Ian McKellen on what led to Bryan Singer and Kevin Spacey's abuse allegations: "It's because they were in the closet"
Aux Features Ian McKellenIf you were looking for a pretty troubling take on the abuse allegations against Bryan Singer and Kevin Spacey, look no further than Ian McKellen. During a live recording of the #QueerAF podcast for National Student Pride 2019, the actor decided to share his insights on what he felt led to their accused behavior.
“Most of them were in the closet. Hence, all their problems as people and their relationship with other people,” McKellen said. “If they had been able to be open about themselves and their desires, they wouldn’t have started abusing people in the way they’ve been accused.”
You would think that after making the odd insinuation that gay men can be expected to just naturally turn to sexual abuse while closeted, one would simply stop while they were far behind. Instead, McKellen went on to add that whether those accused of such grotesque abuse should have to stop working is “debatable.”
“I think that’s rather up to the public,” he said. “Do you want to see someone who’s been accused of something that you don’t approve of? Do you ever want to see them again? If the answer is no, you won’t buy a ticket, you won’t turn on the television. But there may be others for whom that’s not a consideration.”
Here are some things worth considering: Both Singer and Spacey have had multiple accusers come forward, some of whom were underage at the time of their encounters. Four men spoke of Singer’s misconduct to The Atlantic, which Singer categorically denies. Spacey recently pleaded “not guilty” in his first court appearance for a felony charge for indecent assault and battery in January.
[via USA Today]
239 Comments
Perspective: the view changes based on where you sit. For Ian McKellen, I’m sure he’s lived a life where much of the problems he’s encountered were filtered through the lens of whether someone was in the closet or not. These are his personal experiences, and they end up shaping his views. For other people who have had a different set of experiences, I’m sure they will view things differently and reach different conclusions. In the end, that’s the full tapestry of human experience.
I would also guess he’s not basing this on anything specific he knows about Singer or Spacey but on countless closeted sleazebag entertainment business mangers and executives he’s encountered in his long career. Or maybAnyway, once again an older person tried to be straightforward in expressing an opinion without realizing you can’t do that anymore. Not just because the tone deaf social media echo chamber amplifies everything but because there’s almost no such thing as a true journalist who knows how to use discretion anymore.
To be honest, I think it’s more fundamental. I wonder if it’s that “journalists”, and online commentary culture in general, are no longer genuinely interested in people. Rather than treating them as autonomous, human compatriots, and being interested in their opinion on the world we experience together, instead they start from the off by treating them as objects about which we must all have an opinion. So rather than ask “what does McKellen’s comment contribute to how we might see the world?”, we assume the question is “what does this comment mean for how we should rate McKellen?”… every complex opinion is twisted specifically into either “this shows that this person is worth more than we thought” or (more often!) “this shows that this person is worth less than we thought”.But if you evaluate people only as the sum of their mistakes…
The guy is how goddamn old? He may have some opinions that aren’t as ‘woke’ as you’d like them to be, and he has every single right in the world to have them.
And we have every right to drag him on Twitter for them. Anyone can have any opinion they want for any reason if they’re willing to face the consequences of having them.
lol I’m sure he’s very concerned about being dragged on Twitter.
“lol I’m sure he’s very concerned about being dragged on Twitter.”Glad someone’s brave enough to say this. A lot of morons still believe that ‘cancel culture’ is a harbinger of the apocalypse.
At this point you have to always dig a little deeper every time an article talks about a “controversy” just to make sure its not just half a dozen people tweeting about something they don’t approve
“just to make sure its not just half a dozen people tweeting about something they don’t approve”AKA not my fucking job.
That was mostly metaphorical, as Twitter is the town square of the internet, for good or ill. But saying “he has every right to have an opinion” is a non-argument.
“Twitter is the town square of the internet.”Bullshit. If Twitter were that essential, it would be profitable. Reddit is way closer to being the town square of the internet.
Twitter draggers of the world unite and take over.
“And we have every right to drag him on Twitter for them”*mission accomplished banner*
Best response.
You are a shitlord, and much of what is wrong with the world.
you’re so brave. i really hope i can one day be as bold as
And we have every right to drag him on Twitter for them.
Ah, so that’s what Twitter is for, just one endless battle royale of hurling abuse.
“Ah, so that’s what Twitter is for, just one endless battle royale of hurling abuse.”Well…yeah. Where you been?
Ah, so that’s what Twitter is for, just one endless battle royale of hurling abuse. It really depends on how you use it. There’s a huge amount of information, and life. one can get from Twitter. When there is breaking news on anything, to the minute, Twitter is useful. I read news all day and Twitter and what people say usually take up at least 80 percent of that every day, and almost every article I read has a link to what someone has said on Twitter. A certain horrible President for sure. But bitching about Twitter really predates him. “Oh, Twitter is just boring ordinary people talking about what they had for lunch!, was the old 2000s attitude to Twitter.
But these days it seems quite fucking vital, aside from Trump using it horridly and awfully. Twitter is actually strong and prime and involved or embedded somehow in every bit of news I’ve read in the past two years. Twitter is actuallly smart. If it’s insignificant,why is it mentioned every fucking time with Trump using the platform? Trump is hideously and regrettably significant whether we like it or not. So is Twitter. But I think Twitter is underestimated and undervalued. It’s literally the pulse and current of what’s happening right now, to the second. it doesn’t matter what the topic.
Twitter is over-valued and reporting on it is lazy and gives voices to some ridiculous conspiracy lunatics and partially helped Trump become president and got Gunn taken off GOTG3 and adds fire to other bullshit from Reddit. It has some value with MeToo and the Arab Spring but I think overall it’s jumped the shark, people give too much importance to it and it’s 90% outrage, half justified I guess. I’m a firm believer that deleting Twitter will improve people’s lives.
I understand your argument, and I agree that it has some value as a way of spreading updates about ongoing newsworthy events. My issues with the platform are threefold:1). 240 character blocks are simply not conducive to intelligent, nuanced discussions, so complicated topics often get boiled down into misrepresentative depictions.2). The fact that people naturally seek out similar voices/opinions creates echo chambers, and said echo chambers encourages a kind of performative extremeism of views. I’m not saying these people are virtue signalling in the way that right-wing goons often whine about, but I think it would be foolish to ignore the fact that people double down on their views in order to emphasize that they’re part of their community. Combined with the flattening effect I mention in point #1, this creates the atmosphere for people hurling abuse at each other.
3). Doing something on Twitter has in some instances actually doing something meaningful in real life. Every time I hear about somebody getting “ratioed”, about how gay/black/woke Twitter “dunked” on Trump, like either of those things had any tangible success, I get this urge to grit my teeth.
