Fin Fang Foom On The Tom Cruise Lawsuit

[Luv2play]

That is true about Liberace. When he died of AIDs, however, the London newspaper sued his estate and won the award back, WITH INTEREST. But that's nothing compared to Oscar Wilde, who sued for libel when his boyfriend's father called him a pansy, and lost and went to jail for being gay (or gaol as the Brits call it). Not a happy ending!:-(

[Flower]

>Believe me Tom Cruises sexual preferences have abeen an open

>secret in Hollyweird for years ...

 

Interesting statement, however obviously nothing more than rumors or we'd hear the evidence. Secrets like that are hard to keep -- ESPECIALLY in Hollywood! Rumors abound about nearly everyone, but if there was any factual basis, believe me, it'd be out in the open. That's not the way it worked 20 years ago, but does now.

 

>For someone like TC and the money and power he commands it's

>pretty easy to hide whatever skeletons you desire from public

>gaze

 

Quite the contrary -- there is a "takedown" attitude in Hollywood and most everywhere else today--any guy having sex with TC or any other rich, powerful and HOT guy, knows he can name his price--and will--and it will be tomorrow's news--not rumors.

 

 

>He's not the only one rumors have flown about over the years

>as other posters have said but he's the one that the rumors

>have stuck to for the longest time-Weird No?

 

Not weird at all--he still remains very hot, very successful and someone that many queens wanna see as gay--I believe an identity thing but who knows why. Personally I couldn't care less, and really dislike this kinda gossip. It is destructive to the "gossipee" whether it is true or not, and doesn't say a helluva lot about the "gossiper."

 

 

>and all the hoopla over who couldn't have kids when he was with Nicole

>,hmmmm it would be interesting to see if she falls pregnant

>when she finds a new beau.

 

LMAO--does anyone beside her and those intimately involved REALLY care?

 

>Hollywood is a place where if you are gay you play straight

>whether you are in front or behind the camera,

 

This is no different from anywhere else -- Why do you think there are so many gays in the closet WORLD WIDE. Trust me, Hollywood is more gay friendly than most places. I grew up there and still have friends and family their and it is relatively gay friendly--'course the operative word is "relatively." I have yet to truly find a gay friendly place except in the actual gay districts of verious cities.

[Luv2play]

Trust me, Hollywood is more gay friendly than most

>places. I grew up there and still have friends and family

>their and it is relatively gay friendly--'course the

>operative word is "relatively." I have yet to truly find a

>gay friendly place except in the actual gay districts of

>verious cities.

>

There is another view of Hollywood, namely that if you are gay and trying to be a leading man, then you'd better keep it quiet. Can you name one actor with such aspirations who has come out of the closet? Remember Brad Davis (Midnight Express) who cursed Hollywood as he lay dying. Now take Paris, or Berlin, they have GAY mayors who are both out and got elected AFTER they were out!

[woodlawn]

>On the other hand, Tom Cruise is a public figure, he has put

>himself forward as a leading hetersexual male actor, and his

>relationships with women look a little contrived (except by

>Hollywood standards).

 

What's so 'contrived' about them? He's been married twice. He's been seen at public events with various women. What is different about his relationships with women from the relationships of other actors of his generation?

 

>But it is fair game to speculate,

>since he long ago gave up any claim to privacy. That's the

>price of being a STAR, didn'y ya know?

 

No, I didn't know. I have never heard Cruise or any other actor in his class say anything to indicate that they feel they benefit from having people gossip about their personal lives. And as for the doctrine that people who become famous because they've achieved something in the arts or elsewhere forfeit their right to complain about false and defamatory statements, this doctrine is peculiar to the U.S. So far as I know it does not exist in the jurisprudence of other countries.

[Guest countryboy76]

>That is true about Liberace. When he died of AIDs, however,

>the London newspaper sued his estate and won the award back,

>WITH INTEREST.

 

Maybe Tommy boy should keep this in mind. How much money has he gotten over the years from the tabloids and such through his 'I'm not gay' lawsuits?

 

I think it's odd that Tommy feels he has to prove he 'isn't' gay everytime someone uses his name and the word gay in the same sentence, and to go to the extreme of going to court in order to do it. If he wants to prove he isn't gay, he ought to try not acting like some bitchy old queen in denial.

 

CB76

[Flower]

>There is another view of Hollywood, namely that if you are

>gay and trying to be a leading man, then you'd better keep it

>quiet.

