I do wonder how people will feel if it turns out he's straight. But not much, because so far as I know there's not yet a meter to measure where someone is on the Kinsey Scale. Which is likely just as well, or the Inquirer and ilk would likely administer secret tests and publish the results.
Alternatively, I do kinda wonder about parallels; he was secretly Jewish in the Thirties or Forties, and was desperately afraid to have that publically revealed, since he worried that his career as a movie star would be hurt due to anti-Semitism (make it Clark Gable if you have time dissonance).
So people thought it was just hilarious to make jokes about how he was really really Christian, and certainly not a Jew.
Would that be as funny? Or perhaps he was a passing "black" person (same time period). Jokes about how very white he certainly was became the rage. You get the idea.
I know I'm a killjoy, but these are the thoughts that occur to me, I'm afraid. Sorry about the killjoy thing.
A lot of the humor comes from the fact that Cruise is Cruise, not that he's gay or straight. Richard Gere, for example, is practically pop-synonymous with having cute little animals shoved up his ass, but he doesn't threaten to sue for $20mil whenever someone mentions it. Cruise, to me, is a control freak always on the edge of total meltdown, and being a closeted homosexual, or nutty Scientologist, both play into that image nicely.
Plus, I think a lot of people derive a particularly perverse pleasure in noting that Tom Cruise, who was a heartthrob before demonstrated that he's a bit of a weirdo, might be gay and therefore all the women who swooned after him swooned in vain. In vain!
Plus, I think ogged's right that Cruise's reaction to it feeds the flames (and makes it funny); it happens to other actors, and when they shrug it off, it goes away.
I think #3 and #5 are why the jokes are so widespread, but people joke about others (Keanu, Gyllenhaal, I've heard Travolta) in the same fashion.
But, really, the only people who make jokes are those who don't believe teh gay is a bad thing. His job is to be (like Keanu) a blank slate, on which we can hang our own particular fantasies. So he can't openly admit it, but we don't hold our suspicions against him, and we don't stop going to his movies because of them.
Moreover, he's worth a kajillion dollars. If the Jewish Clark Gable were worth a kajillion dollars, I'd have felt entirely within the bounds of decency to make jokes about it.
"A lot of the humor comes from the fact that Cruise is Cruise, not that he's gay or straight."
Y'know, I was sure you were going to say that.
But for me, that would be making fun of him for being crazy on Oprah or his Scientologist rantings. Absolutely fair game, all of that, in my book.
"But, really, the only people who make jokes are those who don't believe teh gay is a bad thing."
There's been a survey?
Mind, I'm very uncomfortable making even the mildest comment on this sort of issue, because I really don't want Ogged to think I'm tearing into him, or that I'm accusing him of being a homophobe, or anything like that.
At the moment, I'm tired enough that I'll just leave it there for the time being.
I do think his Oprah-craziness and Scientology-ravings are connected to the repressed homosexuality, in that it's all part of the package. More specifically, it's all part of the real Cruise, or the Cruise we suspect exists, under the enormous multi-zillion-dollar facade.
Tom Cruise wants the world to see himself in such a particular way - the perfectly-formed movie star with the perfect girlfriend and the perfect life shaped by the perfect philosophy - and he projects this image so forcefully and so aggressively, with the aid of a personal PR machine, that we naturally resent it. We live our own lives, for the most part, with our own flaws and foibles exposed to the people around us; that a kazillionaire can make a living off showing his image to the world while simultaneously concealing all his imperfections kind of pisses us off.
So we do we get a giddy thrill whenever we're reminded that he's turned his girlfriend into a robot, that his religion is a crazy cult, that the man himself is transparently bonkers, or that, contrary to his polished whitebread image, he might actually be gay. Is this petty? Sure. But there's nothing all that deep about throwing tomatoes at celebrities.
First off, let me say this: to be clear, I think Ogged's post was actually reasonably tasteful, insofar as it could be, and inoffensive. My comments have moved off onto a generalized topic, and are not intended to be read as any sort of condemnation or scolding of this post of Ogged's. They're intended, at least, to be read as comments on the general topics of how we treat celebrities.
"So we do we get a giddy thrill whenever we're reminded that he's turned his girlfriend into a robot, that his religion is a crazy cult, that the man himself is transparently bonkers, or that, contrary to his polished whitebread image, he might actually be gay. Is this petty? Sure. But there's nothing all that deep about throwing tomatoes at celebrities."
I don't disagree with any of this. Although I'll point out that the same exact defense is available for my analogies of making jokes about a celebrity of the past's hidden Negritude or kikeyness. Is that still a hoot?
I just have this weird and wacky, but fairly embedded, apparently, feeling and view that no matter how great a celebrity one is, if it doesn't involve being a politician hypocritical to one's policies, there are things about people's private lives that should be off-limits in the sense, and only in the sense, that to violate their privacy in said areas, is extremely tacky.
