From a socio-political standpoint, having a well-known (and liked across the board) famous person being gay is a great thing for many reasons, not least of all because it allows Americans who would otherwise ignore the idea of a homosexual to invite this person into their homes (so to speak), which could allow them to do so literally in the future (the same thing that happened when people began seeing positive images of black families on television in 1970's which subsequently suppressed a lot of racist rhetoric by showing that black families were just the same as white ones). But from the standpoint of being a decent human being, the idea that anyone's personal life is at all interesting or someone's business is ludicrous, and the things that are going on downthread (such as the gay-guessing and sexuality assumptions) just reinforce how little this country cares for privacy or the actual product being sold. If you are watching a film, you are buying the role, not the actor. If you are listening to an album, you are buying the music, not the musician. These people are, on the whole, in the realm of arts and my buying a Pete Yorn album or seeing a John Travolta film have nothing to do with their sexualities, perceived or otherwise, but rather because I like the product and appreciate their talents in delivering it; that people feel the need to challenge their sexualities or to invalidate their lifestyles is absurd, and that so many people feel that it is appropriate to do so in the threads of a site that usually delivers an empowering liberal, feminist message that often asks us to appreciate each other's choices and respect one another's lives makes me a bit sad and disappointed.
I think people would be better served minding their fucking business.
The fact that this article doesn't even acknowledge closeted lesbian actresses just goes to show how much worse it still is for the lesbian community in this country who seem to face issues with people even acknowledging their existence, let alone struggles.
@wtvr731: Totally. Consider Ellen Degeneres, who became a bigger name in Hollywood AFTER she came out. Coming out does not have to mean the death of your career, or a move to get more publicity, there is the Ellen-way, too. But yes, women are always pushed aside, even by the HBT-community. I think you also have to consider that women in Hollywood have to be sexy and desirable for men, if they come out there will always be resentment that they are not available for men anymore, or they will have to play on the male three-some-fantasy or the male "all she needs is a REAL man"-fantasy. Considering all that, I can more understand that Hollywood women stay in the closet as far as the public knows and have their relationships on the down low. I'm a lipstick lesbian who dates other lipsticks, and it creeps me out to no end that some men will use MY relationships with someone I love and chrish as mastubatory material
@wtvr731: Do you really think the struggles of gay women in an aggressively homophobic situation are as bad as gay men in the same scenario? I think that America is pretty much okay with lesbians; gay men, not so much.
@Dallifornia: I strongly disagree. Men, even gay men, benefit from male privilege. Sure, being gay is basically giving a big F-You to certain pillars of that privilege (the right to fuck women, primarily) but it doesn't go away. Lesbians don't have it worse than gay men, but they don't have it any better. When a woman is queer, she suffers not only for her gender (marginalized, subordinated) but also her sexuality (marginalized, subordinated). Look, for example, at so-called corrective rape. Several well-publicized cases have come out of South Africa, but it's present in America, too. While gay men may have to deal with the ramifications of (seemingly) rejecting the "brotherhood" of masculinity, women have to deal with the very serious dangers of implying that they don't need men in their lives. I mean, I can't tell you how many times I've gotten yelled at simply for politely turning down men's attempts at buying me drinks etc. But to suggest that I wouldn't want to sleep with them under any circumstance is like an invitation to get proven wrong.
In my experience, telling a bunch of straight men that I'm queer has ended up with either anger (weird, scary, unthought and explosive anger) about my rejection of men, or insane ickiness via objectification and requests to make out with a girl while any number of dudes watch. Getting fetishized and objectified isn't acceptance, though. It can be just as scary as the anger, and creepier. America, or Hollywood, is not ready to accept actual lesbians unless they are totally defanged and manage to make themselves the epitome of middle-of-the-road (like Ellen, who I totally love), or unless they are cool with dudes watching them kiss a girl, and liking it.
