A few nights ago, unable to sleep, I stumbled into the world of 7HD's all-new, all-exclusive, The Night Cap. This is their pitiful attempt to justify the marketing pitch leading up to the major networks' arrival into HD territory, what was ultimately a somewhat vacant promise of HD-only programming. For the most part, that hasn't happened; unlike ABC2, which has genuinely different content (with the odd repeat thrown in), the commercial HD channels pretty much offer nothing more than a slightly sharper parallel run of whatever is showing on the non-HD channel. In the end, all we've really got is a late night panel show, featuring the fascinating dialogue of a couple of people I've never heard of; that aggressive, homophobic, misogynist wanker that rears his head on Sunrise, every so often (and, even worse, Larry Emder's Morning Show); the post-boned Jessica Rowe (and that really says it all, in regards to how high an esteem the production is regarded, doesn't it?); and, last but not least, an ex Big Brother housemate (I suppose it beats hosting late night gambling shows). Well, I should say that it did feature an ex Big Brother housemate. Zach Douglas, The Camp Fag™, has had his commercial network career cut short, by the powers that be. And oh, what a career it was.

 

The thing is, I wanted to write about this show, but found myself torn, between the part of me that thought nobody would really give a shit, and the awareness that a large portion of my audience are Big Brother watchers. It was honestly one of the worst experiences I think I've ever had the displeasure of being held captive by. It makes David Koch look like Jesus - and that's no small feat, let's face it. And, yet, it was the strangest sort of paradox - the kind that holds you in an uncomfortable trance, even though there's a voice in your head, stating the rather obvious conclusion; "I really don't want to be watching this." Due to its most undeserved position of being allocated an obscene amount of air time (because 7HD needs the PR line, "We have x hours of exclusive programming on this channel"), the painfully obvious awareness that the task is to actually draw out the time (a complete contrast to the fast-paced and hyper-edited world of normal television) provides unbearable stretches of the most banal chit-chat I've ever had the misfortune of hearing. But then, suddenly, the experience would shift into sheer disbelief - not to mention, anger - from some of the unfathomably absurd, ignorant - even dangerous - things that were coming out of these morons' mouths. Paul Murray is a fuckwit, as anyone who's ever caught his "expert" advice on the latest crap water cooler topic, for Sunrise, will know. But give him enough screen-time, freedom and the absence of a decent production crew, and, amazingly enough, it turns out he's an even bigger fuckwit than he is for morning television, seven hours later. Granted, it's sometimes difficult to get too angry at a man whose unpleasantness is clearly the result of a deep-seated male insecurity; but, even so, it's difficult not to react to this sleazy, slimy sexist. Not to mention his homophobia, brought to all new levels, by the chemistry sparked by placing him on screen with the campest homosexual ever to grace Australian TV, Big Brother runner-up, Zach Douglas. It was uncomfortable to watch Zach be so blatantly set upon and hassled out, in that vicious, sniggering manner of the ugly, stupid, Aussie "bloke". He openly ridiculed him through that cliched homosexual imitation routine (you know the one - saying "super" with a lisp, flapping your limp wrists about, etc). He linked every male mentioned, to smutty inferences that Zach wanted to sexually devour them (that disgusting idea that gay men are sexually consumed creatures who, secretly, are desperate to have sex with all the perfect, straight men of the world). He spoke every word toward Zach, aggressively and loaded, trying to rip apart every opinion or idea Zach put forward (it generally came back to Zach's sexuality). And, when all else failed, he straight-out attacked - all with his smug grin, of course. It was hideous to behold.

