Interesting article about celebrity gay gossip. Discusses Jake Gyllenhaal.

[opinionista]

Hey folks,

Below is an article I borrowed from another site. I was debating whether post it here at CT or at Anything Goes. But since Jake Gyllenhaal and the gay rumors surrounding him have been discussed a lot in this forum, I thought it was proper to post it here. I think the article is very interesting, and worth discussing. Enjoy.


Rumor Has It: The Gay Gossip Mill in the Age of Blogging
by Kim Ficera, August 2, 2006

“Gyllenhaal's not gay… and the gays all want him. They're done with Cruise, they've had it, he's too crazy…You know the gays are moody. You gotta keep up...”
--Comedian Kathy Griffin on Larry King Live, July 11, 2006.

“I understand why people think we're gay.There isn't a definition in our culture for this kind of bond between women … But for people to still be asking the question, when I've said it and said it and said it, that means they think I'm a liar. And that bothers me …All my stuff is out there. People think I'd be so ashamed of being gay that I wouldn't admit it? Oh, please.”
--Oprah Winfrey, in the August 2006 issue of O Magazine, answering the rumors surrounding her relationship with her best friend, Gayle King.
 

With so many deliciously crazy homophobic folks for us to feast on, why do we continue to eat our own?

We've devoured all the gay rumors about Jake Gyllenhaal, Oprah Winfrey, Anderson Cooper, Jodie Foster, Kevin Spacey, Tom Cruise and others, and then licked our lips. Many of us in the gay and lesbian community--especially bloggers, many of whom operate under the motto, “We Speculate, You Decide”--have helped initiate and spread the sexual innuendo. But it's the gay media, we who pride ourselves on reporting facts not insinuations, who give credibility to the unsubstantiated by relaying it with an air of authenticity. Why?

Admiration for the famous? Disdain? Mere sexual attraction? The hunger for truth? Drama? Sure, I'll buy it all. But regardless of what Kathy Griffin thinks, it's not because we're moody.

We speculate for lots of reasons, not the least of which is because it's our job to observe and report. While most respectable journalists stop short of actually outing closeted celebrities, some of us pass the rumors on to readers because if we don't, the mainstream media or unreliable bloggers will, and they're apt to be even more insensitive than we can be.

But primarily we dish because we're selfish. The gay community is part of the human race and, just like everyone else, we're programmed to survive. But since we can't procreate in the sense that we can reproduce our own kind at whim or after a few pitchers of margaritas, we promulgate--we endure through declaration. And we proclaim with great pride.

Gay gossip columnist Perez Hilton, the man currently being credited with first “outing” Lance Bass, the gay community's newest member, in his column last September, reasoned it this way to Access Hollywood: “Being gay is not a death sentence for a performer in show business. We need to get out of that mind frame. It's 2006 people!”

Gossip columnists like Perez don't simply nod in agreement of the saying, “There's a little bit of truth to every rumor,” they chant it like a mantra. And they do that because they've seen (or know somebody, who knows somebody, who knows somebody, who's seen) a superstar of Tom Cruise's caliber, well, cruise--without a big boat.

“It upsets me that people think what I'm doing is a bad thing,” Perez said. “If you know something to be a fact, why not report it? Why is that still taboo?”

Those questions have turned editorial meetings into war zones for decades, and there are decent arguments on both sides of the table. On one hand, we don't like being lied to by our own kind. The lies translate to shame and there's nothing positive about feeling crappy about being gay. On the other, there's the issue of privacy. Coming out is a very personal choice. When the media outs stars, it's seen by some, yours truly included, as a direct hit below the belt.

But what about the rumors that we pass on, knowing full well they're probably not true? Why, for example do we continue to insinuate that Oprah Winfrey and Jake Gyllenhaal are gay when it's pretty clear they're not?

I've been thinking about this for some time, and aside from the obvious answer (celebrity gossip is fun!), I believe that when we give life to the notion that where there's same-sex smoke, there's a big gay fire, we plant seeds of possibility. And we hope that with a bit of nurturing they will take root and become trees that bear the fruit of full acceptance.

Gossip vends the truth that gay people are, indeed, everywhere, and reminds the public that despite religious or political beliefs and social ignorance, millions upon millions not only respect us, but love us to obsessive extremes.

We want desperately for Oprah to be a lesbian because she'd grant the entire GLBT community a level of respect we just don't have now. How could our families, friends and all the folks in middle America take issue with homosexuality if Oprah, the queen of personal responsibility, spirituality and goodwill, is a lesbian?

So we throw what we know about her and her best friend, Gayle King, out there for the public to chew on and digest, because the next best thing to Oprah actually being a lesbian is the illusion that she's one.

