Comments on: Comments on 16093

Post number 16093

WolfDaddy — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 18:14:40 -0800

"He's not gay, and the judge so ruled," says Bert Fields, attorney for Tom Cruise. Yes folks, Tom Cruise is now the world's only legal heterosexual. While this is old news, I've always been fascinated with how much zeal Cruise prosecutes these allegations. This case, though, is unique in that the ruling in favor of Cruise contains a stipulation which states that Cruise is not, nor ever has he ever been, gay. In other words, Tom's heterosexuality is now enforced by the courts. Should we, the moviegoing public, now file a class-action lawsuit to force Cruise to publicly prove his unique legal status as a compulsory heterosexual? Would Tom being a backdoor boy really damage your enjoyment of his movies, as Cruise seems to think? Just how stupid do Hollywood stars and their publicists think we are? Discuss.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 18:24:53 -0800

scientologists will fuck anything.

By: Settle

Settle — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 18:52:37 -0800

Mr Davis, who publishes Bold Magazine, had offered a $500,000 reward to anyone who could provide incontrovertible proof that Mr Cruise was gay. Either they're both gay or Mr. Davis is just a real big fan.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 19:02:38 -0800

Gotta be gay, 'cause Scientology has him over the barrel and he's taking it right up the ol' poop chute...

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 19:03:40 -0800

I suppose "poop chute" is politically insensitive, and I should instead use some politically correct and approved term that I don't know...

By: Rebis

Rebis — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 19:05:42 -0800

Here's an interesting link: legal correspondence, concerning the book 'Open Secret: Gay Hollywood 1928-2000' by David Ehrenstein, showing the absurd lengths to which Tom Cruise's lawyers will go to squelch even allusions to the fact that some people have claimed (albeit falsely) that perhaps he is gay.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 19:11:45 -0800

Bet he can't find a judge to rule he's a good actor.

By: pzarquon

pzarquon — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 19:23:46 -0800

Great link, Rebis. Weaver kicked ass. (I mean, that's about as exciting as lawyers get in writing.)

By: MidasMulligan

MidasMulligan — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 19:36:31 -0800

"He's not gay and the judge so ruled." Where's Karl Popper whern you need him? I wonder how it is logically even possible to prove one is not gay? PS. Also, what Paris said.

By: MaddCutty

MaddCutty — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 19:49:29 -0800

When one goes to such lengths to deny somthing you can bet that he is what he denies. Of course there are always hamsters.

By: hincandenza

hincandenza — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 20:14:08 -0800

You only say that MaddCutty because you're a goddamn child-raping neoNazi sympathizer.

By: Rastafari

Rastafari — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 20:16:58 -0800

Tom Cruise should have the Richard Gere/Ricky Martin attitude about this whole thing: I don't care what people say about me because there's nothing wrong with being gay, and who the hell gives a shit anyway what I am... Otherwise, it begins to look like 'thou does protest too much'.

By: aaron

aaron — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 20:17:47 -0800

Would Tom being a backdoor boy really damage your enjoyment of his movies, as Cruise seems to think? That's not what he's worried about. It's obvious that almost every moviegoer in America has heard the rumors dozens of times, and it hasn't kept any of his movies from becoming blockbusters. He's obsessed about "proving" his heterosexuality because Scientology is extremely anti-gay, even more so than most fundamentalist Christian sects.

By: RJ Reynolds

RJ Reynolds — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 20:22:34 -0800

As a giant flaming homosexual, I hereby grant five fresh fish the right to refer to the rectum as a poop chute. Anyway: we don't want Tom cruise on our team. We only want the interesting, smart, talented, not L-Ron'ed ones such as ourselves. *Smirk*

By: evanizer

evanizer — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 20:31:19 -0800

I wonder how it is logically even possible to prove one is not gay? I imagine some sort of device like the one in A Clockwork Orange that holds his eyelids open and forces him to watch gay porn. Doctors could monitor his brainwave activity and, ahem, turgidity, to make a final ruling. Speaking of Kubrick, there's a very strange part in Eyes Wide Shut where Cruise is walking down a street at night and is assaulted by a pack of fratboys (in Yale sweatshirts, no less) who call him a faggot and a fairy and knock him over. The scene is so drawn out and jarring, I always wondered if Kubrick was making some kind of joke against ol' Tommy.

