Carrie Fisher Outed John Travolta. Good.
About a year ago, Carrie Fisher off-handedly outed John Travolta in an interview with the Advocate and recently circled back around in the same publication to underscore what already is an open secret: John Travolta is gay. And frankly it's about damn time someone said it so blatantly.
There's been a fair amount of hand-wringing online about the outing, with most of the vitriol directed at Fisher, claiming she overstepped her bounds, invaded her friend's privacy, and betrayed his trust. The argument goes that, if Travolta truly is gay, it's up to him when to decide to come out, not Carrie Fisher.
Which is a fair argument if Travolta A.)Wasn't married to a woman and B.)Wasn't a prominent member of a notorious cult that claims that homosexuality is a perverse illness that can be cured. There are plenty of movie and television stars who are gay but simply don't talk about it; that's not what Travolta is doing. He's actively participating in a sham, a fraud that further perpetuates the idea that being gay is shameful and should be kept secret and tamped down.
Frankly, just about everyone knows John Travolta is gay. I know it. You probably know it. My grandmother knows it and she barely speaks English. It's time, John. It's not 1976, it's almost 2011. Every day that you put off admitting what the world already knows will just make it that much more absurd when you finally do come out.
And I think that's what Fisher was trying to do, trying to get John to realize that this is a different world now. Not the Hollywood where Merv Griffin couldn't be called gay even after death, but the Hollywood of Chris Colfer, where it can be all just very matter-of-fact. So hurry up, John--we're all waiting for you.
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
He's not doing love-romantic roles anyway, so what difference does it make. Normally you're trying to hide your gayness because you're a "romantic" lead, an actor that appeals to women...and I think he's way pass that point. And yeh, why is he married?
Do I have to be the only sane person left who points out that a polarized either/or false sexual dichotomy should be at least as obsolete as the hollywood "closet?"
The reality is the great majority of human beings have intimate relationships (however they are defined within or against traditional assumed roles) with human individuals who happen to be members of either physical gender. Cool human beings, at least.
It has not been uncommon in the recorded history of cultures not entirely alien to our own for men to have families and wives with whom they have a deep erotic bond, and who also pursue erotic contact with individuals of their own gender as well.
Now, me personally, I believe that I have erotic connections with individuals, and that the pursuit of some kind of over-all fantasized "type" that would be superimposed over an actual individual in the flesh is actually a kind of narcissistically generated destructive commodifying of a person, and should not be celebrated in and of itself as any kind of baseline for an entire identity.
This is where I have the problem with Travolta. It's not a Brokeback situation. He doesn't have a soul-mate on the side, kept from him by the dictates of a culture that has no place for his love (and arguably Brokeback isn't about that either, as I maintained when it came out that Ennis character was more terrified by intimacy as a whole, rather than the specific gender-related cultural dictates-- I think he was more comfortable with just emoting at a shirt rather than facing the existential burden of engaging with another.)
I think all "recreational" sex, that is sex without eros, without any kind of meaning other than a narcissistic fantasizing over the other is a disturbing and deeply alienating thread being woven into our culture. I understand that our culture has fallen apart and been forcibly dismantled in places, and that unmoored and alienated with no port in sight, we have begun to internalize a permanent sense that there is no real engagement with another that isn't an illusion. I mean, I get it. But I don't embrace it. I certainly don't celebrate it.
Should someone be ashamed that they have a lover who is of the same physical gender. Of course not-- that's absurd.
But should someone be ashamed of seeking an endless supply of humans-reduced-to-anonymous-sacks-of-meat over whom the individual wraps a hood of fantasy in ever-more compulsive arrangements until after, fix having been met, they re-enter a repulsion to the compulsive acts and flee back to a cover identity.
I know you will call me crazy, lovely fed-fat-on-fantasy petit bourgeois blogosphere, but yeah, I think maybe you should be kindof ashamed of that "lifestyle." If that kind of "gay identity" is to be "celebrated," then I guess you'll just consider me some kind of meta-bigot that I reject this set of "sexually identity" signifiers in this reductive discourse.
I believe no one chooses the shape of their desires. Period. Origin in nature or nurture is irrelevant.
And so, for what one desires I have no condemnation or ire.
But what one does to enact or react to or engage with their desires certainly has to be worthy of judgement. If that were not the case, then you'd only be villainizing the predatory priest because of the hypocrisy of conflicts with his vows.
As a matter of fact, I was under the impression that the "cruising" lifestyle was pretty much fueled by shame. Shame is its engine. Secrets are its gas. That's why sexuality as the center for "identity" is so tricky. A normalized monogamous homosexual relationship may dry up John's fuel (like it dries up the sexual desire of the majority of contemporary couples of any ilk.)
Maybe Johnny only gets off in the steam room because he thinks of the power and enormity of hiding it from his wife and his adoring public. And maybe he only gets off with his wife because he imagines the powerful and shattering secret he has kept from her…
You know what I mean? If you are going to argue for a truly plural culture that accepts all sexual "lifestyles," then you certainly can't ask to normalize an individual's behavior to your newly minted vision of what constitutes a member of the "gay" lifestyle.
