Dumbledore is gay! [Archive]

IronParrot

10-20-2007, 11:38 PM

This may sound very self-aggrandizing, but there's a tremendous amount of idiocy going on all over the Internet today, and I've just spent the last two hours writing a piece to deal with it (http://www.nicholastam.ca/2007/10/20/dumb-and-dumbledore/).

Briefly: I think it enriches the series. But if you don't agree, it's entirely your prerogative to read Harry Potter as if Rowling had never said a thing about sexual orientation. And I'm going to stand by that when it comes to any remark any author makes about his or her own books.

Tessar

10-21-2007, 05:11 AM

I think it's all a bit... frivolous and silly.

I mean... come on, what's the big deal? His sexuality has absolutely zero effect on the book at all.

Of course on the other hand that does make Dumbledor the coolest gay character EVER, but he's pretty kickass no matter what orientation he is :p.

b.banner

10-21-2007, 04:50 PM

it just surprised me even though i kinda suspected it. It doesn't make me like him less especialy since i never liked him much anyway

hectorberlioz

10-23-2007, 01:36 PM

It may or may not be a fraud on her part. Well fraud is pretty strong, afterall it is her series. My point is that she may not have written the books with Dumbledore being gay, but she now feels obliged -or whatever- to have a major character be gay.

Pytt

10-23-2007, 02:53 PM

inked

10-23-2007, 03:24 PM

Well, JK Rowling said she thought of him as gay and deleted a line in a proposed movie script on that basis. What is remarkable is that there is nothing in canon to support such an attribution unless you consider that a celibate lifestyle in the face of a same-sex attraction (never mentioned or described or hinted) is JKR's idea of normative homosexual behaviours. And it is a viable lifestyle choice just as for heterosexuals.

Frankly, I'm glad we won't have any backstory torrid romances of either orientation!

Imagine:

Dapper Dumbly and Miss McGonagall Do Dallas!

Albus and the Boys from Brazil on Break!

Dumbledore and Grindewald Gone Wild!

Hogwarts Blanket Bingo!

:p :p :p

Personally, it may well be that JKR came to that understanding as the storyline progressed over the seventeen years it's been aborning. Authors often speak of their characters having a 'free will' that precludes specific desired actions by the authors and which require the adaptation of the author to the character. Particularly, Dorothy L. Sayers notes this of her characters in the LORD PETER WIMSEY series. And we know that JKR likes DLS.

But for JKR to state such an understanding of her character's "self" does not imply that she gives a seal of approval to all that goes by that designation in anyone else's definition of what constitutes that "self". If it had been pertinent to the story line - and it is the delimitation of the modern obsession with sexual antics that her story line is most notable for by example (snogging as publically ridiculous) and by omission (none of the main characters are gratingly graphically so engaged) - she would have to have included it. It seems an afterthought.

Lest anyone say I am being too kind because of my great love for the HP series, I must add that to have revealed Albus Dumbledore in all of his mistakes and errors and Machiavellianness in DEATHLY HALLOWS and then make this revelation is not, to my mind, a resounding approval. Yet the positives of heterosexuality are amply displayed in multiple familial settings (even, yech!, the Malfoys! ... just how did little Draco get to be? ... don't go there!).

And this certainly didn't fit the speculations that specific characters might be gay : Lupin, Lockhart, etc.

Probably will spin off a rather tawdry round of fanfic, though! :eek:

hectorberlioz

10-23-2007, 03:41 PM

Probably will spin off a rather tawdry round of fanfic, though! :eek:

Ah yes, in the great tradition of Anatomically Correct Legolas Dolls:p...Dumbledore Dolls!

sun-star

10-23-2007, 03:58 PM

Probably will spin off a rather tawdry round of fanfic, though! :eek:

I think the fanficcers were way ahead of JKR on this one...

inked

10-23-2007, 04:08 PM

sun-star, yes, but merely in time! Now with authorial apparent sanction. Oh, my! Hearts are probably all a-flutter all over the fanficdom!

HB, you are wickedly evil, young person! Wickedly evil! If they do this to the dry stick of Tolkien, what shall they do to the green stick of Rowling!!!

By the way, nobody gave up any other titles for possible fantasy novels we really don't want to think about!

