This reminds me of a situation at my workplace a few years ago in which a woman undertook to destroy a man [by accusing him of sexual harrassment]. Both were new at their jobs. Because people there were good liberals, they assumed she was in the right, and supported her cause. As it turned out, she was mentally unstable and was using all concerned. Just because OC is openly in support of the GLB cause, which is a worthy cause, does not mean that it is in the right. -Jmh123 9 July 2005 04:01

It was suggested that a subject be added to this entry on in-fighting between fan groups. I countered that suggestion with another--that a more interesting and socially relevant factor at play here is that the public perception to which you refer (spread largely by a few comedians and comedy shows, along with certain members of Openly Clay feeding rumors to gay blogs) is fueled by media stereotypes of the male homosexual. I will add that our society also condones the mocking of individuals with characteristics associated with that stereotype as a legitimate form of "comedy". I also pointed out that assumptions were being made about the position of those opposing the link--to wit that we are "disgusted with homosexuality." Several of us have rejected that characterization and are offended by it. One can be a supporter of GLB's and their rights without enjoying certain kinds of explicit pornography, be it of gays, bis or straights. More to the point of this discussion, I see no reason that a small message board that specializes in the celebration of the hope that Clay Aiken is gay (via slash, photoshopping and shipping), along with an agenda of "outing" him, need be linked to this entry to defend a Neutral Point of View. -Jmh123 22:50, 9 July 2005

Conversations about the possibility that Clay is gay don't bother me. I have engaged in them myself, and I am sure I will do so again. Homosexuality doesn't bother me. My best friend is a gay man. My objections have nothing to do with "cleaning up Clay's image." I like good-natured smutting and I love the boob picture. I know he can be pissy; I've seen it. I do object to efforts to "out" Clay, or anyone else. I object to shipping, slash, or hard-core porn, be it hetero- or homosexual, and would prefer there be no links to sites that enjoy this. I recognize that others disagree, and I now understand that Wikipedia does not censor, nor cater to minors. I don't like humor that mocks effeminacy or associates it with being gay, which is why the argument to popular culture assumptions bugs me. This sort of cheap humor seems to be all the rage for the last couple of years, and Clay has been the butt of a lot of it. I think it's mean-spirited. I never liked the cheap humor of the Three Stooges either, but that's all beside the point. -Jmh123 04:23, 11 July 2005

In response to your comment above that, "It's a portion of Clay Aiken's fans that get represented absolutely nowhere else," while it is true that the majority do not cater to speculation about Aiken's sexual preferences, Openly Clay is not the only board on which such speculation takes place. Clayton's Place is a notable example of a board on which there is no censorship, and where there are long and interesting conversations about Clay's sexual preference. OC is the only board I know of that makes this its main topic, but there other unique boards not represented in the entry as well. Some would say that the perspective of a large number of explicitly Christian fans is underrepresented, but there is no one advocating for them, including myself.

Sexual preference is not the only controversial topic of discourse discouraged on various forums. A notable example is religion: while some boards cater to Clay's avowed Christian affiliation; others, even Clayversity, avoid the topic of religion altogether. Politics is another: almost all forums avoid the subject. -Jmh123 18:53, 12 July 2005

I really hate this sort of mocking of a stereotype (Conan likes to imply that male homosexual=pedophile, which is reprehensible) and I do believe the comedians have been quite influential on popular culture perception of Aiken. Those who thought "gay" when they first saw him are equally guilty of stereotyping. The "geek to chic makeover" on AI hid a lot of masculine qualities, but that's beside the point. Most gay men I know aren't at all effeminate. -Jmh123 16:45, 13 July 2005

MUCH earlier in this discussion, subjective judgments about public perceptions along the lines of "most of my (non-Aiken fan) friends assume" were deemed an acceptable rationale for including this material in the first place. Look, a frequent activitity of the internet fandom on many different boards is celebration of a sexual response to Aiken, and most but not all of the fans who engage in this activity are heterosexual women. I realize that a woman can be hot for a gay man, even if she perceives that he is gay, but I believe it is not unreasonable to imagine that for the majority this sexual interest is directed towards someone they perceive to be a hetereosexual man. -Jmh123 22:55, 14 July 2005

This [proposed] version states that discussion of Aiken's sexual orientation is not welcome on most fan boards, and thus begs the question, "Why not?" WebTraveler has rejected "prefer to take him at his word," which is based on the stated rationale of some of the boards for avoiding the topic. Some of you feel that the "majority [of his fans] regard him as heterosexual" is not credible because not quantifiable, even though perusal of the largest boards would make that conclusion an obvious one. There are thousands of pages of hetereosexual fan fiction, some of it quite sexually explicit (squicks me out, BTW), shipping with every female sighted within 10 feet of him, the "moms" repeatedly wishing him a happy marriage and many kids, endless squeeeing, and so forth.

Some may regard me as being stubborn about this, but whatever may be decided by this small group of people, it was a revert war that caused the locking of this page. There will without a doubt be a few who will try to delete any reference to this speculation; those aside, I believe others will accept the content only if they believe it truly does represent a NPOV. In my opinion, [given that the majority of editors insist that some reference to this topic must be made] it needs to be said that: 1) some think he's gay; 2) others don't; 3) he said (in Rolling Stone) that he isn't. I don't think a NPOV is represented as long as point 2) is not included in some way. The current version and other proposed versions do not say "others don't"; they say "others don't welcome/permit/allow speculation", which, while also true, is a different point altogether. While I can't quantify this, I believe there are far fewer of the "not welcomers" than the "others who don't". I hope I have stated this clearly now, and I hope that others find that point 2) is a reasonable point to include in this paragraph in some way. -Jmh123 17:55, 19 July 2005

Finally, some comments I found after the debate had ended, from the talk page of the entry, "List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people," by one of the most outspoken defenders of gay rights on Wikipedia (and off), and an "out" gay man:

I have serious objections to adding people, especially people who are alive to confirm or deny it, to the Debated section without at least some specific evidence. For example, the recent addition of the singer Clay Aiken because he is "Overly effeminate" (whatever that may mean) is absurd.

"Aiken's awkward, effeminate demeanor has led many to speculate that he is a homosexual, though he has not openly confirmed these rumors and has refused interviews with publications which target gay audiences." I'm not sure what "openly confirmed" implies (has he secretly confirmed them?) and refusing interviews does not make you queer, it just makes you unwilling to discuss what he may consider a non-issue. -Jliberty 12:27, Feb 2, 2005

If the Wikipedia debate is ever reopened, I hope to enlist this man's support towards removing "that paragraph" from Clay's entry. Those of you who are unhappy with it as currently worded should rejoice that at least it isn't worded as in the quotation above.