It's not surprising that journalists (or anyone else, for that matter) might run amok with even the tiniest morsel of gay-suggestive information about the famous. In fact, it's rather logical. One doesn't have to be a physicist to deduce that the law of averages dictates there are a lot more gay celebrities in the closet than out of it.

Remember, too, that most gay rumors don't just appear out of thin air--there's usually a factual base. However weak that fact might be, it's still a juicy actuality.

For instance, not that long ago Oprah booked a suite, sans her boyfriend Stedman, in the Bahamas, where she was giving a wedding for her niece. In walked Gayle, with luggage and also without a man. That's a fact. What's not clear is whether they shared a bed and body fluids during their stay. It's likely they didn't. But is it possible? Sure.

Print it!

But gossiping about influential, gay-supportive celebrities in ways that question their integrity and good intentions isn't the best way to thank them for all they've done for the gay and lesbian community. We're better than that.

Aren't we?

Yes. But graciousness isn't the name of the gay gossip game, and the game isn't played to win as much as it's exploited to feed itself.

Everyday gossip about this entertainer or that serves, primarily, to raise Hollywood revenues and make red carpets and dinner parties more interesting, but gay rumors about our most beloved entertainers serve a much bigger purpose--to feed authenticity and suffocate deception. The rumors say to celebs, “Come on, get over yourselves! Be honest!”

But the thing is, even when they are honest, like I believe Jake and Oprah have been, we still can't let them be. Even after they've told us they're straight, even when they've proven time and time again that they're on our side, starred in gay movies, done pro-gay television episodes, we tell them that all they've said and done isn't good enough, and try to make them one of us--as if that's possible.

Oprah is not a lesbian. She's said so a gazillion times before her most recent denial in her own magazine, and I believe her. Even though I've done my share of spreading the Oprah-is-a-lesbian innuendo in search of a laugh, no matter how often I suggest that she's gay, my wisecracks and wishful thinking are not going to make her gay.

As for Jake, AfterElton's own Michael Jensen has also had fun with the joke that Jake is secretly his boyfriend. It's all meant in jest, but one has to wonder if Jake would be amused.

We can find hundreds of pictures of Jake in spandex on the Internet, but all that makes him, I believe, is a straight man in "gay" clothing. He can ride a bike with Lance Armstrong and, yes, play the bottom to Heath Ledger's top in a film, but he still prefers girls. He can even kiss Elton John in a pup tent on George Michael's front lawn, if the occasion arises, but that won't make him gay … or British, for that matter.

What the gossip might make him, though, is angry.

Oprah's frustrated with the gay and lesbian community, that's clear. She's tolerated the lesbian rumors for years, but she won't tolerate being called a liar. Jake's got to be telling Andy Towle, a blogger on a tongue-in-cheek mission to make Jake gay, to get a life. Do these stars have a right to be upset, or is the rumor mill a price they must pay for being famous? Both, I suppose, but when is enough, enough?

We get angry with filmmakers for making too few queer-themed movies, and get frustrated with stars who refuse gay or lesbian roles, but can we really blame them for not wanting to play in our yard when we're not exactly cordial hosts? Many in Hollywood probably think they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

So what, if anything, is the gossip and outings doing to the way celebrities (closeted and not) think about us, and does their frustration/anger roll over to the public in ways that are damaging to us?

I think we have to be very careful in answering those questions, because it's easy to make mountains out of molehills. The rumors insinuate that stars are gay, not axe murderers. Yes, rumormongers aren't very considerate, but it's not exactly a newsflash that some gossip queens are pissy. No one would ever vote E!'s Ted Casablanca Miss Congeniality, for example. But are gossipers guilty of harming celebrities? I don't think so. Where's the evidence?

Hollywood is the home of self-imposed self-importance. I think entertainers sometimes forget that they do not walk on water. Some celebs are more powerful than others, of course, but no one in Hollywood is curing cancer. And, more importantly, no one is begging for food on off-ramps because of a gay rumor. A little perspective is in order before anyone starts crying foul.

In light of his DUI last week and his anti-Semitic and expletive-laced rant during his arrest, Mel Gibson would probably admit that he would rather have been caught singing “I'll Be Good For You” with Lance Bass on Hollywood Boulevard. My bet is that even he'd agree that being suspected of being gay would be less harmful to his career than being proven a vulgar, sexist, Jew-hating drunk.

And the public view of gay gossip? That's a no-brainer. No one is supporting a federal amendment against same-sex marriage because some gay people like to tell tales.

No, we won't stop spreading rumors because it's detrimental to us or to our favorite stars. But maybe we should stop because it's simply not a very effective way to reach our goal of acceptance.

With very few exceptions--Lance Bass being the most recent--the rumor mill has proved ineffective time and time again. Tabloid history has shown us that we can print all the rumors we want, but rarely does something we write cause a star to say, “All right already! You've forced me out. I'm gay.”