I think Twitter is underestimated and undervalued. It’s literally the pulse and current of what’s happening right now, to the second.What Twitter partisans don’t understand is that these two sentences directly contradict each other. Its function (if not perhaps its intended purpose) is to transmit the first glance reaction of everyone in the world, to anything and everything, without regard for nuance or depth. Sometimes that’s useful (like, say, in Tahrir Square). Mostly, though… when has being totally up to the minute “informed” helped you more than reading an actual piece of journalism a few hours afterward?
Just know that you are very, very, embarrassingly wrong.
Make sure you also solve income inequity and global warming on Twitter as well, while you’re all there.Asshole Poseurs.
You have the right to drag him on twitter, but why would you want to? He’s an old man who had the courage to be openly gay when it could have gotten him killed, and brought high-profile open gayness to nerd culture, making it easier for thousands of gay nerds to come out.Of course he’s wrong, but not every instance of wrongness needs to result in an attack. He can be politely corrected, or even ignored. Dragging him on twitter only serves the ego of the dragger, and doesn’t do shit for anyone else.
And everyone else has every right to call you out for being corny douchebags.
But a) he isn’t probably wrong, b) why would you drag him for fucking anything? Why do we immediately go to “dragging” people? What happened to having some self respect and dignity?Is that supposed to educate the person we disagree with, dragging them? No. It’s meant to give you and the people doing so a jolt of self righteous superiority. If your response here is to drag anyone, you have no place to judge anyone. Sounds like you’re kind of an asshole.
Yeah, because look at all the global problems that have been solved by similar shitheels on Twitter already!
“Elderly white man has outdated stance on something; More at 11.”
“Breaking news: Young person thinks elderly person’s views are out of date!”
He’s an elderly white man, but he’s also a famously gay man, which messes with the outrage-industrial complex’s targeting systems.
The important thing is for straight people to explain to him how he should feel about the psychological impact being closeted has on a celebrity.
outrage-industrial complexI love it
It’s weird to see people’s outrage standards change depending on which groups the target belongs to. Gay white man, straight black man, straight white woman; each one can be considered more privileged than the others. It’s like outrage rock-paper-scissors.
And everyone else has the right to vocalize how bad those opinions are.
Yep, everyone absolutely has the right to tell him that his feelings on a subject are invalid and his experiences as a gay man are wrong!
“his feelings on a subject are invalid and his experiences as a gay man are wrong!”So are you saying he’s correct that being closeted makes someone a rapist?
That’s not what he said, so why are you asking about something unrelated to the topic?
Well yeah they do have that right, but that’s not what people are saying about his take on the cause of the actions of rapists. You can easily make a criticism of this without invalidating his experience as a gay man.
That and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee anywhere in the U.S.
Where are you getting $1.50 cups of coffee in this day and age?
And everyone else has a right to vocalize how bad their opinions about those opinions are
Or how not bad. He is absolutely fucking right. You want to make monsters? Then convince people they are monsters, and that’s what they will become.
Dude. There are plenty of people who were in the closet and didn’t become rapists.
Holy hell, you’ve somehow managed to make an even worse take than McKellen. It’s not terribly “woke” to say that closeted gay people aren’t naturally rapists, and age doesn’t excuse shitty opinions. But I guess I am intrigued by your take — how old would someone have to be for it to be ok that they’re, say, a Holocaust denier? Or a pedophile?
“how old would someone have to be for it to be ok that they’re, say, a Holocaust denier? Or a pedophile?”Equating pedophilia with the expression of an opinion that some people don’t agree with, because that makes sense on any level.
If McKellen (who spent decades as a closeted gay person) HAD said that “closeted gay people are naturally rapists” this would be a DYNAMITE post!
But like…that is what he said? He said two rapists who are gay committed their rapes because they were closeted.
And at what point did he, who was a closeted gay man for decades, then make the claim that “closeted gay people are naturally rapists”?If you read what he actually said, it’s pretty clear that he’s saying that their specific MO (preying on starstruck young men, where there was a massive power imbalance) resulted from their being in the closet, and wanting absolute control over the situation.He’s not denying that they’re garbage humans who sexually abuse young men. He’s pointing out that their pattern was influenced by their desire to remain publicly closeted.
That’s not what he said, go listen to the podcast and do your due diligence before lighting the torch and brandishing the pitchfork ffs.
Exactly. As someone who was closeted until his late 40s I really don’t think he was saying “all closeted men are rapists”
You are truly a moron, and should have your internet taken away.
So you’re just a complete bag of shit then? And here we have exhibit A of the concept that you can be woke AF and also be completely worthless as a person.
No, you’re right. You and all the other people defending people who say sexual abuse/pedophilia occurs because of being closeted are the REAL brave ones.
I’m not defending the statement so much as I’m laughing at someone getting offended by what an old dude with clearly outdated opinions thinks.
H also didn’t say the thing these shitheels keep saying he did, which makes them bigger shitheels.
This isn’t remotely what he said. Jesus Christ, people are just total pricks now. Confirmed.
I hear he still has a landline!
Considering you can use the word “woke,” I’m completely astounded by how stupid your remark is. Just curious what the cutoff is for my grampa to be in the KKK? I just wanna be sure I too am “woke” enough to excuse his garbage bigotry.
I want to hear his thoughts on Bryce Harper signing with the Phils!
Yeah, the bit in the article where Miller said, “And McKellen shouldn’t have the right to have those views! There ought to be a law stopping him from having those views!” was really jarring.
McKellen is an old-school Stonewall era gay culture activist. I recall he was hesitant on the topic of ‘gay marriage’ (now just known as ‘marriage’ in most places) because he feared gay subculture would become ‘normalized’ to the point of being indistinguishable from bland middle-class hetero culture.
Sounds like he was trying to make a broader point about repression leading to abusive behavior rather than the specific cases but okay let’s drag him
I mean, I get his point, and I have some regard for it, but abuse is abuse, and underage kids are underage kids.
Thing is, they didn’t specifically target underage kids for abuse – they targeted anyone with less power than them who they had access to…which often resulted in kids who were underage.They’re absolutely predators, but they’re not pedophiles, per se.
I didn’t know “being lazy” was an excuse for criminal behaviour. Huh.
Neither did I!Maybe you should actually read comments, before attempting a pithy reply?Each preyed on people whom they were sure they could silence. That MO often resulted in their going after underage men, but their targets being underaged wasn’t the end in and of itself.
“That MO often resulted in their going after underage men, but their targets being underaged wasn’t the end in and of itself.”So, “How old are you?” was just too much effort then? How am I wrong again?
Again…predators.They didn’t care how old they were. They cared about the opportunity and the power to keep them quiet.
Again, I’m not aware of any jurisdiction that gives a shit if you thought the kid you were preying on was 18 or older.
Or to us an old analogy, sure, they didn’t mean to fuck that goat, but also, they totally fucked a goat.
