Jodie Foster Finally Comes Out!
 

Good for her!!! :snap:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-15803,00.html

I suppose better late than never, but I find it really too shameful for someone leading so public a life to have acted with such shame for too long.

Mmm mmm! There's no way I'd be with someone who expected me to be invisible to the world. I tell you what. I'm glad she's finally out.
:)

I wonder if this might finally encourage Tom Cruise to do the same... ;)

You really think she stayed in the closet out of shame? I mean, everyone who knew her knows, it isn't like she was IN the closet anyway. I'd feel a little odd discussing my sexuality with the media.

Public aknowledgement and outright denial are two different things. Yeah, it's sad that she didn't come out earlier, because she IS such a great role model, but I don't think she should be condemned for her choice.

Perez Hilton and others want to force people PUBLICALLY out of the closet, and that is something that is normally a very personal decision.

Listen, what other reason is there? She chose to be a frelling MOVIE STAR. And ya know, her personal choices are her own. And I'll concede that being a movie star does not equate with giving up your privacy entirely.

But I don't admire her for staying "officially" closeted while famous. And I think the same of all the other famous closet cases.

Is there anyone who actually thought she was straight?

I'm guessing the two kids she popped out might have engendered some doubt in some circles.

Hell, when I saw "Freaky Friday" as a kid, I knew she was gay, and I didn't even fully understand what gay was back then. ;)

Well, I know a certain someone that isn't fooling anybody, and I still think it's shameful (and in his case, absurd) for him to be in the closet (though I respect the choice as his alone).

Stupid circles who failed biology.

I'm sorry but this whole thing is such a "doh, whatever" moment. Kinda like George Takei or Doogie Howser :p

Shameful? Jodi Foster is a private citizen. She is not some barbie doll who's personal life is there for your pleasure. What she chooses to share and more importantly what she or anyone else choose not to share with the public is no ones business. There is no shame at all in having a private life.

Ahh crap, why do I suddenly feel like I need a shot of ensure?

[Raises hand] Actually, I didn't really think one way or the other or follow any gossip.

I stand by his comment.. and ...

I might also state that there are a great many people who have always thought her to be straight, and will think this a publicity stunt.

Sorry to disagree with you there, Moonie. But she's dreaming if she thinks of herself as a private citizen with zero obligation to be a postive role model. That's her choice, but I consider it a cowardly one.

Just as I consider it cowardly and shameful for anyone to stay in the closet. I may respect their reasons and be compassionate for their fears ... but I think it's cowardly and shameful all the same.

I feel that she had the right to tell no one, private citizen, public personality, whatever. (Not to mention she has been famous since she was a toddler, unable to make these sorts of public/personal decisions for herself). I am so proud that she did, but it was her choice and these things have to be the choice of those involved and most of the people commenting on it simply weren't. The article mentioned that there had been calls on her to clarify her sexuality, which I could understand, but to the point that people would be outraged that she waited so long is just silly to me.

When I find out about people who "took so long to come out," I always try to take in mind that it was really only until very recently that in the medical field homosexuality was considered a mental health issue, a disease, a plague of sorts. There are still a great number of people living in circles that still believe that it is a sickness, and in some cases evil, so I can understand the great hesitancy that someone who has been in the public eye so long might give toward divulging such personal information.

If I were in the public, I'd guard my personal relationships, even though I am heterosexual. It's really no one else's business. The sooner we can get to that point as a society, the better off we'd be. But I'm not counting on it in my lifetime. We'll always have the homophobes and the sensationalists to make it a big frigging deal.

Well, my gaydar failed about George Takei. Jodie, I always figured she was, & she chose not to discuss it, whatever.

The more I've considered this, the more I'm thinking that she may have chosen to keep this private so long because she hasn't really seemed the type to allow herself to be in a position to be picked apart by the public, and less-so because of the sexuality issue (though that plays a role, I'm certain.)

Perhaps she was moved to finally say something for reasons other than "coming out."

Some people criticize celebrities for speaking out about politics and their pet causes. Some people criticize celebrities if they remain silent.

I'm glad Foster made a choice to honor her partner, though, regardless of sexual orientation.

Did she ever lie about her orientation or just not talk about it publicly?

I may be wrong here, but wouldn't there be a difference between "being in the closet" and "choosing not to announce your sexuality"? If she had been going around stating that she wasn't gay, then I would think there would be a valid issue. But to the best of my knowledge (and I may be wrong), she has never done so. So why is she cowardly and shameful?

Do you believe that all persons who have graced the silver screen be mandated to announce whether they are gay, straight, trans-gendered, etc? I don't believe that I have ever heard anyone announce that they are straight.

Why is it cowardly? Why is she obligated to be a role model? She didn't chose to be a "celebrity": she chose to be an actress. Those are not the same thing. Her life is as public (or private) as she chooses it to be. She is under no obligation to do anything further than whatever her contract requires. Historically, Jodie Foster has done very little to promote her films and has preferred to avoid the limelight - just make her movie and go home. I'm fine with that and the world should be too.

I rest easy knowing that if my car breaks down anywhere in the vacinity of Jodie Foster, that odds are she will know more about fixing my car than I wil.