The concept of male-male gay sex makes straight men cringe and cry out in grossed-outness. The concept of lesbian sex makes straight men get creepily voyeuristic and sexual and masturbatory. Neither is worse, and neither is better. Please don't minimize the insane amounts of violence and harassment and invisibility queer women have to deal with daily by making it seem like because Katy Perry wrote a song about kissing girls, lesbians are cool with everybody. It doesn't work like that.
@wtvr731: Katy Perry set lesbians back at least ten years. That "Kissed a Girl" rip off (really it is: see the 1990's) is homophobic tripe and the "U R So Gay" song offend me so much I seethe every time I see her.
@Cimorene: Okay, I was just going from personal experience. Living in Alabama, the incredibly few lesbians are left alone or, as you said, fetishized. Gay guys, on the other hand, are actively called out, humiliated, and degraded in public and in private. I think that America reacts differently to Ellen than it does to Brokeback Mountain.
@Trulymadlyme: That... isn't how privilege works. You can't just stop having privilege. Gay men do not have straight privilege, but not having straight privilege isn't the same thing as not having male privilege.
Openly disregarding heteronormative privilege isn't the same thing as disregarding male privilege. Just like women can benefit from straight privilege by being straight, but lose it if they are queer, their status as women does not go away. (NB I'm talking about cisgendered people, because bringing in transfolk brings up a series of questions about cisprivilege and the vagaries of privileges given and taken away.)
@wtvr731: This seems to be standard in any discussion about homosexuality. Gay = gay and male, just like person = male. Even when they deviate from the norm, they're still the default.
I had a laugh recently when some idiot wrote about how risky the gay lifestyle is (disguising his religion-based homophobia as concern for other people's health) in a local paper and a reader pointed out that not only had his editorial ignored the existence of lesbian, his arguments basically promoted its adoption by women as a safety measure.
Why do people keep asserting that knowing a man is gay somehow diminishes his attractiveness or the ability for him to be an object of desire or fantasy?
I find gay men hot ALL THE TIME, I'd wager I find gay men attractive MORE of the time than straight men.
Knowing I have no shot means nothing, I also suppose its like men with lesbians...I can always think of "what if???" or "maybe he's not ALL gay..."
Men don't seem to be turned off when they find out women aren't into them, why is it any different with women?
I guess I just subscribe to if he's hot, he's hot.
Gay, straight, Asian, white, Haitian, whatever...I don't care.
I think it's the male viewers they're worried about. Hollywood A-list actors, leading men or not, are supposed to be alpha men who date starlets and models, drive cool cars, and are kind of a tough guy. Someone men look up to. Just like some straight guys are afraid to see naked or good-looking guys in porn, some are afraid or unable to admire a gay alpha male. It threatens them in a way that a gay man who plays indie or supporting role does not.
@Pantra: Yes. And also, when a hot A-list actor has a sex scene with a hot female in a movie, (straight) men are supposed to identify with the actor, and be all "Dude, go you, she's hot". I guess some straight guys who are easily threatened might be unable to do that if they knew the actor was gay.
When I first saw Neil Patrick Harris as Barney on How I Met Your Mother, I found him to be very sexually attractive. Now that I know he's gay, my attraction to him has not dimmed in the slightest. He has featured in more than one dream so my subconscious thinks he's hot too.
@LadyeJayne: I learned NPH was gay last year, and I haven't changed how I see his character Barney Stinson at all, all this knowledge has done for me is increase my opinion of how great an actor he is, because he plays the horny womanizer so well
There have been so many guys who are rumoured to be gay: Travolta, Cruise, Bradley Cooper, Will Smith, The Rock, Zachary Quinto, Jake Gyllenhaul, Vin Diesel, James Franco, George Clooney, Kevin Spacey, Dan Radcliffe...
Is there really someone out there who is so closeted that they would shock us if they came out?
@Island of Misfit Toys: Not Will Smith! It's not that I don't think he himself could be, but I'd be so sad to think that his marriage with Jada (which I admire tremendously for the mutual respect and honor they show one another) is in any way a front.
