Nigel Lythgoe says he doesn't have a problem with gay men, just effeminate dancers

AE: Why don’t you like the effeminate [dancers]?

NL: Because they need to be very strong. Dancing is role-playing most of the time. And you need to be strong and lift girls. You need to look stronger than the girl you’re dancing with. You control the dance, especially in ballroom. So if you mince about the stage, you’re not doing what the choreographer is asking you to do.

^ great answer, lemme tell ya...

With that said, I am pretty sure dancers (gay or straight) don't mince around the stage. Otherwise, they would never even be on the stage. I worked at a well known art/theatre place about a year ago, and i saw plenty of gay men...and yeah, some were 'effeminate' (I don’t like that term) but when I saw them perform their parts on stage....they didn't stand out in any way...there was no mincing around or whatnot....but eh, maybe that was MY experience.

 

Thanks for asking him the questions, even if he didn't give a "straight" answer. The one thing I wished you'd nailed him on was the lightly homophobic comments he's been making on the show. (Such as when he told Will to be "relieved" that more girls than boys in the audience raised their hands about wanting to "dance' with him.)

Nigel has some splainin' to do about his attitude. Being a dancer is THE most gay-guy-centric profession (next to AFterElton staffer), and for this toothy Brit to make any homo-iffy comments or jokes -- let along the "don't ask don't tell" position you call him on -- is out of line. He clearly would prefer it if we'd all just butch it up and stop diddling each other. Whether that makes him latent or just intolerant, I don't care. But he's in the wrong business for it.

 

 

The blog would never be latent or intolerant. Now come over here and give the blog a big hug.

"AfterElton.com: What’s your response to the criticism that neither American Idol nor Step it Up and Dance has ever included any out gay contestants?"

Michael I really hope it's a typo and that you didn't really say Step it up and dance(the show on Bravo) during the interview . ;)

Nigel is A)completely clueless regarding its constestant or B) an a**hole as much on the show as during interviews.

The number of "out" gay contestants on SYTYCD is constant during all the 4 seasons(Winner Nick in season 1, Runner-up Travis in season 2, etc.) Just this year we got several guys probably gay on the Top 20.How hypocrite to not have a problem with gays but always tell them to not show their "gayness. It's like saying: I'm not a homophobe, I just not want to know they are gay.

I see a couple of odd things here. Nigel seems to be confusing
effeminate with weak and as many a drag queen can tell you, there isn't
anything weak about many drag queens.

The fact that effeminate equals weak insults me - as a woman. What's so horrible about being a woman / or having womanly qualities? Most women I know cope pretty well with being effeminate.

I am an ardent figure skating fan, therefore I read and hear lots of comments concerning the style of skating. Words like "feminine, effeminate, flamboyant, flashy, showy" are often negative criticism.

One of the more "flamboyant" skaters was Alexej Urmanov, and because of his style he was often called superficial, phony, they (official US-sport commentators) called his costumes "elaborate" and he was generally seen as the negative opposite to the North-American "masculine" skaters (Browning, Stojko, Hamilton). Not the best example - it's also possible that the US-commentators just hated him because he is Russian.

Johnny Weir is my favourite example - commentators are careful to be politically correct when they comment on his skating, at least when he is skating his normal graceful style. But in 2006/2007 he tried a new style, and Dick Button was praising the new style as "more serious, more masculine, stronger, much tighter" - calling is old style "somewhat more frivolous". I just found that program and the style profoundly boring in comparision to this or this
(The second clip is from eurosport - with British commentators, these commentators never use words like "masculine", "feminine", "effeminate", they are really much nicer to listen too.)

One of the funniest headlines ever appeared on icenetwork (sponsored by the United Skates Figure Skating Association) after he won the Bronze in March at the Worlds. It said something "Never say Johnny Weir isn't a he-man - today he proved that he can shoulder the heaviest of burdens" When I read that I immediately asked myself: If Weir has now proven his "masculinity" by not losing his nerve in the freeskate - what's with the 17-year-old girl who just became World Champion a few days before? Does the fact that she hold her nerve (after a devastating fall at the beginning of the program) make her somehow masculine? Do you have to be masculine to shoulder a burden?