Again…you seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding the point.They’re garbage people and predators.They belong in jail.Their being “lazy” has nothing to do with why their targets included children, thought and they would have targeted them even if they knew their age.Reading is important.
So, what you’re saying is you felt the strong need to make several comments to the fact that these men are monsters, but not super-monsters?Weird flex, but okay.
No…I’m saying that words have meanings.Apparently, that’s a tricky concept for some of us.
“No…I’m saying that words have meanings.”So it’s about ethics in celebrity shitposting?
Nah, it’s about not making bad faith arguments about a quote you’ve neither read nor understood.Happy to clear that up!
“bad faith arguments about a quote you’ve neither read nor understood”No, my argument that you’re willing to die on this weird little sliver of a hill is made in the best of faith.
That MO often resulted in their going after underage men, but their targets being underaged wasn’t the end in and of itself. K.They still assaulted underage men. I don’t care what label they’re stained with, I care about them serving a commensurate sentence if found guilty.
Oh, they’re disgusting predators and garbage humans.It’s just a different thing from being a pedophile.Hell, people who are psychologically dispositioned to be sexually attracted to children *don’t* act on it have the moral high ground on trashbags like Singer and Spacey.
They’re absolutely predators, but they’re not pedophiles, per se.Yeah actually they are. They may be “regressive” pedophiles (as opposed to “fixated”), but they are pedophiles.Imo Brian Singer is probably a fixated pedophile. Pedophiles often have a sexual relationship with an adult as a smokescreen.
That’s a fair point.Either way, any attempt to say that McKellen is claiming that “closeted gay men are pedophiles” or whatever is ridiculous.
Except he inadvertently did say that in so many words, whether he meant to or not. It’s an old myth that hardline anti lgbt groups have spread for years, especially the religious right — that being gay is synonymous with being a pedophile and it has been very, very harmful. As I commented elsewhere, I’m shocked he didn’t really think through exactly what he was saying.
What he was saying is that Singer’s and Spacey’s closeted status led them to exclusively seek out sexual partners whom they could control.From McKellen’s perspective, the inclusion of teenage boys among their targets was about opportunity and access, rather than a sexual predilection for children.If anything, the issue is that he didn’t realize that the (largely straight) outrage police would twist “they targeted teens out of a need for absolute control over their sexual partners, due to fear of being outed, not pedophilia” into “ALL CLOSETED GAY MEN ARE PEDOPHILES!!!!”In fairness…expecting people to engage in good faith with any introduction of nuance into their established groupthink IS absurd in 2019, so I see where you’re coming from.
If you did any reasearch into their history instead of being so pigheaded and attached to your own insipid comment you would know how wrong this is. Bryan Singer was into teen twinks and Kevin Spacey had a fetish for straight boys, neither of them were opportunistic pedophiles, they knew exactly what they wanted and they took advantage at every opportunity
I can be persuaded on Singer’s preferences, but Spacey has assaulted enough people (across a wide enough age range) that “he picked his targets based on the power differential, so that he could silence them, often resulting in his victims being teenage boys” offers just as compelling an argument as “he targeted teenage boys, and the power differential allowed him to silence them.”And THAT’S McKellen’s point (which, again, works better for Spacey than Singer).
What the fuck do you mean per se, like they’re only pedophiles on account of a technicality? These men are ephebophiles who routinely targeted teen boys and their power and influence allowed them to get away with it for decades until they were finally swept up in the tide of #metoo.
Singer’s a bit more ambiguous, but I’m not sure that we can firmly say “Spacey got away with targeting teens and young men because of his power” as opposed to McKellen’s interpretation that “Spacey targeted teens and young meme because he knew his power would allow him to silence them, and avoid being outed.” Either way: both are garbage people who prey on children and belong in jail on the strictest possible sentence.
Exactly. Plus, whether he realizes it or not, he’s feeding into the hardline antigay contigent’s myth about gays and pedophiles. It’s a myth that’s been incredibly harmful and I’m shocked that McKellen didn’t think this through a lot more before he made these statements.
Wth the way this sentence ended, i fail to see how yiu got his point. He was speaking directly to the root cause of the bad behavior, not excusing them or making a reason for the victims to not be victimized. “Well, yes chicken eggs are white, but scrambled eggs are yellow. “Uh, okay?
Are there non-underage ‘kids’?
Yeah, that’s what I took away from this, and you only have to cite the Catholic Church as another example of people being repressed and then performing abusive behavior. Not that every repressed person is going to resort to such behavior of course, but repression certainly doesn’t help the “herd” as a whole. Anyway, come get me, Twitter.
Yeah with the Catholic Church I think it has a lot less to do with repression and a lot more to do with the Church being a safe place for pedophiles to congregate. I mean pedophiles do go where there’s easy access to children. Couple that with virtually no consequences (for who knows how long) and you’re going to have a perfect storm.
I would love to see some psychological researchers parse out enforced sexual repression and abusers self-selecting into or leveraging positions of power.
Or: religion is evil.
No, no, NO! There are plenty of gay priests who AREN’T abusers and to suggest that “repression” is at the root of sexual abuse is to let predators off the hook. Abusive priests were abusive not because they were “repressing” their sexuality. They were abusive because their sexuality is expressed through abuse. It’s incredibly gross to suggest otherwise, and it plays into the worst homophobic stereotypesGood Lord, I can’t believe people are even entertaining this argument.
It definitely enables abuse- I’m not sure Singer and Spacey wouldn’t be after the 16 year olds if they were happily married, but the whole hidden nature of closet culture makes it harder for victims to come forward. Another reason why I think we’ve seen fewer serial killers- it’s not clear how many fewer men want to lobotimize their partners based on internalized homophobia, but it’s definitely harder to hunt for a while when the community is visible and the cops would be pressed to act by the media. That Australian serial killer they caught recently was preying on the homeless and West Asian men who were still in the closet due to their culture.
Except straight men abuse women all the time, including underaged ones, without needing the excuse of being “in the closet”?
KINJA’ED!
Yeah. I mean, look at what sexual repression has done for all of those conservative culture warriors who crusade against LBGTQ+ and women’s rights in the name of purity who end up getting busted for soliciting gay prostitutes and sexual assault and so forth. I don’t think Sir Ian is saying that repression is fully to blame; just a factor in influencing their darker sides to manifest themselves.
Yes.
I agree.
I mean, it’s a bad “broader point”.
But…repression most certainly can lead to abusive behavior.It doesn’t absolve the abuser, obviously.
Except we know that gay men do not commit sexual abuse at higher levels
than straight men, despite obviously having greater amounts of suppression.
Okay.He could have touched on that point, as a possible contributing factor, and not made it the main thrust. Could have presented it better. But I’m not going to pretend that it’s a wholly invalid point when it’s…not a wholly invalid point.
lol ok
How so? It doesn’t excuse abhorrent behavior to try and figure out what other factors might have led to it in the first place. It’s sort of like saying if we take away all guns, we’re totally going to get rid of situations that lead to gun violence. That’s rather naive.
