Skip

I'm going to sue you in England!
December 8, 2005 3:45 AM   Subscribe

Could Tom Cruise sue South Park for suggesting he is gay? A discussion of the legal implications of a recent South Park episode suggesting Cruise was "in the closet." (Link to the clip in question) (via)
posted by Ljubljana (87 comments total)

 
I'd just like to confirm that Tom is so teh gay, I mean he makes Richard Simmons look straight by comparison.

I would like to stop caring about this kind of trivial shit - Nero is fiddling everyone.
posted by Dag Maggot at 3:59 AM on December 8, 2005


Viacom's legal department wouldn't have cleared most of the SP episodes if there was a problem going after celebrities. Would Paris Hilton being physically capable of playing hide-the-pineapple be a statement of fact?

Given how many other public figures have been ridiculed on this show over the years, I can't believe Cruise would have a successful lawsuit. If he won the battle, he'd lose the war, given as he's presently trying to prove to everyone he's a big, manly breeder.
posted by Rothko at 4:03 AM on December 8, 2005


Of course he could. Too bad for Cruise thought that the show didn't do that. The South Park guys (and Viacom, who owns Comedy Central) are very careful with legal aspects. If you watch the episode you'll see that at no point whatsoever did anyone say Cruise was gay- that was sort of the brilliance of the joke. In fact, I don't even think the word "gay" was uttered in the entire show.

Likewise, the episode making fun of Michael Jackson- also very litigious against jokes about him- did not use the name "Jackson" at all.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:04 AM on December 8, 2005


Who cares whether Cruise is gay?
posted by caddis at 4:06 AM on December 8, 2005


Cruise. That's sort of the point of the article.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:08 AM on December 8, 2005


Cruise, apparently.
posted by BackwardsHatClub at 4:10 AM on December 8, 2005


I can't believe someone has decided that such a benign episode displays any suit potential whatsoever. Unless there is anything more in addition to the linked clip.

But come on, the character does go into a closet - the 'statement of fact' relates to the freakin' character and it would be a mighty long bow drawn that would attach that to making a public assertion or even inference that TC is gay. They are riffing (very low level for South Park) on a meme.

I reckon that's an article simply trying to draw attention to the site/writer, or they were bored or couldn't think of any topic of substance to write about.
posted by peacay at 4:10 AM on December 8, 2005


Let's round up all the gay scientologists celebs and put them in a reality TV concentration camp. Get with the pogrom people!
posted by srboisvert at 4:11 AM on December 8, 2005


Oh and thanks for that clip Rothko. I haven't seen that in ages. PH probably paid them for it.
posted by peacay at 4:14 AM on December 8, 2005


Tom Cruise is a Black Mexican Asian lesbian woman.

There, I said it. Sue me.
posted by dsword at 4:14 AM on December 8, 2005


Peacay: Findlaw is actually a pretty big site, as far as legal news and opinions are concerned. I'm pretty sure they wrote about this because, well, they write about EVERYTHING. :)
posted by antifuse at 4:19 AM on December 8, 2005


I would imagine Scientology would be more likely to sue then Cruise. Although it was all pretty much fact about scientology so there is not much to sue about.

Anyway I can rid you of Thetans much cheaper and faster then scientologists anyway. All I require is $50 and for you to sign up 10 volunteers at $50 each and as soon as i receive thier subsciption fee I will send you a Thetan removal shakra charm.
posted by Meccabilly at 4:24 AM on December 8, 2005


Scientology is the Evil.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:24 AM on December 8, 2005


All Characters and events in this show-- even those based on real people -- are entirely fictional. all celebrity voices are impersonated.....poorly. The Following Program contains coarse language and due to its content it should not be viewed by anyone.

.....

Disclaimer at the beginning of every episode.
posted by filmgeek at 4:44 AM on December 8, 2005


I admit to not following this controversy too closely, but is there any, like, evidence, that Tom is gay?
posted by StickyCarpet at 5:00 AM on December 8, 2005


Cruise sues gay porn star.
posted by Rothko at 5:03 AM on December 8, 2005


Tom Cruise/Open Secret letters
posted by Rothko at 5:06 AM on December 8, 2005


Previously on MeFi
posted by Rothko at 5:09 AM on December 8, 2005


haha, been keeping tabs on this?
posted by NinjaPirate at 5:15 AM on December 8, 2005


I would think it would be more a question of whether or not the Scientologists would sue.