Sexuality, in a day and age where society is still full of endless neurosis, anxiety, and most of all, social and political repression of it, would be at the top of the list. (Another might be whether someone had an abortion or not; that's also a hilarious topic, right?; how about a secret miscarriage? -- wacky stuff? -- secret tragic death of an infant child -- that would be so funny, too.) It's not a very long list.
I tend to feel that even the most obnoxious celebrity is still a real human being, and there should still be certain limits to how cruelly one treats them and how much one should invade their privacy, or attempt to. It's just a part of human decency, it seems to me.
As I said, I'm all for mocking Mr. Cruise about his bizareness, and, in general, absolutely anything whatever he does in public.
But why the fuck should anyone else care about his private sex life? Would you brush off international mockery of your supposed sex life, based purely on speculation?
Tom Cruise may be an insane jerk, and by consciously taking the choice to lead a public life, he's fair game for anything he does in public.
But there are still lines. Or I think there should be. Celebrities are not, it turns out, cartoon characters existing solely on Access Hollywood. They're humans, just like you, just like your siblings, your parents, your children, your friends.
I don't see why it should matter to anyone what sort of fiddly bits he may prefer to have fun with, on which days, in which combinations, to what level of passion, so long as he doesn't do it in the streets and frighten the horses.
Maybe I'm just channeling my schoolyard feelings again and remembering the pleasures of being mocked as a faggot, and trying to rationalize my own irrational feelings. Perhaps.
Anyway, it's either something to think about, or it isn't. It's not as if I'm calling for an end to cock jokes here.
Although anyone who makes them so much clearly has deep anxiety issues about sex, and probably all sorts of repressed feelings they can't deal with, and it comes out via constant nervous jokes because of their nonstop worries and fears and sense of desperation. Hahaha, I made a joke! See what I did? Jokes about people's sex lives are funny!
Gary, I think he becomes fair game when he works so hard to flaunt his heteroness. For all the fuss, it can't be that hard, really, for a celeb to avoid obsessive media interest in their private lives; the ones who get it are the ones who court it. You don't hear countless breathless stories about how Kevin Spacey is gay; he doesn't court celebrity; he's just a good actor. If you make a big point of trying to raise your stock by making yourself not just an actor, but a star, you know exactly what you're getting yourself into.
And actually, I think in your examples, the blackness or Jewishness of the actor would be funny, *if* the actor is aggressively trying to claim white or WASP privelege. If they're just quietly not mentioning it; that's one thing, but if they're jumping on couches Oprah when they talk about the exclusive country clubs they attend and how their parents never expressed anger (okay, so I'm having trouble carrying this analogy through...), then joke away. In fact, a sort of joke that was, in fact, told in my family when I was growing up was to call celebrities by their given, Jewish names: Wynona Ryder is Wynona Horowitz, for example.
It's not the truth that's being mocked; it's the pretense.
"It's not the truth that's being mocked; it's the pretense."
If we lived in a society where gay people had full civil rights, I'd completely agree; being gay would then be absolutely as innocent a thing to mock as anything else.
We don't live there.
If we lived in a society where Tom Cruise could, assuming it were true, stand up at a press conference and say "I want to say that I'm gay! Flamingly gay! I hold private shows for gay friends wherein I reinact my most famous scene from Risky Business! I worship Judy Garland! Love me and my gayness!" and then his career went on the same way, unaffected, the next day, you'd be completely right.
We don't live there.
Does anyone want to argue that if, in fact, Tom Cruise did the above, that his career would not, in fact, be hurt?
If so, please name, oh, say, three famous gay male action stars.
If you can't, the above argument is wrong. It's an argument for the validity of picking on a persecuted person, one grossly discriminated against by societly, and without the same legal rights to marry as the majority population, for not accepting damaging his career.
It's no one's business to out Tom Cruise if he's gay. That's his choice. Alone.
And for anyone else to say they have the right is to be, in my opinion, unacceptably arrogant. No one else has that right.
"And actually, I think in your examples, the blackness or Jewishness of the actor would be funny, *if* the actor is aggressively trying to claim white or WASP privelege."
Oh, absolutely. Sure. Those damn people should just accept not being to live where they'd like, to not be able to get jobs they desire, to be lynched, and beaten and killed.
Hilarious.
I can't believe anyone would say that. Amazing. Did you actually read what I wrote, and note the postulated time frame?
"In fact, a sort of joke that was, in fact, told in my family when I was growing up was to call celebrities by their given, Jewish names: Wynona Ryder is Wynona Horowitz, for example."
I was unaware that Winona (not "Wynona:") is now sixty and seventy years old. I'm thinking you really didn't read what I wrote. That's gotta be it.
"If you make a big point of trying to raise your stock by making yourself not just an actor, but a star, you know exactly what you're getting yourself into."
So you're saying that famous people have no right to be closeted? The marriages, the kids, he should have known better than to make such a petty, careless, effort, to keep his private life private? But despite that, there's a right to out him via mockery?
May you never become famous. May you never have anyone treat you with such lack of empathy.