Seasonally:

Dumbledore and the Friday 13

Dumbleween

Van Helsing and Dumbledore

;)

For the interessted in various reactions, there is the ever popular in my mind:
http://hogwartsprofessor.com/?p=198

sisterandcousinandaunt

10-23-2007, 04:23 PM

hectorberlioz

10-23-2007, 04:24 PM

Oh, and Dumbledore will be leaving Hogwarts;). GLAAD is making him president of their organization.

sisterandcousinandaunt

10-23-2007, 04:26 PM

Oh, and Dumbledore will be leaving Hogwarts;). GLAAD is making him president of their organization.
You don't know from GLAAD, then. They need people who can actually finish a project. That sure isn't Dumbledore.

hectorberlioz

10-23-2007, 04:28 PM

The problem, as always, is not whether or not Dumbledore is gay. The problem is that his character is so thinly drawn that he might or might not be.

In a universe completely devoid of logical consistancy, she can make up anything she wants. I notice she didn't make up this while the big money was still to be made. :rolleyes:

Exactly my thoughts, Sis, on both points. In fact, despite my joke about GLAAD, I can't see the "gay community" being too happy about her revealing this now. Not very stand-up-ish, is it?

sisterandcousinandaunt

10-23-2007, 04:37 PM

Exactly my thoughts, Sis, on both points. In fact, despite my joke about GLAAD, I can't see the "gay community" being too happy about her revealing this now. Not very stand-up-ish, is it?
The gay community has real problems to worry about, I'll bet no one is too concerned about JKR's attempt to lengthen her 15 minutes. :p

inked

10-23-2007, 07:16 PM

SACAA,

You will find this essay of interest. It is about the fact that as entertaining as authorial comments may be, the canon is what matters.

http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2007/10/23/dumbledore-is-not-gay-taking-stories-more-seriously-than-the-author/

But your mileage may differ.

Hector B, you should read it as well. Just for fun. And possibly as an altogether due penance for your anatomically correct doll bit! Ugh!

By the way, the author of the essay addresses Tolkien and the whole familial industry with HOME et alia. Pretty good viewpoint.

hectorberlioz

10-23-2007, 09:01 PM

Inked, that was a good read. Very true, his thoughts on the technicalites of whether or not Dumbledore is gay in the books etc...

Btw, I have heard of John Mark Reynolds. He is frequently a guest on the Hugh Hewitt Show.

brownjenkins

10-24-2007, 10:55 AM

In it Dumbledore has no particular sexuality at all.

Poor guy! :D

For something that is "irrelavant", John Mark Reynolds seems to be taking it a bit too seriously.

I think it makes sense. In today's culture, it's more than common for someone in a leadership position to hide their homosexuality. I'd say that writing in parts "proving" Dumbledore's sexuality would have been unrealistic.

If nothing else, it helps reinforce the idea that people should be judged by their personality and actions, instead of by their sexual preference.

hectorberlioz

10-24-2007, 11:10 AM

It's a blog, what do you think? ;)

inked

10-24-2007, 06:49 PM

BJ, it's not irrelevant when the press makes such a huge deal out of it, is it? That's why the response was written by a person who is well qualified to assess literature and who thinks HP is such.

"Prof. John Mark Reynolds has written an article for Scriptorium Daily called “Taking Stories More Seriously Than The Author.” The article is an important contribution to the discussion of Ms. Rowling’s comment at Carnegie Hall; it challenges us to consider how we read a book and how we understand its meaning. No doubt, it’s startling, sure-to-be-misunderstood, sound bite assertion that “Dumbledore is not gay” will be what most remember. Prof. Reynolds, the head of the Great Books program at Biola/Torrey, however, is saying much more. He knows how to read a book at depth and spends his days in colloquia with some of the brightest young people in the country discussing how to read and engage texts while reading the best books of the Western Canon. He writes today, quite simply, that there are limits on the control an author has on a text and its meaning — and that limit is reached when the book is published."
http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/ 10-23-2007

The argument is not to let the sound bytes "Dumbledore is gay" or "Dumbledore is not gay" override the significance of the Harry Potter series.

And I do think that is relevant since the canon does not support the issue.