This, however, is then further complicated by Zach, himself. I wanted to feel sorry for Zach - and I did - but it was certainly undermined by the disbelief and frustration caused by most of Zach's dialogue. Anyone who read my 2007 Big Brother blog will know that I have no qualms in questioning the value of Zach, in the broader context of homosexuality in mainstream culture and society. I think that even in the mainstream circles who were endeared to Zach, there was something quite discriminatory at play. The problem with Zach, if we're to be blunt, is that, sadly, he actually is the embodiment of the cliche camp "poofter", and his mild acceptance into popular culture (or brief flash, depending on how you look at it) plays into derogatory constructs of The Homosexual that - and this is the cruel irony - are largely heterosexual constructs. What's worse is that this heterosexual construct of The Homosexual is an old-fashioned, nasty manifestation of homophobia. It's based on dominance over the minority (who is reduced to the comedy value of his "identity"); and, quite frankly, it's also sexist towards women, because it diminishes a man's value, based on his adherence to patriarchal (and rather superficial) constructs of what it "is" to be a woman. That is "camp", for the larger portion of this homophobic, heterosexual society. There are still, today, thousands of young, teenage boys, who berate the designated homosexuals of the playground with smutty imitations of limp wrists and "thuper". It's not an act of kindness or acceptance - it's an attack. But the boys doing it get a real kick out of it.

Now, that's not Zach's fault; that is important to remember, here. I know I upset the Zach fans with my blogs, during the 2007 BB season, and, to be honest, I expect it, in light of the somewhat blinding emotion that diehard BB fans conjure (for such a short period, mind you) for their chosen housemate. But most of the abuse that poured into my inbox sorely missed the point. The problem of this derogatory cultural construct of The Camp Fag™ is that, ultimately - as is the case in cultural evolution - it actually fashioned who young gay men developed to be, "as" homosexuals. We're not any different to you, after all; our identity is largely shaped by what our culture informs us it is, based on the categories we fall into. Just as this male society has very clear and affecting ideas of what makes a man a man, and what makes a woman a woman - and just as young heterosexual boys and girls are blatantly fashioned off these constructs (from the minute a baby boy's room is painted blue, while a baby girl's room is shaded in pink) - so too, are young gay boys told, by their culture, how, as gay men, they are to "be". Do you follow?

Because, if you do, then you'll hopefully understand why I just couldn't herald the presence of Zach in popular culture as some mighty leap in the heterosexual world's acceptance of homosexuality, and, more so, as a role model for young homosexuals. Let's get away from shaping our identity on such archaic, silly, phobic concepts, and stop being, by our very cultural nature (and, hence, psychologically fashioned, it must be said), a product of a straight world that has maligned and persecuted the gay man, at every step. Whilst there obviously would have been many whose affection for Zach was pure, let's not be blind. Thousands of bogans stood there, at Dreamworld, and roared laughing at the ridiculously effeminate Zach. They laughed at his effeminacy, as he affirmed every ridiculous concept of homosexuality the straight world has. I'm sorry, I just don't call that "acceptance." It's a very complex, somewhat sublimated, form of homophobia - but that's still what it is.

But what was so ghastly to witness, on Zach's brief gig for 7HD, was yet another unfortunate product of homophobia: his own blatant discrimination and lack of respect for various minorities, and the ease with which he attacked and spoke with no compassion, whatsoever. Zach confessed on Big Brother that, like Brokeback David before him, he had been the victim of the rather nasty phobia that almost every regional and rural homosexual has to grow up with. You'd think, then, that someone who had endured such an experience would be a person who understood the importance of treating others who are different with acceptance and respect. Sometimes, that's the result. However, sadly, the result is often very different.