Lastly: all of this is dependent upon the postulate that Tom Cruise is, in fact, gay. If not, then what's the defense?
And if you don't know, then either you are, in effect, outing someone against their will, or spreading a falsehood.
Either way: way to go. Morally impressive indeed. But funny.
I do wonder how people will feel if it turns out he's straight. But not much, because so far as I know there's not yet a meter to measure where someone is on the Kinsey Scale. Which is likely just as well, or the Inquirer and ilk would likely administer secret tests and publish the results.
Alternatively, I do kinda wonder about parallels; he was secretly Jewish in the Thirties or Forties, and was desperately afraid to have that publically revealed, since he worried that his career as a movie star would be hurt due to anti-Semitism (make it Clark Gable if you have time dissonance).
So people thought it was just hilarious to make jokes about how he was really really Christian, and certainly not a Jew.
Would that be as funny? Or perhaps he was a passing "black" person (same time period). Jokes about how very white he certainly was became the rage. You get the idea.
I know I'm a killjoy, but these are the thoughts that occur to me, I'm afraid. Sorry about the killjoy thing.
However, each paragraph has tbe individually struck.
Alternatively, I do kinda wonder about parallels; he was secretly Jewish in the Thirties or Forties, and was desperately afraid to have that publically revealed, since he worried that his career as a movie star would be hurt due to anti-Semitism (make it Clark Gable if you have time dissonance).....
So people thought it was just hilarious to make jokes about how he was really really Christian, and certainly not a Jew. Would that be as funny? Or perhaps he was a passing "black" person (same time period). Jokes about how very white he certainly was became the rage..... You get the idea. I know I'm a killjoy, but these are the thoughts that occur to me, I'm afraid. Sorry about the killjoy thing.
Gary, I'd encourage you to read (if you haven't) a book by Michaelangelo Signorile, Queer in America. Signorile is a gay activist, the book is simultaneously a personal memoir about growing up gay and an examination of his personal beliefs about outing. Signorile was at the forefront of the Outing movement in the early 90s, and his position (recalled from my reading the book 10 years ago, so there may be some mistakes in my recall) goes roughly like this:
Private citizens (non-public figures) have the right to remain closeted.
Public figures who don't actively harm other gays through their actions or speech have the right to remain closeted.
However, public figures that do actively harm other gays through word or deed (especially politicians involved in anti-gay legislation, or those who fund anti-gay organizations), should be outed.
Scientology is an organization that offers to "fix" gays and make them straight--its position, as laid down by its founder, is that gays are deviants that should be locked up. (Google "Scientology" and "gay.") Tom Cruise gives millions to Scientology.
Now, you may choose to believe that Signorile's rules of engagement are overly harsh. By my lights, they're more than fair. Cruise is fair game.
I was just assuming the same level of prejudice for a Jewish or black star that a gay star could expect to meet today. I thought the point of the analogy was that we know it's not okay to make fun of Jewish and black people (i.e., it was one of those "fill black into this sentence and see if it seems offensive"). Suffice it to say, I don't worry much about Tom Cruise getting lynched. I don't even worry about him not getting jobs; rampant speculation hasn't hurt him thus far. I didn't say there was never a reason to try to pass (as whatever), depending on the severity of the prejudice you would meet by being out. Plenty of gay actors aren't out; but are also not trumpeting their straightness from every hilltop. And actually, Jodie Foster is an example of a gay action star of sorts, though naturally, the shifts in expectations work differently for lesbians. If you make a huge point of trying to force people into admiring your excessive endowment with all the virtues the priveleged class is supposed to possess, to the point of orchestrating a sham marriage which you talk about at every turn, in every interview, you are, as a practical matter, inviting speculation as to why you are putting on such a show, and as a moral matter, if you make a huge spectacle of yourself at every turn, not for self-protection, really, but for self-aggrandizement, then no, I don't have a moral problem with speculating about the truth behind the show.
And once again, Tom Cruise didn't just "become" famous. He was not a passive bystander in the process of his personal life becoming interesting to millions of people. All his professional life, he's invited attention to his personal life as a facet of his stardom and that's only intensified recently. There are lots of Hollywood actors who manage to lead relatively private lives, even though their lives have dramas too.
Scientology is an organization that offers to "fix" gays and make them straight--
Ah, this explains things to me, including why someone I know insists that Cruise and Travolta, among other celebs, give millions of dollars to Scientology.
"Gary, I'd encourage you to read (if you haven't) a book by Michaelangelo Signorile, Queer in America."
Certainly I've read it. I despise Scientology, but aside from the fact that no one so far has actually outed Tom, I'd say that outing him to strike back at his support for Scientology is too far a connection for me; this is, however, a position, that reasonable people could disagree about, and I have no problem with that. And if anyone ever outs Tom, and explains they did it to hurt Scientology, that would certainly be a relevant explanation and attempted justification.
However, as an after-the-fact attempt at justifying making jokes at him, it's clearly, um, not available retroactively.
"Ah, this explains things to me...."