By: rodii

rodii — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 20:34:05 -0800

1. Maybe he's denying it because he's not gay. (!!) 2. Plenty of straight people take it (and give it) up the poop chute. 3. "backdoor boy" "poop chute"--how are you guys enjoying junior high?

By: WolfDaddy

WolfDaddy — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 20:50:00 -0800

...there's a very strange part in Eyes Wide Shut... I thought the same things, evanizer. And don't even get me started on Magnolia. I always thought that he seemed to enjoy screaming "respect the cock" with his pants puddled around his ankles a bit too much to be, you know, acting. Maybe he's denying it because he's not gay. (!!) He's doing more than denying it, rodii, he's prosecuting it, and doing so almost pathologically. I don't know about you, but when there's this much smoke, there's gotta be a flamer in there somewhere.

By: davidmsc

davidmsc — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 20:50:42 -0800

1. You can't *prove* that someone is gay or is not gay...you can only prove that someone has or has not engaged in homosexual behavior. 2. Did you all hear the news that...Rosie O'Donnell is gay, too! (collective gasp across the bandwidth) Yep, it's true! 3. Why on earth would anyone CARE about who is or isn't gay?

By: rodii

rodii — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 20:56:07 -0800

By: dong_resin

dong_resin — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 21:33:21 -0800

I need Charlie Rose to be straight. I just do.

By: Settle

Settle — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 22:03:37 -0800

What do you mean Leonard Nemoy is Jewish????

By: diddlegnome

diddlegnome — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 22:07:32 -0800

All I know is, "The Color of Money" has been on cable a bunch lately, and I keep catching bits and pieces of it, and the most active bedroom scene between Mr. Cruise and the lovely Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio is when he's jumping on the bed, not on her. It's possible, of course, that this proves nothing except that I watch too much TV after I get home from work.

By: Settle

Settle — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 22:09:40 -0800

"1. Maybe he's denying it because he's not gay. (!!) posted by rodii at 8:34 PM PST on April 4 " What do you mean rodii is gay?? (kidding rodii, I'll retract this statement as soon as you thay the word thexy) Hey RJ is this allowed?

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 22:13:56 -0800

Oooh! A giant flaming homosexual! I looove them! Butane or beeswax?

By: i_am_joe's_spleen

i_am_joe's_spleen — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 22:18:17 -0800

Come come, rodii. While your analogy is indeed crystal clear, there is a psychological truth here, else "the lady doth protest too much" would have no resonance, methinks.

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 22:26:12 -0800

There's no evidence that he is gay. There is evidence that he is a scientologist, and that (as Aaron wrote) scientology is anti-gay. So, if we're going to be logical about this, wouldn't Aaron's scenario make more sense than him being gay...because he denies it too much? I think some guys need to feel that men prettier than them are gay. Something comforting in it.

By: Settle

Settle — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 22:33:13 -0800

I am prettier than goddamned tom cruise. I know a lot of men who are prettier than him. He's a bizarre mass of teeth and black hair. Weird distorted sunken eyes. Cocktail, Top Gun. Ian Curtis and Joy Division. Gerhard Richter, Liebniz, Carlos Alomar.

By: adrober

adrober — Thu, 04 Apr 2002 23:12:27 -0800

If Tom's gonna be so anal about it, then maybe he's just an anal kinda guy.... or maybe he eats too much GAY FOOD!!

By: Summer

Summer — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 01:43:20 -0800

You're right Settle, he's not good looking. He's got a big in-bred mong face. And I think he can act, he just has no sexual presence. Am I now on Metafilter or Fametracker?

By: matty

matty — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 01:48:38 -0800

Thank God no one is reading this thread anymore... I can say my peace and be left alone... Who cares if Tom Cruise is gay? Tom himself cares, but that is about it. Is he a good actor? Sure, ever since 'Risky Business' and certainly since 'Top Gun' and 'A Few Good Men'. If his religion sequesters his freedom of self expression, then that's his business. My point... his sexuality is none of our concern. It's his business. To comment on his preferences makes you just another gossip queen whose looking for an outlet to excite your own 'tired' existence. Again... 'WHO CARES WHAT TOM CRUISE DOES IN THE SACK??' You should be more concerned about your own lives.. as in 'what did you do last Friday night and how have you propogated syphillis in LA'? !!