Somehow, I don't think Matt and Trey really care either way.
posted by deusdiabolus at 5:21 AM on December 8, 2005


Top Gun is a story about a man's struggle with his own homosexuality.

Seriously, if Cruise did sue Comedy Central/Viacom/South Park it would be the best thing to happen to it ever. SP is a little long in the tooth and a suit could be just the thing to give Matt and Trey inspiration.
posted by birdherder at 5:29 AM on December 8, 2005


i'm with deus--that whole secret alien story thing. It was a great episode, and they also made sure to use fake names for the credits at the end to protect the staff.
posted by amberglow at 5:30 AM on December 8, 2005


xemu doesn't approve of mansex.
posted by Space Coyote at 5:32 AM on December 8, 2005


Ok, here's something I really don't understand. Why the frick would anyone care if Tom Cruise is gay? Seems like the more he fights this stupid meme, the more credence he lends it. It's not like he can't get parts, or find naive ingenues to boff.

I mean, why does it matter? It's not like those Family Focus dips are gonna go to his movies, anywaze.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 5:33 AM on December 8, 2005


Why the frick would anyone care if Tom Cruise is gay?

Doesn't Scientology not approve of homosexuality? Maybe he's afraid that he'll get in trouble with the clams.
posted by unreason at 5:52 AM on December 8, 2005


Did anyone from Scientology every respond to the episode? I'd love to read that. Definitely chuckle-worthy.
posted by fungible at 6:02 AM on December 8, 2005


Answer, of course he could. Could he win? Probably not. Cruise is a public figure, which means that he has less protection than others from libel. Essentially, Cruise would have to show that the statment that was defaming was put out into the public information stream with "actual malice." Best bet for Cruise is to sue in England, where the laws are tighter.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:07 AM on December 8, 2005




What's wrong with being called gay?

Is gayness bad?
posted by Drexen at 6:13 AM on December 8, 2005


Birthherder:

I'll never forget the time I was at a party and somone put on Top Gun for laughs. After five minutes of towel snapping in the locker room scene I finally understood: Top Gun is a movie about repressed homosexuality. It was obvious to everyone. Coincidence? I think not. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:13 AM on December 8, 2005


If I remember right, that episode of South Park had all the credits listed as "John Smith". From Executive Producer to Key Grip. Even the theme song was preformed by John Smith.

It looks like they were gunning for a lawsuit with that episode.
posted by Balisong at 6:20 AM on December 8, 2005


Hmm, I wouldn't put Nicole Kidman in the "naive ingenue" category. A higly publicised relationship with Tom Cruise doesn't seem like such a bad deal for aspiring movie megastars. Katie Holmes may look move naive than Kidman, but I bet if you look at her Hollywood price tag in five years, it won't look that naive at all.

No, no, I'm only being a boring cynic. It's all about love.
posted by funambulist at 6:21 AM on December 8, 2005


How can Tom Cruise not see that this is pure comedy gold? Could Tom Cruise be so unsure about his sexuality? Perhaps Tom Cruise is just "sensative". Tom Cruise.
posted by password at 6:24 AM on December 8, 2005


I mean he makes Richard Simmons look straight by comparison.

Dag Maggot needs his gaydar adjusted.
posted by NationalKato at 6:25 AM on December 8, 2005


If you believe the scandal rags, funambulist, Katie has given up acting.
posted by you just lost the game at 6:26 AM on December 8, 2005


Well that's what, whatshername, Mrs Coldplay said too (sorry, Gwyneth Paltrow, I was seriously having a blank there). And look at her now. 6 films already lined up for release in 2006.

So, nah, I don't buy it.
posted by funambulist at 6:30 AM on December 8, 2005


From the Findlaw article: "Thus, here, the "South Park" episode is protected even if its literalization of the "in the closet" metaphor won't make a single viewer chuckle."

Don't know about the rest of you but I was laughing my ass off. "Won't make a single viewer chuckle".... somebody needs to review the show's demographics again. It's funny precisely because it's such a blatant statement, and the altered credits are part of the joke.
posted by caution live frogs at 6:36 AM on December 8, 2005


I can't believe it, but I AGREE WITH ParisParamus and Caddis.