Very fascinating was also this NYT-article on Weir and Lysacek (IMO not worthy of such an exceptional newspaper), And on the ice, Lysacek will keep wowing the crowd with his feats, Weir with his flair. This is one of the more hilarious quotes of the article, IMO it kind of says that Weir doesn't have feats in his program?

 

Hmm, somewhere during this post I have lost my train of thought. Well, my point was that I consider these gender-specific attributes as absolutely irrelevant - not just because there are strong drag-queens, but also because there are lots of strong women. I also don't think that a certain amount of "effeminacy" in a male dancer makes him a "bad" partner in a dancing team - there have been lots of "effeminate" (hate that word, hate that word, hate that word...) ballet dancers who were absolutely amazing in the most prestigious Pas-de-Deuxs ever written for Ballet.

I think we should have moved beyond these prejudices a long time ago - it works the other way around too. My university is mostly technical and scientific - so I know lots of girls who study engineering, physics etc., they can tell lots of funny anecdotes where they were asked "A little tomboy then?", "Oh, that's unusual for girls", "I wouldn't have guessed that, you look more like a language student", "Wow, that's amazing, but isn't it rather difficult for girls?" and people automatically start looking for more "ungirlish" behaviour or attributes.

Well, I will now stash my inner feminist back into the dark corner of my personality where she normally resides. Being a feminist is just so masculine and unattractive.

 

Pure
logic is the ruin of the spirit.

Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Lythgoe's comments really make me wonder.  In my old days of dancing the straight male dancers were usually not so uptight about "effeminancy" in other male dancers.   It was usually the closeted gay dancers who got upset.  It's also interesting because--judging from the clips on YouTube--Nigel was certainly not especially butch.  I hate these terms and judgements--even though I know they are somewhat prevalent in the entertainment industry.

Yesterday Michael asked some questions regarding diversity from the top executive at Fox and in my assessment his answers were an "F" at best, which makes it hard to grade the lecherous/homophobic Nigel, but I'll give him a gentleman's "D" because his pathetic comments about never even having thought about homosexuality are unequivocal lies as only someone in a cave has not even thought about it, but he gets his score lifted to a "D" for his inability to control is mouth as the latter gives all of us a better window of what he really thinks. I think his views are antiquated, don't apply, and foster tired associations between gender and strength. I am not just talking physical either. He has spoken so now he has given us a window to pounce, and whatever modality we deem appropriate. I know I am linking this post to many of my friends to make this a story in my limited universe.

It's interesting how SYTYCD is quite diverse when it comes to gender (obviously) and ethnicity as the latter is a no brainer in making the show more appealing to the younger urban audiences who make this show number in their favorite demo every week, but when it comes to sexual orientation at best we are to believe it's something that they don't even think about. Those who are so amazing and make the cut then have to deal with a universal gender expression that the show itself contradicts in some of its best dances. I've seen ballsy women in post-gender attire kicking butt as well as the vulnerability of the butchest of dancers.

While dance is about role playing, some of us were born chameleons especially some of us who spent most of our lives overcompensating in trying to play average Joe. From my own experience I can share that I did that so well that not only did I not take the time to find out who I was, but the ability to fake it only made my closet stay longer and still has some people feeling like they never knew me. I can't do much (nor care to) about the latter but as we know some of the most fey guys can lift a truck even if they have some traits generally associated with females. This jester says he wants performances to feel honest. I know that the best way for me to do good work is when I am not hiding anything or even focusing on something addressing this. Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.

http://springintoaction.typepad.com

...he sure seems a little too preoccupied with effeminancy.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. - Shakespear

Like Nancy O'Meara said on SIUAD, the effeminate dancers were told to 'butch it up' for a reason, and the reason isn't homophobia. The reason is that dancers are employed to enact the creations of choreographers, like actors are the tools of writers and directors. They aren't up there to do their own thing, and most dance work is in pairs and groups, where the man must be convincingly strong (or even macho for ballroom), or at least blend unnoticeably in groups (no matter the style). As much as admire drag queens, you're not going to see a sistah in a group of het and gay boys backing any rap artist unless she can throw down and blend: she's not the star. Even in a dancing sport like ballroom, the rules of the sport have long been established, and although you can disco with the best of 'em, you're not going to win. It's simply the facts of the art form that jobs where men can dance effeminately professionally are very limited.  