By: salmacis

salmacis — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 02:17:11 -0800

Didn't Jason Donovon go to court because of innuendos about his sexuality? Or was it over some completely unrelated matter? It was a few years ago now.

By: Grangousier

Grangousier — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 02:31:38 -0800

I've just been looking for links on that just now, but didn't find anything interesting. Donovan sued The Face and won over their repeated implications that he was gay. More recently, I read an interview with him where he said that he was more angry with them saying he was lying about his sexuality. It must be a bit like being repeatedly accused of being Belgian - it's not that you hate Belgians, it's just that you're not... I don't think I'd sue over snarky moules et frîtes comments, though. There was the same thing over Prince Edward, except without the court cases. If I'd ever heard an account by a man who'd fucked either of them, I'd me more inclined to believe it, even a friend of a friend, but it always seemed to be people saying "Of course they're gay, everybody knows, you only have to look at them". *Shrugs* Over the last twenty or so years things have changed a lot - Boy George used to claim that he was "bi-sexual", Elton John got married and Freddie Mercury tended not to be interviewed because he was, frankly, the campest thing on the face of the earth. It's instructive that their coming out has hurt their reputations not a jot. In fact, it's done wonders for George Michael's. Probably different in the Movie business. Still, I wonder why it's so important to people to suggest that Cruise or Donovan or Windsor are gay.

By: rcade

rcade — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 03:26:25 -0800

He's obsessed about "proving" his heterosexuality because Scientology is extremely anti-gay, even more so than most fundamentalist Christian sects. Maybe he's just fed up with the tabloid media spreading lies for profit. Every once in a while, a celebrity goes apeshit about tabloid mistreatment -- remember Carol Burnett in the '70s?

By: username

username — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 05:11:38 -0800

Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio is "lovely"??!! NO!

By: crunchland

crunchland — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 05:40:22 -0800

I read in one of the tabloids last week that someone snapped a photo of Elijah Wood in a gay bar with a friend recently, and he ended up chasing the amateur photographer down the street and insisted they hand over the film. I was wondering if he was upset that someone took his picture without asking, or that someone took his picture without asking while he was in a gay bar. Obviously, the implication of the article was the latter. I also remember thinking that in this day and age, young effeminate actors shouldn't be ashamed of their sexuality. Sir Ian should take that boy aside and teach him the importance of being earnest.

By: lotsofno

lotsofno — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 06:34:07 -0800

He can't believe it, folks... He really can't believe it.

By: johnny7

johnny7 — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 07:08:44 -0800

More importantly What about the ex liking a bit of "rough trade" Over here best boy Ms Kidman wants u in the trailer

By: Perigee

Perigee — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 07:56:24 -0800

There's a few loose ends here that nobody has touched on, so here's a new thought: Tommy boy Is a Scientologist, one of the most litigeous organizations in history. In their own words, "We are not a turn-the-other-cheek religion." In Scientology, you don't shrug it off - you swat the fly. It may not be that he personally has a need to prove his hetrosexuality; he may simply be applying the precepts of his religion.

By: rodii

rodii — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 08:10:09 -0800

That whatever-dude link is priceless! Thanks, lotsofno. Come come, rodii. While your analogy is indeed crystal clear, there is a psychological truth here, else "the lady doth protest too much" would have no resonance, methinks. I understand. But it poisons any real discussion. Any time someone disagrees with you strongly, you can claim they really agree with you, but they're in denial? Settle, for instance, likes to drink piss. Oh, he'll deny it, but he does. The way I see see it, there are two scenarios: (1) Tom Cruise is straight and litigious; (2) He's gay, closeted (or in denial) and litigious. Either scenario leads to the present prosecution. How, based on the evidence, do you decide which is true? I say you use the principle of charity and believe the guy unless there's evidence to the contrary. I also say you ask yourself why people have so much invested in proving he's gay. I would also ask why people think sniggering little jibes about "thexy" are funny, but I know the answer to that: those people are morons. And, by the way, they like to drink piss.