Does no one think it's Tom Cruise? My dad has been a huge proponent of that theory for like ten years now. I can see it. Tiny, crazy man. Two marriages easy to imagine as shams. I thought that was kind of a running joke (a la south park's "trapped in the closet" episode). I don't know; I personally don't/wouldn't give a shit.
EDIT: I'm sorry, I don't know what tiny and crazy have to do with being gay. I just sort of have this image of him as a tiny gay little insane pixie man. I'm not trying to enforce stereotypes, I swear!
@LaMorenita: I read that Scientiology doesn't even acknowledge the existence of homosexuality, so, knowing that they went as far as to frame someone for murder because she was opposing them, I can't even imagine the lengths they could go if their poster boy came out, not to mention the damage to her wife and kid.
I also read something lately about Travolta talking about coming out, but his lawyers talking him out because of this same thing.
@getitgurl_88: Seriously. And he's half of a pretty popular TV couple that had fans basically begging for them to get together. I don't think being gay would make a difference in terms of being a sex symbol, either -- look how many women go crazy for Adam Lambert, who, bless his heart, is the most flaming flamer ever to flame. As long as a guy can act, and is sexy and charismatic, he'll be fine.
@egg cream is here, is second tier, get used to it: See, I feel like the backlash will be more about the years of subterfuges and beards and pr stunts that *formed* a different image of him - rather than at the fact that someone is gay. Cause no one likes to feel manipulated!
Whomever becomes the first male A-list movie star to come out as not heterosexual, I hope it is someone whom no one expects. I want Perez Hilton to be blind-sided.
This culture of assuming someone's sexuality based on whether or not they wear tight pants, have "gayface," or happen to floss their teeth isn't doing anyone any favors. I worry that if most people can say, "duh," when the actor comes out, it will add legitimacy to the witch-hunt and make it easier for Hollywood to trivialize gay actors because, "he's, like, SO GAY."
Essentially, I think that Hollywood's biggest problem is with traditional gender norms, not homophobia, and the sooner we can separate those two in the public arena, the easier it will be for everyone to live the lives that they prefer, in and out of the bedroom.
Why are we such a society of voyeurs that we must know who everyone is fucking? I can see the benefits of outing someone or coming out for the sake of dispelling hypocrisy, but it really is no ones business who anyone has sex with gay or straight?
There is also the very obvious reason that gay stars would choose to stay closeted: Hollywood is a business that advances fantasy. People see movies to escape reality; actors are integral to that endeavor. If one knows for a fact that they can never be with that person then it likely is going to lessen the chance that general audiences are going to want to continue patronizing out actors.
If the goal is to make people more comfortable with gays in general then the way to do that is to show images of gay people in a favorable light, rather then as comedic cliches or lascivious villains. Otherwise keep out of the lives of others and worry about who you are getting it on with.
@looselushlucile: The problem is, we see these actors as themselves, at premieres, at awards shows, and now, thanks to TMZ and their ilk, getting coffee and having lunch and taking their dog to the groomer and going to the stinking Rite Aid.
So what happens when you're in the closet? You go to premieres alone and have to answer inane questions from Entertainment Tonight's talking heads about being a "single guy" and if you're looking for that special lady. You take your mother or sister to awards shows, not the person you're sharing your life and love with. The co-parent of your child(ren) is thanked in speeches as a friend, or without signifier at all. If you're getting the worst of the paparazzi stalking, it means having to go to all sorts of subterfuge to have someone over, or go to see someone, and if you're just starting a relationship, it's a double burden.
We've made it impossible for celebrities to separate "work" from "private life" in a lot of important ways. So saying "why does it matter" is disingenuous. We've all made it matter by supporting television shows, publications and websites (including Jezebel) that blur the work/life line to a point that it's all one. And what our quest for more information and more pictures and more chances to ogle end up representing for closeted celebs is oppression.