Good for her for acknowledging her partner in public.

Yet, is it really any of our business? Was she really "in the closet" or just guarding her private life? What business of ours is it what celebrities do in their private lives? It drives me nuts that the media can think that they can follow people around, tear them down, photograph and criticize them because they are in the public eye. This is a old phenomena that has just gotten out of hand. I had TMZ TV on (my TV was on Fox) and they were just harassing Brittany Spears. Taunting, following her, blocking her path after she asked them to stop and get out of her way. And then they criticized her for having her break-down in public. She was walking into a coffee shop. Now, I am no Brittany defender but leave the poor girl alone. It is obvious she is in a downward spiral. Why do people feel they need to watch it? (and no, I wasn't actively watching what was on the TV. This caught my ear and made me so sad)

Who decided FOR Foster that she is supposed to be anyone's role model? Becoming an actor does NOT mean that your life is suddenly open for the public to know every tiny detail. Besides, who CARES what Foster - or anyone else - does when they have sex? I really don't see the importance one way or another. Now, IF a person decided to make a public announcement and willingly become a flag carrying role model for others, great. That's a personal choice but it doesn't come under "other duties as assigned" in a job description or an actor.

Besides, she wasn't "in the closet". It wasn't like she went about faking everyone out with her elaborate false hetero life.

I think it's Keira Knightly who has been very open about how she is not a role model and she won't be pressured into being one just because she's an actress.

I think she's a great role model. One of the few child star success stories. She went to college. We've never seen her whoo ha. She's conducted her life very privately - all of it. There's nothing wrong with that.

Would it be any different if she were straight and declined to name her companion so as to keep them out of the limelight? It's all franky none of my business.

I love you, KS!

The best actor/actress role models are the ones you almost never hear anything about.

Yeah, I mean who cares about Steadman? No one.

:D

Celebrities deserve their privacy. Their job is to make movies and entertain us with their works not their 'off screen lives'.

I agree - it's why I will never ask for an autograph or photo when I see them in public. Now, if they're working an event, fine. But, if they're just going about their daily routine, then they deserve that time for themselves.

I agree with Disneyphile - if they're at a public event then they're open game. You can make fun of their hair or their clothes. Ask for autographs. If they're just at the supermarket or in the park with their kids then leave them alone.

The Britney's and Paris's of the world create their own problems. I mean it is possible to just stay home for a couple of weeks and let things blow over. I don't feel as sorry for them as for the people who honestly don't ask for it.

No, I think Jake and Dave and Heath should be accessible 24/7. But not to everyone... just me.

Beckham? Chappelle? Arquette? Spade? Boreanaz? Hasslehoff?

Whatchootalkingbout, Cricket?

(Ok now everyone at work is staring at me because I'm laughing hysterically thinking about making out with the Hoff)

Kevin Kline?

There's only one Dave in my life. Dave Matthews.
:blush:

Good point about Becks, though... MMmmm David Beckham...

I'll bite, who is Steadman?

Oprah's...erm............boifriend?

All of the lesbians I fantasize about are extremely hot.

Oh, um, thanks. Steadman, heck, Oprah , meh [shrug]

I've never thought Jodie Foster all that hot. But she's certainly not ugly.

Huh. I always figured that she actually wasn't gay just because it was so obvious that she was, like it was a tabloid red herring kind of thing. Good for her though. If I was a chick I'd be the lesbianest damn lesbian who ever lesbianed.

You go Jodie!

I long for the day when something like this garners a huge 'uh...so like, who cares?' regardless of who its about

I fear I shall not live this long.
a pity really

I admired Jodie Foster when I was a kid. I thought she was so cool in Candleshoe and Freaky Friday.
:)

So what?

non event of the day

I knew there was a reason she wouldn't date me!

I hope you can now move on with your life.

:p

At least you didn't *turn her* :D

But that IS my response.

Oh, mine, too, though not always in the mainstream ways. I tend to like 'em just a touch androgynous. Or very femme.

That is indeed a dream day. It will come. Eventually.

You know, I've never contemplated her sexuality or much of anyone elses for that matter. I knew she had a son but I never gave it much thought, just knew she wasn't publicly married. I like her as an actress, that's all I ever cared about.

Well, there was that "High Society" pictorial years ago.

Or so I've heard.

Let me check my attic.

You might want to try July 1991 and May 1997.



I did some quick internet hunting

I did find this

Sure ya did ;)

Jodie now:


Johnny now:

That was my reaction as well. I love Jodie, as an actress, a human being and a well-rounded individual with a great deal of intelligence and empathy. She's a smart, sharp lady and I bet she's a fantastic mom. A person's sexuality does not define them- it's part of who they are, but we are so much more than just any one thing. Truth be told, I never thought she wasn't gay. It had absolutely no bearing on what I thought of her acting, or who she might be as a person, or anything. She is who she is, and she's fabulous.

Yeah, I had her pegged with Freeky Friday too.
I've never found her attractive really.
If she is - whatever...

