I don't think you can 'unequivocally establish' something like gayness (which may well be your fundamental point, and I agree with that entirely) but surely the point is that the contestants themselves have self-identified one way or the other, and this identification has been accepted by the programme makers. Whether or not this makes it a fair context to test Zoe's 'gaydar' I'm not sure
It doesn't, which is one of my main points here. Essentially, Zoe's being asked, "who identified himself as Straight in the audition interview, and who identified as Gay" - and if the contestants' self-identification in that situation has simply been accepted (with no attempt to quantify/verify it), then there's no objective way of proving/disproving the accuracy of her gaydar.
but I find it hard to accept that a straight-indentifying male would lie to the programme makers (saying that he is gay), sign a legal contract stating as much and get away with it.
Perhaps not, but I think a neither-straight-nor-gay-identifying male could fairly readily claim to be one or t'other, and get away with it.
The question of signing a legal contract confirming one's sexuality is an interesting one. Even if such a contract had been used here, I'd imagine there are all manner of ways of getting around it. "My sexuality's fluid, and I happen to be straight at the moment" or "I 'turned gay' a week before signing the contract" or "I'm a straight virgin" or "I'm a gay man who's only slept with women, so I ticked Straight". Etc. I can imagine someone signing a contract saying they're telling the truth about their sexuality, but without a Kinsey-style questionnaire or the like, it's difficult to know which truth they're signing up to.
Well, your examples are all quite different. Jason from Big Brother "self-identifying" as bisexual strikes me as quite likely a role he exploited with knowledge of the programme makers likes and dislikes in terms of the contestants.
If you're feeling particularly masochistic, there's quite a long thread devoted to Big Brother 5. My own view on Jason is that he's a rather poorly-defined person who's derived relatively little happiness or satisfaction from 'straightness' but isn't uncomplicatedly gay either - and Big Brother provided him with a fresh opportunity to experiment with other modes of self-identification. In his case, ticking the Bisexual box allowed him to maximise his potential 'exoticism' in the eyes of the programme makers, but also allowed him to try a new sexual role for size - with the convenient getout clause that, if he started to develop homosexual anxiety (as he did, depressingly quickly), he could use the "I only said it to get on the show" line to backtrack.
My point being, I suppose, that individuals entering into a reality television show may a) lie to the programme makers, and/or b) 'lie' to themselves, where sexuality is concerned. The dynamic is potentially quite a complex one.
It is also important to note that, whether bisexual or not, Jason's sexuality was not fundamental to the programme in the same way as it is in PIS and so he was/is under no obligation to label himself one way or the other (or indeed another).
Sure - but, as yet, we've no evidence that the contestant work-up for Playing It Straight was any more rigorous (in terms of establishing contestants' sexuality) than for Big Brother, despite the idea of 'gaydar-testing' being significantly more pivotal.
I would certainly agree with this and think it is certainly an interesting point not covered by the programme. The same goes for 'Straight'in this instance, and it's connection with heterosexually. I would say that the programme assumes the general publics' basic understanding of these words - a gay man is one who is sexually and romantically attracted to men, and vice versa - and would certainly agree that sexualities are more complex than this.
Yes, in Playing It Straight, Gay = homosexual, and Straight = heterosexual - and, in conflating these terms, Zoe's left with little option but to employ indicators of perceived lifestyle (Gay/Straight) to identify actual sexual orientation (homosexual/heterosexual). She's then criticised for so doing.
But they so rarely do. It would be interesting viewing for sure, but in reality tv terms not at all standard. They don't show us how they pick the people for Wife Swap or Big Brother, or discuss how they find and assess candidates for How Clean is Your House or Supernanny. All of these programmes have, to my mind, candidates with potential social, emotional and/or mental health issues and the "working" is never shown to us. A criticism for sure, but not one that can be solely laid at the feet of this programme.
I didn't say it could. In the above examples, the programmes are not based around a central 'using your skills of deduction, detect the presence or absence of X' challenge. If they were, I'd expect at least some indication of the methods used to establish whether X were present or absent - otherwise, how to we know whether the game has been won or lost?
I agree with this, and the Rules listed on the programmes website certainly only cover the "in-game" conditions. Like I said above though, we rarely get to see the selection process, partly I believe because the programme makers don't like to give "clues" to potential future applicants as to how to successfully audition.
But, in this case, not explaining the selection process reduces the whole thing to a game of "guess what so-and-so said during our audition". It invalidates the whole element of skill/intuition.
Oh, I would doubt it too. I think they probably just went for the two primary "types" of sexuality, cashing in on the metrosexual tag while they can. Not the most sensitive programming, and certainly not as ground-breaking as the programme makers would have us believe. I just don't think it is a problem to narrow it down in this fashion, it isn't saying (explicitly) that these are the only two types of male sexuality.
Not explicitly, no, but in only allowing the two primary types, it is not permitting the possibility of more subtle shades - and, given that the individuals selected do not fit conventional stereotypes (and we're given little or no insight into the selection process), it's rather fatuous to assume they fit straightforwardly into the polar opposite sexual orientation. I do find that problematic.
I think the idea that the contestants can only win the money by promoting straightness - either by choosing it (Zoe) or making someone believe you are it (the male contestants) - is far more problematic than the issue of defining Gay and Straight. The message is be straight-acting = win, and I think that, alongside the ridiculous stereotyping and puns contained in the programme, pretty awful.
That's true. From what I've read, the gay(-identifying) contestants were actually taught 'straight-acting' techniques.
Fundamentally, I think I basically agree with you, except that I don't find it problematic that the programme is based on two 'types' of sexuality. Definitions of those sexualities from the programme makers would certainly be a welcome addition, but I'm not holding my breath.
Me neither. I guess I'm finding it annoying that C4 seems to be having its cake and eating it too, in that it's deriving laffs-a-plenty from simplistic stereotyping while claiming to be breaking down simplistic stereotyping. |
