LGBTQ+ in Hollywood

[forgetful]

bstewart said:

And we certainly can't go 30 seconds on an entertainment news feature without mention of this coded heterosexuality. I hope this is a phase, this seemingly all-encompassing obsession with the nonheterosexuality of performers. Until, at least, calling someone "gay" is as harmless -- and as dull -- as calling them "straight".

Very well stated.

I just feel bad for him, no one should be forced to share private information with the public.

[girlnamedcarl]

no one should be forced to share private information with the public

See, my problem with this -- and it's probably something I'll blog about later in my ANTM recap -- is that sexuality is only considered "private" if you're not straight. If you're straight, hey! Wear that wedding ring with pride, hold hands in public, dish with Entertainment Tonight about your SO -- or invent a relationship completely, if you're Jessica Simpson. But if you're not straight, suddenly it's a private matter that nobody has to (read: wants to) know about.

I'm not slamming you, forgetful; I don't think you're being anti-gay at all. It's just part of a larger social message that being non-straight is something to keep to yourself, which implies that there's something shameful about it.

[thetigs]

See, and for me, I don't care about the relationships of others in Hollywood, unless there is something horrible happening (like the Charlie/Denise divorce drama) or to laugh (like Jessica Simpson and her pretend boyfriends). It's why I never really post in the celebrity threads when it's about relationships. I never get too worked up about who is dating whom, so it doesn't matter to me if the person is straight or gay. I realize that I'm probably an exception, but I wish that it didn't matter regarding a person's sexuality. What people do in the bedroom is their business.

[laconicchick]

girlnamedcarl said:

no one should be forced to share private information with the public

See, my problem with this -- and it's probably something I'll blog about later in my ANTM recap -- is that sexuality is only considered "private" if you're not straight. If you're straight, hey! Wear that wedding ring with pride, hold hands in public, dish with Entertainment Tonight about your SO -- or invent a relationship completely, if you're Jessica Simpson. But if you're not straight, suddenly it's a private matter that nobody has to (read: wants to) know about.

I'm not slamming you, forgetful; I don't think you're being anti-gay at all. It's just part of a larger social message that being non-straight is something to keep to yourself, which implies that there's something shameful about it.

I agree. On the one hand, it shouldn't be an issue at all and it shouldn't be the only thing talked about (of course, we're not there yet), but on the other hand, it shouldn't be something that has to be kept private. It's a tough line.

[forgetful]

girlnamedcarl said:

no one should be forced to share private information with the public

See, my problem with this -- and it's probably something I'll blog about later in my ANTM recap -- is that sexuality is only considered "private" if you're not straight. If you're straight, hey! Wear that wedding ring with pride, hold hands in public, dish with Entertainment Tonight about your SO -- or invent a relationship completely, if you're Jessica Simpson. But if you're not straight, suddenly it's a private matter that nobody has to (read: wants to) know about.

I'm not slamming you, forgetful; I don't think you're being anti-gay at all. It's just part of a larger social message that being non-straight is something to keep to yourself, which implies that there's something shameful about it.

I don't feel slammed at all. I think you make a very good point.

[Deleted]

See, my problem with this -- and it's probably something I'll blog about later in my ANTM recap -- is that sexuality is only considered "private" if you're not straight. If you're straight, hey! Wear that wedding ring with pride, hold hands in public, dish with Entertainment Tonight about your SO -- or invent a relationship completely, if you're Jessica Simpson. But if you're not straight, suddenly it's a private matter that nobody has to (read: wants to) know about.

I get your point but if someone doesn't want that information leaked , then their wishes should be respected. It's sad that they would feel the need to keep it private, though.

[kafka]

girlnamedcarl said:

See, my problem with this -- and it's probably something I'll blog about later in my ANTM recap -- is that sexuality is only considered "private" if you're not straight. If you're straight, hey! Wear that wedding ring with pride, hold hands in public, dish with Entertainment Tonight about your SO -- or invent a relationship completely, if you're Jessica Simpson. But if you're not straight, suddenly it's a private matter that nobody has to (read: wants to) know about.

