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
I just want Kelly Preston's phone number since John isn't taking care of her! LOL
Didn't Prince William ask Prince Charles to disinvite Prince Charles gay lover? Sure John Travolta would be a great spokesperson for the gay community,but Prince Charles would be an even better spokesperson.What better endorsement that gay is way to go.It's a Royal lifestyle.Prince Charles is married to a woman just like Travolta is.We shouldn't be ashamed of our lifestyle choices.
It would compliment Prince Charles' population reduction agenda and his snub the tub campaign.It just goes to show lifestyle is irrelevant because Prince Charles has a great sense of humanity.
Neil Patrick Harris, really? even though NPH is totally awesome. A gay man playing a straight womanizer doesn't seem like a good representation for gay actors, if anything, he's portraying what we all know by now: if you're openly gay, play straight, otherwise, don't even dream of mainstream success. At least actors like Chris Colfer, or the kid from Ugly Betty and Luke Macfarlane from Brothers & Sisters, are portraying genuinely real gay characters (to some degree) on TV, they are flamboyant, but not in-your-face stereotypical that media usually portray gay men as. they are far better examples than NPH.
Could we please just have a list of the names of the men he has supposedly had sex with?! Until then this peice of "journalism" is nothing more than malicious, slanderous hot air.
"THANK YOU! It's a pleasure to read your wise essay."
In that case, perhaps you would like to translate it for the rest of us.
Actually, I just enjoy trying to articulate a personal point of view rather than the contemporary joke version of public discourse where a bunch of people trained by the cognitive tools of the television (emotional appeal, sensationalism, boiling down to black and white, us vs. them, "rooting for" things) blurt out wild THUMBS UP or or THUMBS DOWN hate blurbs that gives them a temporary fix for their narcissistic need for at least the pretense of attention while they sit in their fantasy stupor locked down safely in their media bunkers.
I love posts where Joe Schmo just writes in to let the universe know he approves.
Only in a culture this violently decadent do people take every moment in life as an opportunity to give a third grade book report. "It was good and I liked it!" or "Dis is stoopid and YOUR A FAG!"
I know this rag is not the venue for some real conversation-- what can I say, I have no excuse for my sincerity.
And the cynical, ironic distance crowd can talk about my pretense all they like-- the ultimate pretense is to go out of your way to look disconnected and unenthused, perched in unengaged cosmopolitan judgement over insights you make no real attempt to understand, lest they disagree with the carefully constructed stream of fake sophistication you've constructed to keep your vulnerability locked away.
But, seriously, the homosexual identity as "victim-diva" is a very well-developed subculture. Feel free to let your mascara run as you cry for yourself and blame your inability to face your existential burdens with courage on some phantom sense of the other who you think could somehow theoretically approve-of-you into you feeling good about your life.
And I hate to tell you this, but the "other" that was dictating you live a lie or do what everyone else seemed to do was always an internal aspect of your own self.
It's your life. For better or worse.
I have made love to women and men, in exclusive long-term and intimate relationships. As an extension of a transcendent erotic connection. I would be reducing each of those individuals to profess the idea that I had some internal need for "pussy" or "dick" and then found an individual representative to plug in to my plan to relate to just some representative of that gender.
Does it never occur to you that your experiences with one person of a gender can not possibly be representative of the experience of engaging with any other member of that gender (or any other member of the human race, for that matter.)
You learn from Mary what you felt for Mary. Not what you felt for girls. From Bobby about Bobby. And so much of that depended on how much vulnerability you were brave enough to bring to those experiences, and whether those moments weren't poisoned by all the countless distractions of our ever-emptying world.
Only in a culture that transforms all things into commodities do people begin to look at sex, and one another, as simply obstacles to negotiate with in order to "get some."
This reduction of ALL human sexuality is taking an element of the transcendent out of life that is a tragedy far beyond the violation against some particular religious institution or set of "rules."
If you have the fantasy first and then go about life as an audition process for the perfect casting choice… well-- don't be surprised when you find yourself an impostor.
And now I go truly random. Because, honestly, I DO have an active life with others in the actual world (one that's falling apart by the way, if you haven't taken your head out of the sand lately.)
To the proto-fascist hate-fueled teenagers who posted on this thread, I can only say I hope you discover the source of your powerlessness and rage before it erupts in violence and ruins your life or the life of another…
But to the victim-diva's out there, I must offer your my world's tinniest violin. If you need to throw a parade to demand others accept you, perhaps you have a problem accepting yourself.
And remember, the great majority of the world's population has to look for a drink of fresh water every day, not knowing if they will find more than a face full of flies… so, whether your mean old aunt approves of the sex acts that you prefer with your intimates is simply not a real problem.