Can we go back to bashing Republicans now?
posted by theora55 at 6:40 AM on December 8, 2005


We need cruise control.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:43 AM on December 8, 2005


speaking of Top Gun, people say that Duke Cunningham (recently indicted GOP criminal congressman) was the role model: The resignation and guilty plea of Duke Cunningham is the latest morality tale played out among closeted congressional Republicans, with a familiar moral. ...
posted by amberglow at 6:52 AM on December 8, 2005


I lost touch with South Park after I moved and lost cable in 1999. My fiance's son is into it -- bittorrents it like crazy, so I've been watching a little. It's a little less "innocent", but still intensely funny and smart. And the "closet" gag was brilliant -- especially when Travolta went in with him....
posted by lodurr at 6:56 AM on December 8, 2005


It's really a mystery to me why celebrities care if people think they're gay. I mean, it's not like they will have trouble finding parts or anything. If the performing arts started discriminating against gay people, they would pretty much have to completely stop making movies.

Seriously, what are these people afraid of? That their mothers will find out or something?
posted by Afroblanco at 6:59 AM on December 8, 2005


they say that the fear is that audiences won't accept them as romantic leads if they come out. that people don't want to see a gay person playing straight (altho straight actors are applauded and awarded when they play gay)
posted by amberglow at 7:04 AM on December 8, 2005


birdherder, crap, I haven't seen that quote in years. It made my morning. Thank you, thank you so much. An excerpt for the linkyphobic:
Kelly McGillis, she's heterosexuality. She's saying: no, no, no, no, no, no, go the normal way, play by the rules, go the normal way. They're saying no, go the gay way, be the gay way, go for the gay way, all right? That is what's going on throughout that whole movie . . . He goes to her house, all right? It looks like they're going to have sex, you know, they're just kind of sitting back, he's takin' a shower and everything. They don't have sex. He gets on the motorcycle, drives away. She's like, "What the fuck, what the fuck is going on here?" Next scene, next scene you see her, she's in the elevator, she is dressed like a guy. She's got the cap on, she's got the aviator glasses, she's wearing the same jacket that the Iceman wears. She is, okay, this is how I gotta get this guy, this guy's going towards the gay way, I gotta bring him back, I gotta bring him back from the gay way, so I'll do that through subterfuge, I'm gonna dress like a man. All right? That is how she approaches it.

.... All right, but the real ending of the movie is when they fight the MIGs at the end, all right? Because he has passed over into the gay way. They are this gay fighting fucking force, all right? And they're beating the Russians, the gays are beating the Russians. And it's over, and they fucking land, and Iceman's been trying to get Maverick the entire time, and finally, he's got him, all right? And what is the last fucking line that they have together? They're all hugging and kissing and happy with each other, and Ice comes up to Maverick, and he says, "Man, you can ride my tail, anytime!" And what does Maverick say? "You can ride mine!" Swordfight! Swordfight! Fuckin' A, man!
posted by lodurr at 7:05 AM on December 8, 2005


amberglow, I don't remember where you stand on the subject of outing and living in the closet, but would you really blame them if htat was the fear? (Though I don't see that as being Cruise's issue, if he really is, and I'm both unconvinced and not sure I care.) I mean, growing up gay, don't you get constantly reminded that you're somehow "not acceptable"? And actors, after all, tend to be strongly motivated by a desire for public acceptance.

(Personally, I think the important case to be made about Cruise is that he's batshitinsane, to use the local term.)
posted by lodurr at 7:10 AM on December 8, 2005


Go on Tom. Sue! Let's find out the truth!
posted by jonthegeologist at 7:11 AM on December 8, 2005


It's pretty fun to make fun of gay people. Bringing up the rear!
posted by The Jesse Helms at 7:16 AM on December 8, 2005


As several people have tried to point out in this thread, to little effect apparently, Tom Cruise's intimate involvement with Scientology makes this more complex than "Aw why doesn't he just relax?" Scientology considers homosexuality a profound aberration. Since Cruise is one of the two most visible celebrity spokesmen for the church -- the other being John Travolta, ahem -- for Cruise to simply chill out (if he's gay bla bla) would put him at odds with the central teachings of an organization that knows every little detail about his personal life, since there is a strong confessional element to Dianetic auditing. Whatever the goods are on Cruise, Scientology's got 'em.