Except we know that gay men do not commit sexual abuse at higher levels than straight men, despite obviously having greater amounts of suppression.
Are you saying being straight means you’re not sexually repressed? Cause… naw, dawg.
Eh, it’s more like saying “if we ensure universal access to quality mental health resources, we’ll reduce gun violence.”It’s a half measure, certainly…but it wouldn’t hurt, either.
Pretty much this. The unfortunate bullshit culture of ruination that modern media is making commonplace isn’t ok.I’m scared to even talk to someone I’m attracted to at this point.
Abuse is abuse, no way to explain it away by stating repression is their reasoning for ABUSING A FUCKING CHILD.Go fuck yourself.
Sorry but no. He was referring specifically to both, and said that they could be allowed to work again, if “the public” so desired. Plus, he said “most of them” were closeted, which sort of deflates his argument that being closeted may lead to being abusers.I have nothing but the greatest respect – and admiration – for Sir Ian, but he went off the rails there.
Agree completely. I listened to the QueerAF episode in question, and it is clear he is saying that his own opinion is that being in the closet is repressive and can lead to abusive behaviors. It was also clear he was not saying they shouldn’t be allowed to work, but rather saying, as a film/theater actor, the ultimate indicator will be audience perception, and that is the biggest deciding factor. If audiences are reaching a point where they don’t accept these behaviors, it will become unacceptable for these people to continue to work.
It didn’t read to me as McKellen’s hot take or as anything controversial at all. If anything, he was talking about the complexity of being closeted, being an actor (playing as people who are not you), and being a celebrity all mixed together, where your every action is scrutinized and your paycheck is directly tied to how the public perceives you. He was in no way excusing abuse or assault. Yeesh.
but the paint isn’t even dry on my Liam Neeson hate picket sign yet
The manufactured outrage machine is on fire today, folks!
There are many, many, MANY closeted individuals who have never abused anyone. Singer’s and Spacey’s abuse has zero to do with the fact that they were allegedly closeted (which I don’t think is even accurate in Singer’s case). It was to do with the fact that they were predators. It does a dishonor to gay men who aren’t abusers to suggest that “repression” leads to abuse and it excuses predatory men, whether they are gay or straight, to give this argument any credence.
IMO, that’s totally what he was saying.
I agree with this and a lot of the remarks here. McKellan’s point appears to be that closeted, repressed attitudes about their sexuality manifested in toxic and abusive ways that harmed others, and I don’t see how that’s a wrongheaded take. He’s not defending them.Both Singer and Spacey targeted powerless younger people and used their influence and fame to control and silence them. Weaponizing shame and fear seem like obvious strategies to pull that off, so it makes a lot of sense that their repressed feelings about their own sexuality might feed into it.It’s not a complicated idea. Perpetrators of abuse are often themselves survivors of abuse, etc. etc. Recognizing that people have suffered doesn’t excuse their behavior, and it’s weird that so many people can’t reconcile that thought.
Genuine question here so forgive my stupidity: in what way was Singer’s sexuality ever repressed? He was openly gay for pretty much his entite career. X-men was literally built around his own experiences as being a gay man, and yet that did nothing to stop his abusive and psychotic behavior. I have difficulty taking anything McKellen says on this matter seriously given that he not only worked with Singer on 4 movies, but he also worked with him on Apt Pupil (which appears to be ground zero for Singer’s sexual assault accusations).
Yup. This feels like a bit of a stretch. But yes, let’s cancel everyone?
I think a culture of suppression definitely serves as a smokescreen for abusers. If we had a more open culture they’d have been foxed out a lot earlier instead of being open secrets for decades until the culture opened up enough that they’re now finally possibly getting convicted. I think if it was an open culture the victims could have come forth earlier and wouldn’t have been as easily silenced. He’s not wrong but his empathy might be in the wrong place.
Agreed. Repression, and being forced to think of your desires as evil, often leads to abusive relationships. Being able to be open and accepted will certainly go a long way to healthier and more respectful attitudes, but there are obviously other factors. I think Sir Ian is making a valid point.
I see where he thinks where he’s coming from…. but no. Just no.I’ve been worried if we’d find out something about Ian, since he seems pretty buddy buddy with Singer… I hope this is the beginning and end of that.
Impossible to say that he is right about this. However, there are at least SOME closeted people who stay there out of self-loathing or shame, which is psychologically damaging. (There are many more people that stay closeted for better reasons than shame)
I think it’s everyone else’s problem that they are reading his comments into being somehow broadly applicable or the source of all abuse or some other nonsensical reading here.A rational, thoughtful person might read his comments and say “I’m sure that *could* have had an impact on their behavior… perhaps if they’d had healthy outlets throughout their lives they would have made better choices. Or perhaps not, but it’s still an interesting take from a man who has had a different life experience than myself, both as someone who is gay, has lived through a lot of cultural change and might have a gay perspective on it, and someone who is actually in the industry that the people he’s talking about it are from.”Nobody expects someone’s hot take in an interview to cover all possibilities, but damn if social media doesn’t think it should be so.
I’d love to hear more from the AVC about how gay men born in the 30s should feel about the impact being closeted has on one’s behavior!I’m sure you, Shannon, know far more about the struggle of being a closeted gay man in Hollywood than McKellen could possibly imagine!Do you have a newsletter to which I can subscribe?
Tell me more about how being closeted pre-2000 makes you more likely to be a pedophileOr just point me to any number of Focus on the Family articles that did when they were fighting against marriage equality for like 40 years
Who said anything about being a pedophile?McKellen’s implication is pretty clearly that Singer and Spacey targeted men and boys with whom there was a massive power imbalance, in order to preserve deniability/keep them quiet…and that often resulted in their going after starstruck teenagers.Or, y’know, we can all get our pitchforks our and harass McKellen on twitter for having experienced life differently than we did!Do you have a digital noose, on hand?
Agreed. But, on the other hand, screw people like Nick Denton who think it’s their job to play gay crusader and force people out of the closet. Not that I have much sympathy for assholes like Peter Thiel.
screw people like Nick Denton who think it’s their job to play gay crusader and force people out of the closet Well, provided it helps the brand, at least.
It still cracks me up that people try to pretend Gawker was a victim.
Yep. The precedent it set of a rich asshole being to shut down a media company because of a personal grudge was not great. And Peter Thiel as an individual is awful. But it only happened because Denton and the other Gawker executives behaved completely unethically.
“targeting teen boys” makes you a pedo
Is sleeping with a 15 year old who looks 20 more evidence of a sexual predilection towards children than sleeping with a 20 year old who looks 15?McKellen’s argument is that their pattern was based more on power, access and opportunity than on sexual preference.(Although Singer might be either, or both).