Am I suggesting there are not inexcusable and horrific acts of intolerance that should be met with real intervention? Certainly not. I am just trying to point out that others owe you not impeding your freedom. They do not, however, owe you understanding, love, or approval.
That's your father that owes you that. And damn him for not giving so.
I realize most of you think I am speaking chinese (well, most of you are not reading this 🙂
For the five of you out there who are young and feeling entirely shell-shocked by how insanely off the sexual lifestyle obsessed culture around you seems to be to your literate mind-- I just want you to know that you are right and that the cultural mode of middle-school-lunch-table as public discourse should not drain from you your genuine insight into the irreducibly complex nature of yourself and others.
I promise I will only write dick jokes in any further posts.
As for my last word on Travolta:
He is generally a poor, but certainly affable actor who has not yet been given a chance to give a definitive performance.
On the other hand, he made "Battlefield Earth," and for that he deserves a special circle in Hell.
I don't know the man. And neither, I am willing to bet, do most of you.
It can be argued that people are fairly unknowable, both to others and ultimately to themselves… and all that I do know is that he hasn't acted to harm the lives of others or increase the woe and strife in this world, at least not to my knowledge (although, yes, I do think scientology is harmful to consciousness, but no less so than any of a number of other systems of self-delusion and denial that nonetheless give some people a source of hope and strength for whatever reason.)
Carrie Fisher is an insightful, compassionate, and entirely not full-of-shit author-- and if "Postcards From The Edge" has an equal in terms of exploring what narcissism can do to generations of souls, and how spectacularly absurd the "world of entertainment" is-- all without the long winded pretension that I am dipping in and out of here in my haste-- well, I can't think of it.
She has taken great pains to establish herself as a person who can not be expected to speak with a high degree of political savvy-- that's one of the reasons why I admire her unhinged highness.
I imagine John understands. After all, we are talking about him (probably satisfying the only concern he and his publicists have.)
Certainly. no one who made "Staying Alive" should ever expect not to have "gay rumors" follow them until death (and after.)
I imagine we are talking about this for the very same reason that Ms. Fisher's cinnamon-bunned dome is resting in four separate ads in my browser as I type this.
I hope it helped her ratings tonight.
No one freeze out there in the snow. Good night and thanks for taking the time to read what I took the time to attempt to write.
So what you're telling us is that you are banging multiple married men? You're a real charmer.
"Any enlightened human individual knows that human beings are basically bisexual"
Unscientific nonsense.
Gotta love all the closet cases who thunder in here and start furiously typing away in a desperate, panicked attempt to stamp out any and all references to gays or tolerance of them. Fighting against the inexorable march of civil rights and progress? You may as well whip the tides for daring to change without your leave.
And while you're at it, leave your phony god out of this. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not conjured up the means to prevent the world from changing around you, or given you power enough to halt the flow of progress because you find it scary. Your fantasies will fade in time, as have all the ones before.
"As for my last word on Travolta"
Is that intentional irony?
It's absolutely ridiculous, DB, for you to suggest that a man like Neil Patrick Harris [who apparently actually IS gay, in that he's chosen to be quite public about it] should somehow feel obligated, according to you, to play only gay characters, in his acting career.
And then that you FURTHER seek to limit and constrain the man's range of available acting roles by expecting him to play ONLY homosexual characters that are "flamboyant", but not "flamingly" and stereotypically so, in the eyes of [what you see as] traditional media portrayals of gays.
How absurd !, and absolutely disrespectful you're being towards Mr. Harris, to seek to confine his entire career within that sort of box.
It IS called "acting". you know, and I, as a heterosexual guy, have been quite favorably impressed, and amused, by seeing NPH, who I'm aware has chosen to be public about his gayness, do such a fine and totally believable job in the great HIMYM show, in portraying a stereotypical horny straight "player" / womanizer, in such an amusing and totally believable way.
And I happen to be someone who in fact considers homosexuality to be a "perversion" of natural sexuality, who also feels the government shouldn't in any way feel under any obligation to "recognize gay marriage", although I think civil unions of all kinds seem fine to me, and if gay people want to consider themselves married, and wish to "play house" like male / female couples, then more power to them, I guess, and their consenting adult sexual practices, in the privacy of their own homes, are their business, and I guess I have no great problem with gay couples adopting, if they're reasonably upstanding and responsible citizens, just as I have no great problem with [upstanding and responsible] single people adopting.
So I don't consider that I believe in society "persecuting" gay people in any real and substantial way, and, again, I don't believe society not sanctioning the institution of gay marriage is any kind of actual "persecution" at all.
