients that are, strangely looking at a page which is supposed to explain why I am exempt, in a complete panic that they might get ‘gay-blood’!

Clearly, any transmission would be one too many and the purpose of blood donor selection criteria, alongside other safety measures, is to minimise any potential harm to recipients of blood donations. All groups that are excluded or deferred from blood donation have been assessed as being at a statistically increased risk of carrying blood-borne viruses.

Finally, we get to the nitty-gritty. I have been assessed, without even knowing it, and I am a statistically a higher risk. Oh, I do love a statistic but how exactly? I have been in a committed relationship for just shy of 8 years and married for just under a year. I know people who have been in far shorter committed heterosexual relationships who are still allowed to give blood. Surely anybody that is single carries a higher likelihood of having sex with any number of people? Since I have been in a committed relationship I am statistically far more likely to be ‘safe’ am I not? So then, are they implying that, since I am a gay man, I am more likely to cheat or that my husband is more likely to cheat on me?

The change brings the criterion for men who have had sex with men in line with those for the majority of other groups that are deferred from blood donation for 12 months due to the risks of infection associated with sexual behaviours. We appreciate that it can be disappointing for anyone who wishes to donate blood but is not able to meet the donor selection criteria. The criteria are based on complex assessments of risk and must by their nature be based on evidence and statistics that are recorded at a population level. Such an approach results in assessments of certain groups as being at a higher risk than others of carrying blood-borne infections and can make individuals that are deferred from donation feel they are being placed into a "category" even if they believe their own sexual behaviour and risk-taking would not be a risk to the blood supply.

So essentially, what they are implying here is that gay men are, en masse, a bunch of whores that are far more likely to sleep around unprotected, more so than heterosexual men for instance. Nice! Of course, I do know a few gay guys who do get their fair share of action but in all honesty, no more so than some of my straight friends, both male and female. In fact, I would say it is pretty well balanced on both sides when it comes to the number of people I know who are sexually active. Is there a rule that prevents a straight man who has had unprotected, or even protected, sex with a woman within the last 12 months from giving blood? Nope. Funny that. The last time I checked, blood viruses are pretty indiscriminate and will take host in both male and female bodies. The chances are just as likely that they could pick something up from a woman as they could another man surely?

Or, are they actually implying something far deeper here? Perhaps the organisation feels that a straight man that is sleeping around unprotected is far more unlikely to even want to give blood in the first place? Perhaps it is some kind of a backhanded compliment that the organisation feels gay men are more community-minded and more likely to put themselves out to help someone else and therefore more protections are needed? Ok, so I am probably getting way ahead of myself but you have to admit, the implications of what they are stating are very interesting.

Although some would prefer a system that assesses every individual's behaviour and level of risk rather than applying deferrals to groups, SaBTO's review concluded that there is insufficient evidence available to be able to determine the impact on blood safety of such a system. It is also not certain that all people could objectively assess their own level of risk. Based on published data, the review also concluded that the introduction of extensive donor questions regarding sexual behaviour could lead to a loss of existing donors who may find the process intrusive. The Blood Services are therefore required to follow deferral rules that estimate the statistical risk of certain groups based on behaviour. We are sorry for any inadvertent offence this may cause.

So essentially they have made a broad sweeping (and quite frankly bullshit) generalisation. They have made this generalisation which is certainly offensive - I don’t appreciate being made to feel like some kind of slag – rather than ask someone a few more sensitive questions. They are concerned about losing donors because they may find the process more intrusive? What, more intrusive than having a needle stuck in your arm and blood extracted from your body? Surely, the sort of person that is giving blood is doing so because they want to help and certainly wouldn’t want to put anyone at risk and therefore would be more than prepared to be completely open and honest.

Quite frankly, if it is, “…not certain that all people could objectively assess their own level of risk” why is it better to trust their honesty and their personal recollections and judgement on their sex life in the previous year. For that matter, why a year? Do HIV and Hepatitis disappear in a year? It certainly doesn't. This is the why they screen all of the blood given anyway and if they are screening all of the blood as a matter of course, what difference does it make if a gay man donates. THEY ARE GOING TO CHECK THE BLOOD ANYWAY!

Furthermore, the analysis of the published data has led to an estimate of the statistical risk of certain groups based on behaviour. An ESTIMATE! So essentially, an educated guess then? Does that not then imply that actually, all of the rules about who can give blood are based upon an estimate of statistical risk? It is hardly foolproof, is it? This tells me that they are admitting that there is no sure-fire way of knowing and that they are quite happy to take certain risks over others. This is people’s lives we are talking about here! If somebody needs a blood transfusion I’d say it is pretty likely that whatever has happened is damn serious, potentially life-threatening stuff and they are happy to supply blood that has been taken because an educated guess says it is safe to do so! Wow, don’t I feel safe in the hands of the NHS now. I don’t know about causing an inadvertent offence, I am bloody terrified!

In a world of smartphones, tablets and untold other ways of accessing information on the go freely and easily, you would imagine that I could find out about London Pride 2013 really simply or check the latest LGBT news whenever I would like. You would be wrong. I recently tried to access the official London Pride website the other using my iPad and was confronted with something that, although partially pink, certainly was not London Pride. Instead, I was redirected to a ‘Content Lock Page’.