“You’re 15 but you look 20, you’re so mature for your age, you’re totally not like the other kids” is shit a groomer says
Oh, absolutely.These are bad, bad people.But whether these trash bag humans used a power gap to sexually abuse underage teenagers isn’t what I was asking.
Actually, it make you an ephebo. Pedophiles are only interested in pre-adolescents. It’s actually a pretty important distinction, especially given the fact that society’s taboo on sex with teenagers is an incredibly recent development.
dude stfu with that nonsense, go away
When was Singer even in the closet? There was a character based on him in one of the last seasons of Queer as Folk.
And was Spacey ever in the closet? I thought it was a Jodi Foster/Queen Latifah situation where they’re not shouting from the mountain, but it’s kind of obvious. I mean, not many closet cases let the paparazzi get a picture of them pinning some random twink down and exposing his bare bottom.
I don’t know anything about Singer, but Spacey pretty (in)famously didn’t come out publicly until after these allegations hit, as a way to deflect from his culpability
I only heard about Singer a few years ago, when the first set of allegations dropped.
I remember hearing about it when he was using those early X-Men films as allegories.
Yeah well it just goes to show your own ignorance because the first allegations against Singer occurred when he recorded underage boys naked on the set of Apt Pupil (starring Ian Mckellen) and Singer complained he was being targeted because he was openly gay. Mckellen should absolutely be looked at suspiciously when he’s trying to diminish the responsibility for people who he worked and partied with
Is that that new thing called sarcasm?If you’re so frustrated by the writing here, you could, oh-I-dunno, stop clicking on/reading anything on the site (i.e. fuck off).
This is just about anyone, anyone who dares to speak on a topic of substance and has a word out of place, a vague idea, an incomplete solution or an opinion that deviates at all from the appropriate nomenclature or acceptable notions.
McKellan didn’t say anything noteworthy here. I’m sure even if the very victims of Spacey/Singer read his comments they would not feel anything other than a mild agreement or disagreement. The words have no bearing on anything at all. This is all about any available muck to rake.
Oh thank god, it’s been almost 3 hours since I had an excuse to pretend to be be OUTRAGED.
Why would you put that much work into something you don’t want to do?
Cause it’s fun to pretend to be OUTRAGED
Oh that’s right, I forgot there’s an empathy-free subset of humanity that can’t believe that actual humans exist.
I mean, how else do you expect them to whip up indignation and pious anger?
Guess what time it is! It is time for the weekly ill-conceived, shoehorned outrage piece!
It’s bad that people grew up (and still grow up) feeling the need to be closeted, that is the fault of “society” and needs to be fixed.
Let’s just stop there.
Same with the priest thing. They aren’t pedophiles because they aren’t allowed to have sex with women. They became priests/coaches/boy scout leaders so they would have access to children.
Man, remember when the comment section on the AVClub used to be good? And then with the switchover to Kinja it became bad for a while, and now its a cesspool where people get pissed that you don’t like an old man equating being closeted with being a rapist. For bonus points, they get themselves super outraged about minor newswire articles while railing against “outrage culture” without even beginning to note the massive irony. What the fuck happened to this place?
New headline – Young straight woman mocks old gay man for having an opinion about other gay men.
I don’t care what he thinks.I only care that Singer gets charged with something that sticks.Putting this on other actors, who did nothing but work with the guy, is some bullshit. Why isn’t anyone wondering why the authorities can’t or won’t get something on Singer? Or do we have to wait until one of his employees turns over a tape in the future like happened to R. Kelly?
I don’t care what he thinks.I only care that Singer gets charged with something that sticks.Correct take.
Authorities are waiting for the Lifetime doc on Singer before they make their move.
Or at the very least a New Yorker article.
“I think that’s rather up to the public,” he said. He’s correct here.As to the rest of it, not a great take. And, with that said, I have adequately registered my displeasure, thus ensuring another tickmark in the Online Book of Life(TM).
Outrage Journalism 101:- Select controversy – if no controversy available, manufacture one out of thin air- Ask celebrities for their opinions on chosen controversy- Profit!
It’s especially effective because some of those celebrities will have the wrong opinion, and then you can write about them!! And then you can ask other celebrities what they think of that!!It’s as close as you can get to a perpetual outrage machine.
You are clearly not devious enough for this line of work: what you want is a controversy that is complex and sensitive enough for it to not allow a simple answer. So even if the celebrities manages to make a complex, nuanced and sensible answer, you can always take a soundbite from it that allows you to manufacture some outrage.
Slight amendment:- Sit in your content farm and wait for someone else to ask celebrities for their opinions on chosen controversy.
– Provide link-heavy closing argument so everyone knows your opinion is totally informed and well-woke.
It’s hilarious watching the AV Club so eagerly going after the elderly gay man here; you can just feel the article’s glee that they get to be more “woke” than Ian McKellen, gay icon. I’m thinking back to the whole “Rock” fiasco from a few months back, which ended in utter humiliation for the AV Club, and I can’t help but hope this somehow ends up going a similar way.
well its Friday, time to fire up the ol’ rage machine again!
I’VE GOT A FULL TANK OF GAS AND A KEYBOARD AND I’M GOING ON A MOTHERFUCKING RAMPAGE!
Can you please pick me up some milk while you’re out rampaging? Thanks
And to think we got this close to going into the weekend with nothing to be outraged about!
What! A gay rights crusader had one bad opinion! Is it possible that he didn’t properly express a complex thought, or that this one sentence doesn’t fully communicate his point? NO. BURN HIM!
I thought we were supposed to rage *against* the machine.
How do explain heterosexual men who commit this type of abuse? I think it has nothing to do with their being in the closet and more to do with the power they had to control peoples lives. Gay or Straight it all comes back to power and how people choose to wield it. Some guys are just power hungry predators who put their own needs before anybody else.
Drunk drivers are more likely to crash their car, but the vast majority of car accidents happen because people are just bad drivers. There’s no reason to pretend the first thing doesn’t exist.
This is why we won’t win in 2020. He is old school with perspectives from his life and thoughts that have come from experience. Just because his perspective is different you want to toss him. There is no perfect ally but he seem pretty darn close. It a different point of view of how things happen … it become just a parochial as the far right now.
Very problematic stance Ms. Miller. Perhaps you should actually listen to him, as he probably has a bit more of an idea of what he’s talking about on the subject than you.Get woke.
I don’t think the plethora of hetero abusers were in the closet. The closet may be one engenderer of abusive behaviour; it’s far from the only one. Unless one wants to define all self-repression as closetedness irrespective of sexual orientation. Sir Ian may have used these words from a desire to do good, but through him they may wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.
You shall not pass this off as homophobia!
Agreed. Also: “If they had been able to be open about themselves and their desires, they wouldn’t have started abusing people in the way they’ve been accused.” While there’s a grain of truth to this point, it also teeters on sounding a bit like NAMBLA apologism. Which is not a good look.
