When my older sister moved into her sophomore year dorm room, she brought a lot of Harry Styles posters. And when I say a lot, I mean a lot. Harry in pants and Harry in dresses. Harry with facial hair and Harry with lipstick. Harry with champagne and Harry with a cigarette. The latter got a big frown from our mother.
As I hung the posters (and my three extra inches of height meant that I hung all the posters), the discussion centered on the colors and form of the posters. “Should the red one go in the center, or on the left?” Or, from my father, “Who is that? Why do we have so many pictures of this guy?”
What no one asked was, “What is Harry’s sexual identity and orientation?”
Why should celebrities’ sex lives and sexualities be interrogated or investigated by the public? If you see a stranger walking down the street in ambiguous clothing, would you shout, “Hey, what’s your gender and sexuality?” I suspect that the answer is unanimously “No.” So, why does the public feel entitled to pick apart celebrities’ sexualities? After all, aren’t celebrities people too?
In addition to obsessing over celebrities’ sexualities, the public criticizes and condemns celebrities for the way they portray themselves regarding their gender and sexuality and how much information they share.
Many argue that since LGBTQ+ characters are underrepresented in the media, celebrities who are vague about their sexualities are skipping a chance to increase visibility, and thus acceptance, of LGBTQ+ people. This argument suggests that anything less than publicly embracing a non-hetero identity perpetuates the stigma surrounding the LGBTQ+ community by implying that queer people are not valid.
Anna Marks, writing in her New York Times piece titled “Harry Styles Walks a Fine Line,” disdains Harry Styles for exactly this missed opportunity. She complains that “The celebrity has deployed queer symbols and fashioned himself an ambiguous icon, without touching the messy, unlikable politics of claiming a public label.”
“If our community seeks true liberation, Mr. Styles’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ queerness must not be something to which we aspire. It should instead be something that we mourn,” Marks concludes. This interpretation refuses to consider the idea that Styles might embrace ambiguity not to avoid politics but because ambiguity best represents his current sexuality.
Marks’ critique rests on the assumption that Styles is queer and that for the good of society, all queer public figures should be “out and proud.” However, not everyone can comfortably or safely do so. Although celebrities have given some implicit consent to having their lives publicized, that does not mean it is appropriate to force them out of the closet.
Moreover, what if Harry Styles is not queer? Does that matter? Can Styles, or any celebrity, choose to express themselves using queer symbols or cross-dressing without explicitly identifying as queer or being accused of cultural appropriation?
In Mark’s view, absolutely not. But in a world full of gender-fluidity and non-binary identities, does that view even make sense anymore?
Writing in The Face in August 2022, Louis Staples sees more room for nuance. Staples points out that “Rather than asking Styles about his sexuality constantly, maybe we should now ask ourselves why so many people care so much about his answers, or why this conversation seems stuck in such a rut. And why people who claim to reject binaries are suddenly so fond of speaking in absolutes.”
Staples responds to those who claim Styles is “queer-baiting” by asking, “If gender really is a construct, with visual and sexual norms that restrict how many of us live our lives, then why should Styles – even if he is straight – be excluded from its abolition?”
Staples hits two critical points in his commentary.
First, why can’t Styles publicly embody fluidity and transcend binary categories? Celebrities and regular people can, in today’s world, choose their pronouns, or choose multiple pronouns. Why are we so uncomfortable with a celebrity making fashion choices that reflect that?
Staples owns that this may make some people uncomfortable, saying, “Maybe some queer people can’t yet articulate exactly what makes them so uncomfortable, or irritated, about how Styles talks about his sexuality. But if that’s the case, we should just say so, instead of tangling ourselves in all kinds of contortions to explain how ‘problematic’ he is.” In Staples’ view, Styles is entitled to express his sexuality outside of traditional norms. If people object to that, perhaps the issue is with the objectors and not with Styles.
Staples’ second point is just what I wondered when reading so much about Harry Styles’ sexuality, and so little about his acting or music: “Why [do] so many people care?”
People need to stop worrying about other people’s sexualities. Before obsessing over the latest celebrity sexuality scandal, ask yourself, Is this person’s sexuality the REAL story? What about their talent, the gift (or serendipity) that first brought them to fame?