Actors are not responsible to fight for my gay rights. It's no less my responsibility to fight for their gay rights. I have nothing but admiration for someone like Jodie Foster, she didn't jeopardize her earning ability, she supported her family, she didn't spend years on the drug addled bandwagon. If I should meet her, and it comes up in conversation, I would congratulate her allowing the chips to fall where they may. Thanking her would imply that I think she did something on my behalf. Now, someone like Larry Craig, or any other lawmaker (or celebrity) that votes or lobbies for an anti-gay agenda while engaging in gay activity, gets a big fvck you, and possibly a punch in the weiner. (I loved Juno)

you are as always, my friend, the exception to the rule...regardless of what rule we're talking about

:snap:

Jodie Foster is not responsible for fighting for gay rights. True. But at the same time, it's always nice to know that there are out gay people in high profile professions for gay kids, adults to look up to. (They don't have to be campaigning for anyone, suppporting a cause etc.) To have someone out there that's like you, going through the same stuff as you are, helps sometimes. I mean, we need more out people besides Melissa, Ellen, Elton and Rip Taylor.
:)

Then become a celebrity.

As my business continues to grow, is it my responsibility to be an "out" gay businessman? No. Especially if it affects my ability to do business. I hope that I choose to continue to be out, it's certainly my intention, but how does it become anyone's business but mine? Just because the gossip rags feed on reporting celebrity dating drama, doesn't obligate the celebrity to provide material. Dating is hard enough without the entire world passing judgment.

Missing my point entirely.

If no one is out there to relate to, it's harder to get by. It's possible to get by, yes. But it's comforting to see someone out there like you. If a gay kid is struggling with his sexuality and admires you, don't you kinda want to give them the assurance that they'll be okay and get to the place you are?

It is no one else's business. Totally. But if you can do some good by being out, why not be out instead of not saying something that's been completely obvious for 15 years. I think that is iSm's point that it comes across as shame. If it really was no big deal for Miss Jodie, then wouldn't a big "yeah I am, so what?" be more appropriate?

Mine too....

I'm surprised Hannibal Lechter didn't know. You would think he'd have smelled it on her.

Because not everyone is equipped to have that kind of spotlight on them. If you are, and you choose to take advantage of that position and do that kind of good, you're an awesome person. But that doesn't mean it's your responsibility to do it if you're not comfortable doing it.

As has been pointed out, she didn't actively deny anything, she didn't campaign against gay rights, she didn't do anything unbecoming. She simply chose that part of her very public life to be private because she wasn't interested in the public being a part of her love life.

I admire those that can be positive public role models. That does not imply a corollary that I'm disappointed in those that don't.

How can you reconcile those two sentences? "It's no one's business, but she should tell everyone." It's one or the other. And

And I think it comes across as someone uninterested in the tabloids turning her private life into a spectacle.

But if the spotlight's already on you, just ignoring it doesn't make it turn off. Foster has been in the spotlight since like age 5. I'm thinking she's equipped.

But I also think what she did was smart in a way. It does keep the spotlight on you longer if you're ambiguous about it. In that case, I think it benefitted her.

The spotlight was, as it should have been, on her acting, not her personal life. Just because other people want to make her personal life an issue doesn't require her to respond to it.

She's been in the public spotlight all her life but she hasn't gone out of her way to have her private life spotlighted. She didn't do a reality show. She doesn't court publicity for her private life in any way. I don't think it means she's hiding anything, she's just a private person.

And thank the gods for that. Unfortunately, I learned far more about Scott Baio's private life than I ever needed to know, thanks to reality television. :eek:

I'm with you there. I could only take about one episode of that one.

Normally, I will not watch shows that exploit the private lives of actors, but since he willingly did it, my curiosity got the best of me.

I never needed to know that Joanie really did "love" Chachie. :eek:

Regardless of what the "platform" a celebrity has to stand on, they are in no obligation to make it public. All gay actors don't "need" to go public with their sexuality. All recovering alcoholic or addict actors can remain anonymous about that part of their life if they choose to. If they choose to be public about this part of their lives for whatever reason, then that is their choice. But, it is none of my business who or what they are on a provate level.

I'm not saying "need". I'm saying it would be "nice" to have an assortment of high profile gay people out there who are saying 'Hey, look at me I'm out and life's okay. You can be a success and gay.' Instead of, 'Yeah, I know everyone's talking about my sexuality for 15 years and I'm going to pretend it's not there.'

See, it's the "instead" part that I have a problem with. Yes, it is always nice when someone comes out and is open, proud, and successful. But that has nothing to do with another person who makes the choice to remain private. By tacking that "instead" on, you're implicitly damning Foster as having done something wrong, as opposed to simply not doing something extra-good.

But, there are high profile gay people out there. Rosie, Porche, Ellen......etc. Why does everyone have to make the same choice?

After some thought, I do believe it's wrong. I don't agree with her choice to remain quiet about it.
The more the merrier... or if you're male... the more the Mary-er.
:D

Hopefully in our life time we see this as such a non-issue. We, as in the world. Or at least our country. Studies have shown that children who see successful people who look like them, who are the same religion as them, the same shape as them, etc do better. It's 'nice' that gay children are able to see normal, hard working adults like them. You don't hear about Neil Patrick Harris, David Hyde Perice, Sean Hayes, Ellen, Rosie in the media driving drunk, caught showing their 'bits'. But you see them acting, working hard, doing their job. I suspect as soon as this becomes 'old news' that you'll see as much from Jodie Foster. But gay kids will be able to see hard working normal adults who they have something in common with.