Fuck you shanan.
The idea that repression leads to more abuse rather than less seems pretty uncontroversial.
I don’t know if I’ve seen anyone attempt to put forth any convincing evidence one way or another.
This isn’t evidence, but a useful comparison IMO. Do you think abuse by priests occurs more often because A) pedophiles join the priesthood so they can molest children, or B) because men who become priests have no healthy outlets for their sexuality that won’t cost them their job, so they express it in predatory ways that they’re more likely to get away with?Explanation B isn’t meant to excuse anyone from doing horrible things to kids, but widespread problems usually have similar causes.
One explanation I’ve heard is that there came to be a point where most priests were not taking the celibacy requirement seriously. And if one violates it, the rest of the priesthood is inclined to look aside because they know they’re not going to do anything about the huge numbers of priests who do so. It’s a culture of hypocrisy rather than repression, and when one commits what the rest of society would consider to be a crime they just treat it as another instance of their familiar pattern. The reports of abuse seem to be concentrated among priests who were ordained in the 60s, when there was a cultural shift against sexual repression. But then I haven’t actually seen anyone compare their abuse rate with clergy of other denominations, or or even schoolteachers.
I don’t find it very surprising that, if you create an environment where sexuality can only be expressed at great cost, a certain percentage will become predatory. Because a way to be “safe” is to seek out people who can’t expose you or hurt you.
I suspect there’s lots of mechanisms that could be at work there. Partly, as you say, it’s seeking out ‘safe’ outlets* – particularly because the same social homophobia helps prevent victims speaking out. I would imagine that internalised self-loathing can’t be healthy either, in terms of people holding themselves to high standards – tell someone that they’re a disgusting pervert and there’s no ‘good’ way to express that side of them (so any way is equally bad), and there’s at least a chance that they’ll believe you and act accordingly. And I also wonder how that sort of social pressure can just screw up your sense of what’s a healthy way to act: if you can’t act the way everyone else does, and have to act in covert and indirect ways, and struggle to, as it were, get healthy open feedback on your behaviour because of the taboo nature of the subject, I imagine it’s harder to keep a firm grasp of how you should and shouldn’t be acting.
And there have also been some social effects on some parts of gay (and supportive) culture – for one thing, an overtly countercultural strand that stressed rejecting everything about the prudish heterosexual culture (Jezebel’s hosted a number of quite icky posts that come close to justifying gay abuse on these grounds) (revolutions always come with casualties) (and in particular, the issue of relationships between older and younger men (and older teenage boys) is one that has proven to be problematic for a lot of well-meaning gay intellectual and activists of an older generation), and for another a difficulty for some people in and around the subculture in ‘betraying’ (i.e. confronting or publically accusing) ‘their own’ – these trends obviously didn’t become abusive for most people, but it’s maybe part of an unhealthy environment that makes it harder for people like Singer and Spacey to be effectively challenged (just look how Spacey tried to play the homophobia card in response to the first allegations).I think it’s a complicated issue both regarding the sociological and psychological facts and regarding the moral interpretations, and I know it’s an issue around which there’s a lot of thought and discussion for some gay men (particularly, but certainly not only, for gay men of an older generation and those with a history of activism). Perhaps McKellen was overconfident in thinking he could breeze through the issue (which no doubt he’s thought about a lot more than most of his audience had) in a passing aside, but I also think Shannon and some posters here are overconfident in thinking they can simplify and dismiss McKellen’s perspective as though he’s some passing callow ‘influencer’. The issues are complicated, and McKellen’s contribution is valuable – even if, like any contribution, it’s best considered alongside a range of other contributions from other perspectives.*although we should remember that Spacey’s victims included people like the Norwegian Royal Family. To be honest, he strikes me less as a calculating predator seeking out prey, and more as a sexually-fixated narcissist with impulse control problems and illusions of invulnerability who couldn’t stop himself even when it wasn’t ‘safe’ (and who may also at times have acted in a calculatingly predatory fashion). But the other interpretation is also viable. (to be honest, my instinct is to be skeptical of the rush to assume that people are coldly-calculating supervillains, which often seems to be giving a lot of them too much credit… I think the interpretation of them as a combination of idiot and opportunist is often preferable)
So that’s the hill you wanna die, Sir Ian?
Old white man wishes gays didn’t have to live repressed lives.Seems worth your time to attack.
“I think that’s rather up to the public,” he said. “Do you want to see someone who’s been accused of something that you don’t approve of? Do you ever want to see them again? If the answer is no, you won’t buy a ticket, you won’t turn on the television. But there may be others for whom that’s not a consideration.”
This is factually accurate.“Most of them were in the closet. Hence, all their problems as people and their relationship with other people,” McKellen said. “If they had been able to be open about themselves and their desires, they wouldn’t have started abusing people in the way they’ve been accused.”
Not having had to hide my sexuality from the world or be treated as a disgusting pervert I won’t presume to gainsay the man’s opinions on the matter. He may be incorrect but he has more right and experience to speak on the topic than the vast majority of us commenting.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts, and I don’t think Singer was closeted during the time in question.
You may be correct, the comment about factual accuracy was referring to the first quote and not the second. I did look it up and while Singer didn’t make a public statement about his sexuality until ‘14 apparently it was well-known and he was identified as a ‘gay director’ much earlier in his career. I’m not saying McKellen is right, just that he has more justification for his opinions than those of us who are not gay or in the mental health field. I’m not even sure how professionals could go about determining whether things like being in the closet or being a victim of abuse makes one more likely to become an abuser, what with the reticence of victims to discuss their experiences and the propensity of criminals to whitewash their misdeeds. That may be a failure of imagination on my part but I think it will remain speculation for the foreseeable future.
I’m not sure that I’d use the line about everyone having the right to their opinions but not their own facts, right before I said “I think X is true.” I mean, they’re not contradictory, but it’s a bit of a mismatch.
Yes, ideally I’d be certain of the facts, but I was responding to someone who said one bit was factually accurate while another was opinion that the commenter wouldn’t gainsay. I’m pointing out that part of the quoted bit is a matter of fact rather than opinion, and there is good reason to doubt it. I provided some links elsewhere in this thread, although I can’t really point to the earliest date when Singer was indicated as being openly gay and then match that up with the dates of the (multiple) accusations.EDIT: The earliest link I had there was from 2006 when he was expected to direct a Harvey Milk biopic, but Gawker has him referred to as such in 2005 when he was making Superman Returns.
About McKellen’s first point:
Problem is, if they’re guilty and working, they’re still fostering an insecure space for the other people who work with them. Probably keeping the abuse. If they retain their positions of power while the public decides if they want to consume their products or not… well, not much is changing, no one is being protected. I’m okay with people being sacked over that.