GNC, you're right that there is a difference and how it indirectly seems to imply that there is something shameful about gay. And BStewart is right too about the coded heterosexuality that bombards us constantly in the media. It's no different than the "Toothpick Thin is Beautiful" message which women get from the fashion industry, fashion magazines and more.

But what I was thinking of when I initially made the point about "outing" people was "Toothy Tile." What is being done to Jake G. with the barrage of smirky BI stuff is just terrible. I think it should be up to the celeb in question to choose to reveal things; it shouldn't be Ted C's or Perez's choice. It's not always easy for some to come out of the closet and, obviously, it should be. But we don't like in a world where "gay" doesn't matter and is just another personal characteristic like hair colour, eye colour, dimples, etc.

So, until we do, it should be up to Jake G. or TR Knight to decide what they are ready to reveal. It shouldn't be the result of some 3rd party in the media bullying or hectoring them into it. It should be about personal choice.

I can understand the hypocrisy issue raised earlier, as in the example of Tom Cruise but, as in all things associated with the Tiny Loon, I think he's rather a special case.

[Deleted]

I get your point but if someone doesn't want that information leaked , then their wishes should be respected.

The difference is, though, that it's not respected when it comes to the banality of heterosexual coupling, not at all. We don't rush to defend, say, Brad and Angelina's privacy, do we? (Well, I don't). If homosexuals truly want equality across the board, they have to expect no special treatment when it comes to their romantic entanglements. Equality's not a smorgasbord from which you can pick and choose special treatments as suits your career arc or time of day.

Closeted performers enjoy the benefits of all the efforts for which out homos have risked a considerable amount of "privacy". They operate in the homosexual milieu but expect us to seal our lips when they want act straight to ascend to the sociocultural and economic stratosphere. I'm disinclined to blow the whistle on all but the most odious liars, but I shan't leap to play along, either.

But that's just me.

ETA: Above written before Kafka's post. I agree. Jake's done nothing to deserve sniggering innuendo (insert double-entendre here). I'll admit to wishful thinking in that regard, though. Regarding TR Knight, for some reason I got the impression that he's actually happy that the turn of events has led to his public coming-out. Dunno why, but he seems... less-burdened and more personally-happy. Duh, right?

[lisaben]

Hey, here's something that annoys me.

Celebrity: "So after I spent my childhood being beaten by my abusive, drunken father and molested by the local priest, I had to work two jobs to pay for my mother's bipolar medication and bail money along with my hooker-sister's abortions."

Interviewer: "Fascinating. So, girls or boys?"

Celebrity (indignant): "I don't discuss my personal life!"

[kafka]

bstewart said:

If homosexuals truly want equality across the board, they have to expect no special treatment when it comes to their romantic entanglements. Equality's not a smorgasbord from which you can pick and choose special treatments as suits your career arc or time of day.

Closeted performers enjoy the benefits of all the efforts for which out homos have risked a considerable amount of "privacy". They operate in the homosexual milieu but expect us to seal our lips when they want act straight to ascend to the sociocultural and economic stratosphere.

I definitely understand your perspective, BStewart, and I think your arguments have a lot of weight. I'm torn though. I can't stand bullying and I think it's important for people to make the choice about it themselves. But without the bullying or innuendoes would they ever come out? Those who have come out, how often was it precisely because of the chorus of whispered rumours? For every Rupert Everett or Ian McKellan -- men who are open about their sexual orientation while being successful, as opposed to decades after the fact --- you have many more who stay quiet. Or admit being gay only when seemingly forced out of the closet.*

I don't know. The bullying/coercion aspect of things just sticks in my craw and I'm having difficulty getting passed it.


*--- Did Mike Meyers come out because of the BI comments about him, or was that just coincidental timing? I can't remember now.