@Melatonin: Or you can just fake-marry someone. Doing what you say would not be very smart for someone in the closet because it'd be like carrying a huge sign saying "Hey look at me, I'm in the closet"
I think the quality of all roles in Hollywood will have to get a lot better for this to be possible.
Because right now, the only parts available are caricatures of straight sexuality. It's hard enough for a self-respecting straight person to get a decent role in Hollywood, becuase the characters they'd potentially play are one-dimensional, and because even if they WANTED to play them, almost nobody fits that mold perfectly. Nobody really is the "ultimate woman" or "ultimate man". So we have Gerard Butler and Megan Fox, the closest thing to what our society thinks straight men and women are and should be. They make us feel safe, I guess, because they are so sexually unambiguous. We are so deeply closeted as a nation that we are behaving like a 70's gay bar; we're aping exaggerated versions of icons of sexuality. We're a bunch of cowboys, cops, and marilyn monroe wannabees. An out gay person who was even attempting to play that role on a massive public scale would tear it apart and expose it for the facade that it is. If any little queer can pass as the embodiment of straight, what does that say about us?
We would have to start making movies that are about something OTHER than gender roles before a gay actor could be expected to come out. Because if they came out in the environment we're in now, it is guaranteed that they would have absolutely no job opportunities. Anyone can play any character if they are a good enough actor, but right now, actors aren't paid to play characters... they're paid to reaffirm gender identities. It would be great to see someone who is playing that game come out of the closet, since it would definitely turn the whole thing upside down, but it would require more bravery than can reasonably be expected...
The funny thing is NPH is doing exactly what I described. But it's on television... so it's easily ignored by those who don't want to see it.
10/10/09
10/10/09
I think people would be better served minding their fucking business.
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/10/09
10/10/09
10/10/09
In my experience, telling a bunch of straight men that I'm queer has ended up with either anger (weird, scary, unthought and explosive anger) about my rejection of men, or insane ickiness via objectification and requests to make out with a girl while any number of dudes watch. Getting fetishized and objectified isn't acceptance, though. It can be just as scary as the anger, and creepier. America, or Hollywood, is not ready to accept actual lesbians unless they are totally defanged and manage to make themselves the epitome of middle-of-the-road (like Ellen, who I totally love), or unless they are cool with dudes watching them kiss a girl, and liking it.
The concept of male-male gay sex makes straight men cringe and cry out in grossed-outness. The concept of lesbian sex makes straight men get creepily voyeuristic and sexual and masturbatory. Neither is worse, and neither is better. Please don't minimize the insane amounts of violence and harassment and invisibility queer women have to deal with daily by making it seem like because Katy Perry wrote a song about kissing girls, lesbians are cool with everybody. It doesn't work like that.
10/10/09
10/10/09
They are in fact fucked from a privilege standpoint because they are openly disregarding their hetronormative male privilege.
10/11/09
10/11/09
Openly disregarding heteronormative privilege isn't the same thing as disregarding male privilege. Just like women can benefit from straight privilege by being straight, but lose it if they are queer, their status as women does not go away. (NB I'm talking about cisgendered people, because bringing in transfolk brings up a series of questions about cisprivilege and the vagaries of privileges given and taken away.)
10/12/09
I had a laugh recently when some idiot wrote about how risky the gay lifestyle is (disguising his religion-based homophobia as concern for other people's health) in a local paper and a reader pointed out that not only had his editorial ignored the existence of lesbian, his arguments basically promoted its adoption by women as a safety measure.
10/09/09
I find gay men hot ALL THE TIME, I'd wager I find gay men attractive MORE of the time than straight men.
Knowing I have no shot means nothing, I also suppose its like men with lesbians...I can always think of "what if???" or "maybe he's not ALL gay..."
Men don't seem to be turned off when they find out women aren't into them, why is it any different with women?
I guess I just subscribe to if he's hot, he's hot.
Gay, straight, Asian, white, Haitian, whatever...I don't care.
10/10/09
10/10/09
10/09/09
10/10/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
Which is why, the day of the Pride parade is one of my favorite days of the year,.
