Raul Esparza Interview in Sunday Times — Page 12

But we don't know what the rules are. And we don't know if their relationship started when he was still a student or when he needed help finding work (since this man helped him get a job in Chicago). What my point is- it's not our place to judge, and I know I shouldn't have even joined the conversation, but I felt I needed to vent that, because it makes me sick to see people talk like that about someone they have no real knowledge on.

What do you want me to do, look up NYU's policies?

Now, since that was not meant to be taken seriously, all I meant by what I said is that it's not as simple as "oh, well they were both adults" in a student/professor situtation. Most college students are legal adults, so if there weren't something other than sexual consent quite often at play, why do you think it would be such a taboo?

I'm not judging what he did, because I think that's unfair, but your argument about how it can't be considered wrong simply because they were both adults had a huge hole in it. It is, often, for many reasons considered unethical. Why do you think student/professor relationships get people into trouble?

---

Updated On: 12/1/06 at 02:15 PM

Well, okay, I agree with some of that last post -- with certain points of it. But, I think you have to realize that as wrong as you might think it is, doing what he did opened up ALL of those possibilities. Everything he said and didn't say is now open to all kinds of (possibly odd) speculation. That's inevitable. :/

Anyway, I think there's a difference between those kinds of specific judgements and saying that there's no reason for anyone in any situation to consider a student/professor relationship something to be frowned upon, you know? That's what I was saying to you.

---

NYU's fraternization policy:

All departmental employees are prohibited from consorting of fraternizing with NYU student employees of the department and student patrons of the department’s services. Any violators of this policy will be subject to disciplinary action.

It doesn't matter if they're in their class at the time or whether it's during school hours; as long as the person in question is enrolled as a student at the time and the staff member is still in their employ, it is wrong. No argument needed.

And you can't be so judgemental about other people derailing the conversation when you're just as guilty by getting into a discussion about professor/student relationships in the first place. You didn't know the whole story either, but that didn't stop you from arguing about it. You can't turn around and start pointing fingers at others just to cover up the fact that you were proven wrong.

---

Updated On: 12/1/06 at 06:19 PM

All the review talk you could possibly want:

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?thread=918573&dt=121

---

You originally said that there was "nothing" wrong with student/professor sexual relations, which you may believe, morally. The point in what skittles and I have been saying is to show you that whether or not you believe the rule is morally correct, you seem to look right past the fact that people can still despite that get into trouble for breaking that rule. If they run the risk of getting into trouble, then doing it is not 100% okay, is it? This isn't even about Raúl anymore, it's about you contradicting yourself.

---

Updated On: 12/1/06 at 09:45 PM

I get what your point is and I agree some of it. Like I said, I'm certainly not talking about Raúl anymore, but about something way, way more general -- and not even related to sexuality itself.

But you seemed to be like "well, morally if it's okay by age, then it's okay period!" and that's just not the case, because people run the risks by doing it in school environments. Schools often have those rules for significant reasons. In the real world, being legal adults and giving consent would be enough, but you took that and it allowed you to look right past the fact that regardless, schools have rules that people are expected to follow. That's what I was trying to say.

---

Updated On: 12/1/06 at 09:51 PM

I'm sure there are plenty of instances where there's nothing the rules try to protect against going on. If you noticed, I'm not expressing my personal viewpoint on the matter at all. I don't know how many more ways to try to explain to you what I AM saying, which is that your position that it's okay if they're in love and both adults, etc, etc. has a lot of holes. That's not all there is to it. You seemed to be wondering why people would be expressing such concern for the fact that this was revealed, and the fact that schools HAVE policies is exactly that reason.

---

Updated On: 12/1/06 at 10:00 PM

Em- I DO understand what you are saying, and I admit that my initial argument did have holes, because that wasn’t really where my point was, it was in the assumptions that are being tossed around this board.

Skittles- Your assumptions that someone was:

"abusing their position of authority- for sex- in addition to disobeying the policies of the institution they are employed by- for sex".

Is exactly what I was talking about. We have no idea if that is the case here or not. My whole point in my post was not to say what one University's rules was or wasn't, it was to say that it is disrespectful to Raul, the instructor, and their families to be making such assumptions. Of course if that *was* the case then I would agree that said instructor was in the wrong, but like I said, that’s not what my intended argument was supposed to be about.

Someone here mentioned that Manoel Felciano is "sexually troubled" - having met him, and hung out with him, I can say that is quite likely UNTRUE...