E.G., Dante's treatment of his mentor, Brunetto Latini, in the fiery desert of Hell as punishment for his sodomy (Canto 15) is arguably an argument FOR homosexuality as a rational human choice. But as such in the INFERNO, Dante is showing that human reason as distorted by the Fall is not the ultimate judge of such a state of actions. In fact, the issue for Dante may really be that despite the deep love and affection he has for his mentor, despite Dante's human reason agreeing with the actions of this mentor within the bounds of that human reason, reason is NOT the ultimate arbiter of the matter. Revelation and the divine morality are the ultimate arbiters of that matter for Dante. See http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/circle7.html canto 15.

Now, do you think it a fair estimation of Dante's DIVINE COMEDY to assert "Dante says gay is OK"? Would you think that the only important material in the whole of the DIVINE COMEDY. I doubt it.

This is the issue of relevance or irrelevance for HARRY POTTER. This is the material actually under discussion in the article.

brownjenkins

10-24-2007, 09:44 PM

The argument is not to let the sound bytes "Dumbledore is gay" or "Dumbledore is not gay" override the significance of the Harry Potter series.

I agree, but I do because I don't think that it matters on whit whether he is or not.

Let me ask you a question, if JK had written a scene into the last book where Dumbledore addmitted his love for Gellert (nothing graphic, just a statement), thus making it this "canon", would you view the significance of the series in the same way?

GrayMouser

10-25-2007, 05:20 AM

Except, of course, Rowling didn't say that she had decided after the fact to make Dumbledore gay, she said that the character in the books was gay.

When she decided this is an open question- maybe she felt he was gay from the start, maybe as the character was developed and fleshed out she began to consider him that way- I certainly don't know; maybe someone could ask her.

When Professor Reynolds says that Dumbledore is not gay, he is simply saying that he doesn't perceive him that way. Now, I haven't read the last four books so I don't have an opinion either way, but every media report I've read has contained something like "the rumours are true" or "fans have long speculated about Dumbledore's sexuality".

Obviously, there's been something there, at least to some people- perhaps Professor Reynolds is simply a less perceptive critic than others; possibly his own particular viewpoint has blinded him to nuances that others with a different perspective may have been more sensitive to.

When Reynolds says that a book belongs to the readers rather than only to the author, he is making a valid point- but that of course means all the readers, not just those who share his interpretations.

Actually I think it's quite funny that people who insist on authorial intent trumping everything when discussing Tolkien or Lewis are in this case saying we should ignore the author and instead give weight to the opinions of- horrors!- literary critics.

sun-star

10-25-2007, 06:35 AM

When Professor Reynolds says that Dumbledore is not gay, he is simply saying that he doesn't perceive him that way. Now, I haven't read the last four books so I don't have an opinion either way, but every media report I've read has contained something like "the rumours are true" or "fans have long speculated about Dumbledore's sexuality".

Obviously, there's been something there, at least to some people- perhaps Professor Reynolds is simply a less perceptive critic than others; possibly his own particular viewpoint has blinded him to nuances that others with a different perspective may have been more sensitive to.

Just about every character in the Harry Potter series has been the subject of similar speculation, and Dumbledore wasn't top of the list of potential gay characters by any means (Lupin wins that one!). I don't think that in this case speculation is evidence that there were any clues to pick up on.

brownjenkins

10-25-2007, 08:44 AM

Actually I think it's quite funny that people who insist on authorial intent trumping everything when discussing Tolkien or Lewis are in this case saying we should ignore the author and instead give weight to the opinions of- horrors!- literary critics.

No doubt!

Relativity in action. :D

inked

10-28-2007, 09:50 PM

I agree, but I do because I don't think that it matters on whit whether he is or not.

Let me ask you a question, if JK had written a scene into the last book where Dumbledore addmitted his love for Gellert (nothing graphic, just a statement), thus making it this "canon", would you view the significance of the series in the same way?

Yes. Dumbledore as gay in canon would still be a celibate homosexual not acting on his "orientation" and modeling a Christian dealing with the matter of sexuality. Rather like St Augustine after his conversion, though St Augustine was heterosexual in his "orientation".

What do you think?