For some truly chilling reading about the hidden side of Scientology, including Cruise's background in it, check out this affidavit by the former head of security for the church. It's heavy on the Hubbardian jargon, but it's fascinating reading.
posted by digaman at 7:20 AM on December 8, 2005


Come on Tom Cruise, you wouldn't be the first.
posted by longbaugh at 7:29 AM on December 8, 2005


Digaman, good points. There have been rumors for years that Travolta would actually love to bolt the CoS (they say he still loves his L. Ron but feels the current management are not such nice folks), but doesn't want to take the heat from the security org.
posted by lodurr at 7:29 AM on December 8, 2005


Don't know about the rest of you but I was laughing my ass off

God, me too.
Actually, my favorite part of the episode was when they recounted all the Scientology stuff with words like "this is what they really believe" flashing on the screen.
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:34 AM on December 8, 2005


I liked the R. Kelly parts of this episode better, although SNL did pretty much exactly the same bit that same week.
posted by brain_drain at 7:42 AM on December 8, 2005


Could Tom Cruise sue? Sure. He has the money to sue anyone he wants for anything that strikes his fancy.

Could he win? Almost certainly, no. There is plenty of precedent in the U.S. for the legal protection of satire and parody.

He would also be ill-advised to do this, because the act would popularize this joke even further.
posted by bshock at 8:06 AM on December 8, 2005


Scientology considers homosexuality a profound aberration. [see last five paragraphs]
posted by lodurr at 8:15 AM on December 8, 2005


Mebbe I'm missing something here. Saying a person is gay might be factually incorrect, but I don't see how it denigrates them as a person.

Is it still considered libelous by virtue of being incorrect?
posted by login at 8:48 AM on December 8, 2005


digaman that affidavit is fascinating reading. Scary stuff.
posted by jouke at 9:00 AM on December 8, 2005


Scientology considers homosexuality a profound aberration.

but they also claim they can "correct" it. so, he (or Travolta) could come out and say, "look, we used to be gay, Scientology cured us".

also, the anti-Scientology thing is a bit tired. aliens are zany, yes. resurrecting corpses who fly to heaven are zany, too.
posted by matteo at 9:01 AM on December 8, 2005


matteo: When splitting wood with a wedge, I usually find it's easier to put the thin edge against the end of the log, and pound on the thick one.
posted by lodurr at 9:06 AM on December 8, 2005


I haven't watched South Park in a while...

This is the show where in one episode Cartman is probed by aliens and as the show progresses he basically farts out a spaceship, right?

And Cruise/Scientology-crew are mad because they think the public will take this show seriously? Although given how far fetched some of Scientology's tenents are, I guess they might believe it. Heck, maybe this is how Xenu comes back!
posted by like_neon at 9:08 AM on December 8, 2005


This woman clearly knows nothing about southpark to boot. She implies that the intro screen with the disclaimer is distinct to this episode. As if they knew they were skating on thin ice this one time. Wanker
posted by sourbrew at 9:11 AM on December 8, 2005


matteo, the Xenu story is a sideshow as far as I'm concerned, but there are plenty of other reasons to be skeptical of Scientology and its methods. Try Googling "Lisa McPherson."
posted by digaman at 9:16 AM on December 8, 2005


they say that the fear is that audiences won't accept them as romantic leads if they come out. that people don't want to see a gay person playing straight (altho straight actors are applauded and awarded when they play gay)

Exactly. Rock Hudson, anyone?
posted by Smart Dalek at 9:19 AM on December 8, 2005


Did they suggest he was gay?

I only saw them making fun of him for not coming out of the closet.
Interpret that anyway you want.
posted by HTuttle at 9:28 AM on December 8, 2005


I heard from a dependable source (the sister of a chick I used to be in a band with, who was in the entertainment industry at the time) that Cruise is not teh gay, but teh impotent.
posted by gottabefunky at 10:09 AM on December 8, 2005


... and a woman would tell the difference .... how?

(Either way, he's still pretty seriously messed up if it drives him to this kind of length.)
posted by lodurr at 10:11 AM on December 8, 2005


He would also be ill-advised to do this, because the act would popularize this joke even further.

He already paid ten million dollars to let it be known that he is not gay. Then he got 4 people arrested for that microphone water squirt joke. Ill-advised sounds like a euphemism.

But he's got the millions and he can do whatever he wants. It's unfair to expect him to act as if he belonged on the same plane of reality as everybody else.
posted by funambulist at 10:25 AM on December 8, 2005


The Scientology organization isn't stupid... at least not as stupid as it used to be... greedy, evil, maybe, but not stupid. They use the law to threaten and silence people who don't have the money and resources to defend themselves. They don't sue rich corporations like Viacom. Well, yes, they did go after Time a few years back (unsuccessfully), but they've probably deduced by now that in the long-term it did them more harm than good.

I'd love to see them to do the same with a media-smart, lawyer-rich company like Viacom, but it won't happen, and both they and Viacom know it. The media circus would only result in knowledge of what they're really about becoming even more mainstream. Hubbard died before the internet happened. It's taken them a while to realize that pre-internet strategies don't necessarily work any more and they can't control information like they once could. They're slow learners, but they are learning.

And Tom Cruise? I doubt he even gets up in the morning without their blessing.
posted by normy at 10:58 AM on December 8, 2005


The Vanity Fair piece on Cruise & Scientology was more subtle, but essentially suggested the same thing by juxtaposition with other in the closet homos manipulated by Scientology
posted by beautifulatrocities at 11:10 AM on December 8, 2005


"On this logic, the First Amendment gives breathing room to creative works even when they fail in their goals. Thus, here, the "South Park" episode is protected even if its literalization of the "in the closet" metaphor won't make a single viewer chuckle."

I'm fine with legal discussions. But the author shouldn't editorialize about humor.

I think that episode was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. Period.
posted by geekhorde at 11:18 AM on December 8, 2005


Is it still considered libelous by virtue of being incorrect?

It's not just the saying that someone's gay (in the US); it's going beyond that (in the US and UK). If you say "Tom's gay," that's not libelous--he can sue but he won't ever win; If you say "I was Tom Cruise's secret gay lover for 5 years" and publish it, then that is potentially libelous (i think).


amberglow, I don't remember where you stand on the subject of outing and living in the closet, but would you really blame them if htat was the fear?
Me personally--definitely i would. Closeted celebrities and public figures are very damaging--they perpetuate--in public--that it it is something "unacceptable" or "shameful", etc. There's a case to be made about having to make a living, but Cruise, and Congressman Dreier, and Schrock, and Cunningham, etc, don't have those worries--they're not trying to establish themselves--they already have millions. Pretending you're something you're not is always wrong.
posted by amberglow at 11:32 AM on December 8, 2005


Thanks. I'm on the fence about it, myself, but then, I have that luxury. I suppose I'd have to say I don't blame them, but I do fault them. I.e., I know why they do it, but I wish they'd do differently.
posted by lodurr at 11:42 AM on December 8, 2005


For the first time ever on the Internet, I present the Secret Origin of the Tom Cruise is Gay Rumor.

In the late 80s/early 90s there was a Tom Cruise impersonator who happened to be gay & visited a number of high-profile gay bars in NYC, where he was seen & mistaken for the original. A few years later he found employment as a late-night short-order cook at a greasy burger joint in Harvard Square called the Tasty ("so good they built Harvard around us"), where I heard the whole story from him as I consumed a greasy burger late one night. Mostly he worked parties as an impersonator, but he said Cruise had actually hired him a few times as a body double to escape the paparazzi, which he proved with a copy of Newsweek that had a photo of the two of them together. If memory serves, his first name was Mike.

So now you know...the rest of the story.
posted by scalefree at 12:04 PM on December 8, 2005 [2 favorites]


Considering that the episode makes at least as much fun of Scientology as Tom Cruise, and considering that the episode reveals "secret church truths" (that whole Xenu thing that everyone on the internet has seen several times by now), could it be possible that Tom Cruise would sue through Scientology's behest, as a manner of attack?
posted by JHarris at 12:45 PM on December 8, 2005


normy, before making light of the Time case dismissal as an unsuccessful suit that clearly did "more harm than good" to the church, I'd read this.
posted by digaman at 1:48 PM on December 8, 2005


Does he drive a Ford?
posted by Smedleyman at 1:53 PM on December 8, 2005


I don’t know whether he’s gay or not. Don’t particularly care. If he is however, and denies it, I wouldn’t think much of his character.
And of course the stereotypes of who a person is off screen really have to go away. We still have the black whores, drug dealers, etc. etc. Same thing with Latinos. Asians are always smart, etc.

But, this romantic lead business, I don’t know. I’ve heard Kevin Spacey is gay. Again - so?
But he tends to keep his personal life fairly private because he doesn’t want it to affect his roles. Which seems to have worked for him. DeNiro (who is a HELL of a nice guy) is in the same sort of category.

Perhaps Cruise doesn’t have the range other actors do? (Just the “good looking, cocky, but ‘X’” character). And that makes him nervous.

I dunno. Seems like a lost soul though. You can see it in his eyes.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:08 PM on December 8, 2005


making light? Where'd you get that from? I thought Time was very brave for publishing that article. Thanks for that link. As Behar says, "Obviously people want and need to know about this subject and yet most of the media continue to keep their heads buried in the sand......they are afraid......and they don't need the aggravation." No surprises there, unfortunately.

The result of the Time article and the few other publishers and writers with the balls (and legal team, to be fair) to challenge Scientology, despite their despicable behavior in return, however, is an increased general awareness of Scientology's unpleasant underside. I don't think that South Park episode would have been made a few years ago. Scientology's characteristic response does bring them additional negative attention, from those who care to observe at least. The reduction in high-profile suits from them in the last couple of years suggests to me that they might be learning from that and their strategy is changing. Changing doesn't mean necessarily for the better. I'm not suggesting we make light of their previous actions or should hope for a kinder, gentler, Scientology any time soon.
posted by normy at 2:27 PM on December 8, 2005


The libel in calling someone gay is not because gay = bad, but because you are accusing them of dissembling or being dishonest.
posted by athenian at 2:38 PM on December 8, 2005


someone should bring this up with martha stewart so she can sue south park for that whole, you know, turkey scene. still gives me nightmares.
posted by spiderwire at 3:39 PM on December 8, 2005


You know what's the worst thing about trying to deny rumours you're gay so badly you go to court? It's not the closet thing, it's that it's so the pits of uncool to even consider those rumours offensive.

Think about David Bowie, he had to make up stories about being bisexual, just to look cooler. In the 80's everyone was trying so bad to look gay, it was a fashion calamity. And now we get the opposite? what happened? oh what is the world coming to?
posted by funambulist at 3:39 PM on December 8, 2005


I hear ya, normy.
posted by digaman at 4:00 PM on December 8, 2005


"A court would probably deem it constitutionally protected, but only barely."

"Barely" constitutionally protected sounds like "a little bit" pregnant.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:57 PM on December 8, 2005


From digaman's link:

It is one of the most incredible gyms imaginable and is for the exclusive use of Tom Cruise, David Miscavige and other specially and specifically approved by him. It also has an incredible shower area.

Well, OK then.
posted by bigbigdog at 8:16 PM on December 8, 2005


Oh man. I foolishly started reading the affadavit that digaman linked...

17. I signed the standard Sea Org contract requiring me to serve the Sea Org for one billion years. This I would do by serving the Sea Org in every one of my future lives with 21 year vacations at the commencement of each life, so that the contract would not be void for incapacity due to youthfulness or infancy.

That is the craziest thing I have ever read ever. Excuse me, I have go wash my brain out with soap now.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 8:20 PM on December 8, 2005


Man, I love a good shower - like the water-wasting ones with the giant showerheads, mmm... I want to see this "incredible" shower area goddamnit!
posted by Onanist at 3:02 AM on December 9, 2005


funambulist: Think about David Bowie, he had to make up stories about being bisexual, just to look cooler. In the 80's everyone was trying so bad to look gay, it was a fashion calamity. And now we get the opposite? what happened? oh what is the world coming to?
You're joking, right? OK, well, I suppose we could get into the question of what constitutes bisexuality, but I think having sex with both men and women is one good measure, and Bowie did actually do that, so...YMMV, of course, but that works for me. Whether he did it for his image, or out of curiosity -- I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The adrogynous image, though -- that was "to look cool", sure. But that's not the same as bisexuality. Just ask any garden vareity metrosexual.
posted by lodurr at 3:49 AM on December 9, 2005


yeah, lodurr, I was kind of being silly :)

(was referring to the whole Bowie sleeping with Jagger thing, didn't he recently said he made that all up?)

And I'm only talking of the public image anyway, not the private life, that's not what interests me.

I was just (half-jokingly) bemoaning the end of that era where not only no one cared if people thought they were gay, they played on it even if they weren't (leaving Bowie aside, think of all the late 70's and early 80's UK pop acts. No one even went on top of the pops without makeup on.)

Then again pop music, broadly speaking, is a different world than Hollywood.

Don't get me started on the "metrosexual" stuff...
posted by funambulist at 10:13 AM on December 9, 2005


« Older Big Eye in the Sky   |   Letterpress Printing Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post