Which is why I don't think sexual "authenticity" in the realm of life-style identity politics can really be coherently formulated.
It relies on people being judged against the confines of too many spontaneously generated platonic forms of identity. "If he's a "gay bottom", he should be doing this.. if she's a "lipstick oral-only lesbian," she should be doing that. If he's a "fisting top," he shouldn't be crying at a screening of Bambi… etc."
So, that's why I, not concerned by the gender issue, take issue rather with his going through human beings like used tissues to be discard as refuse… or something. Do you get my drift? Or are you drifting off?
And, in the end, since the scientology angle is the one that really makes Travolta seem to reek if you are looking for an admirable authentic individual-- let's keep our judgements to just that form of institutional hypocrisy, rather than judging the merits of how he and his adult intimates choose to cavort. (Do judge, however. Don't mistake me for one of those anti-judgement folks.)
And, good lord, the quality of authenticity is certainly not to be found here in any meaningful quantity.
I mean, if you think any hollywood celebrity marriage isn't at least 98% PR, with a friendly hug or handshake thrown in every once in awhile to keep everyone familiar, then you haven't lived in Los Angeles long enough (good for you.)
One cannot BE A HOMOSEXUAL any more than he can BE A HETEROSEXUAL. He can engage in a homosexual act, and later a heterosexual act, and then, if time permits before lunch another homosexual act. And in so doing, was he a homosexual in the AM, a heterosexual at brunch, and a homosexual again at lunch? Do you decide "what he is" by somehow gaining insight into which encounter "got him off more?" No, because then you'd only be learning that he liked that particular moment with that particular individual the best. He'd be a fool to assume anything else. And so would you.
No. He was just a human being making deliberate choices. Anything else is inherently reductive and dehumanizing.
Oh, well, odd place for a screed, but I thought "Why not?" I recommend everyone read the Gore Vidal essay collection called "Sexually Speaking," to get a complex take on sexual identity that reaches beyond the politically correct.
It's like a dollar, used, on amazon. It'd be more intriguing than yacking about Barbarino.
You know, it just occurred to me- maybe this is why Oprah finds him to be such a kindred spirit-- their "closets" match. They say he likes black men. Maybe they can cut Gayle out of the picture and just partner swap. Kelly and Oprah, John and Steadman. I love it.
There's a reality show that could give Winfrey a chance against Palin in the primaries.
I remember back in the early 80s the rumors started. I never took them seriously - back then everyone from Tom Cruise to Whitney Houston was gay. But if he is gay in real life, who's business is that? If his wife is fine with it, who is anyone else to judge? Isn't that kind of the whole thing about being gay? We - more than anyone - understand that life isn't black and white, it's a huge complex mess of colors.
Although I do have to agree with the Scientology part - if he's bisexual or gay, he shouldn't be promoting such an anti-gay science fiction religion (you know damn well Orson Scott Card is pissed off he didn't think of Scientology first - the man hates gays with a passion that makes you go hmmmmmm).
Wow. That long post is pretty intriguing, dude. Or dudette. It brings up some interesting questions about what consitutes "gay."
All I know is that sweater is.
And I just wanted to applaud the genius of picturing Travolta gripping two E-meter phalluses with that grin on his face that immediately takes it to that "double hand job" place.
I think I may have been "travolta-ed" by your brother Karl. He had a really thick beard, right?
🙂
Great article, except seriously, Chris Colfer's gayness is 'matter-of-fact'? His entire career and popularity is defined by his sexuality! Not a good example. Maybe someone like Neil Patrick Harris, but not Chris Colfer.
I have absolutely no evidence of this, but it seems to me that Travolta isn't a Cruise--someone who screams Scientology from the rooftops or imposes its systems on his film sets. He's pretty quiet about it, particularly in recent years. I wonder, with no evidence to back it up, if perhaps Travolta's continued involvement in Scientology is because of threats and blackmail from its higher-ups, who no doubt have a huge cache of private information on Travolta from the decades of auditing. Maybe, just maybe, Travolta would love to come out and get out (of Scientology), but he's trapped. I mean, it's not like he's particularly careful about his involvements it or even particularly protective of the fact.
Maybe Carrie Fisher's way of "outing" him was actually more of a way to release that Scientology pressure valve: if the information is out there from someone other than John, Scientology has less of a stranglehold on his life. He seems like a really genuine, nice, sensitive fellow, universally liked. As such, I can only hope that this was a favor.
I know lots of guys who are married, have kids and are GAY! And they are great in or out of bed.
As we all know that Travolta is gay, then his past living partner/room mate is muscled bound Rocky..... and he's clearly a closet case.
Who Cares? And why? Waste of time, get a life, get a wife, get a boy or girl friend and move on. Sheez
There is a very simple [final] solution to this fail topic of who is and who isn't a disgusting, vile, nasty sodomaniac; just KILL YOUR DISEASED SELVES and the uestion(s) become a moot point!
You liberals are such douchebags. There is no evidence whatsoever that John Travolta is a homosexual. Yet, you liberals are so hateful that you think you must smear him because he doesn't accept homosexuals.