Heck, compare the 'gay role models' to the 'straight role models'* (Brittany, Paris, etc..) and wow.

We never had our 'role models' showing their 'bits', driving drunk to this extent. Yes, we lost River Phoenix to drugs. There were a ton of drug issues. But it wasn't plastered all over the media like it is now. It was bad, it wasn't cool.

*by role models I mean people the media pays so much attention to that this is what kids see as 'normal celebrity behavior'.

Something I was just wondering:
Are there any Oscar winners (Actor, sup actor, dir, etc...) who were out when they won?
Are there any out gay Oscar winners?

I'll have to research that.

(And this is not saying winning an Oscar is the be all end all of success, I just picked a high profile title: Academy Award Winner.)

I find that absurd. What a total disincentive for anyone to become successful. "If you are successful, you are under obligation to parade your dating and sexual life for the world to comment on."

No thanks.

First of all, the "High Society" spread I'm thinking of came out around 1981. Kind of a poolside thing. I think John Hinckley may have had a copy of it, but I could be wrong about that.

Second, I think she worked as hard as the average actress to appear elegant and glamorous. Either she was trying to counter a dyke-image or she was showing that lesbians can be elegant, too. Of course, the latter only works if we knew she was a lesbian. Which, I guess, we did.

As far as keeping silent goes, there is the "I don't care what you do, but why do I have to hear about it" element out there that occupies a middle ground between hate and tolerance. So, there is something to be said for the idea that one can act as a role model by leading a quiet private life. Ideally, this would encompass frank acknowledgments of one's unremarkable life when asked, but who's to say.

If I become successful, I promise I'll reveal all.

And, trust me, the world's gonna need therapy after that. ;)

Personally, I would rather that public figures keep their private life private, even if it means that we lose out on some wonderful potential role models. For every Foster, there is also a Travolta or Cruise who is adamant about sharing how special their private life is. I'm sure they are a role model to plenty of people as well, and one of which, I don't think we need more. I like these people based on how well they act. Otherwise, it just isn't any of my business.

It's part and parcel for what comes with that kind of celebrity status. Not everyone wants to be watched but people who are successful and high profile especially in the entertainment industry are. It stinks, but that's how it is.

If I relied on the media to promote my career and to help me make money, I also have to realize that there's a downside. Celebs open their lives in magazines, tv interviews, etc to promote themselves and their film, music, etc. When that door is opened, it's open.

There's a lot of crud that comes along with celebrity. That's the way it goes.

(And I am not picking on CJ - just using his post as a launching point)

As BTD mentioned above, I look forward to the day when this is a non-issue. I am a believer that if I want change in the world, that change has to being with me. I am just living my life as I choose to. My choice is that a person's sexuality has no bearing on other parts of their life.

I strive for the same on other aspects (color, religion, etc.). I wish I was there, but one thing at a time (after all, Everyone's a Little Bit Racist).

What about the possibility that she was dressing to look elegant as a woman? Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't dress to look good as a straight man* - I dress to look good as a man**. I may not always succeed, but making a statement about what my sexuality is does not have any impact on my choice.

* Arguments about my sexuality aside
** Halloween excepted

Ditto. (Which is why, for instance, I don't buy gossip magazines, I don't watch TMZ or ET or any of the other tripe, and I don't drive traffic to Perez Hilton's website.) (I do admit that I watch The Soup, but that's an entirely different monster.)

And also, ditto to the idea that Foster may well have been dressing to be glamorous as a woman. The title "lesbian" does not necessarily imply that one must be frumpy or not frumpy. I've known frumpy lesbians and glamorous ones, and frumpy and glamorous breeders, too.

I didn't realize "celebrity" was a fundamental natural force.

Sorry, but that's a bunch of crap that's been sold to America by the tabloids. I have no interest in knowing more about a celebrity than they care to share, and I barely even want to know that much.

But, I will buy Weekly World News on occasion. If anything, Bat Boy owes us his entire life story, that freak.

OMG - that is the greatest "newspaper". It is an occasional must read.

Jeez I haven't listened to Bat Boy: The Musical in ages!!!

Isn't the Weekly World News fiction news? Like the Onion? I don't think they're trying to pass of their stories as real like Enquierer or Star... At least, that's what I always thought it was.

I get all my news from The Onion!

The Weekly World News (no longer publishing, actually) is entirely fake...but they're happy to court the conspiracy nuts/idiots who are willing to believe it.

No, Greg. I am Bat Boy.







:D

If celebrities have an obligation to be public about their sexual orientation, when does that kick in? Is there a certain level of fame at which one has to reveal that information? Or are you just supposed to include it with your headshot whenever you audition for a role?

And what are the mechanics of revealing one's orientation? Does one call a press conference? Or arrange for a guest spot on Leno? Post it on their blog? How do you "tastefully" disclose this information?