For what it's worth, I know several Scientologists, and none of them are gay; I know a fair amount about Scientology, and assuming that someone joined because of gayness would be completely fallacious.
Why is it people think that because someone is a celebrity, one can treat them far worse than any decent person would ever treat anyone they knew who hadn't personally caused them harm? There's some mechanism clearly at work in which they're dehumanized in the eyes of many. That's my primary issue here, but I've said probably all I have to say.
Tia, thanks for your response, and I have nothing further to say that wouldn't be repetitious, so thanks for your thoughts.
Part of scientology is that you confess everthing to the religion which can then effectively blackmail you into remaining in the religion. The 1991 Time cover story on scientology speculated that this was being done to Travolta who would otherwise leave scientology.
Gary, you keep doing this, and it keeps bugging me, but there's a small chance you're not completely wrong: what one would say in "public" is different from what one would say among like-minded friends. It would not be funny to make Tom Cruise is Gay jokes to a homophobic audience, but it is funny to make them to a non-homophobic audience. I understand that anyone can read the blog, but anyone doesn't; a very small, well-educated, mostly urban, very cool and good-looking subset of the population does.
"Gary, you keep doing this, and it keeps bugging me...."
What's the "this"? Anyway, I said I was finished with this topic. But, of course, I was done in #1, until people argued with me, and then I was done again in #12 until the same.
But this is mildly interesting: "...what one would say in 'public' is different from what one would say among like-minded friends."
Where would you draw the line, then? Would a certain number of hits per day do it for you? Or what? And how exactly are you judging how many people will have, say, read this comment thread ten years from now? What if, say, The New York Times puts in a link tomorrow, or in six years, because it's thought relevant to a story?
Because "but anyone doesn't" might make some sense to me if, say, all the content was wiped at the end of a week or a month, but how do you know this won't be picked up for for a worldwide telepathic redistribution in twenty years? In other words, present tense doesn't seem to a relevant limit to whom you're addressing, or more to the point, whom is listening. Maybe a nice neo-Nazi site will pick up all the Mineshaft jokes tomorrow. Who the hell knows? How can you think you're addressing a small circle of friends on a non-password-protected system accessible to everyone on the world wide wub? I mean, if I were judging who read my blog by who leaves comments, apparently almost no one reads me; but I know that isn't at all true. How many hits do you get on a good day? Who are they? Mostly people who comment? I'm guessing not, but maybe I'm wrong, and it's only 40 or so people reading you. I really doubt that, is all I can say.
Not that I'm trying to get you to self-censor, or change your tone, or stop being yourself; were you to do that, I know you'd rapidly lose interest and stop blogging, or go off and start a LiveJournal instead, and I very very very much don't want that. But I do have to question your premise, because you've put it in front of me.
I mean, when you first linked to me, and I became Your Very First Commenter, did I know I was addressing you?
Taking things said to the Unfogged crowd and looking at them through the lens of man-on-the-street, or population-at-large. I assume that regular readers are much like regular commenters, and take these posts in the spirit in which they're intended. So I think it's a good bet that I'm not feeding the great homophobic beast by making Cruise is Gay jokes. If there are some readers whose homophobia is braced by what they take to be my like-minded musings, I can live with that. That small contribution to the evil of the world isn't enough to make me stop making Tom Cruise is Gay jokes.
And yes, I take this as an argument with a friend. A cantankerous, humorless friend.
I assume that regular readers are much like regular commenters
I think this attitude is part of why unfogged has such a great feeling of just a funny group of friends, even if for those who aren't regular commenters.
I think it's also why I, for one, have such a strong reaction when you post something that seems really wrong-headed. (Like about the men who are afraid of vaginas, I mean watching birth). It violates the implicit agreement in the writing and commenting.
I do wonder how people will feel if it turns out he's straight. But not much, because so far as I know there's not yet a meter to measure where someone is on the Kinsey Scale. Which is likely just as well, or the Inquirer and ilk would likely administer secret tests and publish the results.
Alternatively, I do kinda wonder about parallels; he was secretly Jewish in the Thirties or Forties, and was desperately afraid to have that publically revealed, since he worried that his career as a movie star would be hurt due to anti-Semitism (make it Clark Gable if you have time dissonance).
So people thought it was just hilarious to make jokes about how he was really really Christian, and certainly not a Jew.
Would that be as funny? Or perhaps he was a passing "black" person (same time period). Jokes about how very white he certainly was became the rage. You get the idea.
I know I'm a killjoy, but these are the thoughts that occur to me, I'm afraid. Sorry about the killjoy thing.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 08-25-05 9:42 PM
Questions of a jokes funniness are, and should be, divorced from the morality of making it.