I think you guys misunderstand him. To dance with a partner, especially a girl, you have to present yourself as the male side of the relationship. Look at Joshua. He's very effeminate when he's not dancing, but when he hits that stage, that boy is a MAN. They have clearly never discriminated against having gay men on the show, and relationships rarely ever come up on the show ever so I'm not sure that they should make it a point to affirm they are gay or straight.

Also, during the auditions, Travis Wall, a former contestant, came onto the stag in drag and performed it's raining men and it illicted nothing but applause and laughs from the judges and the audience. There was no homophobic comments of any sort. He along with Nick Lazzarini, Blake McGrath and his brother Danny are all very effeminate men. They all however dance very masculine when they're on stage. (Save for Blake now that he's no longer on the show)

Last night, they introduced a pas de duex as a new style of dance and had Desmond Richardson and his partner coreograph it. Desmond is probably the best male contemporary dancer alive, and he's also very very gay. Nigel had nothing to say for him but praise and also openly aknowledged him and his partner.

I think you guys need to give him a little more credit. He may make slightly low brow comments reaffirming his sexuality but in the end, there have never been a lack of gay men on the show. His complaints of effemininity are purely from a dance viewpoint and for those of us who have danced for a long time, we all know that even the biggest queen butch up for partner dances. 

Or he was talking to a person who can't dance, who tried out for one of the hardest dance shows ever, and acted like a flaming idiot. He did misrepresent the dance world as a whole, and what he says was true, that is the reason fathers don't like when their boys dance. I know who you're talking about I think, and he was an absolute mess on there. I would have said worse to him. It's disrespectful to people who have dedicated their life to the sport, for you to audition for that show and then act the way he did. 

 

I just think it's wrong that you misconstrue him as some loathing homophobe. Look back and see what he says about Travis Wall, or Nick Lazarrini, or Danny Tidwell. He has nothing but praise and they are all extremely gay. You're generalizing a man because his show doesn't present every person on it with wooo I'm gay. The show has nothing to do with sexuality, it's a dance show, not a dating show. They hardly ever say anything about boyfriends being there or girlfriends. It rarely ever comes up unless it's brought up by one of the dancers. It's a shame you're bashing a guy who's given us a program that has tons of gay men on it. Just because it's not talked about doesn't mean everyone doesn't know. I personally don't think it even matters. 

I do not think Nigel was being homophobic.  Instead I think it is much more deep rooted than that.  He has an issue with effeminate men, because I am sure he was teased considerably when he was younger, especially considering he was a dancer. Over the past 4 seasons he seems to sympathize with the guys who were teased for becoming dancers.  So I think there is nothing new there, its just as he said, bad word choices, but also he has some deep routed issues.  He has worked hard at overcompensating to be masculine all his life, though I think he has a tough time hiding his effeminate side at times.  Good thing he is Executive Producer. 

Nigel cannot risk losing the gay viewers or the gay dancers on his show, by being a homophobe.  After all if you took the all they gay men and woman off the show, they would have to rename the Show, SO YOU THINK YOU CAN WALK !!

 

 

There are no 'males who like men' separate from other 'normal' or 'straight' males, except for those who are the 'intermediate sex,' the 'third gender,' or the 'female souls inside male bodies' ... and if you're a 'third gender' then it doesn't make a difference whether you like men or women, exclusively or otherwise. The use of the term 'gay' to represent men who acknowledge their desire for men is shameful.