And does this notion of an obligation to reveal sexual orientation work for or against the notion of "why the hell does it matter?" If one argues that celebrities have to proactively alert the world as to their preferences, doesn't that imply to some degree that those preferences are an aberration from the norm that is somehow newsworthy? Is there nothing to be said for celebrities promoting the idea that their sexual orientation has no bearing on their artistic talents?

[quote= . . . Foster may well have been dressing to be glamorous as a woman. The title "lesbian" does not necessarily imply that one must be frumpy or not frumpy. I've known frumpy lesbians and glamorous ones, and frumpy and glamorous breeders, too.[/QUOTE]

Theoretically possible, but I suspect more calculation than that. I think she's spent a lot of time distancing herself from public perceptions of what lesbians are. Perhaps things have changed post-L Word and Girls Gone Wild fake blonde drunk lesbians, but when I last went to the SF Gay Parade in 1989, the only people wearing "elegant" dresses were men. I think that's still the public perception.

I don't see that at all. I only see she's spent a lot of time distancing herself from publicity.

Just to clear up what may be a misconception. I don't think celebrities or anyone else is under any obligation to be out if they are gay. It's entirely their choice.

I think the choice to be in the closet, in ANY situation, is a cowardly one. I make that choice at times, and so I base my opinion on my own fear and cowardice. Oh, there may be real world considerations, and I may justify it with 'it's noboby's business' - but as soon as I cross the line from simply not mentioning it to avoiding mentioning it in any way, I know the fear and cowardice have kicked in.

It doesn't matter if there are or may be consequences. Losing a job, freaking your parents. Whatever. The choice to stay in the closet may be justified and rational, but that doesn't make it any less fear-based and thus cowardly.


I don't know if Foster was out or not. Maybe she was. The O.P. made some reference to her finally acknowledging her partner after upteen years, and that's what I was going off. I don't pay any attention to celebrities' private lives, gay or straight, boozer, gambler, good parent, political activist ... I don't happen to care. So I'm not sure to what degree Foster may or may not have been out prior to this.


But I've been an unacknowledged partner for years via the justifiable fear of a partner, and I didn't like it.

Perhaps Foster's partner was fine with it. Perhaps she was acknowledged in every other sphere of their lives except the public one.

Well, the area I went unacknowledged in was but a tiny slice of our mutual sphere ... but it was there nonetheless. And it was based in fear nonetheless.

I don't know, here in LA there are plenty of "Lipstick Lesbians" that are rather hot and fem - I think one can be a lesbian without having to sport a mullet.

Also curious as to what other things should or should not be disclosed - what about fetishes? Voting records, lists of people you've bonked or fantasized about bonking? Income, Orientation of one's parents, freinds, relatives, Favorite drinks, recreational drug use, medical hiostory, etc.?

Yes, fetishes should definetely be disclosed.







You start.

I am Kaiser Sose.

I am Spartacus.

No, I am Spartacus

I am Spankatush.

Humm..
Maybe I am Iron Man.

I am the Lizard Queen!

If gaining celebrity creates a certain obligation to discuss sexuality publicly so that you can be a roll model for similarly situated non-celebrities, are there any other aspects of private life that are similarly obligated.

As a young Jehovah's Witness I might have appreciated an outspoken celebrity lighting a path for me. But so many celebrities seem to consider their religious life to be completely personal and go out of their way to avoid discussing it.

Same with chronic diseases. Is Pamela Anderson obligated to openly discuss her Hepatatis C (if she has it). Should Gary Burghoff (Radar, from MASH) have been outspoken about his deformed hand (just an example, for all I know he was)?

Should Lee Majors and Nancy Reagan make the fact that they're adopted a big part of their public profile? What obligations does Woody Harrelson have to openly and prominently discuss the fact that his father was a freelance hitman so that other children of murderers can know that it is possible to rise above that?

We all have different things we consider part of our private life, even celebrities, and that which is a topic of ease for one person is very uncomfortable for another. And discomfort does not necessarily equal shame.

So, Cherny, are you saying your fetish is reptiles? Like snakes, maybe? :p

Oh fine, divert the thread into nonsense-land while I'm composing a reply so that I look even more like a wet blanket than usual.

I AM A GOLDEN GOD.

It's an interesting tangent raised by Alex and €uro. But my personal response is the same to both of them, about all of it. If you're hiding it rather than just not mentioning it, you are acting from fear.

That doesn't make you a coward. But it IS a cowardly act. Such an act doesn't define you, and it may be completely insignificant. But it's cowardly.

There is no obligation to be uncowardly .... except to yourself. And you get to decide whether that's a personal obligation.

Oh, fine, Alex.. make a wet blankety statement while I'm continuing the flight to nonsense-nonsense land, so it looks like I'm attempting targeted assholery.

Very well put.

What constitutes celebrity? Should Baby Jessica who's claim to fame is falling down a well as an infant have to disclose her personal information just because at one point she was known worldwide?

I don't talk to my coworkers about my salary. Is that a cowardly act? Is fear the ONLY motivation to ever not discuss something?

Is it not possible to think that something is not an appropriate topic of public conversation without being afraid of it.