And I think "DADT" questions should be left entirely to the military.
Getting back to Mr. Harris, his present excellently and entertainingly done done "staight womanizer" role undoubtedly won't be the last major acting role in his career, and if he ever plays ANY kind of gay character role in the future, which he of course has every perfect right to do, I'd probably be inclined to tune in, to see what I thought of it : I think it would be of interest, whether that was a serious dramatic role, or a comedic role, even though [as you've undoubtedly already gathered], I don't see the so-called "gay lifestyle" as anything to be particularly celebrated.
Yeah, Billy, I am having hard time balancing the funny with the wind-baggyness tonight 🙂
Thanks for doing a much better job at editing down my indulgent mess.
Essentially, yes, this is a great deal of what I was trying to say.
There are very discomforting questions that have to be asked in an intelligent dialogue about sexuality-- such as, what if someone's erotic core fantasy life is violent? Or what if distinctly being used for enjoyment while distinctly not enjoying the act is where your desires lead you?
There is simply no way for the very narrowly defined "CELEBRATE EVERYBODY" (which really translates to "CELEBRATE ME!") politically correct culture can avoid dehumanizing people just as much as the forget-about-the-love-but-keep-the-wrath traditionalist bat-shit-insane reactionary right.
I'm simply trying to state that it's an irreducible subject.
And that the THE RIGHT and THE LEFT are both equally full of shit when it comes to creating a discourse that actually has any real insight into this part of human experience.
If by "He's gay," most of you are saying he has had, or allows for the potential to have an intimate encounter with a human being who happens to be a man-- then I say, well nothing wrong with that. And I don't see a reason to categorize and make a whole identity out of that fact, either.
But, if by "He's gay," you are trying to say that he cruises for constant, compulsive anonymous encounters with strangers, while living an intentionally duplicitous secret life of intentionally seedy malaise, then I have to say that I think that's wrong.
Not something worthy of hate or punishment. Just something I think is sad and empty (and I doubt Mr. Travolta would or should give a damn what I think.)
It's no different than the problem I see with a drunken frat-boy date rapist pillaging a swath of over-protected young women.
Or an overly predatory 30 year old woman seducing her 9th grade son's classmate in order to feel a little warmth in her fading narcissism.
It has nothing to do with the gender of the partners, but with the inherent human emptiness (and inevitable destructiveness in some cases) of their activities.
But, that having been said, there is simply an undeniable level of power and violence going on in eros. it's tumultuous, hungry, dangerous genius at its best. At its worst, it boils over the narrow balance into something destructively consuming. You know, desire, it's a fire like the pop songs say. It can be used for illumination or combustion in the engine... or it can burn you alive.
The finest point I can put on it is this:
Desire is not physiological. And the reduction of sexuality to a supposed genetic core is not only unhelpful, it is also dehumanizing to those involved.
By saying "I can't help it, I was born this way" how can you not be reducing your lover to simply an animal object who could be re-cast at any moment. (Most likely all of you see no problem with that idea, that's how far we've fallen away from human meaning.) Also, you are inherently proposing the idea of your own faultiness by imparting an excuse for it beyond your control.
Love is deliberate. I chose my loved one, not because he or she made a good orgasm-producing "partner" for me to satisfy my preexisting fetishes on, but because of what thread of faith I am attempting to build with them against the absurd chaos of the world. All bodies meet one another as alien in the first moments, and there are none on earth that can't become with the bravery and patience of mindful touch, at home in one another in such a way that just a finger trailed across the shoulder can make one's body smolder.
You all know this! "Straight" as an arrow or proudly "Queer." Anyone who has had powerful, amazing sex, had it with a lover who they carefully built that continuum of erotic experience with over time.
Yeah, I am one of those people-- I use the word lover.
Partner is for people that co-own a laundromat, or for a lawyer's favorite promotion.
There are people who have structures of fantasy that require a particular brand of high-heeled shoe being worm by a woman smashing roaches, or a certain year's model of Ford Mustang to be in the room in order to be aroused. Look it up. I shit you not.
Desire is not physiological. An erection in a physiological response. A lubricating vagina is a physiological response.
So is a blush, and we still have no ultimate understanding of that one. Seriously, books could be written about it.
The mysterious core of what initiates those responses is ineffable, and certainly takes a lifetime to understand if you even have the fortitude to try.
I think that is also a big part of what I am trying to say-- this idea that many very vocal people are still living in the shadow of a kind of shame or fear of the core of their own "erotic nature"-- at first they are "closeted," then they overcompensate into indulgent compulsion. Then they move on to a kind of activism. All of this a kind of deep immaturity that fixates on identity as a reaction against some kind of "other."