Greymouser, you clearly need to read more on the 'Moot if you think that the publication of the HoME (essentially a very detailed posthumous elaboration of the authorial thought processes) has altered the canon. In fact, it illustrates the very principle that authorial commentary (intra operis posthumousoso) is NOT germane to the published product and its effects. This is a very Tolkien viewpoint upon which he based a career in Beowulf et alia. One may wonder, surmise, guess, or speculate on what the author was thinking or sublimating or avoiding et cetera BUT one has only the text.

That's why the 'Moot is so popular. We all think we know what JRRT intended. What he said about it merely corroborates my correct ideas. If you don't believe me, ask BJ if JRRT corroborates his ideas.

sun-star, eminently correct. No data in the canon = no data. Speculation=no data. Authorial commentary = no data. Damn. It would appear that no data = no data.

hectorberlioz

10-28-2007, 10:43 PM

Except, of course, Rowling didn't say that she had decided after the fact to make Dumbledore gay, she said that the character in the books was gay.
Well, that's right. And we didn't say that she did say she had decided after--that he should be gay. It's only a guess that she decided to make him gay afterwards.

Actually I think it's quite funny that people who insist on authorial intent trumping everything when discussing Tolkien or Lewis are in this case saying we should ignore the author and instead give weight to the opinions of- horrors!- literary critics.
One has to have room for a little doubt now and then, right? :p

One more thing: it's no big deal to have Dumbledore "be gay". Afterall, Dorian Gay...er,uh... Dorian Gray is also homosexual, and it is a fascinating story.

The "gay" Gandalf thing of Ian McKellen did bother me, because he was implicating something that was far from JRRT's intent ON SCREEN!

Lotesse

10-29-2007, 02:24 AM

The "gay" Gandalf thing of Ian McKellen did bother me, because he was implicating something that was far from JRRT's intent ON SCREEN!

Uh, no he wasn't. Did you see something that I did not see? And I watched those PJ films over and over and over again, and have always been well familiar with McKellan's private homosexuality, but neither he nor the director & writers of this film series had any covert, hush-hush "gay agenda."

So, what?! What "gay Gandalf thing" are you tal - no, Tolkien about? Ian McKellan never "implicated something that was far from JRRT's intent onscreen," Hectorberlioz. If this is what you think, can you back your opinion up with some facts and examples, please? Because I sure as hell never saw any gay agenda in the films. If anything, the so-called "gayness" I would have said seemed most easily read from Elijah Wood & Sean Astin's awesome Frodo & Sam portrayal. If you wanna get all "find the gayness in the movie and mock it" about this, Hectorberlioz.

BeardofPants

10-29-2007, 05:21 AM

Hunh. So *that* explains why Frodo looked so constipated in the films - he caught teh gay? I woulda never guessed.

hectorberlioz

10-29-2007, 08:29 AM

Watch the commentaries.

brownjenkins

10-29-2007, 08:57 AM

Yes. Dumbledore as gay in canon would still be a celibate homosexual not acting on his "orientation" and modeling a Christian dealing with the matter of sexuality. Rather like St Augustine after his conversion, though St Augustine was heterosexual in his "orientation".

What do you think?

Fair enough, though, does intent matter (i.e. choosing celibacy vs. celibacy because the right person hasn't come along)?

inked

10-29-2007, 12:23 PM

If there was canon to argue about, I would.

Hypothetically, since Dumbledore had over a century of celibacy to his credit (there being no canonical sexual activity), I suspect he had the INTENTION of being so permanently.

inked

10-29-2007, 06:41 PM

But JKR can't please all her public:

OUTING DUMBLEDORE
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1675622,00.html

This is an interesting take without regard to canon for either Tolkien, Lewis, Spielberg, or Rowling. It's a pretty large confusion that conflates Aslan, Gandalf, Yoda, and Dumbledore.

So, what do you think of this guy's take on the topic?

brownjenkins

10-29-2007, 10:49 PM

So, what do you think of this guy's take on the topic?

I think it's silly.

It stems from the beliefs that someone must be fundamentally different because of the choices they make in life. It's the role model syndrome.

When people read books they tend to visualize the characters they admire as sharing they same qualities they do. What if Dumbledore was a muslim? What if he was an atheist?

It doesn't take too much life experience to realize that good people come in all shapes and sizes, and all colors on ones moral spectrum.

