[ SECRET POST #4473 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4473 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.
[Note from OP: All images obtained without creepy family stalking: James & Sullivan Marsters' from a promo shot for their band, Jensen & JJ Ackles' from Jensen's public Instagram]


__________________________________________________



14.
[Queer Eye]


__________________________________________________



15. https://i.imgur.com/EcOtWAA.gif
[animated secret, Avengers]













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #640.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

01. https://i.imgur.com/ZrDizHN.png

[(Anonymous)]

Wait... why would social justice warriors call him being bisexual problematic?

[(Anonymous)]

I think the idea is that he may have been bi and never told anyone publicly, while being good friends with a gay man that was also on the show, and made the gay man never allude to his sexuality because that was controversial and keeping the peace and harmony was prioritized over showing or normalizing those issues

Did I get everything? I'm not caught up to The Discourse

op

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly.

[(Anonymous)]

There's also the whole element of identity discourse around assigning people identities that they didn't necessarily claim for themselves. (but honestly I didn't really see that much Discourse around the Mr Rogers stuff from any angle)

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, though if Mr Rogers did tell Clemmons not to let anyone know he was gay and be straight in public, he was assigning roles in a sense as well.

In 1968, Fred Rogers told Clemmons that while his sexuality did not matter to him personally, Clemmons could not be "out" and continue appearing on Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, because of the scandal that would arise.[12][13] In the late 1960s, Rogers and others suggested that Clemmons get married as a way to deal with his sexual orientation, which he did.[14] His marriage to wife Carol did not work out, and Clemmons divorced in 1974 so that he could live openly as a gay man.[5][12] Rogers remained personally supportive of Clemmons, but required him to avoid any indication of his homosexuality – such as the earring he began to wear as a signifier – on the program.[12]

Personally I'm not enraged about it or anything, I understand where his priorities might have lay, but it is disappointing.

[tabaqui]

Sure, but....Rogers was a *very* Xian man, and the sixties/seventies children's programming wasn't like it is now, with more topics of this kind being dealt with. He already touched on stuff no other program would dare do, so....

I just cant' hold him to my own, personal standard. And I still think he is probably one of the best humans to ever live in the 20th century.

[(Anonymous)]

It's wild to think how much public opinion has shift on gayness. While it's good that the younger generation doesn't deal with as much homophobia, I think they don't get how bad it was.

[(Anonymous)]

Yup. I think it's mostly that people really wanted to think of Fred Rogers as a voice of change and acceptance. Rather than one of don't ask don't tell. Which was radical in its own day, but hasn't stood up over time either.

[(Anonymous)]

True.

Let's be honest here. In the 60s and 70s the degree to which film and broadcasting were willing to cover for gay men was directly proportional to how much money they earned for the business. Cole Porter had an entire movie covering for him. For someone like Clemmons in Public Television, which had just won an ugly fight in congress for the right to even exist?

[(Anonymous)]

oh I know, right? the strides are miraculous and worth celebrating. but on the flip side, them younguns need to know their history and know that how we view things now is not how we always viewed things.

[(Anonymous)]

They really, really don't. They cannot even fathom what it would've been like for a *presbyterian minister* to be openly queer, and be on tv. People would've burned him in effigy. Elton John came out as bi in Playboy in 1976 - NO ONE DID THIS. I could list all the things that happened to him as a result, but the point is, coming out was not a thing then unless you wanted to be hounded by people, fear for your life, and possibly under investigation by the police.

I think people often have good intentions but Tumblr is a) largely a circlejerk and b) a very limited perspective on anything that has historical context.

[(Anonymous)]

This. I personally know a bunch of gay people from that era who got married to someone of the opposite sex because they literally could NOT be out if they wanted to keep their jobs, not be ostracized, etc. It was really, really bad back then, and I don't think people from this generation understand that.

[(Anonymous)]

They really don't. I grew up bi in the American south in the 70s-80s and you had to be very careful about who you told, it was perfectly legal to get kicked out of your apartment or rental house and fired from your job for being queer, ffs! Never mind oh, getting killed because of it. Holy shit some of these ignorant children need to crack a history book.

[(Anonymous)]

Yup. And then they're still perfectly able to pull out talk about how being gay is so terrifying for them because of rampant homophobia when it suits them, like when they want to bully other queer identities out of their community because "nobody has to live in fear of being killed for being asexual." They so want it both ways.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm too young to remember personally, but when my mum was at university in the mid-70s, she was already engaged to my dad, but he wasn't nearby, so she and another female friend in the same situation used to go out with a gay couple because it made it look like two heterosexual couples going out, and there would be less trouble. And that was in a fairly 'liberal' metropolitan area.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT: Oh. Well... yeah, then I'm with OP, people need to consider history and why he would have remained closeted.

[(Anonymous)]

I'd like to add, lots of kids today are unaware (and adults with rose-tinted nostalgia glasses have forgotten) that at the time, Mr. Rogers wasn't the universally beloved icon he's seen as today. He was already hated by hardcore Christians and right-wingers for preaching love, nonviolence, and tolerance for everyone. I have a sense that current discoursers think he was so influential and loved that he should have come out because if he had he would have changed society's views on bi/homosexuality for the better. But looking at how he was actually viewed at the time, there is no way that's what would have happened.

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you for this excellent point! I was a kid when Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood was on TV, and there were homes where you couldn't watch it because the parents thought he was too radical and 'hippy dippy'.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

There was literally a post going around a few months ago (maybe during Black History month?) about what a big deal it was for him and Clemons to share a kiddie pool for their damn feet in protest of all the black pool segregation horseshit. He was picking his battles! It's ridiculous that kids can't understand and respect that (or remember what they reblogged in February)

[(Anonymous)]

All I can add to this secret is how much I personally love Fred Rogers. I only came to him recently and he was amazing. I watch stuff of his own youtube whenever I need a pick me up.
Agreed, OP, it is questionable even that he was bisexual. Even if he was, it was no one's business but his own. Agreed with what others are saying here, that he needs to be taken into context of the time he was in. He was under no obligation to 'come out'.

[(Anonymous)]

This is why biographies are bullshit. Especially that ones that come out these days.

[(Anonymous)]

Where did this rumour even come from?

[(Anonymous)]

It's reasonable to disapprove of what a person did in the past, likely for cultural and political reasons, without identifying that person as bad or evil. I can call pushing Clemmons into a beard marriage regressive and a form of anti-gay prejudice, and Rogers's willingness to work with Clemmons and not have him blacklisted from the industry progressive. Both things can be true, because people and situations are complex.

[(Anonymous)]

+1000