Portia del Rossi.
Does being the hottest chick on Ally McBeal and the only chick under 50 with a speaking role on Arrested Development really make one a sex symbol, or is the Pantene commercials.
I’m using hyperbole, but I really don’t think of her as a sex symbol.
I sure as hell do. Ever seen Sirens? Stupid goddamned movie, but holy crap, she was hot in it.
(Incidentally, it’s de Rossi, not del. My bad.)
Speaking of Scientology, I have a theory: Before the big star made it big time, he was desparate enough to try Scientology (they have buildings all over Hollywood), and he “confessed” to being gay or bi (you’re supposed to reveal things like that when they “audit” you.) So it’s kind of like extortion–“Give us money and a higher profile, and we won’t reveal what we know about you and ruin your career.”
It’s just a theory.
Ah, which finally brings this side-issue around to the OP. So the question becomes, if the Church of Scientology outted Cruise against his will, would that qualify as an uncloseted gay male becoming a superstar? Or does the declosetification have to be self-made?
The idea here is that nobody would know that Tom Cruise was gay until the Scientologists “outed” him. Nobody knew he was gay when he was making Top Gun. Nobody knew he was gay when he was making Mission Impossible. Nobody knew he was gay until long after he became a huge success.
So no it would not qualify. Because in this case, if this were true, it would mean that a closeted gay became a superstar. Not an open gay.
I don’t see any great reason why an openly gay man couldn’t be a box office superstar–considering how much disposable income women control regarding spending on movies it will probably happen fairly soon. Rupert Everett is gay as can be, but he can still pull off “hearthrob leading man” with aplomb and believability–all he needs is the right vehicle and he’s on his way. Tom Cruise, on the other hand, couldn’t make me believe he had a hardon for a woman in any situation–he has all the raw sexuality of a dry twig.
A very gay friend of mine was complaining about how, on a recent trip to the beach with a gang of his rugby playing friends, women were constantly hitting on all of them. I pointed out that of COURSE gay men are very attractive to straight women, and why not? They dress well, smell nice, know how to and enjoy dancing, talk about more subjects than work or sports, flirt like crazy and don’t get all upset and hypermacho when the subject of homosexuality comes up. Basically, I told him, if gay guys would just throw a fuck into us once in a while they’d be the perfect boyfriends!
The current trend toward “metrosexuality” is absolutely great as far as I’m concerned, because stereotypically macho, “he-man” type men leave me cold. Dull, boring, annoying, inflexible, stick up their asses, touchy, loud, smelly, rude, incurious and dogmatic… bad cess to the lot, I say!
Your perception of gay men must be based on television and the movies. You have no idea how many dirty, smelly, unkempt gay men there are out there, addicted to meth and other drugs, who look and act like shit…have you ever been to a gay bar? And I don’t mean one with $2,000 champagne. Gay men can be just as unappealing as straight men, don’t stereotype.
I also hate the term “metrosexual.” It implies that men with good grooming habits are somehow of a different sexuality than heterosexual. This is horseshit; it’s also playing upon stereotypes that equate certain behaviors, like wearing nice clothes for instance, with a certain sexual orientation.
Men who decide to look good and wear classy clothes and have a nice hairstyle and wear cologne are not “taking a page from the gay playbook.” They wrote the damn playbook. Straight men have always taken an interest in their appearance. Look at all the elaborate aristocratic fashions in Europe throughout the ages. Are all those men gay? EVERYONE used to be well-dressed, basically up until the 70s. You wore a suit to work. You combed your hair. Gay men didn’t have a monopoly on class, and they still don’t.
I’m basing my opinion on the guys I know, both gay and straight. I know a ton of gay men, and have always had gay male friends since high school. On average, they tend to be a lot better dressed and groomed than their hetero counterparts. One really great reason is that men are visually oriented–this is why women tend to dress nicely, bathe regularly and make themselves look good–because men notice that.
Of course there are dirty, smelly, ugly gay men–they just don’t get laid as often as the well groomed ones, and when they do it’s with other dirty, smelly, etc. men.
And whether or not you like the term metrosexual or not, it’s a plain fact in our culture that the majority of men do not dress well, or groom well, or bother to have some class, culture or manners. They get away with it because they’re the only game in town and women aren’t being picky enough to make the dirty, lazy bastards clean up and look nice. Guys in relationships usually look and smell better than their single counterparts because they have a woman picking out their clothes and toiletries. Gay guys don’t get that advantage, so they learn how to do it themselves.
There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but I’ve noticed that any time a well dressed, well groomed, nice smelling guy who can converse wittily is discussed, both women and men will assume he’s gay. What does that tell you?
My general response to hearing an actor is gay is, “Oh. Well, I can certainly still look!”
He’s not an actor, but I remember drooling over Greg Louganis with my mom back in the day. Mmmmmmm. Who CARES if he likes guys! I don’t know exactly when I heard he was gay but I can’t say it bothered me in the slightest.
Yeah, tell that to Oprah.
But of course that’s just looking. Greg Lougainis still wanted to jump into the same kind of pool as his straight competitors, so you weren’t thinking, “Wow, that’s odd. I wonder if he minds jumping into that kind of pool. You think maybe he’s imagining jumping into a different pool? Maybe he can see another pool from there and he’s looking at it when I can’t see his face.”
Like I said, the first male movie star who comes out is ruined. After that, people will get used to the idea, and it will be no big deal. It still leaves closeted gay actors stuck in a Josey Wales Conundrum, though.
But just imagine the possibilities of an effeiminate James Bond! 
Oprah’s gay?
Same as for heterosexual blokes, it depends on how good the homosexual is at licking ass. Some people might think he actually has a head start.
My question is, how do we know there hasn’t already been a megawatt male superstar who was gay, but never chose to out himself for fear of ruining his career? There may have been someone, and I’m thinking pre-Cruise. Like way back.
As an aside, the theatre community is so much more open about homosexuality than Hollywood. I’m OK with that. The Tony Awards show is full of acceptance speeches thanking life partners, same sex couples sitting together and kissing when one of their names is announced. Gay men playing straight characters convincingly and to acclaim doesn’t seem to surprise anyone on Broadway.
There are male movie stars who are out, several have been noted in this very thread.
No I don’t think any have been mentioned. I love Ian McKellen, but a movie star he is not, and will never be, no matter how many blockbuster films he participates in.
You must be using a definition of movie star that I am unfamiliar with.