One of the strongest images of gay men in popular culture is that of a rather effeminate, limp wristed and simply put, ‘camp’ man. The media certainly harnesses it and perpetuates that stereotype on a frequent basis to the point where many gay men get intensely angry about it. In the past, I have been disheartened and angered by yet another gay storyline in a TV show that fuels that stereotype. I've argued that it isn't truly representative of the diversity that exists and that it certainly doesn't help show the rest of the world a wide snapshot of the community. However, it does still raise some interesting thoughts.

I wouldn't call myself particularly camp. I have my moments I guess and they can very much depend on my mood or level of alcohol consumption. In particular situations, I become very camp and others less so. The thing is, it is never something I would say I am consciously doing. I am not intentionally behaving in a camp way, it just, well, happens.

I have been asked in the past, by straight friends, why gay men feel the need to start acting camp when they come out and to be honest, I can't really answer it. I am no psychoanalyst but I do have some thoughts on the matter. You have to remember that for many gay guys out there, they have spent many years trying to act 'straight' because of the social situation around them, especially if they are having a hard time with it all. They have been surrounded by homophobia or simply by the all-pervading heterosexual environment throughout their lives. For many people, conforming to whatever society tells them is a big thing. They are actually keeping part of themselves a secret for all that time but when that secret is over, bam, the queen is out so to speak. Over the years they may have behaved 'straight' to try and cover the deep routed feelings that they don't want anyone to find out. Eventually, they come to terms with it in themselves. When that happens, their personality can also change, after all, they are no longer spending so much energy on a facade that suppresses who they truly are.

Still, being my own devil's advocate and considering other thoughts, being camp is not necessarily a personality that is being suppressed and then released upon coming out. It may very well be that we adopt the ‘norms’ of a culture or a subculture as an expression of belonging to that group. For example, some guys might not be camp on a day to day basis but they may 'act' it in a given environment as a demonstration, consciously or otherwise, that they are part of that group. I’ve seen other cultural groups adopt a street patois with their friends and community which they wouldn’t use with their old school friends or other non-group friends. In other words, could ‘camping it up’ be just as unreal as ‘acting straight’? Then you can really throw a spanner in the works and consider the fact that some straight guys out there are also quite camp...

That isn't to say that all gay men have this kind of experience. Having met, dated (and now married to) a few guys (only married to one I hasten to add) I have found a very broad spectrum. I know guys who look very much the image of what society deems to be a straight guy when they are openly gay. My husband is a prime example. No one ever guesses that he is gay and when introducing him to new people I am quite used to hearing, "… well, I would never have known he was gay!" (the fact that I introduce him as my husband might have been the penny-drop moment?) It is quite often one of the first things people say the moment he is out of earshot.

Still, even if a guy does come out and almost instantly seems to be camper, whether it be a conscious choice, an act or the release of a suppressed personality; does it actually matter? I have heard people make comments like 'why have they gone all camp, it's totally fake' and 'there is no need to be like that' but I would argue that since we don't know what has led to them becoming camper, nor do we do know the ins and outs of their psychological profile, perhaps they are happier that way? It certainly isn't hurting anyone and ultimately, it is their own personal expression.

Returning to an earlier point, I appreciate that people take umbrage that the representation of a gay man nearly always tends to be that of a camp guy. It is, after all, a stereotype. But that stereotype has to come from somewhere. Stereotypes do not just appear because someone felt like inventing them. They happen because they exist, or they are amplified interpretations of a visible proportion of particular people. Think of all the other stereotypes you are aware of. They all come from somewhere. That's not to say everyone from that background fulfils the stereotype, but they have come about because many people do seem to fulfil that stereotype.

It seems to me that we are getting to a point, where even in the gay community, camp is becoming a no-no and it is becoming a minority in itself. You can see examples of it in gay chat rooms for instance. People actually request things like ‘…no effems!’. Of course, that all comes down to personal preference and the freedom of choice but to me, it is the oddest notion. To have gay people, chastising others for being too gay. It seems a rather sweeping generalisation to say, "ooh, I could never date one of those really camp guys". Really? That makes it sound like the camp aspect of their personality is the ONLY aspect. Come on guys! For a bunch of people who have been ostracised so much over the years, we need to remain open-minded.

So what is the harm in embracing camp? We need to be really careful that we don't start our own segregation because we are averse to camp people. This would be particularly ironic considering how many straight people have behaved towards gay people over the years. Camp people do exist and that is them, their personality and their life. They shouldn't be made to feel bad because of it.

If we are a rainbow, shouldn’t we embrace all the colours of the spectrum?

You may remember my blog a couple of years ago discussing the debate on 'pride' events. If you haven't read it, make the jump and go HERE now.
My feelings on the matter are clear, there is definitely a need for Pride events given that there are still roads to travel in the goal desire for equality. That word comes up a lot nowadays, 'equality', and I agree that an event that appears to give us a voice to scream "I am different" isn't exactly the best statement in advocating equality. Especially when it is only the most 'sensationalist' of us that is portrayed in the media - just to be clear, I don't think that these people are behaving in a sensationalist way but it is the media portraying us that way.

I also return to my feelings that actually, pride events are an opportunity to respectfully celebrate those who have spent their lives in a war in order to give us the freedom to declare our sexuality without fear of recriminations. In essence, that is what a pride event has become but now we need to take it to the next level.