Even if it's confirmed, without a doubt, that Tom Cruise, Kevin Spacey, 6-10 percent of the NFL, NBA, NRA, PLO, PTA, etc. are gay, the validations probably won't be a result of gossip. When celebrities come out, most do so of their own accord and only when they're ready.

The ultra-famous, such as Ellen DeGeneres and Rosie O'Donnell, made a lot of noise coming out, but that's no surprise--the ultra-famous like grand entrances. The equally secure but lesser known come out rather nonchalantly, though. They discuss their sexuality with reporters as if recalling a favorite meal.

Nelly Furtado, for example, came out uneventfully in the pages of Genre magazine recently. When asked if she was attracted to women, she said, “Absolutely. Women are beautiful and sexy.” And then she went on to talk about Chinese medicine and balanced energies.

The insecure and closeted, on the other hand, will probably always remain tight and close-mouthed, while the extremely insecure will always protest far too much and be litigious.

The stars who loudly deny they're gay would probably rather die before coming out to the public, because not only does their shame run deep, but also their lies become their truths. Those folks have rung the “I'm Not Gay!' bell so loudly that they'll never be able to un-ring it.

If Tom Cruise, for example, is really gay and he came out tomorrow, it would be news--sort of--but the real story would be the anatomy of his denials. Today Cruise is viewed as an overconfident nut case; tomorrow he'd be one of the biggest liars Hollywood has ever seen. He'd be more than just a laughingstock--he'd be a sham, relegated to playing golf with O.J. Simpson. Tom Cruise come out? Mission Impossible, indeed.

So, it seems to me that speculation about the sexuality of celebrities, while endlessly entertaining, is more ineffective than it is efficacious. It's also valueless. We can get more useful information watching VH1's 40 Awesomely Bad Fashion Moments. Panty lines could kill you, socially speaking. But speculating about whether or not Jake Gyllenhaal and Oprah Winfrey are gay won't ruin or make fabulous our lives.

So forgive me Oprah, for I have sinned. I have wanted you to be my savior, my dyke in Vera Wang armor. I have mumbled the words, “Liar, liar, pants on fire!” many times under my breath to you. I'm sorry. But please try to understand that the rumors aren't about you, even though I know it feels like they are. They're about us.

But if it makes you feel any better, I promise that I now accept that you are not a lesbian. I will from this point forward leave you alone and go back to dishing and wishing that Jodie Foster and Katherine Moennig would just come out already. Unlike you, they couldn't dismiss me with such a convincing, “Oh, please,” if their lives depended on it.


http://www.afterelton.com/people/2006/8/gossip.html

[David]

Interesting article.   All valid points.  It is just human nature to be curious. 

For the record: I think Jake is 100% Straight.   And yes, I do fantasize that he is Gay and comes to my house in a big limousine and wisks me away.   But it is more likely that I'll win the lottery and monkeys will fly out my Arse!

Until I see a photo of him performing oral sex on a guy, he is not gay, but just Gay friendly in my book.  And for a straight person to be Gay friendly, that is a good thing.  And the more straight folks who are comfortable around gay people the better for all of us.   

[Jeff Wrangler]

Thanks for posting, Natali. An interesting and thought-provoking read.

Jeff

[opinionista]

Yeah, i thought it was very interesting, and it got me thinking too. However, while I think privacy is important, a gay or lesbian celebrity shouldn't be really afraid of coming out in public. I don't think that'll mean the end of their careers. Not necessarily though. Most of gay/lesbian celebrities aren't really in the closet, and there are many people who know for a fact who's gay and who isn't. So there's no point to hide it from the public because sooner or later they're going to be seen with their couples out somewhere.

For example, Ricky Martin. Rumor has had it for a long time that Ricky is gay. But I know for a fact that he is indeed gay, and that he has a long time boyfriend (or used to have one). How do I know it? Well, as some of you already know, I reside in Spain but I'm from San Juan, Puerto Rico just like Ricky Martin. We're more or less the same age, and even though I've never met him, we actually have friends in common. Puerto Rico is a small island, and San Juan is small as well. I also have friends in common with Benicio del Toro, though I've never ever met him.

The thing is that I have several friends who know Ricky Martin because they either grew up with him, worked for him, or know some relative or friend of his. And they assure me  Ricky is not only gay, but happy and proud of it. He doesn't really hide it. He does travel to San Juan with his boyfriend, and has been seen hanging on the beach with him. But I still wonder why he doesn't come out in public. He might lose a few girl fan or two, but the gay community will root for him I think. I'm not really a fan of his, but I know people enjoy seeing him shake his bom boms. And he's pretty hot too.