Languages of any particular society reflects the values, beliefs and even myths of that particular society. It reflects both its positive and negative aspects. It's a shame that the English media in India, desparate to trash everything Indian for everything Western, uses the English language with a slave mentality, blindly copying the West, irrespectiive of whether it tallies with our knowledge, our culture, our environment or not. That is why, today, even though India, which has so much to offer to the world, is reduced to a passive recipient of their negativities, their poison, their ugliness, which is killing everything that was of worth in India.

An example is the use of the phrases like "dark clouds" and "bright sun" to represent gloomy and happy times respectivcely. The fact is that in a sweltering environment like India, dark clouds represent happiness, not gloom (unlike in the colder West), whereas the hot, sweltering sun is seen as the harbinger of gloom. That is why in Indian languages, we've phrases like 'dhoop aur chaanv' (sun and shade) to represent harsh times and comfortable times, respectively. But, thanks to those who sold out our culture to the West, our people, esp. the youth, use a language which is totally broken from the reality of our environment.

It's the same with the concept of 'homosexuality' or the 'homosexual.' These are not only peculiarly Western terms, unsuitable for India, they're invalid terms, illogical terms for the entire humankind. These terms have developed due to the heavy negative influence of Christianity in the West, which Western science too is not free from. This concept carries with it the utter contempt Christianity has for intimate bonds between men, which hostility, India otherwise, as a culture lacks. This concept also represents the Western science's and Western media's conspiracy to confuse 'gender orientation' (which requires a separate category) with the new concept of 'sexual orientation' that they have developed (Sexual preferences do not lend naturally into a separate category), and the so-called 'homosexuals' widely use 'sexual orientation' interchangeablly with 'gender orientation' (feminine gender).

The concept of 'Sexual Orientation,' especially, of 'homosexuality' is based on the negation of 'gender' as a valid human trait by the Western society. This negation is part of the extreme politics of male gender and sexuality that the Western society is playing in the name of openness and freedom in the field of sexuality. As part of the politcs, the 'third gender' is misleadingly redefined as 'homosexual' and their sexuality for men is misleadingly defined as 'homosexuality' in order to stigmatize the trait of desiring men for the masculine gendered males (or males with a male identity/ men/ straight males). It seeks to carry forward the stigma of 'namard' or 'napunsak' or 'Hijra' onto the desire for men, which was never there for this desire earlier (Earlier, this stigma was only for the act of being inserted, not of being attracted to the male form or genitalia per se; and the desire to be inserted was stigmatized using the same politics, by ascribing it to the third genders, or the intermediate sex, and thus propagating it as 'unmanly').

India, has a vibrant culture of 'third gender', which is also biologically and historically valid and sound, and is prevalent all the world over. Although the third gender is today marginalized, stigmatized and oppressed in India, thanks to the British, nevertheless, there is acknowledgement of its existence. Although sexual love or bonds between men are stigmatized too, we don't consider, men loving men as the same as a 'third gender' desiring a man -- as people constituting a separate category, or as a 'different' people. The "third gender that likes men" would be part of 'heterosexuality,' because 'men' and 'third genders' are not the 'same-sex.' Although, there is still the myth, that the 'men' penetrate, while the 'third gender' gets penetrated ... and the myth that equates loving a man with lust and anal or oral sex. But, these myths need to be removed, rather than adding the new Western myth of the third gender being redefined as 'men who like men' and thereby isolating and punishing men who acknowledge their love for men, as 'third genders.'

How can we take on a concept, a term which invalidates the difference between a 'man who loves another man' with the 'third gender that lusts for men' and clubs them together into one category (homosexual) separate from the 'straight' men? This amounts to a clear denial of social manhood to the 'man who loves man,' and is oppressive of men. Of course, this is a part of their forced heterosexualization, which is an integral part of Westernization, that the media like HT are hell bent on achieving. The same Western culture and science that differentiates 'masculine gendered males' on the basis of 'sexual orientation' and clubs the straight males (genderwise straight) who like men, together with the intermediate sex which likes men, doesn't mix the 'intermediate sex that likes women exclusively' in the straight category ... because 'straight' actually means being a male with a male inner-sex identity, not really having a 'heterosexual orientation.' The transgendered 'heterosexual' (sic) is categorised along with the Gay, as the "T" in LGBT.