 

Goodpoint, and I agree, but is this any differenent that most of corporate America? Leading man or CEO, no matter where you are in America, a gay man has an uphill battle. My point, however, is that actors in Hollywood have it no different than anyone else accross the nation, and for the most part better, unless, as you point out, you aspire to be leading man or as I suggest a CEO of nearly any big corp in America.

 

>Can you name one actor with such aspirations who has

>come out of the closet? Remember Brad Davis (Midnight Express)

>who cursed Hollywood as he lay dying.

 

NOPE But great movie and saw it many times, but confess I never looked at the credits--which one was he and what was his story--sounds interesting

[Flower]

>I think it's odd that Tommy feels he has to prove he 'isn't'

>gay everytime someone uses his name and the word gay in the

>same sentence, and to go to the extreme of going to court in

>order to do it. If he wants to prove he isn't gay, he ought

>to try not acting like some bitchy old queen in denial.

 

 

I doubt that his intent ever was to make money on the law suits -- BUT probably he's thinking that if he doesn't deny and take a strong action, then he is tacitly admitting the acussations. Other posts here have pointed out how bad that would be for a leading man in Hollywood. I'm sure his attorney(s) have told him that if he sues and makes a declaration under penalty of perjury in a deposition, then he is inviting anyone that may have knowledge to come foreword and prove he's lying (Bill Clinton and Mark Furhman of the O. J. Simpson trial come to mind).

 

So quite honestly, with all the dangers of filing such a suit, the fact that he did, to me indicates that he knows very well there are NO gay skeletons in his closet, IMHO anyway :+

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

>I'm sure his attorney(s) have told him that if he

>sues and makes a declaration under penalty of perjury in a

>deposition, then he is inviting anyone that may have knowledge

>to come foreword and prove he's lying (Bill Clinton and Mark

>Furhman of the O. J. Simpson trial come to mind).

 

That's a VERY good point Mr. Flower. A very good point. By testifying under oath that he was not gay and/or had never had a homosexual experience would indeed open him up to perjury charges should this not be true (and proven so).

[woodlawn]

>Maybe Tommy boy should keep this in mind. How much money has

>he gotten over the years from the tabloids and such through

>his 'I'm not gay' lawsuits?

 

Probably not much. But the suits he has filed certainly have the effect of warning media companies that if they publish rumors about his sexuality without having proof, they may face some very expensive litigation. That is thw whole point of filing them.

 

>I think it's odd that Tommy feels he has to prove he 'isn't'

>gay everytime someone uses his name and the word gay in the

>same sentence, and to go to the extreme of going to court in

>order to do it. If he wants to prove he isn't gay, he ought

>to try not acting like some bitchy old queen in denial.

 

Why don't you tell us exactly how a straight person should go about 'proving' that he isn't gay. By getting married? By dating women? It seems that gay men who are determined to believe Cruise is gay simply interpret those actions as some sort of coverup. Any other ideas?

[ad rian]

>Why don't you tell us exactly how a straight person should go

>about 'proving' that he isn't gay. By getting married? By

>dating women? It seems that gay men who are determined to

>believe Cruise is gay simply interpret those actions as some

>sort of coverup. Any other ideas?

 

I think the issue is that the history of dissembling on these issues in Hollywood over the years makes it especially hard to believe when someone like Tom Cruise or Michael Jackson set the gaydar meter in to over-drive. (BTW, did you see that Richard Chamberlain just outed himself recently?) Who knows what Tom is or does. It is possible that he himself does not know, or does not like what he knows. (Do you recall the Vanity Fair article from a few years back that described the equipment that he demands in his cntracts to deepen his voice in movies?) I think that is the most likely explanation for his legal strategy. I rather strongly suspect that Tom is filing these suits over the objection of his legal counsel given that the risk of recovery is so slow, and the risk of a Clinton perjury trap so high. There are masculine actors in Hollywood that don't get pegged with this label, but does anyone really find that Tom looks comfortable with women romantically either in his movies or in his off-screen appearances?

[woodlawn]

>I rather strongly suspect that Tom is

>filing these suits over the objection of his legal counsel

>given that the risk of recovery is so slow, and the risk of a

>Clinton perjury trap so high.

 

That statement doesn't make much sense to me. An attorney can't knowingly permit a client to give perjured testimony, and that includes filing an affidavit containing false statements. Cruise's attorney (isn't it Bert Fields?) wouldn't simply object to the filing of such a suit if he believed the filing would require false testimony, he would have to quit. Some people think that is why Howard Weitzman refused to represent his longtime friend O.J. Simpson in the murder trial.