 

I've long been disturbed by the gay community's ability to discriminate; from a rather obvious angle, they surely should know better. But what can happen when you're exposed to a prolonged period of attack - sometimes, violent, after all - is that you begin to normalise something you really shouldn't be normalising. Again, your environment informs you of various behaviours, responses and levels of acceptability. For most people, a moment of verbal abuse or discrimination is relatively infrequent, and there's a clear sense that it is "wrong". When you're gay, however, it can be almost daily - particularly for school children (when, as teenagers, we make our most fundamental developments of Selfhood). Furthermore, it is collectively approved - at very least, condoned through ignoring it - that you are to be treated by your environment, this way. School teachers still are too afraid to discipline children on the basis of discrimination, and even most of their parents are effectively condoning it through their own communicated ideas on homosexuals (most parents, truth be told, make it very clear to their children that being gay is not a good thing). Even George Pell had no qualms in standing up for the Catholic church, to condone homophobia as a healthy deterrent against young people "choosing" the gay lifestyle ( a church many are dragged to, every weekend). And do their schoolmates have the guts to stand up against the bullies? Of course, not. And so, as these young men develop in most dysfunctional circumstances, the message is clear: "Treating you like this is okay". That can, rather logically, often translate into a general belief about behaviour, across the board (treating people like this is okay). I can sit here and criticise Zach for the things he has said about some others he should have a little more respect for; but did anyone, in his youth, ever stop to criticise those who were saying probably much worse things to him? Unlikely.

There's also the normalisation of response to consider, in these situations like Zach's. Of course, it hurts, when you're attacked and victimised; discrimination is, quite naturally, painful. But if it's constant, that means you're in a constant state of pain. The human mind, however, is an amazing thing; it has incredible methods of coping with negative emotional and psycholoigical realities - but not all of those methods are good for us, in the long term. It looks for a way, developmentally, not to hurt anymore, and you "learn" how to emotionally detach from what is actually supposed to painful. You must turn that constant abuse and discriminatory attitude into water off a duck's back - you do it, not to go under, yeah? But the thing is, the response of pain is quite important, psychologically, because what that pain is essentially doing is saying to us, "This is wrong." When you functionally disconnect the emotional response from the act (in order to cope), you're re-training your perception, based on new modes of what is right, wrong, or normal. That's the problem - a ridiculously high level of abuse and attack must, if you are to emotionally sustain your existence in your environment (and when you're a teenager in the countryside, you have no choice - Zach, it should be noted, ran, like so many, to the gay suburbs of the Big Smoke, the minute he was free), become no big deal. This has disastrous consequences that can spoil things, down the track, because it's very difficult to empathise with an emotional connection you simply no longer have to what someone else is experiencing. You communicate with a very different set of rules to the people you communicate with, and I think this is also symptomatic of homophobia, and is why I have always been stunned to find discrimination and really nasty dialogue, a far too common element of gay men. Despite the irritating cultural construct that now "enjoys" homosexuality (in a such a condescending form), being a "bitch" isn't very cool. It certainly isn't healthy. And, it can get you in a lot of trouble when you say something you think has much less meaning and impact than the person you're saying it to or about, does.

If only Zach had have applied a different set of rules to what came out of his mouth on The Night Cap, but, alas, no. The most startling portion on the night I watched (and I've heard from others that it was a recurring tone of voice towards many different people and groups, on the nights I now knew to stay well away from) would have been his reaction to a current media photograph of a midget weight-lifter. Midgets, perhaps someone should inform Zach, do actually exist! Amazing, I know. And they even do bizarrely normal things, like... say... watch television. But Zach screamed, and convulsed with repulsion, which led into a good five minutes on Zach's "phobia" (this exact phrase was even used) of "Midgets". He explained that he had always been repulsed by midgets, and that he couldn't do anything about the matter. He just finds them... you know... disgusting. He begged the producer to take the photo away, but the gag exploded, and soon, they kept flashing the photo of this poor guy on the screen, so everyone could laugh (and, oh, how the panel pissed themselves) at Zach's shrieks of horror and imitations of nausea. And at the end, he had the hide to disclaim, "No offense to the little people, if they're watching", before he shrieked, one last time, at a final screening of his worst nightmare. "Please!" he begged, "Get it off the screen!" Charming. The parallels, here, are obvious. To watch a screaming queen who has confessed to being the victim of phobia, sit there and be "repulsed" by a minority smaller than his own, was actually quite confronting. I couldn't help but sigh; "Please, let this boy's post-BB obscurity hurry up and envelop him."