If it is true, great... but rumors are bad. Let the man speak for himself

As for this whole article...something about it makes me uneasy... I have been under the impression that Esparza was out and fine with it - having seen him and his boyfriend out at theater hangouts, performances, etc. It was a surprise to read this. I also had a brittle reaction to his admission that he's still married... it sounds like it's a difficult situation... but one that should be solved by making a choice.

All in all, the business man in me kept thinking (and this was antagonized by the comment he made about him mom saying that he now had to get tv work), that by being nebulous about his sexuality, and saying he's married, and that he has had and is currently having a relationship with a man, he is ambiguously bisexual. That makes him quite powerful in the world of TV and film... by not fully committing to being straight, gay, or bi (which he really doesn't in the article), he can be any or all of those things to the public... smart move... not one I would make... but smart indeed

I wouldn't comment on this normally, but since it was in the NYTimes, he and the writer have made it all public domain. Sexual identity is also of great interest to me as an artist, and reading this article was more food for thought in that respect. I really enjoy Esparza's performances. I would love to see him conquer any lingering unhappiness and trouble and be in command of his sexual identity. That's powerful!

-BCR

Are you serious? I'm really almost amused by the assumptions of what people are and aren't considering here. To say that this must be really hard for him or whatever isn't to not feel like it's probably been very painful for her, too. I know, I know, since nobody posted about it, we must not consider them at all. He's not exactly "still married." You read the article, but I'll leave it at that. It's not my information to give.

Call me a bleeding heart, but I still have trouble acknowledging the sort of jaded viewpoint that not declaring it one way or the other is for business reasons; that insinuates that he's feigning confusion for the sake of business. There may be a business move in there somewhere, under the fear that people won't take a chance on a gay actor to play straight -- and it may be helpful not to define yourself -- but I think he's not saying for actual personal reasons, too. (Not that he's not talented enough to do it all anyway.) Maybe I'm naive, but I find it incredible that the default is "oh, it's all about business," as opposed to assuming that just maybe, this is someone who is actually very hurt and confused and conflicted, and possibly avoiding labels for other reasons.

As far as the comment about his mom, I didn't really read that as "this is what I'm gonna do next, I have to get work in TV!" but as a lead-in to talking about the pressures his family puts on him. There's that whole passage about not being good enough, and all.

I know I'm repeating myself and asking to be argued with. I'm just... frustrated, because while I'm not blind to the business, I operate emotionally and I'm sappy and sympathetic. If that means I'm looked at as young and "stupid" and naive on this one, then... honestly, so be it. There are worse things to be.

---

Updated On: 12/2/06 at 05:34 PM

So do I; it's a crappy situation.

I think this came up a few pages back, but I don't think the implication in "trying to figure things out," or whatever wording he used is that he's going to run back to his marriage. Nor do I understand why that's the default assumption. There's obviously a lot to sort out, even if they're not going to remain married. The parts about not being able to go through with divorce are all references to instances in the past. He says they're separated right now, but nothing he says indicates that he's planning on giving it another shot, or whatever. Again, I don't know why the default assumption is that that's what he's doing when his words pretty clearly point to the opposite. It wouldn't make sense.

I don't doubt that he still has feelings for her in some capacity. They've been through a lot together. But just because he still has feelings for her doesn't automatically mean he's going to run back to his marriage. Why should it? The article is about accepting this part of who he is; if he's making such statements about doing that, wouldn't it be completely backwards to continue to do exactly what's been causing problems for so long?

There are more ways to love someone than to be married to him or her, and more ways to figure out how to have a viable relationship than just trying to fix a marriage. That's just not all there is to it.

Read the article more closely. You're way oversimplifying.

I thought you were telling people not to talk about this, and now you're bringing things up yourself? Hm.

And do you really think this was news to her? It wasn't. If he didn't plan to talk about it, then I can't assume he warned her or whatever, but I'd certainly hope he let her know what was said to the writer, just in case.

---

Updated On: 12/2/06 at 08:38 PM

Raúl Esparza: No longer truly married but not entirely separated, whose romantic conflicts go far deeper than that of the character he plays and have no easy fix.

Not entirely separted does not sound as if the marriage is compltely over....

Mr. Esparza is now involved with an actor — nothing he can talk about, it’s still too tenuous, he says — but his wife is still in his life and, he says, he still adores her.

“We’re still trying to figure a new way to figure it out,” he says. “Boy, are we.”

Doesn't sound as if it is over with his wife. I say again. I feel sorry for his wife. The wife wasn't expecting Raul to go to the New York Times and discuss this. Raul himself said it just came out and he didn't know he was going to talk about it and he felt sorry for those involved.