About the second point:
I’m part of the LGBT+ community and spent closeted a fair amount of years. I understand the point that having to hide an innherent part of yourself, and in some cases being conditioned to hate who you are, can warp your mind. But it’s still a dangerous take from an open and respected gay activist. It totally can be read as apologetic, which is horrible when talking about predators.That said, McKellen is an old man. It’s probably best not to fault him. But we should definitively discuss what we feel is right or wrong about what he said.
I agree with you that the abusers shouldn’t continue working even while just under investigation. I think McKellen was pointing out that the financial aspect is the determining factor rather than the morality of the situation. I doubt he agrees with it but he was just describing the process. He could have taken a few moments to denounce that system and didn’t, definitely an error on his part, but he may have thought it was unnecessary as it’s been so oft-repeated. He’s just the messenger on this one.As to the second point I don’t have any grounds to provide an informed opinion so I defer to your experience. It just seems awful for anyone to have to carefully parse their language and statements to be ultra-precise so as not to leave any doubt about their positions and ideas and at the same time trying to guard against misinterpretations and bad-faith actors trying to twist your words out of context. He’s a gay activist but professionally he’s an actor so I think, with his record, he should be given the benefit of the doubt if he doesn’t armor all his statements to protect them from use by the deniers and the abusers. Of course if it turns out McKellen has been doing the same shit he can take a long walk off a short pier with the rest of ‘em. Certainly his statements should be discussed, it’s just the people taking things at face value and not giving any nuance to their thought that bothers me. A discussion can be a valuable thing but people essentially shouting at each other does no good for anyone except maybe some personal catharsis.
Everyone here talks about abuse and what Ian M said. In my opinion people are missing the point : the Metoo thing is kinda weird. Lots of frustrated people, who would never rise to stardom on their own, suddenly start accusing very famous people of an abuse that (might have) happened thousands of years ago. Result:- they get publicity and probably money, – the careers of the famous people are permanently damaged. I don’t think we’ll ever learn the truth because crimes from 2000 BC are so difficult to prove. And if you’ve suffered a dreadful injustice you kind of report it right away. Of course, in sure that many directors, stars etc lead a promiscuous life, and might have abused those people, but it’s also very possible that the “victims” offered themselves only to have reason for blackmail later on. A bit of extra cash and publicity never hurt anyone.
Singer and Spacey were closeted? Well, that’s news.
Spacey only came out publicly after recent allegations. My recollection was that Singer was openly discussing the subtextual connection between the X-Men films and his own sexuality without any prompting.
Spacey used, disgustingly, his “revelation” to deflect the devastation of the accusations. But absolutely no-one in the business and even in large circles outside it (my friends in London for instance, knew he was gay when he lived there managing the Old Vic, and there even were rumors that he was not behaving appropriately) did not know. That Mr Joe Public didn’t doesn’t mean he was in a closet.Singer’s sexuality was likewise an open secret in all but the more remote circles.
There can be that sort of thing where everybody who personally knows someone knows, but they haven’t gone through the formality of making a public statement. I recall publications treating it as an established fact for Tim Cook of Apple before he did so. With Singer my recollection was just that he’d been more publicly outspoken. Nowadays the official line is that he came out as bisexual in 2014, but even before then it was known that he was personally invested in that allegorical reading of the films (Ian McKellen has said he was persuaded to sign on after Singer explained that aspect to him), and he was referred to as “openly gay”. A closeted person doesn’t throw giant Pride parties at Rolan Emmerich’s West Hollywood mansion.
I think that one effect of the closet existing at all is that “the closet” can be more of a continuum. Even if someone comes out ‘publically’, they’re not fully free of the psychology of ‘the closet’ if they still find themselves in situations where people don’t know about their sexuality (and would treat them differently if they did).
He said the same thing about Frodo and Samwise.
I dunno, I’m pretty sure there have been millions of closeted gay men who didn’t resort to abuse because of societal homophobia.
Interesting how in the zero-tolerance era of #MeToo, all the homies of these evil bastards are getting straight passes. Weinstein is a horrible monster, but a knowing/defending Tarantino, Damon, Kevin Clark, etc get full pardons though they enabled him for decades. One wonders how much Magneto might’ve known or not when making many films together, but good thing he’s still standing up for his (scumbag) buddies.
And I think people who denounce others without proof are just fascists. Rumours are still treated as non-facts outside the hysterical and paranoid USA.
Fact: Affleck, Kevin Smith, Tarantino, and Matt Damon have ALL admitted on record that they knew what vile shit Weinstein was upto for DECADES. They are still making big movies and laughing it up on talk shows today though.Fact: Ian McKellan defended what Spacey and Singer has also done.So my point is how acceptable is any of that? Because the answer seems to be: no problemo!I don’t know if you’re trying to say that we need a court of law to first convict any of the above for their crimes first. But I don’t need a bird to shit on me to know birds shit.
i’ve yet to see either of them being accused of fucking a prepubescent child. they are not pedophiles. words mean things.
I feel people accused of abuse in a workplace should be prevented from working, at least until everything is investigated. Would rather not let the public’s apathy be the deciding factor.
Look, the dude’s like 95. If this is the most troubling thoughts he’s voicing…Edit: Huh, he’s only 79
Sexual repression + position of power absolutely is a recipie to birth a sexual abuser. It’s the entire reason it’s such a problem in the Catholic Church. This is not a terrible take, just inelegantly put and didn’t take power dynamics to task enough.
Pretty sure Singer’s been out of the closet for some time now.
SIR Ian McKellen is older, wiser, sexier and classier than any internet ‘journalist’, and your opinion about him is moot. The fact that you think there’s anything here to be outraged over is blatant evidence of a lack of basic reading comprehension.
This article shall…not…pass the criteria for newsworthiness.
GET HIM!!!!!
“I think that’s rather up to the public,” he said. “Do you want to see someone who’s been accused of something that you don’t approve of? Do you ever want to see them again? If the answer is no, you won’t buy a ticket, you won’t turn on the television. But there may be others for whom that’s not a consideration.” I get that this is the transaction between artist and public. You like their work, you support their livelihood. You don’t like their work, for whatever reason, you don’t support their livelihood, and if enough people do that then the artist has to go away and make a livelihood doing something else.But it’s also rather up to studios, directors, producers, comedy clubs, etc. to decide if someone accused of abusive behavior is someone you want to work with or working for you. They control whether tickets or shows are available to the public to begin with.
Also, it should go without saying, but being in the closet is no excuse for abusive behavior. Problems with relationships and themselves, sure, but their abuse is on them.
“something that you don’t approve of” – uh, are there people who approve of sexual abuse of underage children?