The Western gays are too fond of saying that the West gives freedom to men to have sexual bonds with men. Nothing is far from the truth. To allow men to be sexually, romantically or emotionally be intimate with another man only after isolating them from the 'straight' males and categorising them with the 'Hijras" or the "Kotis" is not giving freedom. Rather its pure dirty politics, a conspiracy against men, designed to hide the persecution of male bonds behind a false facade of freedom. That's the West, all the way.

The Western concepts of 'homosexuality,' 'heterosexuality,' 'bisexuality,' 'homosexual,' heterosexual,' etc. also spread several other misconceptions about male gender and sexuality, which the Westernized media widely propagates amongst the public. E.g., it creates an illusion that only a rare, different kind of male desires another male. When the fact is that ALL MEN HAVE A SEXUAL/EMOTIONAL/ROMANTIC NEED FOR A MAN.' It's a different matter that most men learn to suppress this need and divert it towards women, because of social pressures, but never entirely, and many men grow on to develop their sexuality for men. It's just a natural process that is inevitable. You can never heterosexualize men completely. It is wrong to isolate the men who don't conform to heterosexuality into another category altogether.

The third genders relish having another category, but its because, they always had it, and because they don't fit in with men -- because of their feminine gender, not because of their sexuality for men, which is omnipresent. It is because of this that the so-called 'gays' who are actually the 'third genders' so vehemently press for 'homosexuality' as a separate identity. But, it is also observed that the Vernacular so-called 'gays' (who were known as Kotis, i.e. the intermediate sex that gets penetrated ... while the Giriyas were the 'men' who penetrated them, and were not 'gays,' nor different from other men), do not like the concept of 'homosexuality' which negates their feminine gender identity formally, although allows it informally. It's the Westernized Kotis, who have had Westernized education, or the urbanized middle class Kotis, for whom the vernacular identities are too 'downmarket' and 'desi' for their Westernized tastes, who care at all for the 'gay' identity. Unfortunatnely, the English media gives them prominence and the Westernization of Indian society is fast killing the space for the Kotis, which is being forcefully taken over by the Westernized 'gays.'

In fact, the third gender's sexuality for men is in nature, totally different from a man's sexuality for men. While men desire another men as a man desires another, a third gender desires another man like a woman desires a man. For the third gender (gays/ homosexuals) their desire for men is actually a part of their heterosexuality. Its the woman inside them desiring a male. This can't be clubbed together with the man's sexuality for men, in one category with the same name.

Another misconception that the concept of 'homosexuality' propagates is that someone who likes women cannot like men. So, those who show any desire for another man have to have no attraction for women at all. This adds to the stigma of liking men, because, a man must prove his sexual desire for women in order to qualify for manhood as per the modern Western rules of manhood (earlier, reproduction and marriage was required as a proof, not a desire for women). And, an acknowledgement for one's desire for men is taken to mean that he 'lacks' a desire for women. Thus Westernized straight males never acknowledge that they like men or intimacy with them, adding to the isolation of the 'man who likes men' and the myth of him forming another category.

This myth was also not present before the concept of 'homosexuality' and 'sexual orientation' was enforced upon India, primarily by the media throught its aggressive Westernization drive. Your desiring men was not seen as excluding a desire for women. In fact, the general belief was that if you were too full of sex drive, you'd desire both men and women.

Another important myth that the concept of 'homosexuality' propagates, that was not present earlier, is that desiring males is not only 'rare' but it is unmanly, 'different,' effeminate ... and is a quality of the 'intermediate sex.' No wonder, the Westernized Indian media, while it is busy paying lip service to the right of 'men who like men' (actually the third genders) ridicule and stigmatize man's sexual desire for women as feminine, by repeatedly caricaturing the third genders as 'men who like men.' (remember the Westernized/ heterosexualized version of the song "aadmi hun aadmi se pyaar karta hun" which is now sung by a "third gender' ... third genders are not 'aadmi' though). Laughter channels, of the kind run by Shekhar Suman are the foremost in spreading this stigmatization. This helps in heterosexualising men, since thy're forced to disown their sexuality for men.