I have no fear of repercussions or embarrassment should I go into detail about my intimate sexual preferences. I just don't think they are, except in very narrow situations, something to be talked about.

The same, for example, when it comes to discussing religion at work. I have no fear that discussing my atheism would have negative impacts on me. And I'm certainly not embarrassed by it. I just don't think personal religion (or lack of it) is an appropriate discussion topic for that venue.

Finally, why am I suddenly unable to spell embarrassed without assistance of spellcheck?

But what would exactly hiding mean. What if your friends and family know, close associates, but you just don't make a public statement? Is that hiding? What if you don't like your photo plastered all over the tabloids so you prefer to stay in instead of going out? Is that hiding?

I think it's each persons personal comfort level. Just because someone keeps to themselves I don't think them cowardly. There's nothing wrong with being descreet.

It depends on how you define "out". Does EVERYONE have to know about it to be considered out? I'm pretty sure her partner, her family, her kids, her close professional relationships all knew about it. I KNOW her hairdresser knew (because he was also my hairdresser). It comes to no surprise that Foster is a lesbian to most people. She really never made an effort to not be "out" that I am aware of.

The other concept I find so interesting here is the fact that the celebrities we are talking about here are primarily actors. Their JOB is to make people believe they are something they aren't. If I were an actor, i think it would behoove me to keep my "real" live as private as possible and out of the public eye so it did not effect my career and limit me in any way. It doesn't seem like it would be terribly difficult. There are enough faux-celebrities like Paris to keep the hounds on the chase.

Alex brings up a lot of good points.

I don't think anyone who doesn't want to talk about their private life should feel obligated to talk about it. Anyone who wants to, should be able to.

If Nancy Regan wants to talk about being adopted, Pamela wants to talk about her Hepatitis C and Woody Harrelson wants to talk about his father and how they over come the stigmas attached to their challenges, they should. It may reach someone struggling with the same issue and they can see that they aren't the only one's who have a not so pleasant past or family tree/history. And if they all want to remain mum about it then it is their prerogative.

This is precisely what my college professors used to tell us. (Quite wisely, I might add.)

I kinda like secrets - I think it's cool when things are uncovered long after the fact. I want my stars to be able to have an shroud of mystery, should they desire it.

Yes, propriety is motivation. It can even be the motivation not to discuss your sex life.

Do you suppose that's really the motivation why most closeted people don't reveal they're gay?

I think it may be fine for those that don't want to reveal their fetishes. ;)



But what is propriety anyway? Is it really a sincere concern for the feelings of others? Or is it fear by another name?

I'm gay. But it's no one else's business that I'm a bottom.







Oops.





:D

I think sometimes we resort to privacy becasue that way we can control the context of a message. I think one of the great proplems people in the public world face is that they are defined by bits of information taken out of context - let's face it being labled straight or gay really doesn't say a whole lot about who you really are as a person, we're far to complex for that.

I believe WWN is still being published. I am pretty sure I saw an issue at the store within the last couple of weeks.

Their web site appears to be still active.

So here's what I'm wondering. Was she really in the closet? Has her refusal to address it until now been a defacto admission or denial? I'm sure that with all the rumors that have circulated about her, at some time someone had to have flat out asked her, "Are you gay?" If she said "No" then obviously she was lying and choosing to hang out with R Kelly in the closet. But if she refused to answer, then she's not denying it, so is she really "closeted" or is she just happily being mysterious. Because (IMO) if she's never said, "No, I am not gay," knowing full well that so many people believed that she was, then she hasn't been living in the closet, she just hasn't been running for the spotlight either. Which, by the way, is very admirable I believe.

I guess the point is, do you have to actually deny being gay when faced with others believing that you are in order to be "in the closet?" Or can you simply be someone who just, ya know, happens to swing that way but doesn't dwell on it and instead focuses on other important aspects of your life, such as say, a brilliant acting career?

This is going to look much more cryptic than it's meant to be, due to lack of time on my part. But if you don't know The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life by Erving Goffman, find it. You'll find it compelling and illuminating, mon cher Christophe.

On the topic of what constitutes not being "out", and the question of why people "need" to know your orientation,

I think the point is that the press and public are always wanting to know who is dating whom. It's impossible for someone who is homosexual to answer such an innocuous question, or to show up at events in which one would normally be escorted by one's significant other, WITHOUT coming out of the closet or deliberately hiding it.

Maybe she decided to come out now because, well, we pretty much all knew anyway at this point and there was no longer anything to hide. Who knows?

I suspect that it is no coincidence that she has come out after her peak earning years (as a woman in front of the camera in Hollywood) are behind.

Having said that I don't think there is any obligation, I also don't really doubt that, at least initially, it was a form of fear that kept her from saying anything. She came to fame 30 years. If she'd come out in the early '80s it really would have been scandalous an probably career threatening.

And so you hide it. Hollywood has always been reasonably open about homosexuality so long as you didn't talk about it for the cameras. And times change and being gay isn't as huge an issue as it once was but now should you stand up and say "yes, I'm gay" it may not be a scandal but it will be big press since now you've been hiding it for 30 years, everybody gets to say "yep, I told you" and really as a mature, intelligent, reasonably private person, why would you eagerly jump into that fire?