I think that it stems from a fundamental fear that some people can act in all the ways one would expect them to act and yet, at the same time, not follow the same moral view that that person expects. Fear because it makes that person question that very point of view.

It won't change any "adult" points of view, because we are much too stubborn ;) , but it's a step in the right direction for the younger ones.

One day the idea that Dumbledore is gay won't be news.

durinsbane2244

10-30-2007, 06:37 AM

Uh, no he wasn't. Did you see something that I did not see? And I watched those PJ films over and over and over again, and have always been well familiar with McKellan's private homosexuality, but neither he nor the director & writers of this film series had any covert, hush-hush "gay agenda."

So, what?! What "gay Gandalf thing" are you tal - no, Tolkien about? Ian McKellan never "implicated something that was far from JRRT's intent onscreen," Hectorberlioz. If this is what you think, can you back your opinion up with some facts and examples, please? Because I sure as hell never saw any gay agenda in the films. If anything, the so-called "gayness" I would have said seemed most easily read from Elijah Wood & Sean Astin's awesome Frodo & Sam portrayal. If you wanna get all "find the gayness in the movie and mock it" about this, Hectorberlioz.

i feel that this was a very good point and am anxiously awaiting hector's response...*glances pointedly at our proud president* :rolleyes:

inked

10-30-2007, 04:20 PM

More resources and opinions:

JKR herself
http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071023/NEWS01/71023003/1001/news

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/story/2007/10/23/rowling-potter-tour.html?ref=rss

http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/arts/web_exclusive_jk_rowling.html

Others:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20154416,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1675622,00.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071021/ap_en_ot/books_potter_dumbledore

http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/booksmags/bal-to.dumbledore23oct23,0,3264642,print.story?coll=ba l_tab04_layout

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-showbiz7-23oct23,1,4293482.story?coll=la-headlines-entnews&ctrack=1&cset=true

http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2797 Take that, Christian Harry Potter fans

http://theamericanscene.com/2007/10/23/the-gay-headmaster

Wear it now she's bared it!
http://www.customizedgirl.com/cgi-bin/main.cgi?sid=6fb7c8a0cc92aafd91b615ede92bc635&cm=1&cm_t=dumbledore&gclid=CJu2q4HXp48CFRGCGgodaTu4Rg

HP and the Author who won't Shut Up
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/DN-rowlingcolumn_1024gl.State.Edition1.2292bdc.html

http://markshea.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html#8769322148562563331

http://hogwartsprofessor.com/?p=198#comments

related:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

http://cacciaguida.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html#9220899456316358412

hectorberlioz

10-30-2007, 04:45 PM

I DID respond. Watch FotR with the commentaries.

Lotesse

10-31-2007, 02:49 PM

No you DIDN'T respond. I have watched the commentaries, Hectorberlioz, every single commentary and extra from all the DVDs in the trilogy. If you are going to make a wild statement such as The "gay" Gandalf thing of Ian McKellen did bother me, because he was implicating something that was far from JRRT's intent ON SCREEN! then it is completely reasonable for people to expect, and be able to get, evidence from you that supports your wild claim. Evidence does now eman flippantly saying "Watch the commentaries" and then you're off the hook. Evidence means quoting whatever exact phrase from this commentary of which you speak, and directing our attentions to the place in the commentary, so that we can look at our own DVDs and find this reference and be made aware of it.

You think you can do that, Hectorberlioz? Otherwise, we can't take you seriously with your statement, at all.

hectorberlioz

10-31-2007, 04:46 PM

No you DIDN'T respond. I have watched the commentaries, Hectorberlioz, every single commentary and extra from all the DVDs in the trilogy. If you are going to make a wild statement such as then it is completely reasonable for people to expect, and be able to get, evidence from you that supports your wild claim. Evidence does now eman flippantly saying "Watch the commentaries" and then you're off the hook. Evidence means quoting whatever exact phrase from this commentary of which you speak, and directing our attentions to the place in the commentary, so that we can look at our own DVDs and find this reference and be made aware of it.

You think you can do that, Hectorberlioz? Otherwise, we can't take you seriously with your statement, at all.

There's actually a thread about this, Lotesse. I've actually talked at great length about Ian McKellen's influence on the story, and what he said in the commentaries about the hobbits holding hands being an implication of gayhood etc....WATCH THE COMMENTARY TO FOTR.