Just one decade ago, it was common knowledge in the informal men's spaces, that a desire for men is an integral part of being a (straight) man. And that all men have it. It was albeit believed that its a vice that 'nice' men, men of character, should stay away from. That was stigma enough, but it didn't make you a 'third gender,' a 'biologically' different' male for desiring another man. All men want to do it but they need to be restrained through social hostility so that marriage institution could be sustained was the general view, at least amongst men. Although, the women and the intermediate sexes saw men as being 'essentially' heterosexual, because men never talked about their desire for men in the formal space that they shared with them. But within men's spaces, they widely acknowledged this, and were not considered 'gay' for doing so.

Indeed, today, encouraged by the Westernized media, peer-pressure for male youth is forcing them not to hold hands with each other and to hold hands with the girls and to have girlfriends, and to have sex with girls to prove that they're a man ... which requires having to prove that you're 'heterosexual' in the new Westernized scheme of things. Is this freedom of sexuality ... only for a few ... for the rest amounts to a pressure. But men do not have a space to complain without losing their manhood.

And here is the other myth that the concept of 'homosexuality' and its progeny 'heterosexuality' propagates. Men are expected to have a heterosexual orientation, en masse, which is actually unnatural and non-existant amongst men for the most part, Men may have occasional sexual passion for females (a huge amount of males do not even have that under natural circumstances, though anyone can develop some sexual feelings for anyone), but a heterosexual orientation, which means a desire to form emotional and social and intellectual bonds with women is practically non-existent. Yet, in order to be heterosexual, in a 'free' westernized society, men force themselves to acquire a degree of physical/ mental/ social/ emotional/ sexual comfort with women ... and the society 'helps' them by enoucouraging them to see girls as being the same as men. Girls are given huge social powers to act like men, so that men can feel better having 'relationships' with them.

The Indian society only forced men to get married to women. Not to have relationships with them. Certainly not without marriage. Even the Indian manhood (and so did the manhood values all across the globe, even in pre-heterosexualized West) excluded intimacy with women beyond vaginal sex. Today, this would be seen as an anti-woman view. But to discourage men from being intimate with men is not seen as being anti-man at all. That, according to the Western values, so proudly forcefully spread by the Indian media, is 'natural' and 'normal.' So says the West.

So, what should be done to correct this falsehood?

Before the Westernized Indian media forcefully started to impose the concept of 'homosexuality' and 'homosexuals' on India, India had reinvented these Western terms according to its own cultural traditions. Thus, 'gay' or 'homo' was widely seen amongst the vernacular male masses as another term for those belonging to the 'intermediate sex' ... including the Hijras and the Kotis. In fact, in a workshop conducted by an NGO on masculinity with men across North India, men overwhelmingly identified a TV character Dilruba, who was effeminate, but exclusively into women, as 'homo' irrespective of his exclusive sexual preferences for women. While they maintained that two masculine males who have an exclusive lifelong relationship with each other cannot be termed a 'homo' because they're men.

We should revert back to that definition, where 'gay' means 'transgendered' or 'feminine gendered' or 'effeminate' gender, irrespective of sexual preferences. And 'Straight' means 'men,' males with natural masculinity (which should translate into social manhood), Males with a male identity -- again, irrespective of sexual preferences. And then we should fight for the reinclusion of third genders into the mainstream, of giving them equal rights and dignity, rather than hiding their stigma behind a false 'sexual orientation.'

And real sexual freedom for everyone can only come if men are liberated from their burden to serve and desire women sexually/ romantically. That they don't lose their manhood/ straighthood for not desiring women, or saying 'no' to a woman. And furthermore, if men can desire a man without losing his manhood/ straighthood. Without having to be a 'homo.'