If you don't accept that, my second (not necessarily inconsistent) proposal is that empirically, the two are inversely correlated.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 08-25-05 9:58 PM
A lot of the humor comes from the fact that Cruise is Cruise, not that he's gay or straight. Richard Gere, for example, is practically pop-synonymous with having cute little animals shoved up his ass, but he doesn't threaten to sue for $20mil whenever someone mentions it. Cruise, to me, is a control freak always on the edge of total meltdown, and being a closeted homosexual, or nutty Scientologist, both play into that image nicely.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-25-05 10:14 PM
My bad, $100mil.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-25-05 10:17 PM
Plus, I think a lot of people derive a particularly perverse pleasure in noting that Tom Cruise, who was a heartthrob before demonstrated that he's a bit of a weirdo, might be gay and therefore all the women who swooned after him swooned in vain. In vain!
Plus, I think ogged's right that Cruise's reaction to it feeds the flames (and makes it funny); it happens to other actors, and when they shrug it off, it goes away.
(Can you do strikeouts? What's the tag?)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-25-05 10:28 PM
strike
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 08-25-05 10:36 PM
<strike> </strike>
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 08-25-05 10:38 PM
I think #3 and #5 are why the jokes are so widespread, but people joke about others (Keanu, Gyllenhaal, I've heard Travolta) in the same fashion.
But, really, the only people who make jokes are those who don't believe teh gay is a bad thing. His job is to be (like Keanu) a blank slate, on which we can hang our own particular fantasies. So he can't openly admit it, but we don't hold our suspicions against him, and we don't stop going to his movies because of them.
Moreover, he's worth a kajillion dollars. If the Jewish Clark Gable were worth a kajillion dollars, I'd have felt entirely within the bounds of decency to make jokes about it.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08-25-05 10:42 PM
Re 5
not in vain. You can still get married to him but he is booked through 2010.
Posted by joe o | Link to this comment | 08-25-05 11:20 PM
"A lot of the humor comes from the fact that Cruise is Cruise, not that he's gay or straight."
Y'know, I was sure you were going to say that.
But for me, that would be making fun of him for being crazy on Oprah or his Scientologist rantings. Absolutely fair game, all of that, in my book.
"But, really, the only people who make jokes are those who don't believe teh gay is a bad thing."
There's been a survey?
Mind, I'm very uncomfortable making even the mildest comment on this sort of issue, because I really don't want Ogged to think I'm tearing into him, or that I'm accusing him of being a homophobe, or anything like that.
At the moment, I'm tired enough that I'll just leave it there for the time being.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 08-25-05 11:28 PM
I do think his Oprah-craziness and Scientology-ravings are connected to the repressed homosexuality, in that it's all part of the package. More specifically, it's all part of the real Cruise, or the Cruise we suspect exists, under the enormous multi-zillion-dollar facade.
Tom Cruise wants the world to see himself in such a particular way - the perfectly-formed movie star with the perfect girlfriend and the perfect life shaped by the perfect philosophy - and he projects this image so forcefully and so aggressively, with the aid of a personal PR machine, that we naturally resent it. We live our own lives, for the most part, with our own flaws and foibles exposed to the people around us; that a kazillionaire can make a living off showing his image to the world while simultaneously concealing all his imperfections kind of pisses us off.
So we do we get a giddy thrill whenever we're reminded that he's turned his girlfriend into a robot, that his religion is a crazy cult, that the man himself is transparently bonkers, or that, contrary to his polished whitebread image, he might actually be gay. Is this petty? Sure. But there's nothing all that deep about throwing tomatoes at celebrities.
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 08-26-05 6:00 AM
First off, let me say this: to be clear, I think Ogged's post was actually reasonably tasteful, insofar as it could be, and inoffensive. My comments have moved off onto a generalized topic, and are not intended to be read as any sort of condemnation or scolding of this post of Ogged's. They're intended, at least, to be read as comments on the general topics of how we treat celebrities.
"So we do we get a giddy thrill whenever we're reminded that he's turned his girlfriend into a robot, that his religion is a crazy cult, that the man himself is transparently bonkers, or that, contrary to his polished whitebread image, he might actually be gay. Is this petty? Sure. But there's nothing all that deep about throwing tomatoes at celebrities."
I don't disagree with any of this. Although I'll point out that the same exact defense is available for my analogies of making jokes about a celebrity of the past's hidden Negritude or kikeyness. Is that still a hoot?
I just have this weird and wacky, but fairly embedded, apparently, feeling and view that no matter how great a celebrity one is, if it doesn't involve being a politician hypocritical to one's policies, there are things about people's private lives that should be off-limits in the sense, and only in the sense, that to violate their privacy in said areas, is extremely tacky.
Sexuality, in a day and age where society is still full of endless neurosis, anxiety, and most of all, social and political repression of it, would be at the top of the list. (Another might be whether someone had an abortion or not; that's also a hilarious topic, right?; how about a secret miscarriage? -- wacky stuff? -- secret tragic death of an infant child -- that would be so funny, too.) It's not a very long list.
I tend to feel that even the most obnoxious celebrity is still a real human being, and there should still be certain limits to how cruelly one treats them and how much one should invade their privacy, or attempt to. It's just a part of human decency, it seems to me.