Lotesse

10-31-2007, 09:30 PM

Therefore, Hectorberlioz, if there's "actually a thread about this," and you have "actually talked at great length about Ian McKellen's influence on the story, and what he said in the commentaries about the hobbits holding hands being an implication of gayhood," then I wonder: why is it suddenly so difficult for you to quote your sources & supporting evidence right here, right now? :confused:

If you've gone to such great lengths to discuss this topic before, one would imagine you'd be so well-versed and familiar with your claim and your supporting evidence that it would, indeed, be no big deal at all for you to post here a simple sentence or two here about it.

One would imagine that, due to your having "actually talked at great length" about your claim & your referring evidence, i.e. the exact spot in the commentary which you allude to as evidence, that it would be so easily accessible in your memory that you could immediately post a reply to my query, describing to me this evidence and explaining to me why you feel it supports your claim of a "gay Gandalf thing" of "Ian McKellen...implicating something that was far from JRRT's intent ON SCREEN."

Again, referring me to some other thread or some other place where you've "talked at great length" about this in the past is not a reply to my question, nor is "Watch the commentaries" a reply. Cop-out, yes. Reply, no.

hectorberlioz

10-31-2007, 09:49 PM

Lotesse

11-01-2007, 12:44 AM

The Gaffer

11-01-2007, 02:06 AM

It makes perfect sense, Lotsy.

I'm not having a go at hector here, just making the observation that the whole genre: LOTR, Harry Botter, that sort of thing, seems to appeal equally to people from all parts of the political colour wheel.

You've got your overtly religious stuff like Narnia, nostalgic conservative themes in LOTR, the overtly anti-religious His Dark Materials, and everything in between.

Then you factor in how in fantasy, people invest quite a lot of themselves in bringing the story to life in their minds. They feel a sense of ownership of it.

The result is mucho mewling and puking when the author comes out as having a different perspective on things to them.

e.g. Personally, I never saw Christian themes in LOTR until I read some of the Letters and secondary analysis by others. It didn't put me off though!

:D

Lotesse

11-01-2007, 02:35 AM

GafferBaby, I'm telling Hectorberlioz that it makes no sense for him to stoutly refuse to back up or explain his claim that Ian McKellan implicated "gayness" on screen in the Lord of the Rings film trilogy, which bothered Hector, yet he stoutly refuses to provide us with evidence and references to evidence to support this claim of his.

The "gay" Gandalf thing of Ian McKellen did bother me, because he was implicating something that was far from JRRT's intent ON SCREEN!

Ian McKellan did not implicate homosexuality on screen when he portrayed Gandalf in Peter Jackson's films. Hectorberlioz' response to my request that he support this claim of his was answered with "Watch the commentaries." I have done so, many times, and still do not see anything therein which supports this claim that Ian McKellan implicated homosexuality in these films. :confused:

The Gaffer

11-01-2007, 04:29 AM

Sure, and the reason he isn't doing so is because he's still in shock. ;)

Rían

11-01-2007, 12:16 PM

I remember a bit in the commentaries when McKellen insisted on Sam's holding Frodo's hand in the scene at Rivendell, and tied it in with his (McKellen's) homosexuality, but that's all I can recall offhand.

I wonder if book 7 is available at the library yet? I'll have to go check. I know a lot of people were disappointed, but I'd still like to read it and complete the series. I always liked Dumbledore, and how the first actor (wasn't it Richard Harris?) portrayed him - I've never liked the second actor, though.

katya

11-01-2007, 04:47 PM

Lotesse

11-01-2007, 09:53 PM

I thought this was some sort of joke at first... It never even occurred to me that Dumbledore was gay. But I guess that's because he's an old guy. If he was a pretty boy, I'd probably be looking for hints that he might be, hahaha.
See? It just goes to show you, you never can tell. Not every single gay or bi person "lives the lifestyle," as they say, looks/acts/dresses the part and is obviously one way rather than another. You just never can tell. Lookit how many high-level politicians, senators & the like who manage to live their entire lives (almost) as gay men/women, without anyone at all ever having had the tiniest idea that they were actually gay? Only until either the person themself outs themself, or they get busted in a public bathroom having gay sex with strangers...