On a recent podcast episode of Louis Theroux’s Grounded, a BBC Sounds production, Louis interviews reality star turned TV presenter Rylan Clark-Neal about his early life and the arrival of fame. Amid a reliably absorbing and revealing interview from Theroux, a well-deserved national treasure whose documentaries were integral to my generation’s growing up, one particular segment stood out to me as peculiar and uncharacteristic of the host’s usual professionalism, during which Rylan is questioned over the discovery of his sexuality.
“What about physical arousal?” Louis asks.
“I don’t know,” Rylan replies, coyly.
“You do, go on.”
The guest assures him that he does not remember “getting a semi”, to which Theroux expresses scepticism. Rylan, evidently feeling the host’s anticipation, concedes, to intermittent interjections of “go on”, and “there it is”, caricaturing voyeuristic fixation, like a zookeeper would toss the only steak he can find to feed a hungry lion, that the men’s underwear section of the Next catalogue would excite him as a boy.
“And things would happen?” Theroux prods; “your pants would get tight […] thinking what? What would you be thinking?”
Seemingly attempting to conceal discomfort with a cordial façade, Clark-Neal then asks, jovially as to avoid disruption or any sense of unwillingness, what we’re all thinking: “is this for the interview or is this for you later?”
Now, I have absolutely no doubt that Theroux’s questioning in this segment, while arguably inappropriate, comes from a place of mere boyish curiosity, a trademark characteristic of his earlier documentaries and a key factor in his steady enchantment of the nation. In other words, I’m certainly not about to suggest Louis Theroux is the BBC’s next big media scandal. The question mark looms not over Louis, but over the entertainment industry and the BBC’s attitudes towards a normalised sexualisation of men (gay men in particular) compared to similar behaviours towards women. The reality is that if these comments were conversely directed towards a female guest, coercing a vivid description of their physical sexual arousal as a young girl, the segment would not survive the edit and would likely come under internal scrutiny from production authorities.
Another key factor is Clark-Neale’s palpable apprehension, despite efforts to conceal it. Of course, it may be argued that because this is a male-to-male interaction, the same dynamics of sexual behaviour, misconduct, and any possible consequences may not apply. However, sexual misconduct should, in theory, apply to anyone who feels they have been sexualised unwillingly, female or male. It is also important to acknowledge the potential harmful implications of these interactions as inevitably greater when the male subject identifies as homosexual, an identity that has historically left men more vulnerable to hyper-sexualisation and exoticisation, predominantly from a hetero-centric perspective, not to mention verbal and physical abuse. This potential harm may be elevated further by the apparent difficulties in recognising it.
Concludes over the page…