In the course of a few short months, Lee Thompson (“Uncle Poodle” to reality TV watchers) has managed to personify a variety of hot button issues among gay men today. He has come out as gay and HIV-positive. He has sent an ex-lover to jail and sent nude pictures via Grindr. 

Or not. Depending on whom you believe. Let’s break down the strange case of Uncle Poodle.

In what we can all agree was a positive development, Thompson publicly came out as gay last year and evidently has the love and support of much of his family, the colorful clan of the TLC reality show “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.” He instantly became an ally and friend of gays everywhere. So far, so good.

Then, in a recent interview with the Atlanta gay magazine Fenuxe, Thompson made the announcement that he tested HIV-positive in May of 2012. What was startling, though, was his explanation of his infection. Thompson claimed that not only had an ex-lover knowingly infected him, but that the man is currently serving a five-year sentence for non-disclosure of his HIV status (an example of what is known as HIV Criminalization).

Almost immediately the details of the story were questioned (by everyone except Fenuxe magazine, which did not delve into the prosecution in their piece; the writer simply “applauded” Thompson’s bravery). Journalist Todd Heywood posed serious questions about the case, including the timeline between Thompson’s infection and the reported prosecution, which would have happened in mere months. Heywood also scoured court records from Georgia to Alabama and could find no evidence of any such case. Requests for more information from Thompson’s people have garnered no response. The defendant has never been identified.

Did Uncle Poodle lie about sending the ex-lover to jail? And why the hell would he do that?

It is my opinion that Thompson made up the prosecution story. And in doing so, he behaved in much the same way that most everyone does who tests HIV positive these days. He looked for someone else to blame. He played the innocent victim. He released himself from personal responsibility.

Because everybody knows that when you test HIV-positive, you don’t call your doctor to start treatment. You call the police to press charges.

Stigma is driving these actions, of course. People who become positive today are judged for being “bad,” for not following the rules, for failing the community and becoming one of the great unwashed. It makes no difference that they were simply caught being human, that they let down their guard for a moment or got drunk or didn’t care or stupidly fell in love. Their friends will furrow their brows. Their dating life will wither.

And so, someone must pay for these indignities. That is one reason HIV criminalization laws have prospered – they appeal to our sense of vengeance. They are also vessels of homophobia, sexism and racism, considering how badly the laws are applied and how often prosecutions run counter to public health or even common sense (some convictions have imposed jail time for decades even when condoms were used and no one was infected, and advocates believe people forgo HIV testing in fear of being prosecuted). Conservative lawmakers and prosecutors — who don’t believe people with HIV should be having sex at all — are more than willing to exploit our feelings of revenge when testing positive so they can lock up some diseased fags.

I empathize with those who test positive today. They suddenly find themselves on my side of the viral divide, and for some, their hearts and minds may not have made the crossing yet. Perhaps they have unresolved issues about becoming infected. Whatever their circumstances, testing positive is a major life event and I can understand if some have an impulse to lash out.

And I believe that Lee Thompson did exactly that when he reported sending the man who infected him to jail. The man who no one can identify. The case that no one can locate.

Things have just gotten a little more complicated for our Uncle Poodle. Now, someone who claims to have communicated with Thompson on Grindr is trying to sell naked photos that Thompson supposedly sent him (isn’t humanity grand?). Thompson being linked to Grindr — the app about which controversy recently arose when a survey indicated half of its users were engaging in bareback sex — presents a delicate situation indeed.

People living with HIV have every right to “full and satisfying sexual and emotional lives,” as the Denver Principles stated thirty years ago. There is no evidence or details about Thompson’s sexual life or choices, so let’s simply hope he is conducting himself as someone with intimate knowledge of HIV non-disclosure laws, considering his contention that he sent someone to jail for withholding their status. The sword cuts both ways, and I worry for him.

Lee Thompson certainly has faced his share of scrutiny, living as an HIV-positive gay man in the rural South, much less someone connected to a wildly popular reality series. But he should consider his moves, both public and private, very, very carefully. Because we don’t simply like to tear down celebrities, or save our judgment and revenge for those with the thickest skin.

As we prove time and again, we can do it to the very best of friends.