As I said, I'm all for mocking Mr. Cruise about his bizareness, and, in general, absolutely anything whatever he does in public.
But why the fuck should anyone else care about his private sex life? Would you brush off international mockery of your supposed sex life, based purely on speculation?
Tom Cruise may be an insane jerk, and by consciously taking the choice to lead a public life, he's fair game for anything he does in public.
But there are still lines. Or I think there should be. Celebrities are not, it turns out, cartoon characters existing solely on Access Hollywood. They're humans, just like you, just like your siblings, your parents, your children, your friends.
I don't see why it should matter to anyone what sort of fiddly bits he may prefer to have fun with, on which days, in which combinations, to what level of passion, so long as he doesn't do it in the streets and frighten the horses.
Maybe I'm just channeling my schoolyard feelings again and remembering the pleasures of being mocked as a faggot, and trying to rationalize my own irrational feelings. Perhaps.
Anyway, it's either something to think about, or it isn't. It's not as if I'm calling for an end to cock jokes here.
Although anyone who makes them so much clearly has deep anxiety issues about sex, and probably all sorts of repressed feelings they can't deal with, and it comes out via constant nervous jokes because of their nonstop worries and fears and sense of desperation. Hahaha, I made a joke! See what I did? Jokes about people's sex lives are funny!
I hope my banning won't last long.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 08-26-05 11:35 AM
Gary, I think he becomes fair game when he works so hard to flaunt his heteroness. For all the fuss, it can't be that hard, really, for a celeb to avoid obsessive media interest in their private lives; the ones who get it are the ones who court it. You don't hear countless breathless stories about how Kevin Spacey is gay; he doesn't court celebrity; he's just a good actor. If you make a big point of trying to raise your stock by making yourself not just an actor, but a star, you know exactly what you're getting yourself into.
And actually, I think in your examples, the blackness or Jewishness of the actor would be funny, *if* the actor is aggressively trying to claim white or WASP privelege. If they're just quietly not mentioning it; that's one thing, but if they're jumping on couches Oprah when they talk about the exclusive country clubs they attend and how their parents never expressed anger (okay, so I'm having trouble carrying this analogy through...), then joke away. In fact, a sort of joke that was, in fact, told in my family when I was growing up was to call celebrities by their given, Jewish names: Wynona Ryder is Wynona Horowitz, for example.
It's not the truth that's being mocked; it's the pretense.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 08-26-05 12:58 PM
"It's not the truth that's being mocked; it's the pretense."
If we lived in a society where gay people had full civil rights, I'd completely agree; being gay would then be absolutely as innocent a thing to mock as anything else.
We don't live there.
If we lived in a society where Tom Cruise could, assuming it were true, stand up at a press conference and say "I want to say that I'm gay! Flamingly gay! I hold private shows for gay friends wherein I reinact my most famous scene from Risky Business! I worship Judy Garland! Love me and my gayness!" and then his career went on the same way, unaffected, the next day, you'd be completely right.
We don't live there.
Does anyone want to argue that if, in fact, Tom Cruise did the above, that his career would not, in fact, be hurt?
If so, please name, oh, say, three famous gay male action stars.
If you can't, the above argument is wrong. It's an argument for the validity of picking on a persecuted person, one grossly discriminated against by societly, and without the same legal rights to marry as the majority population, for not accepting damaging his career.
It's no one's business to out Tom Cruise if he's gay. That's his choice. Alone.
And for anyone else to say they have the right is to be, in my opinion, unacceptably arrogant. No one else has that right.
"And actually, I think in your examples, the blackness or Jewishness of the actor would be funny, *if* the actor is aggressively trying to claim white or WASP privelege."
Oh, absolutely. Sure. Those damn people should just accept not being to live where they'd like, to not be able to get jobs they desire, to be lynched, and beaten and killed.
Hilarious.
I can't believe anyone would say that. Amazing. Did you actually read what I wrote, and note the postulated time frame?
"In fact, a sort of joke that was, in fact, told in my family when I was growing up was to call celebrities by their given, Jewish names: Wynona Ryder is Wynona Horowitz, for example."
I was unaware that Winona (not "Wynona:") is now sixty and seventy years old. I'm thinking you really didn't read what I wrote. That's gotta be it.
"If you make a big point of trying to raise your stock by making yourself not just an actor, but a star, you know exactly what you're getting yourself into."
So you're saying that famous people have no right to be closeted? The marriages, the kids, he should have known better than to make such a petty, careless, effort, to keep his private life private? But despite that, there's a right to out him via mockery?
May you never become famous. May you never have anyone treat you with such lack of empathy.
Lastly: all of this is dependent upon the postulate that Tom Cruise is, in fact, gay. If not, then what's the defense?
And if you don't know, then either you are, in effect, outing someone against their will, or spreading a falsehood.
Either way: way to go. Morally impressive indeed. But funny.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 08-26-05 2:33 PM
Here's how you do it. Take that, Gary!