Identity is, by its very nature, personal; sexual identity even more so. Celebrities, like the rest of us, have the right to express, or not express, their sexuality without categorization or criticism.
As I hung the posters (and my three extra inches of height meant that I hung all the posters), the discussion centered on the colors and form of the posters. “Should the red one go in the center, or on the left?” Or, from my father, “Who is that? Why do we have so many pictures of this guy?”
What no one asked was, “What is Harry’s sexual identity and orientation?”
Why should celebrities’ sex lives and sexualities be interrogated or investigated by the public? If you see a stranger walking down the street in ambiguous clothing, would you shout, “Hey, what’s your gender and sexuality?” I suspect that the answer is unanimously “No.” So, why does the public feel entitled to pick apart celebrities’ sexualities? After all, aren’t celebrities people too?
In addition to obsessing over celebrities’ sexualities, the public criticizes and condemns celebrities for the way they portray themselves regarding their gender and sexuality and how much information they share.
Many argue that since LGBTQ+ characters are underrepresented in the media, celebrities who are vague about their sexualities are skipping a chance to increase visibility, and thus acceptance, of LGBTQ+ people. This argument suggests that anything less than publicly embracing a non-hetero identity perpetuates the stigma surrounding the LGBTQ+ community by implying that queer people are not valid.
Anna Marks, writing in her New York Times piece titled “Harry Styles Walks a Fine Line,” disdains Harry Styles for exactly this missed opportunity. She complains that “The celebrity has deployed queer symbols and fashioned himself an ambiguous icon, without touching the messy, unlikable politics of claiming a public label.”
“If our community seeks true liberation, Mr. Styles’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ queerness must not be something to which we aspire. It should instead be something that we mourn,” Marks concludes. This interpretation refuses to consider the idea that Styles might embrace ambiguity not to avoid politics but because ambiguity best represents his current sexuality.
Marks’ critique rests on the assumption that Styles is queer and that for the good of society, all queer public figures should be “out and proud.” However, not everyone can comfortably or safely do so. Although celebrities have given some implicit consent to having their lives publicized, that does not mean it is appropriate to force them out of the closet.
Moreover, what if Harry Styles is not queer? Does that matter? Can Styles, or any celebrity, choose to express themselves using queer symbols or cross-dressing without explicitly identifying as queer or being accused of cultural appropriation?
In Mark’s view, absolutely not. But in a world full of gender-fluidity and non-binary identities, does that view even make sense anymore?
Writing in The Face in August 2022, Louis Staples sees more room for nuance. Staples points out that “Rather than asking Styles about his sexuality constantly, maybe we should now ask ourselves why so many people care so much about his answers, or why this conversation seems stuck in such a rut. And why people who claim to reject binaries are suddenly so fond of speaking in absolutes.”
Staples responds to those who claim Styles is “queer-baiting” by asking, “If gender really is a construct, with visual and sexual norms that restrict how many of us live our lives, then why should Styles – even if he is straight – be excluded from its abolition?”
Staples hits two critical points in his commentary.
First, why can’t Styles publicly embody fluidity and transcend binary categories? Celebrities and regular people can, in today’s world, choose their pronouns, or choose multiple pronouns. Why are we so uncomfortable with a celebrity making fashion choices that reflect that?
Staples owns that this may make some people uncomfortable, saying, “Maybe some queer people can’t yet articulate exactly what makes them so uncomfortable, or irritated, about how Styles talks about his sexuality. But if that’s the case, we should just say so, instead of tangling ourselves in all kinds of contortions to explain how ‘problematic’ he is.” In Staples’ view, Styles is entitled to express his sexuality outside of traditional norms. If people object to that, perhaps the issue is with the objectors and not with Styles.
Staples’ second point is just what I wondered when reading so much about Harry Styles’ sexuality, and so little about his acting or music: “Why [do] so many people care?”
People need to stop worrying about other people’s sexualities. Before obsessing over the latest celebrity sexuality scandal, ask yourself, Is this person’s sexuality the REAL story? What about their talent, the gift (or serendipity) that first brought them to fame?
Identity is, by its very nature, personal; sexual identity even more so. Celebrities, like the rest of us, have the right to express, or not express, their sexuality without categorization or criticism.