I'm an ass man....big time. Now you know.

That's were you like to receive?

No wonder you and Mickey Lumbo are so close.

Here is something I have always wondered.

In a basic straight coupling, there is, for the most part, no question about who does what. Tab A goes in Slot B.

But how is this established in a gay relationship? Is it discussed whom is a top and who is a bottom? Is it something that you just "know"? Is it common for a couple to trade these roles?

Sorry if I am being overly personal (and/or ignorant), I've just always been curious.

Be careful Kevy - you know the story about Curiosity and the Cat...




Actually, I forget... the cat got laid right??

Not to speak for GC, but I find it amusing that one of the problems he's discovered with computer dating is most sites won't let you advertise whether you are top or bottom.


It's very important to fit Tab A into Slut B, er SlOT B .... so, yeah, this info would come right up front in the bold print if it were allowed.

In person ... if it's not obvious at first, it comes to fore pretty quick.


Oh, and in my anecdotal world of little experience, most people are either one or they're the other, with as few as 20% being very versatile.





Jodie's the top, btw. ;)





.

Good to know. And once I know who Jodie is I'll officially know too much about him/her/it.

He was the one that hung out with Buffy.

As long as we're asking questions / clarifying misconceptions, I still don't "get" sex between lesbians. I mean, with gay men, tab A goes into slot B or tab B goes into slot A. But girls? I don't get it. Sorry ladies, I don't see the appeal beyond appreciating looking at beautiful women.

iSm: It seems to me that if top vs. bottom is an issue for the community, that some sort of coding would be developed, and if it isn't, maybe it could/should be. Some seemingly unrelated word or phrase one could use in their profile that would indicate either way.

Yes, the "community" is in a quandary. It seems we've used up all the codes already, and we're stuck with boring old "top" or "bottom."

Wait, maybe it could be different colored hankies! And depending on the pocket it stuck out of it could mean different things! Or how about tapping your foot in a bathroom stall, it could be like morse code! Or winking! If I wink at you with my left eye it means I'm looking for a bottom, if I wink with my right, a top. Both eyes winking in rapid succession means I'm a dizzy queen who thinks he's Glinda the Good Witch.

Gays invented coded sexual messages. That's how we manage to cowardly hide in our closets and still get laid.

They published the last print edition in August. They are continuing on the web only.

I realize this is old news, but good for her. I always wondered why she stayed in hiding so long.

Really? I wouldn't think so - but I'm a straight guy

My hearsay anecdotal experience is there is a wide variety of possibilities - some use appliances, other's shun then, mutual masturbation is always an option, and cunnilingus being an obvious choice.

Speaking as someone who doesn't really know, I've always figured that being a lesbian was as much about the emotional attraction to females as the physical.

That, and I could go for a night of (good) oral just about any old time and I'd be a pleased woman. Maybe that's why I've always been open to the possibility of a female partner, even if it's not happened and I have a preference for males and their genitalia. I've been fairly blessed in the receiving department. :blush:

Fine. NOW you tell me? :rolleyes:

I think they use Tresca instead of Tab.

Sweetheart, you KILL me. :D :snap:

so's Gemini Cricket, by the sounds of it !! :blush:



...I always remember the line from "Longtime Companion" where the guys mother asks "Dear, are you a Top or a Bottom?"

A friend of mine took care of his father as he got old and started getting a little senile (is that a politically correct term?). They would spend every Monday together.

One Monday, as they were strolling through Laguna, out of the blue (they had not been discussing anything near this topic), Dad asks, "So [son], what's it like to get fvcked up the @ss?"

How does one answer a question like that from their father?

Pshaw. Nobody believes it goes would go down like that, not even you.

I'd say, "Well, Dad. Here, have a seat on this pointy fire hydrant."



I'm not sure if men who are Centers are always Centers and I don't know if men who are Quarterbacks are always Quarterbacks... but I for one an a Center. Yes, there are times when I get all "Grr, come here Tight End, you're gonna be my Wide Receiver." But for the most part I wait for the "Hike!" from a cute Brett Favre.

Women have such soft skin...

I think your tab/slot observation is interesting, and somehow links in my head with the generalities that gay men have fag hags but lesbian women don't have male friends, and instead are supposedly man haters. Hmm.

Goonie - pretty much, your question's been answered already, but I have to add in the boobies, and the fact that appliances can last as long as their battery life (and longer if there are spares handy). ;)

On the sports analogy thing, I often hear about the pitcher and catcher pairing

Plug-in appliances don't need a battery change :evil:

And neither do some strap-on ones. ;)

No real reason for it, but I just felt like posting this picture...

My experience, OTOH, has been that most gay men are versatile at least part of the time. And that exclusive bottoms are more common than exclusive tops.

That football analogy was getting me all hot and bothered until i realized GC was really talking about gay sex.



Morrigoon has me thinking about scissors.

Leave it to Kevy to whip out the Hitachi

I wouldn't be surprised if there is more than one owner of these on this board.

I know of two, but I am not naming names.

I totally need to buy more toys.