I do wonder how people will feel if it turns out he's straight. But not much, because so far as I know there's not yet a meter to measure where someone is on the Kinsey Scale. Which is likely just as well, or the Inquirer and ilk would likely administer secret tests and publish the results.Alternatively, I do kinda wonder about parallels; he was secretly Jewish in the Thirties or Forties, and was desperately afraid to have that publically revealed, since he worried that his career as a movie star would be hurt due to anti-Semitism (make it Clark Gable if you have time dissonance).
So people thought it was just hilarious to make jokes about how he was really really Christian, and certainly not a Jew.
Would that be as funny? Or perhaps he was a passing "black" person (same time period). Jokes about how very white he certainly was became the rage. You get the idea.
I know I'm a killjoy, but these are the thoughts that occur to me, I'm afraid. Sorry about the killjoy thing.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 08-26-05 2:35 PM
However, each paragraph has tbe individually struck.
Alternatively, I do kinda wonder about parallels; he was secretly Jewish in the Thirties or Forties, and was desperately afraid to have that publically revealed, since he worried that his career as a movie star would be hurt due to anti-Semitism (make it Clark Gable if you have time dissonance).....So people thought it was just hilarious to make jokes about how he was really really Christian, and certainly not a Jew. Would that be as funny? Or perhaps he was a passing "black" person (same time period). Jokes about how very white he certainly was became the rage..... You get the idea. I know I'm a killjoy, but these are the thoughts that occur to me, I'm afraid. Sorry about the killjoy thing.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 08-26-05 2:36 PM
Gary, I'd encourage you to read (if you haven't) a book by Michaelangelo Signorile, Queer in America. Signorile is a gay activist, the book is simultaneously a personal memoir about growing up gay and an examination of his personal beliefs about outing. Signorile was at the forefront of the Outing movement in the early 90s, and his position (recalled from my reading the book 10 years ago, so there may be some mistakes in my recall) goes roughly like this:
Private citizens (non-public figures) have the right to remain closeted.
Public figures who don't actively harm other gays through their actions or speech have the right to remain closeted.
However, public figures that do actively harm other gays through word or deed (especially politicians involved in anti-gay legislation, or those who fund anti-gay organizations), should be outed.
Scientology is an organization that offers to "fix" gays and make them straight--its position, as laid down by its founder, is that gays are deviants that should be locked up. (Google "Scientology" and "gay.") Tom Cruise gives millions to Scientology.
Now, you may choose to believe that Signorile's rules of engagement are overly harsh. By my lights, they're more than fair. Cruise is fair game.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 08-26-05 3:26 PM
I was just assuming the same level of prejudice for a Jewish or black star that a gay star could expect to meet today. I thought the point of the analogy was that we know it's not okay to make fun of Jewish and black people (i.e., it was one of those "fill black into this sentence and see if it seems offensive"). Suffice it to say, I don't worry much about Tom Cruise getting lynched. I don't even worry about him not getting jobs; rampant speculation hasn't hurt him thus far. I didn't say there was never a reason to try to pass (as whatever), depending on the severity of the prejudice you would meet by being out. Plenty of gay actors aren't out; but are also not trumpeting their straightness from every hilltop. And actually, Jodie Foster is an example of a gay action star of sorts, though naturally, the shifts in expectations work differently for lesbians. If you make a huge point of trying to force people into admiring your excessive endowment with all the virtues the priveleged class is supposed to possess, to the point of orchestrating a sham marriage which you talk about at every turn, in every interview, you are, as a practical matter, inviting speculation as to why you are putting on such a show, and as a moral matter, if you make a huge spectacle of yourself at every turn, not for self-protection, really, but for self-aggrandizement, then no, I don't have a moral problem with speculating about the truth behind the show.
And once again, Tom Cruise didn't just "become" famous. He was not a passive bystander in the process of his personal life becoming interesting to millions of people. All his professional life, he's invited attention to his personal life as a facet of his stardom and that's only intensified recently. There are lots of Hollywood actors who manage to lead relatively private lives, even though their lives have dramas too.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 08-26-05 3:29 PM
Scientology is an organization that offers to "fix" gays and make them straight--
Ah, this explains things to me, including why someone I know insists that Cruise and Travolta, among other celebs, give millions of dollars to Scientology.
Posted by Ugh | Link to this comment | 08-26-05 4:53 PM
last sentence above should include:
despite apparently being normal, intelligent people (this was before Cruise latent craziness).
Posted by Ugh | Link to this comment | 08-26-05 4:54 PM
"Gary, I'd encourage you to read (if you haven't) a book by Michaelangelo Signorile, Queer in America."
Certainly I've read it. I despise Scientology, but aside from the fact that no one so far has actually outed Tom, I'd say that outing him to strike back at his support for Scientology is too far a connection for me; this is, however, a position, that reasonable people could disagree about, and I have no problem with that. And if anyone ever outs Tom, and explains they did it to hurt Scientology, that would certainly be a relevant explanation and attempted justification.
