I was reading some “blind items” to my friend, and she said “it sounds like most stars, male and female, are gay” (not that there’s anything wrong…) She was curious as to why this would be. I can only surmise that it has something to do with ‘covering up’ in their personal lives; or there are not that many more gay people in the profession, but they are the ones the public speculates about; or that show business is very gay- friendly; or that the blind items gossip is just wild speculation; or a combination of all.
Is it a combination, or are there really a lot of gay actors, in or out of the closet?
It’s probably that there are more openly gay people in show business. Thankfully, this is changing. That is, more and more people in other professions can feel free not to be closeted.
It makes sense. In the past especially gay men and women had to spend their lives pretending to be something they aren’t.
What is acting? Pretending to be something you’re not.
So let’s say a kid is 18 years old and gay. And another kid is 18 years old and straight. This means the gay kid has already had 18 years (more or less) of acting experience, while the straight kid has had, at best, only a few years of acting experience.
The transition is therefore much easier.
Of course getting a job is still hard due to the overabundance of wannabe actors/actresses and small number of paying roles.
So after a bit, the straight and gay actors who can’t make a go of it in the acting area, will fall back into roles like costumes, directors, stage managers. These usually don’t pay much, so the straight people, who will have families and other obligations will drop out and find better paying jobs in the non-acting arena.
Gay people don’t have such family obiligations and can afford to stay in a job area which, while it pays less, will provide them adequate income that a straight person couldn’t live on.
I remember years my business partner worked for a major marketing agency in NYC and they found that income levels of gay men and women were much higher till age 30.
After age 30 gay people, especially gay men, declined rapidly when compared to their straight counterparts. This is they myth of large disposable income by gay men. After 30 the spending potential declines in proportion to straight, to the point where after 40 gay men are worse off than even women who are divorced with children.
Mainly because older gay men stick at low paying jobs, especially in bars and such which provide them comfortable environments and easy access to potential partners. Also factored in was HIV treatment and medical expenses which financially hurt older gay men, who have limited insurance for health.
I thought it was interesting, as they marketing agency would stop targeting gay men over 30 but strongly target those under 30.
Here’s how it was explained to me by a gay acquaintance:
“We get to be fabulous and someone pays us for it.”
Stereotypical? Maybe a little. But something tells me there’s more than a little truth to it for the majority of gay actors.
Wow, I had no idea people think this.
Are we even sure it’s true?
I always assumed it was because gays tend to be flamboyant and dramatic… and in show business, this is an advantage…TRM
A lot of people like to be the center of attention, and some of those people are gay.
If you are somehow inclined to being a social “drama queen” then IMO the acting business is right up your alley.
The question would IMO be this: Is being (at a statistical group level) a drama queen something that gay folks are genetically inclined to more (than no gay folks) or is it just a way for them to adapt/adjust/integrate/whatever in society?
Which brings up this. If someone is gay, the arguement is always “we/they are born that way”. Which is fine and which I can heartily agree with. I mean, if some fraction of the population is inclined to do stuff that is often illegal, can result is severe social stigma, causes nothing but grief socially speaking and icks the heck out the other 90 percent of the population then IMO there is damn good indication that is highly genetic.
So, the argument goes, that a core aspect of someones behavior is genetically determined for the most part. Yet, if I were to even suggest to that same “group” that agrees with this that genetics may possibly give one “group” over another even the very slightest statistical edge (as a group) in one activitity or another I will quickly be labeled a racist or sexist or whatever, even if I make no value judgement over said minor advantages.
I think it’s because the arts (and show business) have always been gay-friendly, in the sense of non-judgmental. If you’re an actor, a writer or a painter, pretty much the only thing people evaluate you on is your output.
As a result, the arts community may be more tolerant of all types of behavior than your average Joe. Who cares if you’re gay, adulterous, alcoholic, drug addict or a straight-conservative, non-smoking churchgoer in a stable marriage as long as you can deliver a good performance?
That all sounds good and nice and even pragmatic, but couldnt you extend that argument to pretty much every other business?
Does anybody really give a frack that Bob the wonder accountant that works in basement is gay if he is great at his job?
I’d propose the opposite arguement. That the arts embraced gays more (if they even did so) EXACTLY because they were outside of the mainstream. Being outside the mainstream is nearly a requirement of the arts community (thats my impression at least).
