Raul Esparza Interview in Sunday Times- Page 12

[Shiksa Goddess2]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 2:10pm

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.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 2:12pm

Shiksa, professor/student relationships are strongly frowned upon at pretty much any university I've ever heard of. Yes, they're both adults, but that's still a breach of the student/teacher relationship that should be maintained at least as long as the student is in the class (and might've been, in this case). I don't agree with the idea that that instructor was predatory and seriously damaged Raúl as a result, but it's still an incredibly irresponsible relationship to have taken on.

On the other hand, I agree that we don't know the specifics in this particular case, and that there's no point in condemning the teacher in light of that (and, well, the fact that he's dead).
Updated On: 12/1/06 at 02:12 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 2:15pm

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

[Shiksa Goddess2]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 2:23pm

I just, don't understand how the first thought that comes to mind when Raul bears his soul is: 'The poor instructor's family!' and then it turns into: 'He was a predator who damaged Raul!' Now, I know that wasn't everyone on here, and Em I know that you support Raul more than probably anyone here, but still, this whole thread makes me more uncomfortable than anything that could have been said in the interview, and I hope to Whoever is up there (Sondheim?) that Raul and anyone he associates with will never, EVER read this.

It’s just really not our place, we don’t know them, and we don’t know the situation.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 2:30pm

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.

[Shiksa Goddess2]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 2:40pm

Okay, maybe I mis-phrased my first statement. I don't think that all student/teacher relationships are totally okay- but if that person is not in their class at the time, or if it's after they are no longer at the school (of course, everyone involved should be of age), then I don't see a problem with it morally beyond the college's individual policies. Just my opinion, and like I said, my real issue is that this thread has turned into a place to diss a dead man that no one here has met and no one knows the whole story about.

Anyway, I didn't mean to start an argument, I just needed to express that, because I don't think anyone is doing Raul a favor by making comments about someone he obviously felt very strongly about, whether it was right or not.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 6:19pm

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

[PeachesCat]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 8:44pm

Hey Guys... Enough of the analysis of Raul's sex life. How about we discuss a more important matter.... THE REVIEW OF COMPANY! We haven't mentioned it since it came out several days ago! Ticket sales pre reviews haven't been that hot. Do you think the reviews will help sales? I don't want Company to go the way of Taboo....

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 8:55pm

All the review talk you could possibly want:

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

[Shiksa Goddess2]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 9:35pm

"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".

What was I proven wrong about? The NYU policy? I never claimed to know what it was and, newsflash, not all policies at colleges are 100% correct and are a good gage of morals. I don't belive going against a university rule is morally wrong in and of itself.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 9:45pm

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

[Shiksa Goddess2]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 9:49pm

"If they run the risk of getting into trouble, then doing it is not 100% okay, is it?"

I don't know, that's a personal decision to be made by the people involved. My main point in all this is that certain people (not even you or Skittles), were saying things about this man being some terrible person who took advantage of Raul and I just don't think that that is fair when no one here knows the whole story. To me it would be like talking about Raul's sexuality in great depth on some thread before he made it public. It's not our place.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 9:51pm

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

[Shiksa Goddess2]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 9:57pm

I see your point, but I still feel there are instances when it is not wrong. The way I originally phrased it wasn't the best, and I do understand that those rules are there for a reason, to protect the students and the teachers.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 10:00pm

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

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 10:06pm

I don't belive going against a university rule is morally wrong in and of itself.

You see nothing wrong with someone abusing their position of authority- for sex- in addition to disobeying the policies of the institution they are employed by- for sex? This isn't some sort of backwards, bigoted law about blacks and whites legally required to drink from separate fountains so you're fighting the good fight by disobeying.

You said you weren't proven wrong, but considering it's not as simple as two consenting adults as you originally claimed, you were incorrect. Just because you may not agree with the policy doesn't change the fact that his actions were wrong in that he disobeyed a set policy that he was required to abide by.

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

[Shiksa Goddess2]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 11:19pm

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.

[Fabrizio2]

Posted: 12/2/06 at 1:58am

I reposted the link on Broadway.com


Someone already posted it though.
Updated On: 12/2/06 at 01:58 AM

[toomeytwopiece]

Posted: 12/2/06 at 2:09am

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

[PeachesCat]

Posted: 12/2/06 at 4:53pm

Excellent point Toome. I really think Raul isn't saying he is one way or another is for business reasons.

My only concern is his wife. He is still married. How does she feel about this? Nobody is considering her feelings.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/2/06 at 5:34pm

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

[PeachesCat]

Posted: 12/2/06 at 7:07pm

Raul is still married to his wife. He states he still has feelings for her. He tried to file for divorce, but couldn't. He stated he is trying to work things out. If he didn't have feelings for his wife, he wouldn't still be married to her.

I say again. I feel sorry for his wife. Raul stated that the interview got away from him and he felt sorry for the people who are involved in this who aren't in show biz. The wife is an innocent victim of this article. I wonder if she was told ahead of time. I doubt it by Raul's statments that the interview got away from him.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/2/06 at 8:38pm

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

[xM3L24x]

Posted: 12/2/06 at 10:08pm

I feel bad for Raúl with this whole NYT interview.

[PeachesCat]

Posted: 12/2/06 at 11:02pm

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.