However, as an after-the-fact attempt at justifying making jokes at him, it's clearly, um, not available retroactively.
"Ah, this explains things to me...."
For what it's worth, I know several Scientologists, and none of them are gay; I know a fair amount about Scientology, and assuming that someone joined because of gayness would be completely fallacious.
Why is it people think that because someone is a celebrity, one can treat them far worse than any decent person would ever treat anyone they knew who hadn't personally caused them harm? There's some mechanism clearly at work in which they're dehumanized in the eyes of many. That's my primary issue here, but I've said probably all I have to say.
Tia, thanks for your response, and I have nothing further to say that wouldn't be repetitious, so thanks for your thoughts.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 08-26-05 5:33 PM
Part of scientology is that you confess everthing to the religion which can then effectively blackmail you into remaining in the religion. The 1991 Time cover story on scientology speculated that this was being done to Travolta who would otherwise leave scientology.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 08-26-05 5:46 PM
Gary, you keep doing this, and it keeps bugging me, but there's a small chance you're not completely wrong: what one would say in "public" is different from what one would say among like-minded friends. It would not be funny to make Tom Cruise is Gay jokes to a homophobic audience, but it is funny to make them to a non-homophobic audience. I understand that anyone can read the blog, but anyone doesn't; a very small, well-educated, mostly urban, very cool and good-looking subset of the population does.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-26-05 5:50 PM
"Gary, you keep doing this, and it keeps bugging me...."
What's the "this"? Anyway, I said I was finished with this topic. But, of course, I was done in #1, until people argued with me, and then I was done again in #12 until the same.
But this is mildly interesting: "...what one would say in 'public' is different from what one would say among like-minded friends."
Where would you draw the line, then? Would a certain number of hits per day do it for you? Or what? And how exactly are you judging how many people will have, say, read this comment thread ten years from now? What if, say, The New York Times puts in a link tomorrow, or in six years, because it's thought relevant to a story?
Because "but anyone doesn't" might make some sense to me if, say, all the content was wiped at the end of a week or a month, but how do you know this won't be picked up for for a worldwide telepathic redistribution in twenty years? In other words, present tense doesn't seem to a relevant limit to whom you're addressing, or more to the point, whom is listening. Maybe a nice neo-Nazi site will pick up all the Mineshaft jokes tomorrow. Who the hell knows? How can you think you're addressing a small circle of friends on a non-password-protected system accessible to everyone on the world wide wub? I mean, if I were judging who read my blog by who leaves comments, apparently almost no one reads me; but I know that isn't at all true. How many hits do you get on a good day? Who are they? Mostly people who comment? I'm guessing not, but maybe I'm wrong, and it's only 40 or so people reading you. I really doubt that, is all I can say.
Not that I'm trying to get you to self-censor, or change your tone, or stop being yourself; were you to do that, I know you'd rapidly lose interest and stop blogging, or go off and start a LiveJournal instead, and I very very very much don't want that. But I do have to question your premise, because you've put it in front of me.
I mean, when you first linked to me, and I became Your Very First Commenter, did I know I was addressing you?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 08-26-05 7:25 PM
Afterthought: maybe some nice child-free people will read this. But that could never happen.
What I am trying to do, by the way, is have a friendly conversational argument with someone I regard as a friend. I do hope you view it the same way.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 08-26-05 7:28 PM
What's the "this"?
Taking things said to the Unfogged crowd and looking at them through the lens of man-on-the-street, or population-at-large. I assume that regular readers are much like regular commenters, and take these posts in the spirit in which they're intended. So I think it's a good bet that I'm not feeding the great homophobic beast by making Cruise is Gay jokes. If there are some readers whose homophobia is braced by what they take to be my like-minded musings, I can live with that. That small contribution to the evil of the world isn't enough to make me stop making Tom Cruise is Gay jokes.
And yes, I take this as an argument with a friend. A cantankerous, humorless friend.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-26-05 9:06 PM
"A cantankerous, humorless friend."
I can't be humorless. People laugh at me all the time.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 08-26-05 9:39 PM
However, as an after-the-fact attempt at justifying making jokes at him, it's clearly, um, not available retroactively.
I've certainly made the Cruise/Scientology/Anti-Gay connection explicit prior to this thread. Do I get to call him a flouncing queer?
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 08-26-05 11:08 PM
Sure, Chopper.
Ogged, do you really think I'm humorless. ?I mean, rumor has it that you've read my blog; you really find me humorless in post after post?
Do get enough rest, and eat a hearty breakfast before answering, please. And have eaten within one hour before.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 08-26-05 11:27 PM
I assume that regular readers are much like regular commenters
I think this attitude is part of why unfogged has such a great feeling of just a funny group of friends, even if for those who aren't regular commenters.
I think it's also why I, for one, have such a strong reaction when you post something that seems really wrong-headed. (Like about the men who are afraid of
vaginas, I mean watching birth). It violates the implicit agreement in the writing and commenting.Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 08-27-05 9:35 AM