10/10/09
10/09/09
Is there really someone out there who is so closeted that they would shock us if they came out?
10/09/09
I'd be very upset by Gyllenhaal. Unless team Gyllenhaal traded us Maggie to replace Jake.
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/10/09
10/09/09
EDIT: I'm sorry, I don't know what tiny and crazy have to do with being gay. I just sort of have this image of him as a tiny gay little insane pixie man. I'm not trying to enforce stereotypes, I swear!
10/10/09
I also read something lately about Travolta talking about coming out, but his lawyers talking him out because of this same thing.
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
This culture of assuming someone's sexuality based on whether or not they wear tight pants, have "gayface," or happen to floss their teeth isn't doing anyone any favors. I worry that if most people can say, "duh," when the actor comes out, it will add legitimacy to the witch-hunt and make it easier for Hollywood to trivialize gay actors because, "he's, like, SO GAY."
Essentially, I think that Hollywood's biggest problem is with traditional gender norms, not homophobia, and the sooner we can separate those two in the public arena, the easier it will be for everyone to live the lives that they prefer, in and out of the bedroom.
10/09/09
There is also the very obvious reason that gay stars would choose to stay closeted: Hollywood is a business that advances fantasy. People see movies to escape reality; actors are integral to that endeavor. If one knows for a fact that they can never be with that person then it likely is going to lessen the chance that general audiences are going to want to continue patronizing out actors.
If the goal is to make people more comfortable with gays in general then the way to do that is to show images of gay people in a favorable light, rather then as comedic cliches or lascivious villains. Otherwise keep out of the lives of others and worry about who you are getting it on with.
10/10/09
So what happens when you're in the closet? You go to premieres alone and have to answer inane questions from Entertainment Tonight's talking heads about being a "single guy" and if you're looking for that special lady. You take your mother or sister to awards shows, not the person you're sharing your life and love with. The co-parent of your child(ren) is thanked in speeches as a friend, or without signifier at all. If you're getting the worst of the paparazzi stalking, it means having to go to all sorts of subterfuge to have someone over, or go to see someone, and if you're just starting a relationship, it's a double burden.
We've made it impossible for celebrities to separate "work" from "private life" in a lot of important ways. So saying "why does it matter" is disingenuous. We've all made it matter by supporting television shows, publications and websites (including Jezebel) that blur the work/life line to a point that it's all one. And what our quest for more information and more pictures and more chances to ogle end up representing for closeted celebs is oppression.
10/10/09
10/09/09
Because right now, the only parts available are caricatures of straight sexuality. It's hard enough for a self-respecting straight person to get a decent role in Hollywood, becuase the characters they'd potentially play are one-dimensional, and because even if they WANTED to play them, almost nobody fits that mold perfectly. Nobody really is the "ultimate woman" or "ultimate man". So we have Gerard Butler and Megan Fox, the closest thing to what our society thinks straight men and women are and should be. They make us feel safe, I guess, because they are so sexually unambiguous. We are so deeply closeted as a nation that we are behaving like a 70's gay bar; we're aping exaggerated versions of icons of sexuality. We're a bunch of cowboys, cops, and marilyn monroe wannabees. An out gay person who was even attempting to play that role on a massive public scale would tear it apart and expose it for the facade that it is. If any little queer can pass as the embodiment of straight, what does that say about us?
We would have to start making movies that are about something OTHER than gender roles before a gay actor could be expected to come out. Because if they came out in the environment we're in now, it is guaranteed that they would have absolutely no job opportunities. Anyone can play any character if they are a good enough actor, but right now, actors aren't paid to play characters... they're paid to reaffirm gender identities. It would be great to see someone who is playing that game come out of the closet, since it would definitely turn the whole thing upside down, but it would require more bravery than can reasonably be expected...
The funny thing is NPH is doing exactly what I described. But it's on television... so it's easily ignored by those who don't want to see it.
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09