Turns out that I got my wish, yesterday, when Zach Douglas was officially dumped from The Night Cap. However, whilst it may seem a logical calculation, based on what I've just described to you, this is where the bizarre phenomenon that is The Night Cap twists again in unpleasant irony. Did Zach get fired because he was insulting social minorities? No. Zach did something much, much worse.

 

He ended up being a little too gay. Never mind the verbal attack, the discrimination, the lack of respect. Never mind the midgets. No, no, the camel's back was broken by Zach, in his relationship and sex advice segment, because he talked about... well... sex. But not just any sex. Gay sex! To quote the papers; "same sex kissing" and "felatio". Oh, Zach, how could you, in the middle of the night, talk to an audience of grown adults, and imply that gay men and women - oh my God - have sex?! I mean, what were you thinking? People, out there, find that... you know... repulsive. They have a "phobia" of homosexuality - one they've always had, and one they just can't do anything about. And so, I suppose they sent their angry, repulsed letters in to 7HD, saying things like, "Please! Get it off the screen!" Oh, Zach. That's the trouble with the cycle of abuse, of course - it's infectious, it all folds in on itself and perpetuates. In the end, it's just a bunch of people abusing each other, down the food chain.

 

Of course, considering the nature of this removal - that it involves a discrimination that is, at least (in legal terms), unacceptable, there was no official reasoning given, as to Zach's removal from the show. But, unfortunately for 7, it leaked, and the press ran with it. This led 7HD to assemble a press team, and quickly release a (late) statement that there was "no correlation between the incident", in a bid to squash the media reports that Zach was dumped for his explicit homosexual references. And, so, the "official" reason Zach left the show? "Zach found flying between Melbourne and Sydney twice a week took its toll on him and his (corset) business, so he'll now be our entertainment and gossip reporter." Riiiight. Okay, sure. Zach, with hardly any other career blossoming from his exposure, actually turned down being paid for a two-hour flight to appear on a national TV show. If you say so. At least the deals have been quickly made, and they've offered him a spot (one that's bound to be fairly scarce) as a gossip reporter. He should be happy with that, I guess, and... you know... keep his mouth shut.

 

What was more disturbing was the press' efforts to weave their story on the highly emotive (translation: marketable) homophobia at the core of it. Unbelievably enough, reporters then contacted all the ex housemates from Zach's series, trying to conjure a "scoop", to back up the characterisation of Zach as a lurid homosexual who actually has - gosh - sex, painting the picture that Zach frequently talked explicitly about gay sex in the Big Brother house. I repeat - THE BIG BROTHER HOUSE. Yes, that's right - someone talked about sex on the Big Brother house! This just gets more shocking, by the moment, doesn't it? I suppose, the others talked about lurid heterosexual acts, though, and, well, that seems to make the difference, here.

 

"Rumours have since emerged that Douglas was explicit in discussions about sex with other housemates on last year’s season of BB, which never made it to air," wrote Tim Brunero, making his rent with another BB-related gig for Live News. That's not actually true, of course. I hadn't heard of these rumours, and after a search for them, online, and a few phonecalls to people in the "mills", I couldn't find head nor tail of anything remotely suggesting such a thing. I'd hazard a rather obvious guess that the rumours were nothing more than the press, themselves, who posed a targeted hypothetical they then tried to make real, through eliciting affirming statements from the ex housmeates (the article, itself, admits that they were contacted by Live News - for this very article - to, let's join the dots, pose the question of a rumour that was a figment of their own journalistic imagination). After this failed, Brunero, to his credit, did publish the headline, "Housemates run to Zach's defense" (certainly a nice counter-action to the other articles who kept the implications firmly at Zach's lurid inclinations). Seems that the ex BB crew actually saw nothing wrong with Zach's behaviour in the house, with Joel handing them the quote; "He wouldn’t say it in front of everyone, he didn’t flaunt it, if someone asked him about what he’d do in his relationship he’d tell them, but he wouldn’t say it in front of the group if they weren’t interested."