Yea, I’m kinda suprised more people aren’t questioning the premise of this thread.
Certainly the statement made by the OP’s friend is wrong. “The majority of actors male and female are gay”? Does anyone really want to defend that?
Even the weaker idea, that gays are over-represented in showbiz seems pretty suspect. Certainly there are some, but it’s far from obvious that there are more then in the general population. Indeed, amongst top-billed actors, I think they’re actually under-represented, presumably because part of being a “movie star” is being fantasy material to members of the opposite sex.
OK, as one of those stage managers, backstage workers, and others, this is a little offensive. I, like most of the people in this profession, do it because I like it and because I’m good at it. I dislike acting, and I won’t do it. And your average backstage worker makes more money than your average actor, especially in the 20-30 age range where you have lots of bad actors who aren’t making significantly less than their peers yet. It’s not a glamorous job and the hours are long, so there’s not much competition.
Honestly, I don’t know that there are that many more gay people in show business than in the general population. It may be that theatre and film attract the more flamboyant among the gay population, and they’re the most visible among the gay population. It may be that gay people are more likely to stick with film or theatre once they’ve been exposed to it because the community is accepting of gays and lesbians. And it’s certainly true that the arts, and show business in particular, have long been a haven for gay people. But I don’t know that it’s as true now as it was in the past, and it may not be a trend that continues.
In addition to which, we learned to suppress any real expressions of who we are, and that expression must eventually find an outlet.
Also, in my view, an artist is someone who’s in the habit of approaching things with an open mind, a willingness to rethink things outside o traditional patterns of thought. When you’re raised by a culture that insists your very existence is a mistake, you learn very young that such cultural constructs must be wrong. You learn to trust your own judgment over the status quo. You learn this, or else you kill yourself. Societal rejection can be a pretty compelling crucible for an artistic temperament: one who learns very young to think for himself, and to express himself indirectly.
If not, that’s a recent development. Some of us grew up in a world where homosexuality was completely unacceptable in any situation. Thirty years ago, Bob faced almost certain dismissal from his job for being gay, in all but a very few places.
I’m glad we’ve reached a stage where people are surprised to hear this. But I’m sad so many people do not know this part of our history. Proof that, even today, teachers are reluctant to cover it in history class. We’re not there yet.
billfish, how old are you? I’m curious as to when you grew up, in relation to some of the history I mentioned above.
And I hope you pay enough attention in discussions like this one to learn some new things. For example, that homosexuality is not a behavior, so your entire paradigm for discussing it is mistaken.
I’m still not convinced this is a real phenomenon, at least in film. I’m not very big on celebrity watching, but the only big name lesbian actress I can think of is Jodie Foster, and she’s only a maybe. (I guess Rosie O’Donell and Ellen, but I usually think of them as comedians).
Who’s the biggest name gay actor? I can think of a few, but not enough that makes me think they’re over-represented (and the first one that pops into mind is George Takai, which again makes me think you have to look pretty far down the list to find them). Ian McCellan, Neil Patrick Harris, that guy from The Producers, Niles and the dad from Fraiser, thats about all I got.
They were oddly over-represented in the cast of Fraiser, though, so I’ll give you that.
I think there are just as many gay people in many other professions, but we know more about celebrities because there’s a fascination with their private lives. If we were just as fascinated with the private lives of doctors, we’d be asking “Why do so many gay people gravitate to medicine?”
There’s a long, long tradition in Hollywood of keeping all homosexual behavior strictly hidden. There were plenty of actors in the golden age who were gay (including Tony Perkins, Tab Hunter, and Rock Hudson) and some people were aware of that at the time, but most people never saw anything except what the studios wanted people to see. Until very recently, even rumors would have been very problematic, as no studios would think an “out” actor bankable. And for the most part, they seem to be right. It’s only been very recently that there have been open gay male stars, but they’re not the Leading Men of Hollywood. In fact, pretty much everybody Simplico referenced had a career in theater and Broadway first, and will no doubt still have them if they never got another movie role.
So I don’t think looking to Hollywood to prove or disprove the theory is helpful, since I’m sure there are plenty of people who still think it would be career suicide to be out.
I dont take history lessons from drama queens. At least not snotty ones.
What are “blind items” (in the OP)?