By: daveadams

daveadams — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 08:22:49 -0800

there's a very strange part in Eyes Wide Shut where .... I always wondered if Kubrick was making some kind of joke against ol' Tommy. I figure he was, and that Tom was just playing along. Also, the scene in the hotel lobby with Alan Cumming.

By: jmd82

jmd82 — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 09:09:52 -0800

This reminds me of one of my friend's ex-roommates. At every step, his roommie would deny he's gay. Doesn't matter that all his CDs were of *nsync and BSB, he had newspaper clippings about how his hometown is the gay mecca of the world (???) and he has pictures of him and ten guy friends having a bubble bath and would sleep nude...on the floor w/ no covers. Oh, and at nite he would stare at my friend while he was trying to sleep. We became convinced that he was so anti-gay, yet had all these weird tendencies, that he is in fact gay.

By: hincandenza

hincandenza — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 09:12:16 -0800

Dan Savage (reknowned gay sex columnist and all-around provocateur) was on Twisted Radio in Seattle Thursday morning and noted that "People always gossip that Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise are secretly gay. Notice that no one ever gossips that 'Dom DeLouise is gay'".

By: straight

straight — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 09:24:18 -0800

Anyway: we don't want Tom cruise on our team. "No, you take him." "No, YOU take him!" Ok, whoever takes Tom also gets the next two picks.

By: adrober

adrober — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 09:44:00 -0800

jmd82, as karen said last night on "Will & Grace", it sounds like your friend's ex-roommate: "fell off the gay tree, hit every branch on the way down, landed on a gay guy, and did him."

By: anapestic

anapestic — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 10:18:19 -0800

What's the difference between "almost pathological" prosecuting and, you know, prosecuting? If I take you to court for trespassing, am I actually compensating for my wish that you would trespass? How's that for a crystal-cflear analogy? Excuse me rodii, but it's not a very good analogy. You're comparing an action (a criminal action even) to a state of being. I say you use the principle of charity and believe the guy unless there's evidence to the contrary. And why, exactly, is it charitable to believe that he's straight? IMO, it's likely that he is straight, but what would be so wrong if he were gay? That's what's annoying about his prosecution. Who cares which way he swings, but the clear implication of trying so hard to prove that he's one way is that there's something wrong with being the other way. From where I'm standing, the two possibilities are that he's gay or fiercely homophobic. I think the latter is more likely and a lot more damning. Also, your piss drinking analogy is offensive.

By: DevilsAdvocate

DevilsAdvocate — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 10:27:02 -0800

Sir Ian should take [Elijah Wood] aside and teach him the importance of being earnest. Insert your own joke about "The Two Towers".

By: WolfDaddy

WolfDaddy — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 11:51:39 -0800

That's what's annoying about his prosecution. Who cares which way he swings, but the clear implication of trying so hard to prove that he's one way is that there's something wrong with being the other way. Bless you, anapestic ... there's the rub, and a point I was hoping someone would mention. As long as Cruise just won admissions from people that stated that they did not, in fact, have whatever piece of incriminating evidence they initially said they did proving Tom was gay, I wasn't concerned one bit. None of these alleged pieces of evidence have ever surfaced (unlike, say Rob Lowe's videotape, or that tape of Pamela and Tommy Lee) in any fashion, and a ruling extracting the admission they don't exist implies that the people originally making the claim were just very wishful thinkers. Now however, he's extracted a ruling that puts the force of the United States courts behind his assertion that he is, has, and always will be a heterosexual, hallelujah amen. This kind of ruling is a little worrisome to me, because it implies that, indeed, it would be impossible for Cruise to be at the pinnacle of his career in a powerful and image-driven industry were he gay. Despite evidence to the contrary--we all know there's lots of powerful queers in the industry, both in and out of the closet--Cruise is afraid that all these rumors--rumors that have swirled about him for his entire career-- will "hurt" his (all-adopted, hmmm) children. I don't buy his reasoning, he should know better, and while it's fine for him to think whatever he wants to think, he and his legal team are now getting legal judgements that force other people to espouse what he wants people to think of him. That ain't right.

By: biscotti

biscotti — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 12:31:13 -0800

Um, the article is somewhat misleadingly written (and Cruise's lawyer is good at implication-spin), but if you read it carefully you'll see that the judge didn't say Cruise isn't gay, the judge ruled that the story Michael Davis told about possessing a videotape of Cruise involved in homosexual acts was false. To quote: "The actor dropped a $100m lawsuit against publisher Michael Davis after the retraction, which was approved by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Emilie Elias. "The story was false," Mr Cruise's lawyer, Bert Fields, said. "He's not gay and the judge so ruled."". It's not his alleged gayness that the judge ruled on (how could he have?), it's the veracity of the story (and Davis' subsequent retraction thereof) that he ruled on.

By: WolfDaddy

WolfDaddy — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 12:42:52 -0800

Dammit, where's The Smoking Gun's crack investigative team when I need a physical copy of a legal document concerning a celebrity? biscotti, the article quotes the settlement agreement directly. One of those quotes states/stipulates, explicity: "Plaintiff is not, and never has been, homosexual and has never had a homosexual affair." Both parties had to agree to this stipulation, as well as Judge Elias. This settlement agreement containing this stipulation can now be used by Cruise in futher litigation ... a precedent has been set.

By: biscotti

biscotti — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 12:57:31 -0800

WolfDaddy: sure, but it seems to me that accepting such a stipulation (not that I'm a lawyer, mind you) is a whole different thing than the judge actually ruling that Cruise is "not gay" (since it's basically just accepting a statement by the plaintiff). No? The implication of much of the discussion here has been that the judge ruled that Cruise isn't gay, but it doesn't seem to me, from reading the article, that this is what happened at all, it seems to me that Cruise merely said he wasn't gay in the settlement agreement and that's it. I mean, you can stipulate in divorce proceedings that the wife isn't currently pregnant, but that doesn't mean anything outside the context of that particular case, does it? Please set me straight if I'm missing something.

By: rodii

rodii — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 16:01:51 -0800

Excuse me rodii, but it's not a very good analogy. You're comparing an action (a criminal action even) to a state of being. Well, I know. That's why I (sotto voce) made fun of it. But the actual analogy is between trespassing and accusations of homosexuality, not the state of being homosexual. At any rate, you're right, it's a crap analogy. (I don't see why the action/state of being distinction is relevant here, though.) And why, exactly, is it charitable to believe that he's straight? Huh? The principle of charity in question is that you believe what people say, especially about themselves, unless there is reason to think otherwise. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. IMO, it's likely that he is straight, but what would be so wrong if he were gay? Pesto, you seem to be under the impression that I'm defending Tom Cruise. I don't know what I've said to give you that idea. My *only* dispute has been with the argument that if someone vehemently denies he is an X, then he must be X, only in denial about it. The old "homophobes are just self-hating homosexuals" saw. I think this is completely invalid as a general rule, even if it is occasionally true. That's what's annoying about his prosecution. Who cares which way he swings, but the clear implication of trying so hard to prove that he's one way is that there's something wrong with being the other way. This is where we part company. I don't see any logic behind this at all, just pop psychology or the allure of a cheap shot. From where I'm standing, the two possibilities are that he's gay or fiercely homophobic. I think the latter is more likely and a lot more damning. I completely agree. I think his actions are reprehensible. My comments above were only about the logic of his accusers here, and if you read what I wrote above a little more carefully, I think you'll see that you and I are on the same side. Also, your piss drinking analogy is offensive. Well, if you're offended, I guess it's offensive, but that wasn't my intent. My point is that accusing people of an action they find offensive is likely to elicit a vehement denial, and that it's unfair to interpret the denial itself as evidence that the accusation is true. That doesn't mean I find gayness offensive. (Hell, I don't even find piss-drinking offensive.) The idea is that Tom Cruise (the homophobe-presumptive member of a homophobe cult) finds it offensive. We OK? You know me well enough to know that I wouldn't say the things you're suggesting I said. WolfDaddy's point about the stipulation setting a precedent is, if true, shocking. Which is the main point of this thread, isn't it? Could it really be true? Is our justice system that illogical?

By: Voyageman

Voyageman — Sun, 07 Apr 2002 10:25:02 -0800

PS Rumor has it he and Penelope Cruz are over it.