I couldn't find anything on the web to back this up, but many years ago I heard of a man who hangs around with lesbians referred to as a "bent gent."

I always thought that was interesting, that even in a society that embraces different sexual preferences, the language still showed a frightening male dominance, men are "gents" and women are "hags". Scary.

well, I suppose the rhyming thing was paramount. Perhaps, keeping with that imperative, a more pleasant term would be "Queer Dears."


Aawwwww.

I thought it was "lemon drop."

I've never heard that term before (don't know too many lesbians) but I find it interesting that the term refers to the man, as in "he is a bent gent" as opposed to "she is a hag for fags." Hmm, we need a one syllable term for a lesbian that rhymes with a one syllable term for a man...

Hmm, never heard that one either...perhaps a bit vague?

Just to make sure I am as educated as possible, I watch as many films on the topic as possible.

Strictly for scientific reasons of course.

I don't think she was hiding anything. There were pictures of the two of them together- at events, with the kids etc....

She was not hiding- she just did not make it a public spectacle- and why should she.

Straght actors do not talk about their spouses and sexual proclivites constantly- they just live their lives- period, end of story.

Same with Jodie-

If you want a world where being gay/straight whatever does not matter and does not define our value and place in society- you need to stop expecting people to announce it for you thereby making it an issue.

In the realm of slot b/tab a... I guess I'll say that I totally understand how a lesbian could find sex pleasing. While there's no doubt I have a preference for my beloved's masculine genitalia, if our sex life were only an in-out-in-out occasion, where would be the eros and tension and the joy? The exploration, the adventure, the surprise?

I agree! Just because a person is famous doesn't mean they have to share every little piece of themselves with the world. I'm sure famous people would like some semblance of privacy.

Maybe famous people should choose another line of life, then.


That's kind of an oxymoron, "famous people" and "privacy." Heheh.


Oh, they deserve some ... as much as they can manage. But I don't have pity for any that get less than desired. Few people have fame thrust upon them; most work quite hard to achieve it. It should come as no suprise to them that privacy might be even harder to achieve.

It's one thing to say, "Well, odds are you were going to lose your privacy, sorry." Entirely another to say, "Hey, you've got no right to privacy, don't even try it."

I've nothing really much to add in regards to "Tabs" but I will say this about "Celebrity" is that there is a certain number in the mass population who really "get off" on celebrities and what they do, are, what they wear, eat, drink, drive, who they're sleeping with etc. and those are the lonley housewives that fork over the $$ - so there's a demand. I'm all for privicy but I'm sure if there wasn't the "oogle" factor it wouldn't be as bad. Plus with the internet, events are posted seconds after they happen and EVERYONE knows.

My .05

Don't encourage him.

"Lemon Drop" is the phrase used here in Oz, too.

You're where I got it. :rolleyes:

Why for the lemon drop?

Yes, what does that mean???



(Inexplicable Aussies with their weird jargon, sheesh!) :rolleyes:

We were out to dinner at a local steakhouse tonight and ran into our friends and ex-neighbors, Lisa and Sheri. I asked them if I was a Lemon Drop and they laughed and said yes. Unfortunately I didn't think to ask them if they knew the term's origin.

..and breaks up-

So much for sticking by each other during the "rotten and the bliss".
Maybe the rotten got to be overwhelming?

While I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is true, is there any other independent confirmation? A Daily Mail article parroting the National Enquirer using anonymous sources isn't the most solid of reporting styles.

thats too bad, but I can almost see how this all played out

(trouble in paradise ensues, as can happen with any couple, gay or otherwise)
Jodie: "this isnt working"
Cydney: "of course not, you wont even admit youre with me"
Jodie: "sure I will...watch"
(Jodie comes out)
(theres still trouble in paradise)
Cydney: "ok, that didnt solve anything"
Jodie: "no, not really"
Cydney "bye"
Jodie: "bye"


just how I envisioned it coming about. probably really has little to do with their gender preferences

mi dos centavos

I hate Jodie's arms. Always have. Always will.

? whats wrong with her arms?

Yeah, I'm curious too:

Yeah, if you're going to be hating on something, how about that hawklike schnoz?

Well, in that first photo she is holding her arms in a way appropriately per basic handgun safety standards. In the second she looks like Meg Ryan and that is never a good thing; Crowe taint and all that.

So I'm 50 and I googled for Jodie arm pix, 'k.
 

It's the forearm veins, man - the veins!

Ew, now that you mention it!

I am really rather certain that Foster wouldn't prefer to be anywhere near Crowe's taint.

Yes, so you see the detrimental effect of at all looking like Meg Ryan.

Awww.. veiny forearms run on my mom's side of the family. Even though I'm not quite as rail thin as they are, I have a little vein-age going on my forearms (not sticking out as much since I'm not as fit as I have been in the past), and lightly along my ankles and feet, as well.

And I rather like it. Mostly because I know when I'm in better shape I'm more veiny.

yeah, I think its a japanese thing. I got 'em too

I think Jodie Fosters arms are hot. Her face, not so hot.

I'd sleep with her.

I'd watch

I'd want to hear about it.

I'd read about it. Here. :rolleyes: