Will there come a time when nobody cares about public figures' sexual orientation?
Tom Daly: I'm not gay.
James Franco: I wish I were gay.
Wentworth Miller: I almost killed myself in the closet.
Corey Booker: It's not fair to young ladies for me to date them.
It's getting kind of boring, isn't it?
No, because who a public figure is romantically involved with is part of the public interest. There is a whole industry of entertainment journalism tracking the status of celebrities "relationships"
Your sexual orientation is a pretty big visible part of you, that is inevitable.
The public will eventually be interested in romantic partners, not necessarily if they're gay or straight.
It all starts with you gay boys and all your chatter and accusations concerning every male that looks fuckable is queer.
[quote]It all starts with you gay boys and all your chatter and accusations concerning every male that looks fuckable is queer.
Since there's gay "chatter" about guys like Bishop Eddie Long, Rush Limbaugh, and Larry Craig, it's obvious that the Jackass at R3 thinks they look fabulous and fuckable.
R1 is correct. Why is homosexuality supposed to be no big deal but US Weekly and The Star can go on and on about which hetero (or allegedly hetero) stars are dating each other?
Things have gotten much better, but no it will not go entirely away. Have you noticed, neither racism nor anti-semitism have disappeared- hardly.
We have always cared of course, however, there was a time when you would never ask someone that question.
When does US Weekly and The Star emphasize that a couple is hetero? They don't.
In the future they'll continue to talk about romantic relationships. They'll talk about a Greg dating a Phil, but won't go with a "gay" label. In the same way, they'll talk about a Jim dating a Mary and won't announce that they're hetero.
For some reason, and we gays do this also, everyone believes that we're on Noah's Ark and everybody has to be paired up. There are many, many people who don't feel the need to be in a relationship. There are some who just don't like to discuss their private lives. So, in a world where everyone has to have a partner, people will always question why and speculate on the reasons why.
But let's not make any mistakes here, the sexuality of public figures has an impact on their livelihoods, so you have to be cautious. Matt Bomer said it best when he laid it on the line and said that a lot of people were depending on him to make a living. Coming out publicly has ripple effects.
I think James Franco would say it, if he were gay. Tom Daley has a brand to protect. Wentworth Miller struggled, but at the same point was probably told to stay in the closet - hell Wentworth had to come out as black a few years ago. I don't know if Corey Booker is gay or not, but I get the impression that he prefers a certain type that may not be conducive to attracting a broad coalition of voters.
Why shouldn't they care? We are sexual beings. Especially when we are young and most people are sexual beings their whole life. It's an important part of us...why do you closet cases insist it's not?
There will come a day when nobody cares about public figures' sexual orientation... but today is not that day!
When everyone everywhere is 100% fully legally equal maybe
I think R8 got it right:
[quote]In the future they'll continue to talk about romantic relationships. They'll talk about a Greg dating a Phil, but won't go with a "gay" label. In the same way, they'll talk about a Jim dating a Mary and won't announce that they're hetero.
In the 70s, people would actually use the phrase " a lady doctor," as in "I think Dr. Reynolds, that lady doctor, is pretty good overall [with the implied, but unstated,'even though she is female']." I think advances in equality go through a period of time when they are a novelty in the cultural awareness. Eventually, when we get used to the reality that a particular quality--such as gender, or sexual orientation--can have *multiple values* (and not just "male" and "straight"), the importance of that value will matter less and less.
"In the same way, they'll talk about a Jim dating a Mary and won't announce that they're hetero."
Stating that a guy is dating a woman is the same thing as saying that they are hetero. They don't have to "announce" it.
"I think James Franco would say it, if he were gay"
No, he wouldn't. Actors who play leading man roles in movies don't come out, there is too much money riding on them. How much money did it cost to produce and promote that Wizard of Oz shit he starred in? Probably at least $200 million.
When Wentworth Miller was on Prison break he did articles where he denied being gay.
From 2007 And with the fan’s adoration, so too comes the media speculation, particularly around Miller’s sexuality, but the softly spoken actor was firm when setting the record straight.
“No, I’m not gay,” he said.
[quote]Stating that a guy is dating a woman is the same thing as saying that they are hetero. They don't have to "announce" it.
Just as they can talk about Elton John and his husband in a news article and they don't have to "announce" that they are gay.
That's what we're getting at. As marriage equality spreads, they won't be making a big deal about an actor in a gay romance. It will just be a romance. They'll simply post the names to the two people involved in a romance without explaining that they're gay.
"They'll simply post the names to the two people involved in a romance without explaining that they're gay."
Stating that two guys are in a romance is the same thing as stating that they're gay. Anyway, the media wouldn't do that because they don't report on same sex relationships unless the people involved have already come out. They say they don't believe in "outing"
[quote]Stating that two guys are in a romance is the same thing as stating that they're gay.
No it isn't. It reveals that they are gay to those who didn't already know, but the news is the relationship. Just like with straight public figures.
[quote]Stating that two guys are in a romance is the same thing as stating that they're gay.
Golly, we didn't know that!!!! So glad you pointed that out.
We're talking about "Will there come a time..." when it won't be about them being straight or gay; when it will just be about two people in a romance.
There was a time when the media would report on a white person marrying a black person. You probably can't contemplate how things have evolved since that time way back in the last century. Try to imagine, R17, just for a second, that things will continue to evolve.
"You probably can't contemplate how things have evolved since that time way back in the last century. Try to imagine, R17, just for a second, that things will continue to evolve"
Huh? You're the one who needs to evolve. You obviously didn't understand my post. Get a life.
[quote]Huh? You're the one who needs to evolve. You obviously didn't understand my post. Get a life.
Your post explained how things are with the media NOW, R20. We know that. Again, you appear unable to contemplate how things can be in the future. Why are you unable to understand what OP wrote in the title of this thread? It's about the future, not about now. Do you need someone to define "future" for you? Think about the words "Will there come a time." Can you manger that? Can you see that it points to the future? Duh! No sense in telling you to get a life, when you're obviously brain-dead.
"Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally really did it ... You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"
We are switching to the new platform for The DataLounge this weekend. All of our mobile users have been using it for over a week and all first time users have been using it for about a month - which adds up to well over one million users. So we're ready to end this phase of the testing and move everybody to the new site. (more)
And yes, we've changed the look and some of how it operates.
Yes, we know you just *hate* it in well in advance.
Yes, we know we suck.
Yes, we are the biggest suckers that ever sucked.
But it was time for a change and with the huge shift to mobile it was long overdue. We've taken this opportunity not only to update the look but also make major changes under the hood (or "bonnet" if you're either British or pretentious or both). And we have to prepare for 2016 - a presidential election year where we can normally expect to see a 60% jump in traffic (yes, we've seen 5 presidential elections so far…Christ we're old).
The site has a bunch - nay, plethora - of new features which will make the site more usable: better search, the ability to ignore posters and threads, see link previews, to pick up a thread where you left off, spam and malware filtering and more.
If you want you can go explore and see for yourself, Click here.
And while running the tests we've noticed two interesting reactions to the new system - people are spending more time on the site and more people that come stay around longer and look at more stuff. Both good things. Yay!
Possibly we've not slain all the dragons and there will be issues that come up during the switchover. There's a help button in the lower right hand corner of the page which you can use to send us bug reports.
Please include as much information about the hardware (PC, Mac, Tablet, Phone etc), operating system (Windows, Mac OS, Android, iOS etc) and browser (Chrome, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer etc) that you are using as possible to help us replicate and fix the problem.
Please note that complaints about colors, fonts, icons and the like are not "bugs" - they are design choices that we've made and we expect one or two cases of world-class bitching. But they won't actually cause headaches, scurvy, heart attacks, Restless Leg Syndrome, Morgellon's Disease or the vapors (but have your smelling salts at hand just in case).
Talking to DataLounge servers. Please wait a moment...