Oh, Stephen. You of your national institution status. Maybe you could have even become the Nation's Sweetheart, a la Cheryl Cole. On second thoughts, despite your homosexuality you are definitely too Right White, too Oxbridge schooled. The smear campaign against the genial flaneur has begun, and to be honest, I don't know if he deserves it or not. His crime? An interview with gay magazine Attitude, in which the journalist referenced a previous quote of Fry's on which he discusses my gender's feelings on sex.
"If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking: 'God, I've got to get my f———- rocks off', or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush."
and ever deepening the grave:
"I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want."
The media fallout has been immense: blogs, morning shows, feminists whose wattage has dimmed all jumping on the fry-bashing bandwagon.
Unsurprisedly Fry's reaction has been one of hurt and (dare I say it) slight bitterness. Over the fairly easily understood tweet of 'bye bye', he announced his exit from the social networking site, disappointing his 2 million+ followers. A previous tweet elaborates further: "So some paper misquotes a humorous interview I gave, which itself misquoted me and now I'm the Antichrist. I give up."
Akin somewhat to throwing his toys out of the prom, I pretty much doubt Fry will fully quit Twitter - as a platform for publicizing his tv appearances (white rhino anyone?) it is second to none. He does have a valid excuse for anger, though: an interview rehashing old statements without knowing the context of them being given is pretty hacky. However, the journalist in question asserts that Fry's tone when discussing the gender binaries was serious, and the subject was one which he had obviously given previous thought.
So let's examine the obvious man fail in the two statements above.
Vis a vis Hampstead Heath: gay outdoor canoodlings (hehe) came about due to the illegality and subsequent stigma surrounding homosexuality, and therefore the need to conceal these acts to any family members that may abide in the homestead. The park, with very little light also afforded an anonymity from your partner; after all, if you didn't want to reveal your orientation to the world you definitely didn't want an eye witness and testimony from your hook-up. Gay men went to Hampstead Heath because they had no other options: not because they were sex-crazed beasts. The reason for same sex couplings now? the notoriety of the place. It's infamous, and you know when you cruise that you will either get sex, or mugged.
Straight women, luckily, have no such historical narrative. Yet, their sexuality has been similarly safeguarded. I hesitate to insert oft repeated 'double standard men=players women=madonna/whore' because,
you know. We get it.
BUT centuries of physical and emotional chastity belts, added to numerous rape horror stories, added to maybe a sexual assault, or knowing someone who has been sexually assaulted, equal a woman who would think twice about entering a pitch-black park with the promise of sex in her head. I also want to cautiously venture that, generally (oh, god, why am I using this word) women are physically smaller. We cannot rape (as easily) and statistically it can feel like men own the power. Why, WHY, would one venture with so little to gain?
Vis a vis quote numero dos: just......no. What a ludicrous stereotype. And although I run the risk of this very crime, one would've thought that Fry, as a gay man would be reluctant to label an orientation in such a final manner. God forbid that a woman should want intercourse without at least two carats and a shared surname.
Tommorow: examining the reaction; why some feminists got it entirely wrong, and Jezebel, as usual, got it entirely right.