Mark

PLUS…

Thank you for your stunning readership in recent weeks, my friends. In particular, the recent post “Your Mother Liked It Bareback” broke all traffic records on my site. I will admit to being precociously provocative with that one, and especially appreciate the comments you left, which proved far more interesting than the post itself. I do believe, as Gus Cairns remarked, that much of this passionate debate is driven by the pure grief so many of us experienced — and that is nothing to be taken lightly. My point remains that our emotions have little to no effect on the fact that nearly half of gay men don’t use condoms at least some of the time; validating other prevention tools isn’t a threat to condom use; and finally, what are we doing for the 50% of gay men not using condoms — or are they expendable?

This article first appeared on Mark’s own site, My Fabulous Disease, here.

The Rainbow Tube: Do We Get The Television We Deserve?

This article is a series of personal views covering a selection of TV programmes. There are of course several others which you may feel should be discussed and your own views may differ greatly from mine. Feel free to react.

It’s tempting to think that we’ve never had it so good regarding LGBT representation on TV and I’m sure lots of TV bosses are patting themselves on the back thinking how progressive and inclusive they are. But is it actually true? There may be more mainstream LGBT visibility on the television than ever before but is it a question of quantity trampling all over quality?

To my mind, we more or less reached parity with heterosexual TV programmes when ‘Queer as Folk’ was first shown on Channel 4 in Britain in 1999 and North America in 2000. Its creator, in association with Channel 4, Russell T Davis then sold the idea to Showtime entertainment and Cowlip productions, (Showcase in Canada); retaining editing rights along the way to keep it from being watered down. From 2000 to 2005, the American production turned out to be as good if not better than the original version. This was partly thanks to a large Canadian contribution. The interior scenes were filmed in Toronto and Canadian directors were able to direct more freely than any US directors could have done. This was despite the fact that the series was supposedly set in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The programme wasn’t originally titled ‘Queer as Fuck’ for nothing, because to every LGBT viewer’s delight, gay life was shown in all its glory, with sex and nudity giving it all the spice you needed short of pornography. Issues were addressed, not the least of which was HIV, and heterosexual North America was confronted with parts of gay life as they actually are and not as the ad-men would like us to see them.

Even in Europe, where viewers are more used to challenging scenes of sexuality and violence, ‘Queer as Folk’ had a huge impact and was widely praised. Eyebrows were raised but mainly by newspaper editors looking for ‘Disgusting, Filth’ headlines and in general, the British and later the American series were critically well received.

So what’s happened since then? Did ‘Queer as Folk’ actually set the standard from which all subsequent LGBT-themed TV is measured? The answer is probably yes but sadly little has lived up to that standard since; not even close. Strangely enough, the American ‘Queer as Folk’ was inclusive within the LGBT community almost to the point of cliché. There was the butch anti hero (still don’t quite understand why a straight man had to play that role but if he was playing gay, he played it very convincingly); the doting friend; the friendship group; two strong lesbian roles; a camp man with a heart of gold and inner strength; an everyman character; the obligatory fag hag (played brilliantly by Sharon Gless) and her brother, who was HIV positive. The UK version was shorter and a little more edgy but to their eternal credit, the directors of the American version took the best of the original and added yet more quality to it to make it truly ground-breaking.

The key to its success was the acting. There were no cheesy or corny roles and almost every character was believable and someone you have probably met in your gay travels. Had the acting been of any lower quality, the sex scenes and plot lines would have been seen as sensation for sensation’s sake. Instead, they were integral to the flow.

That should have set the benchmark for the future and twelve years later we should be revelling in excellent quality LGBT-driven TV shows, fighting for Emmy’s and other show biz gongs. So let’s take a look at other gay themed shows of the last twelve years and compare them to ‘Queer as Folk’. Have we progressed or was ‘Queer as Folk’ a flash in the pan?

You can’t talk about gay TV in the last ten years without mentioning the endlessly–repeated ‘Will and Grace’. A landmark show as far as North American TV is concerned and still popular in Europe, it was never regarded as ground-breaking; far too tame for that. That said, the same ingredients are in the ‘Will and Grace’ mix as in most other shows of its type: the camp gay man; his straight-acting counterpart; the fag hag (in this case, two!) and various other gay or gay friendly characters. It also had its hilarious moments but hardly smashes any taboos unless you count the fact that it appeared on mainstream American TV. Again, more often than not saved by the script and the humour but you can’t avoid the fact that Jack’s character was really a hideous cliché.

In 1993 and 1994, ‘Tales of the City’ and ‘More Tales of the City’ were shown on British TV and then on PBS and Showtime in North America as a miniseries. The idea was good, based on the hugely popular books by Armistead Maupin but for one reason or another it never really took off. Here again, a mix of characters both LGBT and straight but they didn’t translate well to the TV format, despite such actors as Laura Linney and Olympia Dukakis taking major roles. The problem was that the gay characters came over as wooden and one dimensional. The potential was there but the networks declined to go any further.

Since then, we’ve had overtly gay shows such as ‘Queer Eye for the Straight Guy’ on Bravo and ‘One Girl, Five Gays’ on Logo. The latter was a Canadian production that was picked up worldwide but whilst it got to the point as far as an LGBT audience was concerned and although it’s been running for four seasons; its target audience is really too small to ensure mainstream status. ‘Queer Eye’ on the other hand was aimed at straight men (or rather their girlfriends and wives) but once again hammered home the stereotype that gays and fashion or style go together. Carson Cressley provided the high octane camp and thus humour that appears in so many other shows. You get the feeling that producers see this sort of character as being a prerequisite for a straight audience. Women can identify and men aren’t threatened, all of which applies to Cam in ‘Modern Family’, ‘Bryan’ in The New Normal and Jack in ‘Will and Grace’. Compare this to the characterisation in ‘Queer as Folk’ and the credibility gap is enormous.

From 2006 to 2011, ‘Brothers and Sisters’ tried to bridge the ‘realness’ gap by showing its gay characters as ‘normal’ every day guys who you would assume were straight and most people would say that it worked to a large extent. However, the gay plot lines were always subservient to the ‘family’ theme of the show until they adopted a child and created a new ‘family’ within the bigger family thus preserving family values as the central theme. Relatively good and consistent acting plus Dallas/Dynasty types of soap plot lines kept the show interesting until it ran its natural course. However, many would claim that the gay roles were a little too shallow to be taken seriously and truly regarded as ground breaking.

The current show with strong LGBT representation is ‘Glee’ but despite the promising beginning and the immense popularity of this modern ‘Fame’ clone, the writing seems to be on the wall for ‘Glee’. They may be able to squeeze one more series out of it but viewer numbers have tailed off dramatically in the last year. Personally I feel that ‘Glee’ is a chance missed. It’s dominated by its creator Ryan Murphy (who also created ‘The New Normal’) and as such, it seems that the plot lines are becoming thinner by the week. ‘Glee’ has always been known for living in its own particular universe in terms of chronological anomalies and plot consistency. However, whereas in the beginning the viewer was prepared to suspend disbelief, as the Glee club launched into 30 piece orchestral arrangements in the school music room and characters met seemingly fatal accidents yet re-emerged unscathed, lately that has just seemed tired and irritating. The music was and is of good quality and that must have launched the whole Gleeks phenomenon but a necessary rejuvenation of the cast has not caught on with the public and old cast members returning seem somewhat ‘forced’. Even dragging in the Sarah Jessica Parkers of this world has seemed a frankly desperate tactic!

There was however, one LGBT theme that really hit home and became ‘Glee’s high point in the history of gay TV and that was when Kurt was being bullied by the school jock, who then turned out to be closeted and gay. Thanks to strong acting, those scenes made Glee iconic but they couldn’t keep them up. With a lack of realistic and meaningful issues, the frailties of Glee have become ever more apparent. The characters are a smorgasbord of politically correct representatives of society. The black, Asian, disabled, straight, misfit and of course, gay, lesbian and cross-dresser characters could have provided endless powerful storylines which could have genuinely made a difference if handled in the same way as the bullying issue. However, without good scripts, these characters become nothing more than cartoons or at best, caricatures.

Despite huge media exposure that has made them all starlets, you wonder where these people will go now. Broadway may be the best most of them can hope for and Leah Michele may never escape endless ribbing from the ‘Fashion Police’ crew for her red carpet pouting. I can’t personally see Chris Colfer (Kurt Hummel) playing anything else than versions of himself in the future. It’s sad but these were actors tailored to their roles and typecast to the last note; they may disappear without trace. The two actors who will always have an acting future are Jane Lynch (Sue Sylvester) and Kurt’s father Burt, played by Mike O’Malley. In their own different ways, these two bring depth to the show and manage to actually say something about society. It’s ironic that Jane Lynch is a lesbian role model in real life and acidly scathing of all things liberal in the show but she has become iconic as a result.

So to my mind, the Glee furore is almost over and now we can see that it actually wasn’t that ground-breaking after all. It repeated the ‘Fame’ formula and despite its best efforts, filled it with plastic and one dimensional stereotypes. Some people have accused Glee of being so stereotypical that it has actually increased stigma against LGBT people; there may be an element of truth in that; time will tell. Is there anything else currently running then, that could possibly compete with the brilliance and forward thinking of ‘Queer as Folk’?

An Emmy winner three years running; ‘Modern Family’ started in 2009 and superficially has many of the same ingredients of ‘Queer as Folk’ although it has to be said that it’s a comedy and not a drama series. It’s funny in parts and the gay roles are prominent. It’s an ensemble cast centred on three interrelated families which are in turns dysfunctional and meant to reflect foibles in society. The gay characters are probably meant to be slight caricatures (one extremely camp and the other less so) and when the scripts slacken off even a little, appear clichéd to the extreme. Again, the show is saved by good acting but if only the other two components of the extended family were LGBT the show would be more credible because they are intrinsically funnier and actually much ‘gayer’.

The new trend is the parent/child interaction in TV gay relationships. Mothers and their gay sons have long been fodder for comedy but when the gay couple has a child of their own, this is new. It’s repeated in ‘The New Normal’, which could be said to be ‘Glee’ grown up and left school (and has the same creator) and has also been seen in several gay themed films. The child is often world-wise and used to deliver the antidote to societal judgement through his or her asides in the script. However, adding the child bomb to bolster the argument for gay marriage and gay normality, only works if the parents are non-stereotypical and under no circumstances could Mitchell and Cameron from ‘Modern Family’ and ‘Bryan and David’ in The New Normal be seen as anything other than stereotypes. Well-meant maybe but realistic...I don’t think so. To subdue the more extreme audience reactions, there is always a strong heterosexual female presence to act as moral watchdog (the birth mother and grandmother in ‘The New Normal’ and the other close, female, family members in ‘Modern Family’). It’s a bit of a cop-out really and when you compare it to the gritty story lines of adopting a teenager and having a baby in a lesbian relationship that breaks up, as in ‘Queer as Folk’...well the timing should have been the other way round. ‘Queer as Folk’ should have been the progression from shows like ‘The New Normal’ and ‘Modern Family’, instead of the other way round.

Other series like ‘Happy Endings’, ‘Torchwood’, ‘True Blood’ and even unexpectedly, ‘Downton Abbey’ are attempting to improve LGBT visibility on screen by making the gay characters incidental to the main action. They may be gay, or lesbian or transvestite but that is clearly not the issue in the overall themes of the shows. It’s a case of; these people are gay and this is how they sometimes live but it’s no big deal. There is lots of British and Canadian input in these shows, in terms of direction and actors and thereby hangs a tale of how these issues can be modernised. US TV bosses are still reluctant to play the gay card unless it’s a stereotype that is clearly defined and can be judged accordingly. The British and Canadians are much more sophisticated and subtle and know how to win audiences over with realistic and often sympathetic portrayals. What do you first think of when you hear the title ‘True Blood’ for instance? Vampires; shape shifters; the deep South and above all, blood! The fact that there are lip-licking men who regularly strip off and that some of them are gay or at least bisexual; plus the odd lesbian vampire and a superbly acted transvestite in major roles, is a bonus but no big deal and the show appeals to a cross-section of society. ‘True Blood’ has also somewhat lost the plot in its last series, as convoluted story lines make watching it a puzzle. This suggests that it has reached the end of its natural life but its atmosphere, thrilling storylines and good acting mean that it’s a step forward in LGBT representation on the television.

‘Torchwood’ is also a bit of a ground-breaker in that it brings gay characters into science fiction in the same way that True Blood does for fantasy. It started off as a low budget BBC series but has translated well across the Atlantic despite American insistence on the toning down of some gay scenes. Many people may not be aware but it’s actually a Doctor Who spin-off and as such still has a touch of the polystyrene sets and unbelievable storylines that made Doctor Who so successful. The fact that the lead character is an out and out sexual man, who’s mostly gay, seems not to have created the uproar that you might have expected and Torchwood is well on the way to cult status. It also seems to have succeeded in showing gay characters, where films like ‘Star Trek’ and series like ‘Caprica’ have failed.

When an archetypal BBC costume drama like ‘Downton Abbey’ brings in gay plot lines, you know the world has turned on its axis but once again it’s well acted and subtly portrayed, revealing the attitudes of the times. Nobody could accuse ‘Downton Abbey’ of being great acting but its well-written soap plots have got audiences hooked across the world. Quietly introducing a credible gay element is symbolically important for LGBT representation in 2012 – not earth shattering but a good sign for the future.

In conclusion, to my mind nothing has emerged since ‘Queer as Folk’ to challenge its status as best gay-themed show ever. Modern shows tend to be formulaic and use far too many stereotypes (and I haven’t even mentioned ‘Ru Paul’s Drag Race’!). They veer away from gritty realism because they are desperate for viewing figures and rankings to ensure repeat series being made. Producers and writers think they are being innovative by introducing gay marriage and adoption issues but the characters behind them lack enough depth to make them credible and LGBT humour is constantly delivered by outworn stereotypes who promote camp bitchiness as our comedy niche. Soaps in the UK and the rest of Europe invariably have gay storylines and some work better than others but Joe public doesn’t bat an eyelid anymore and that indicates their success in bringing gay life into what’s seen as the normal mainstream view of society as a whole. However, television’s mega bucks are still made in North America and syndicated shows sold across the world are still mainly US-made. There, the ability (or will) to modernise the LGBT profile seems to be lacking. Who dares doesn’t win in that sort of atmosphere and even Hollywood hasn’t moved on from ‘Brokeback Mountain’ and ‘Milk’.

The best series ever from an LGBT viewpoint is now twelve years old and we haven’t moved very far since but in the States, it’s still all to do with money and pleasing Middle America or the political and religious right. The last US election saw politicians claiming that there was a homosexual plot to destroy society. Daring new TV series aren’t likely to make much headway in the near future in that sort of climate. Hopefully countries like Britain and Canada will continue to push the boundaries backed up by great work coming out of other European countries such as Spain and Germany. Maybe the future lies in web series like ‘Barcelona’ and ‘Where the Bears Are’ although at the moment, these fall victim to financial squeezes after promising starts.

YouTube, Vimeo and the like may also be able to play a role in the future, as viewers latch on to new ways of viewing film. As for HIV on the TV; it might as well be the Bubonic Plague for the amount of coverage it currently gets. Queer as Folk once again set the benchmark and included it as a fact of life but we shouldn’t hold our breath while waiting for Blaine, or Cam, or the blood soaked vampires to finally fall foul of the virus.

Our first meeting on-camera was six years ago. The memory of it pains me still, despite my enthusiasm for appearing on national television for any reason whatsoever. 

“And how long have you been off drugs?” he asked. The look in his eyes carried a journalist’s skepticism. The intense lights of the CNN studio seemed to brighten at the question.

“Six months,” I answered. The idea of appearing at the anchor desk with Don Lemon was losing its allure. Granted, I wanted to help promote the documentary Meth, and discuss gay men, drug abuse, and my own crystal meth addiction. But the interview had become too real, too well lit, and far too direct for me to escape the truth with my usual manipulations.

“And where are you living now?” Don asked me. I felt flush, reddened by shame and by the pitiful answer I was now obligated to give.

“I live in a halfway house with other men recovering from addiction, Don.”

My mother is watching, I thought. My friends. And people who know me who will be far too polite to ever mention they saw this.

Don Lemon’s news story was insightful and illuminated a very real health threat to gay men. And it featured an actual gay drug addict on camera. A well-spoken one, but an addict just the same.

In the six years since those uncomfortable few minutes, I published a book about living in Los Angeles during the dawn of AIDS. I embraced my HIV status by launching my blog, My Fabulous Disease. And despite relapses and lessons along the way, I have faced my addiction and loosened its grip on my life and productivity.

And so, as fate would have it, I found myself back at Don Lemon’s desk recently, live on the air, to talk about living with HIV and how I was combating stigma with weapons of joy and good humor (pictured above, with video link below).

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2012/12/02/lemon-mark-king-intv.cn

I have no explanation why I should be so lucky as to appear twice on CNN, the second serving to wash away the discomfort of the first. There’s no reason except the unimaginable grace that has carried me through the last six years.

Don’s studio is much larger now, and both his command of the newscast and his popularity have grown accordingly. During the few minutes of commercial break before our segment, he welcomed me to the desk like an old friend.

The lighting was just as intense as my first visit, revealing my bright grin, lined with age and survival and experience. I didn’t complain. I even asked if it could be brighter in the studio. “Madonna lighting, please,” I joked to the crew as I took my seat.

There was no mention of crystal meth. No doubting glances or talk of halfway houses. Instead, Don smiled as he introduced me, assuring his viewers this story about AIDS was a little bit different, and then pronounced me “a trip.” I beamed with pride, more grateful to be there, discussing this topic, than anyone watching could ever know.

I wasn’t the only one who had a newfound lightness of being. Since our first meeting, Don had published Transparent, a book about his life and career that included coming out publicly as a gay man. He’s familiar with being an “other,” and with fighting shame in order to reveal who you are. We had both found a path to freedom paved with rigorous honesty.

We talked about HIV stigma and Madonna lighting. He shared a story of seeing an AIDS patient on a New York City street years ago. I interjected my new favorite topic, the injustice of HIV criminalization. We were two very different men comfortable in our own skin, who refused to allow shame a place at the table.

At the end of our interview I began to shake his hand and something remarkable happened. Don stood and reached out for a hug. It was surprising for an anchor, maybe even awkward for a brief second, and then the sweetness of the gesture won out as we embraced.

The humanity – and perhaps even bravery – of his simple act wasn’t lost on viewers, many of whom wrote to tell me how moving it was.

But for me, it was something more. Don Lemon, who remembered our first visit and never mentioned the circumstances, who knew this interview meant growth for me, a sort of redemption perhaps, and who even knew a little about overcoming shame himself, reached out in a gesture of support.

A hug.

This article first appeared on Mark S. King’s own blog My Fabulous Disease here. 

By now everyone has heard about the “Elmo Scandal”. It has been plastered all over every newspaper and the internet. And from the second that (Elmo puppeteer) Kevin Clash was accused of having sex with teenaged boys, folks started taking sides. I was actually surprised at some people’s reactions. Many of the comments and blogs I read attacked (first accuser) Sheldon Stephens (below right) from all angles. Lots of discrediting information was released about him and many pegged him as a scammer trying to get money out of a celebrity. 

Then we learned that Sheldon settled and received $125,000 with a gag order. 

Now, I don’t know about you, but the first thing that popped into my head was the first Michael Jackson accusation. I remembered Michael basically using Oprah for a public relations moment. The kid and his family were paid off and everything was sort of swept under rug. No one really questioned what happened. No one was paying attention to the payoff and who paid it. I believe that Sony paid the family in exchange for getting their hands on the Beatles rights that Michael owned. This would explain how all these unreleased Beatles songs charted and won awards in the late 90’s. But by the time the second accusation came around, Sony had got what they wanted and left Michael out to dry. Remember Michael standing with Louis Farrakhan at a press conference complaining that Sony was not promoting his “Invincible” album? This left him no option but to go to court for the second case. But by this time, public opinion had been made. At that moment, he couldn’t get a hit in traffic. 

Back to Sheldon,  a couple of days after he recanted his accusing statement and signed the settlement, he announced that he wanted to recant his recant, saying that he signed the agreement under duress. Of course this went over like a lead balloon. So, like the accused in the Jackson case, the second accuser here Cecil Singleton’s (below left) accusation forced Kevin Clash to out. 

I’m not usually awake for “The View”, but I happened to catch Whoopi Goldberg talking about Clash’s resignation. The way she spoke about Clash was to the effect that all he needed to do was take the time to prove his innocence and he will come back. And then I came across a posting of a Facebook friend who is an older gay man who was defending Kevin Clash. I immediately realized that there was this weird double standard amongst older gay men who sided with Clash. They seemed to believe that Kevin Clash is the victim here, probably because he came out so late in life. They felt that this was some scheme to take him down. And one post I read said that this was just another attempt to paint the black man as a monster. 

I have to say...I was appalled! Coming from a troubled childhood myself, I know what it is to be taken advantaged of sexually. I was molested by my uncle between the ages of 7 to 10. Because I never really told anyone, it would lead to a breakdown in my teen years. Coming to terms with my sexuality and accepting myself shaped the person I am today. So, the idea that these two men who have brought their experiences to the public are being crucified really upset me. 

I reached out to Cecil Singleton by sending him a Facebook friends request and offered some words of encouragement. I can’t imagine what it must be like to read comments of folks wishing you get AIDS and die. All because of the love and affection they have for a fictional children’s character. As if the person with his hand up the puppet does not have a real life. 

The other thing I remembered was that I first heard that Kevin Clash was gay back in 1999 when I was recording my first album in Baltimore. It was the gossip of the moment that he was in therapy for his “gay episodes”. Apparently his wife was making him go get help to stop. We joked that when you have money, you have “episodes”. When you are an Average Joe, “you are just cruisin’ and sucking dick.” 

After talking with Cecil Singleton, I received a phone call from his lawyer asking what I knew about Mr. Clash back then. I could only say that I heard that he was in therapy and was picking up guys. I think the lawyer was hoping I would say that he was picking up young boys, but I did not and could not because that was not what I heard. 

To my surprise after a few messages back and forth, Cecil asked if he could call me. I guess he felt comfortable enough to actually speak to me. Immediately after we started talking we realized that we probably had seen each other when I was a DJ at Escuelita. We sort of bonded over being so young when coming out. I was surprised at how open he was about talking about his experiences with Kevin Clash. 

“We met on a chat line and he invited me out to dinner” explained Cecil. 

The interesting thing Cecil told me was that Kevin went to great lengths to keep his identity from him. It wasn’t until Cecil had been involved with him for several years before he found out his last name. A friend suggested Cecil google his name and that’s how he found out that he had been involved since the age of 15 with the voice of Elmo. He confronted Kevin and asked “Did you think that I was going to try to take advantage of you? Is that why you didn’t tell me who you are?” He had told Cecil that he worked for the School Board. "I was offended by your dishonesty!" Cecil told Kevin. 

By the time Cecil had confronted Kevin, he was 19 and I guess he was too old for Mr.Clash. So, their relationship faded. 

We talked about Sheldon Stephen’s recant of his recant. Cecil said that he felt that Sheldon made a mistake for settling. From talking with Cecil, I got the impression that he was more concerned about what Clash has been doing for years.  “How many others has he used his position to manipulate into relationships and sex?” Because at the end of the day, this man has money and power. And from the situation with Sheldon Stephens, it appears Clash was going to use that money and power to shut him up. But there are reports that Sheldon was crying when he signed the agreement. 

The other thing that seemed apparent in our conversation was that Cecil is a very articulate young man. “I’m very aware that I am androgynous. I love it.” he told me. He noticed that many of the comments had to do with how he looks. I made me think about when I worked at the Tampa Tribune. I was very androgynous in my appearance. Come to think of it....I just found the City Editor who hired me and I guess he was not thrilled to read my profile and blogs. Being an out HIV+ blogger, DJ and female impersonator was just a little too much for him. I can only imagine what a hateful internet would offer a pretty boy who has accused Elmo of having sex with teenaged boys.

We talked about if he felt like a victim in this situation. “At the time when I met Kevin, I had been in and out foster homes. I was depressed and felt that I didn’t have anyone.” explained Cecil. That sounds like a total recipe for a predator to pounce. Sheldon Stephens was not from a rosy background either. Do you recognize a trend here? 

During the hour long time on the phone, I told Cecil that I was a blogger and that I wanted to  write about him. I felt it was important that he be heard in the gay media. He has done several interviews for NY publications and TMZ, but for some reason no one from the gay mags has reached out, at least to my knowledge. 

I just want everyone to take a moment and think about the fact that most child molesters and predators put themselves in positions where they have access to kids and teenagers. Classic examples are Michael Jackson and Jerry Sandusky. And now the spotlight has been pointed at Kevin Clash. I say we should listen to these two young men before anyone jumps to any conclusions. The proof is going to be in the pudding over the next few months as more information and, quite likely, more people come forward.