[serious crayons]

I've always figured that the main reason gay movie stars don't come out is not so much the fear that homophobic fans will instantly turn against them (after all, who turned against Ellen?), but because they're afraid -- or at least they're afraid that directors and casting people would be afraid -- that it might hurt their credibility with audiences when they play straight romantic roles.

But BBM has taught us that crossing sexual orientations needn't be an impediment. Jake and Heath are far more credible in their roles than the vast majority of straight actors playing straight lovers! So presumably, it could also work the other way around.

Very interesting essay, Natali. Thanks for posting it.

[Flashframe777]

Very interesting article.  I have to agree that coming out should be no big deal.  I also do not agree when people get all bitchy with the gay rumours, but mainly because it is done with a condemning tone. 

Now as far as Jake G. is concerned, from my own encounters I am "intrigued" because he hangs out a lot in my very very very gay neighborhood.  But then again so do many other famous hotties. 

About 10 years ago I had an epiphany of sorts.  Considering myself to have honed my gaydar sensitivies to a point beyond super-refined, I thought I was aware of most of the gay people around me.  I followed the old 1 in 10 Kinsey philosophy.  However, suddenly people I'd assumed were 100% hard cold straight came out as gay -- not just a few, but  a lot of them.  It was such an eye opener for this gay man that I had to adjust my scale to a more sensible  ratio. 

This seems closer to the truth, than what is ever purported in the media.  A puerile yet sufficient example: when you watch those appraisal shows like Antique Roadshow you'll notice all the high estimates are fine and good, but if you watch the actual auction or follow up on what those items actually sold for tends to be three times more than the conservative estimate. 

The Kinsey Scale of 1 in 10 has proven that way for me.  One's a very conservative number, but the reality is somewhere closer to three - in CONSERVATIVE parts of the country.  In big cities those numbers are going to be higher - 4 to 6, even.  My rule for LA and New York is 4 to 6 in every 10.  In West Hollywood it's 7.5 in 10.

That said, must I be forced to go out on the limb about the beauteous salt and pepper of all news anchor hotness, Anderson Cooper?  Praises be to the Archangel of Prada, he's gay.  This I know from personal experience.  He goes out to our gay hangs from time to time in LA.  I am going to keep my lips zipped tight on Donny Deutsch though.

[opinionista]

Very interesting article.  I have to agree that coming out should be no big deal.  I also do not agree when people get all bitchy with the gay rumours, but mainly because it is done with a condemning tone. 

Now as far as Jake G. is concerned, from my own encounters I am "intrigued" because he hangs out a lot in my very very very gay neighborhood.  But then again so do many other famous hotties. 

You know, I would also be intrigued about Jake if I see him hanging out a lot in a very gay neighborhood. However, in Madrid I know a lot of people, both women and men, who are straight as an arrow and hang out in Chueca, Madrid's very very very gay neighborhood. In Madrid's case, the gay neighborhood has some the best bars and restaurants of the city. I for one hang out there a lot, and I'm straight, because you can find restaurants that serve low fat, real good and cheap meals, as opposed to other places where restaurants usually serve 100% spanish food, high in fat and all. Chueca also has the best stores of the city, cute coffee shops, and bars with great music. So, maybe that could be the reason why Jake hangs out in LA's gayest neighborhood, though I don't know if that where the best restaurants or bars are in LA. Then again, who knows, maybe Jake is indeed gay or bi.

[moremojo]

But BBM has taught us that crossing sexual orientations needn't be an impediment. Jake and Heath are far more credible in their roles than the vast majority of straight actors playing straight lovers!

And, honestly, I can't imagine any other actors, gay, straight, or bi, interpreting these roles with the same excellence as Heath and Jake. Brokeback Mountain remains the most powerful love story I have seen on screen, regardless of the gender and sexual identity of the protagonists.

[Pipedream]

Amen. 

[nakymaton]

[regarding Ricky Martin]But I still wonder why he doesn't come out in public. He might lose a few girl fan or two, but the gay community will root for him I think.

You know, I think the entertainment industry ought to start questioning this assumption (that when a gay star comes out, he'll lose female fans) after BBM. (Before BBM started playing in theaters, there seemed to be a lot of comments about how risky the roles of Ennis and Jack were, because both Heath and Jake risked losing their young female fanbases.) Looks to me like gay roles had the opposite effect... I think that BBM earned both men plenty of new female fans, and not because of awards and Oscar nominations and everything.

(Katherine's comment is another really good point -- that there's no reason to think that gay actors couldn't play a heterosexual romance convincingly. They're all actors, after all. Their job is to disappear into their roles, and pretending to be in love with someone they aren't attracted to is just part of the work.)

Hopefully Hollywood (directors, producers, marketers) will question their assumptions. (But I was paying attention to the Oscars... and I'm not all that hopeful. Not yet, at least.)