How about stopping the smearing of people you disagree with, and just report the comings and goings of the brainless liberal actors and actresses?
Who cares. Who cares? Who cares! Only losers that have no life and are trying ot live their lives through the stupid entertainment media that also has no life. If he is gay, so be it. If he is bi, so be it. If he is hetero, so be it. Leave him alone. Stop talking about it, and quit publicly discussing it in the media.
Obviously you care since you not only took the time to click the article and read it, but you also felt the need to comment on it about how much you do not care.
Any enlightened human individual knows that human beings are basically bisexual, that homosexuality and hetersexuality are equally valid expressions of that bisexual nature. Anyway, I value an actor by their acting prformance, not by who they might have expressed themselves sexually, privately, with. It simply isn't any of my business! AND, to base one's human identity on sexuality is, I agree with the other poster, shallowness in the extreme.
THANK YOU! It's a pleasure to read your wise essay.
At least you got HALF of what you said correct... the SECOND half!
The first part of your supposition is completely and utterly ignorant and represents little better than a typical liberal emo response. There is ABSOLUTELY NO prior (that hasn'r been discredited) or current research, findings or studies to support that lunitic position.
Your second point; I agree with limitation, that is, to the point where someones so-called "lifestyle" trespasses on the morals of another, and that is precisely the public problem with sodomites spilling out of their closets like an invasion of cockroaches and mass murdering millions of innocent people by spreading their plague as a result of their irresponsible sexual practices and interactions with society.
What?
Enough is enough...we as a society just keeping overstepping...his life is his own, if it chooses to live his life privately it's still his choice. Not a person alive would want people or the press telling our most intimate secrets let alone broadcasting them for all the world to see and debate. Why is it his responsibility to take on american homophobia...this public revelation will most likey destroy his family who does that benifit some reporter who wanted to scoop his collegues. This story is just so wrong...we should be ashamed of ourselves for creating and atmosphere where this type of thing is acceptable
I agree, who cares, if any actor chooses or person not to share everything about their lives is none of our business. It's not your negative comments, its all about ego's trying to get attention because they are hurting for the money. If you speak up who you are and feel your a good person, and don't wish to be judged the wrong way and think you can take it? Well, good for U. But some people, prefer different social things that make up simple gender roles F&M. Sometimes, we feel mixed up in gender roles because we may be born with different parts. The express "who cares" is just that and agree. No one has anymore values of self-respect and perception with attitude is what is driving this world - in expression "mad" like cow disease. So, lets leave Travolta, his lovely family alone and his private life. At least he is not a cruel individual who sets out to make wars and slaves like we read in history & future governments. Lets be good & kind individuals like 'Travolta' a decent guy, actor, family man and loves people. We all have flaws, stop pointing them out to only hear yourselves in life. Its up to individuals who they wish to be.
The post by Clark Elliot was the most insightful of any. Ironic Perverse moniker 69 really enjoys seeing himself in print. JT has an admirable career as an actor. His sexuality has nothing to do with that. His problems with Scientology, if he in fact has some, are difficult for those of us who don't know it from the inside to judge. I would take issue with his ugly statements about homosexuality no matter what his true sexual identity, but if he is gay, then even more so. As for being married to a woman, I did that. I did what I was supposed to do according to the dictates of the time, and I really did (and do, to a certain extent) love her. But maybe was not "in love" with her. I suffer for taking those years away from her all the time. However, my coming out hurt no-one except her. And I never made any statements (other than early teenage crap) about gays.
All that being said, if John Travolta is gay, it's his business, and his life to screw up. My concern is...don't screw up other people's lives while you live yours. If his wife knows and can deal with it then fine. If she didn't, and he was truly outed, then shame on Carrie. It's not her place. And if he is gay, and is hurting others by unkind, scriptured "discussion" set out by the religious powers of his faith, then he'll pay for that when he comes face-to-face with his maker. (and mine..and yours). Stay out of his life and help those who need help understanding their sexual identity by supporting them. They probably don't have the comfort of being able to afford to buy sex quietly on the side like the very wealthy, closeted people can. (not saying JT's doing that...just a thought). They need your love and support. Travolta doesn't, at this point in his life. He's rich, he's aging, and he's probably fairly comfortable with the way he's living his life.
I guess I like seeing myself in print, too. Sorry for the long discourse.
I don't care who Travolta has sex with. But I can't stand how Carrie Fisher promotes herself by talking about prominent celebs of today. She not talking to help Travolta just to help herself.
I know he is gay long time ago, not from what other people said, but from what I saw.
I ran into him like 3 times at the 24 hour fitness gym almost like 10 years ago. It was like 2 a.m. (I did free-lance and loved to do my work at night) and I saw him cruising at the steam-room. I saw more than I should have seen. I was so surprised to see him being not shy about cruising in the gym.
How come no one outed Patrick Swayze?
Homosexuality is a sin. God said so. bYes, I'm homophobic because there is something seriously wrong with their brains! They are heterophobic. Why? We are normal!
Say it isn't so. John stay in the closet. Yuck.
Next »