This seems a bit of a reach to excuse people he is friends with. People have a tendency to make excuses for people they know, but these cases feel no different to R Kelly, Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Louis CK… The history of the entertainment industry is littered with stories of people abusing their position to coerce others in to sex, and having people turn a blind eye or even help cover it up. I’m not disputing that being closeted is a damaging experience, but I don’t see how this can be attributed to that when fame itself seems to be at the root of many similar cases.
Sir Ian must have forgotten we’re in the age of black or white, right or left. There’s no room for nuanced discussion.
Not with comments like this.
Not with those shoes on.
Not without my daughter.
Sexually repressed people tend to act out. Usually that’s not in the form of sexual abuse, but let’s not be naive and say that it never plays a role. I also agree with what he’s saying about people currently being shunned in the entertainment industry for demonstrably terrible behavior. The reason they’re being shunned isn’t that Hollywood suddenly grew a conscience. It’s because people won’t buy tickets to see them anymore (see Spacey’s last theatrical release – if it had grossed $618k on its limited opening rather than $618 bucks, how blacklisted do you think he’d be?). Sometimes I think people on this website are looking to be offended.
you know regardless of whether or not McKellan’s comments were troubling, the way the headline is phrased make it sound like he was making a variant on Spacey’s claim that the accusations were made falsely to target him as a gay man, which is a really rotten and clickbaity way to make McKellan sound like he said something way worse.
He has a point, up to a point, but I think it only goes so far.I think a lot of this is informed by his views of being either in or out. I recently saw a documentary about McKellen, and it was very obvious that his coming out was both very healthy for him and very transformative for him. He approached it almost like someone who finally drops a bunch of weight; next thing you know, “eating healthy and losing some weight” becomes their answer to everything. Trouble at work? Lose some weight. trouble with your wife? Lose some weight. Can ran away? Lose some weight.For Ian McKellen, coming out of the closet was the lynchpin to living a much better life, and, he has strongly advocated for everyone LGBTQ+ out there. Be who you truly are, and your world will be a better place.I think that experience has colored his views towards some other aspects of life.
I feel like there’s an inconsistency between the ways we talk about racism and abuse. With Green Book, the dominant conversation online is about how the movie presents racism in terms of hateful misconceptions held by individual white guys rather than a systematic societal force. We know that mitigating racism will require cultural reckoning, not waiting on individuals to correct their own personal ignorance by themselves.But now we’re out here roasting McKellen for suggesting that there are cultural factors that can lead to abuse. On this topic, we insist on focusing on personal responsibility exclusively, ignoring the effects the societal pressures *might* have. Isn’t it a fallacy to look at racism as cultural, systematic problem and then view abuse as just a bunch of individual bad guys being bad guys?
Dear AV Club. Nevermind. You make me tired.
How many Harvey Weinsteins do we have to see before this childish “herp derp it’s only because of REPRESSION does sexual abuse occur!” line stops being trotted out? News flash: monsters are monsters, and being free to pursue your sexual proclivities to their utmost seems to only further encourage and derange them.Also, Bryan Singer was basically out to everyone who knew him and worked with him for quite some time. He wasn’t “publicly” out, but it’s not like he was a household name for decades who might have had to hide it (like a Spielberg or something), living some emotionally debilitating lie.
Anybody willing to face the uncomfortable truth that McKellen, who himself was closeted for many years, may well be implicitly admitting to something here?
………………….Oh! This is where we get mad, right? AARGH!
It’s not, y’know, impossible that these men might not have become abusers had they felt safe and welcome to express their homosexuality, and have it affirmed by their culture. I think you can say that without suggesting that they are victims or being unduly persecuted for their abuse.
McKellen even specifically says that being closeted affected “their relationship with other people” more broadly. He isn’t saying that being a closeted gay man makes you an abuser, he’s saying that having to suppress a specific, fundamental part of your identity can make it harder to form genuine honest relationships with people. And it can. We all know it can. Is that even controversial? If I felt tremendous societal pressure to pretend I am something I’m not, then of course I am more likely to face difficulty in expressing myself honestly. It’s not impossible that this can push urges and desires into abusive places. Of course it’s not.
I call on Shannon Miller to explain, exactly which part of McKellen’s comments consitute an “insinuation that gay men can be expected to just naturally turn to sexual abuse while closeted”. This is the kind of basic semiotic question that you learn how to answer in most Media Studies 101 courses so I’m assuming it won’t be a problem for a journalistic author.
My god, do I miss the days when you could hear someone say something, and think, “Well, I certainly disagree with THAT,” and go about your day not feeling as if you were obligated to judge their fitness as a human being.
I honestly don’t understand what your point is. That, because they are bad people, we shouldn’t postulate on the factor she in their life that psychologically led them To where they are? Or was your point just to force a smear on a good Man so you could take home a pay cheque. Disgusting and offensive. You, not him.
god forbid and gaia forfend, but maybe his subtle point wasn’t meant to be as grand and as totalizing as the troublingly eager displays of both arrogance and shallowness on the Internet suggests.
Hooray for completely fucking missing his point. Maybe you should stick to reporting on cis het girly crap.Child, you don’t know jack shit about what it’s like growing up closeted, and maybe, just maybe, your ignorance is coloring your abysmally awful judgement.
“Troubling” is the new problematic
You know, it’s increasingly difficult to ignore fanciful Right-leaning stories about liberal purity tests when shit like this crops up.
No, please, drag McKellen for not having a sufficient level of Woke-ness. Let’s go back and see if he had any unpopular opinions about shit like Margaret Thatcher and the Faulklands while we are at it – maybe some choice gems from the late 70’s that weren’t compatible with modern, 4th-wave feminism?
Jeeze.
I see where he’s coming from. When you are trying to hide a secret you behave differently than when you’re out in the open. First of all the “self-conflict and cognitive dissonance build until the strain becomes unbearable and you lash out” is basically the classic “cycle of abuse” pattern, for some people that lash out part is punching someone, for others it’s trying to grope someone.
Secondly, when you are trying to conceal your actions it makes complete sense that you would gravitate towards people over whom you can exert power. Full-grown functional adults in a mutual relationship might want something back, they might want an actual relationship with you, to meet the family, to be recognized as a part of your life. So it seems perfectly logical that someone who is hiding a secret would prefer relationships with significant power differentials, and situations where they can make them shut up and go away if they have to.
This doesn’t read to me as hysterical freakout about “the gays” as much as a fairly reasonable take on the harmful effects of forcing people to suppress their sexual identities and urges leading to abusive behavior.
Pretty sure they were powerful opportunists who give no value to the thoughts and feelings of anyone, much less their victims, but whatevs.This really falls into the ‘I find this offensive, but not enough to change how I feel about the person who and it’s column, though.
For what it’s worth, he did issue an apology and said he wasn’t as articulate as he should have been. A sincere apology goes a long way for me. We’ve all said things we wished we had used more tact to say. I don’t think Sir Ian should be dragged through the mud on this one.