This is primarily because we live in a culture where people think they have a nature that is inherent and inalterable that they "discover" over time.
This is Plato's dark legacy. That you will "find yourself."
I (and a lot of smarter, better folks) counter with the idea YOU ARE WHAT YOU DELIBERATELY DO. You make yourself. And there is an existential burden that man blossoms in the face of, he is not a constant victim of a hidden internal nature that he just uncovers like loose dirt on a fresh grave as he speeds towards death.
The world doesn't happen to you. You happen to the world... am I making any sense here?
Don't answer that.
A great deal of the reductive brain biology hogwash that has overwhelmed the culture in recent years is cobbled together from statistical analyses that suggest very little without judicious preening from an interpreter. The very fact that we eagerly look to explain away our own behaviors as automatic is a sign of a sick spirit. That we seek to avoid judgement.
It's all still a mystery. Trust me.
In what deliberately dense vision of the universe can we be so willing to reduce ourselves to captive passengers on board our animal bodies-- what responsibility are we trying to evade?
You ever notice when people betray you, they slip into the objective? "It didn't work out."
It was "you and me." And then suddenly it was "It." or "Things."
Love is something you do. No something that happens to you.
People always point to an outside objective factor when they want to avoid the anxiety of their existential burden.
And it doesn't work. All those efforts to distract and deny lead to an increase.
A better choice is to be deliberate. Make a wholly deliberate self and then touch it to another in this world.
Or so I believe.
Thanks again for reading. Feel free to mock me. I invite judgement.
And yes, I wrote this too quickly and some points will seem vague and semi-contradictory as it spiraled out of control before bed.
Forgive the huge blocks of uninterrupted text that made you shudder so. Oh, if only I had never read this post… 🙂
Ain't it funny how much we all have to apologize if we crafted something more than 3 tweets worth for another human being to see?
That's where we are now.
What did Kurt say? "Here we are now, entertain us."
Would now be a good time to out Bruce Vilanch?
What's amazing is he writes all his posts on an Iphone.
gay / ( homosexual people, what the hell is gay anyway ? )people are always looking for somebody " gay " to say " hey see he's gay " if you still have to validate your being, by celebrity identification, maybe you should think about your being ? The man has a right to do what ever the hell he wants, that includes living in a closet, and belonging to a religion that might or might not like gays, it's his life, live yours, and jump up and down on as many soap boxes as you please. But leave other people alone.
Mike, I think this is an issue, because he has involved a legal team to take down the steam room anecdotes at the Gawker website. If he is lying in legal documents, then yes, he should be called on it and outed. If you don't want to be outed, then don't do random sex acts in a public place. I don't think the media should have to cover up for his indiscretions, especially when he is claiming before a court that he's straight.
1. How can you possibly say that Travolta has not "yet been given a chance to give a definitive performance" when his performance in "Saturday Night Fever" is not only excellent but positively iconic? I mean, it's up there with Cagney in "White Heat" and Brando in "Streetcar."
2. Carrie Fisher is a (somewhat talented and funny) nutjob who is so accustomed to turning her own life into some form of entertainment that she doesn't think twice about doing the same to others'.
3. I admire your sexual fluidity (your writing, no so much), but I suspect it is rooted in some Vidalian philosophy, your own personal experience and wishful thinking. Just as most heterosexual men wouleb physically unable to have sex with another man, simply because they are not wired that way, I could not perform vaginal intercourse with a female. I prefer not to see it as limitation or proof of the narrow-mindedness of my thinking.
Where do you get off being such a pompous ass? Even if he is participating in a "sham" marriage as you call it, it's still none of anyone's business. If he chooses to be a closeted homosexual but still has a wife and kids, who cares? He's not perpetuating anything other than the fact he's living his life how he wants to live it. He's not on Earth to be your gay activist. He has no responsibility to do so. So yeah, Carrie Fisher is a bitch and I hope to god that I never trust such a worthless friend with any kind of important secret.
That was great! Thank you.
So basically what you are saying is John Travolta is gay because he has different beliefs than you. There's no facts or evidence, he hasn't admitted it to anyone, yet you still "know" he's gay.
Grow up you douche.
"Wasn’t a prominent member of a notorious cult that claims that homosexuality is a perverse illness that can be cured."
Travolta's Christian?
Gee, I really didn't know that he was a pervert.
You Liberals? Got news for you Mertz, Fred Mertz WAS a liberal so that just proves that you tea baggers (balls on chin) haven't a clue nor will you ever!
Next » « Previous