 

However interested the rest of Zach's housemates were, the larger mainstream, it would seem, are not. And, while we'll never know the exact nature of the negative feedback Zach's appearances received, you can hazard a guess that it had a largely Christian element. However, considering the time-slot of this show, it would be unwise to pass this all off as a Christian reaction, alone. But, in the end, we are left to imagine, and we'll never know the answer. In five more minutes, and counting, this will all be yesterday's news, anyway. The mild press attention will have vanished by the week's end, and Zach will chase the leverage offered to him, as entertainment gossip reporter; a long way down the ladder, on a show such a long way down the ladder, to begin with.

 

It says so much, though, in the irony of Australia's enjoyment of The Camp Fag™. On the one hand, the point is his extreme effeminacy, and the traits that are so very, very "gay" (by the rules of the construct), and yet, The Camp Fag™ falls to pieces - the true colours that fashion the construct revealed - when the individual is sexualised. That's his right to be sexualised, of course; he's no more or less a sexual creature than the heterosexual presenters who talk endlessly about straight sex. But, the fact of the matter is that it brings the truth of who he "is" into their perception of him. He's not a camp, comedy character who is good for a laugh (at his expense), as thousands enjoy the "quirks" of the effeminate homosexual. He's not about the entertainment of limp wrists, funny facial expressions and that "gay" accent. He's a man who is attracted to other men. That's why he's gay - not because he's feminine (by the rules of what we perceive "feminine" to be). But the straight world has forever associated sexuality based on the (mostly visual) cues of what "makes" a homosexual. Most young teenage boys who are victimised for being gay, are declared this way, because they fit into these constructs - the fact of the matter (whether they are attracted sexually and emotionally to other men) is the conclusion (and a presumption), not the observation. Somehow, this has created a kind of superficial perception, amongst older straight audiences, that has stopped the buck at these shallow cues. When the perception is taken to the heart of the matter? The supposed "acceptance" disappears, and the audience is left to deal with their condoning and enjoyment of a man who has sex with other men. A gay man. They don't like that, so awfully much.

 

Zach will, let's be honest, be around in popular culture for about five more minutes. But with So You Think You Can Dance's Rhyss, we already see a new chew-them-up-spit-them-out place of this archetype, emerging through the bowels of reality television. There will be more, mark my words. Already, we've seen audiences cheer, as Rhyss imitates heterosexuality on the dancefloor. And for those who watch It Takes Two (I don't, as a rule, but accidentally caught last night's rather awful show), you should note the dramatic high-point created by Anthony Callea kissing his female singing partner. The host implied "conversion", and the audience broke into thunderous applause. When Callea refused to repeat the kiss, he was - quite literally - booed. And for those who watched 2006's Big Brother (and as anyone who read Eye On Big Brother will recall), the success of Brokeback David was always clearly correlating with the audience's ability to heterosexualise his character (spoiling his rugged Aussie farmer thing, with sexually explicit conversations about anal sex positions and sordid dance parties) . When he stepped up the homosexuality a notch, the adoring crowds began to turn on him, and the forums were ablaze with some of the most vicious homophobia you could possibly imagine. If we also remember, the official website made not the slightest attempt to stop it, or to take the posts down. 

 

So, write in, my comrades, and abuse me all you like, for... what was the term one gay man used? Oh, yes, "hurting the cause". But before you do, make sure you have a good, long look - followed by a good, long think - about what, exactly, that cause fights against, and what, perhaps (in a need that I do actually sympathise with and understand, of course), you have mistaken for the acceptance we, as human beings, deserve and (unfortunately) need. No, I don't think it's terribly thuper. But, thanks for asking.