 

>There are masculine actors in

>Hollywood that don't get pegged with this label, but does

>anyone really find that Tom looks comfortable with women

>romantically either in his movies or in his off-screen

>appearances?

 

Yes, as a matter of fact I do. I don't know anything about Cruise's sex life. Neither does anyone else who is posting here. That's the whole point. What we have is members of a minority group who seem determined to believe a famous actor is one of them even though there is no real evidence to substantiate that, apparently because it makes them feel better about themselves to believe that.

[Guest Bitchboy]

Don't look now but the usual suspects have managed to take a mildly interesting post and turn it into the yawn of the month.

[woodlawn]

>Don't look now but the usual suspects have managed to take a

>mildly interesting post and turn it into the yawn of the

>month.

 

If you find it so boring then why the hell do you spend your time reading it? Somebody holding a gun to your head? Bugger off to some thread that interests you more. I think there is one on poppers, isn't there?

[Luv2play]

Well, I'm no expert on Brad Davis but he was the star of Midnight Express, the young American who was caught trying to smuggle drugs out of Turkey and suffering horrible abuse in the prison. There was, however, an erotic homosexual encounter in a shower scene in the movie which thrilled all the gays in the audience! Brad went on to star in Querelle, a fantastic (literally) movie of Jean Genet's novel about a gay hustler in a French seaside town. I don't recall if Brad ever made a statement about whether he was gay or not but when he contracted AIDs he kept it quiet so he could continue to find work in Hollywood. A sad story.

[Guest countryboy76]

>Why don't you tell us exactly how a straight person should go

>about 'proving' that he isn't gay. By getting married? By

>dating women? It seems that gay men who are determined to

>believe Cruise is gay simply interpret those actions as some

>sort of coverup. Any other ideas?

 

Obvously the result of some misinterpretaion. The point here is, why does Tom feel it so necessary to take such drastic actions in an attempt to prove his sexuality? He could be straight, bi-sexual, homosexual or asexual for all anyone cares, and it doesn't make any difference. Well, technically it might but that's something else. It says a lot about someone when they feel so defamed and damaged by a 'rumor' which suggests he is gay. Shit, I'm gay, and that's no rumor, that's fact and I don't feel defamed at all.

 

 

There are plenty of actors/leading men who have been rumored to be gay at one time or another. Keanue Reeves, Brad Pitt and others listed above, these guys know they have a gay fan base out there and they accept it, they accept the fact that a lot of us gay boys hope and wish that some of the rumors may be true. When these actors perform in their movies there is always something, no matter how small or large that is geared towards the gay guys who are going to pay to see the movie. Whether it is Tom dancing in his briefs in 'Riskey Business' or Brad Pitt muscled and sweaty in 'Fight Club'.

 

As for Kyle, I tend to side with him in that he probably did have a relationship with Tom. Why he didn't keep quiet, who knows, that's just the way things go.

 

CB76

[woodlawn]

>The point here

>is, why does Tom feel it so necessary to take such drastic

>actions in an attempt to prove his sexuality? He could be

>straight, bi-sexual, homosexual or asexual for all anyone

>cares, and it doesn't make any difference. Well, technically

>it might but that's something else. It says a lot about

>someone when they feel so defamed and damaged by a 'rumor'

>which suggests he is gay. Shit, I'm gay, and that's no rumor,

>that's fact and I don't feel defamed at all.

 

There are lots and lots of straight people who were brought up to believe and do believe that homosexuality is disgusting. To someone who believes that, being accused of homosexuality is defamatory. There's nothing unusual about that point of view, in fact it's extremely common. Didn't you know that?

 

Cruise may be one of those people. Or he may not be, but may be concerned that those people won't pay to see his films if he's thought to be gay. Or it may be both. Filing a huge lawsuit against anyone who publishes such rumors, even a nonentity like the porn actor in this case, is an effective way of warning the media not to mess with him.

 

It may also be a way for Cruise to express his anger at someone he feels has defamed him. Carol Burnett sued the National Enquirer for publishing a story that implied she was a drunk. I doubt the story did any harm to her career, and she didn't get much money out of the suit in the end. But she repeatedly expressed satisfaction at having punished the paper for publishing something she found personally offensive.

 

 

>There are plenty of actors/leading men who have been rumored

>to be gay at one time or another. Keanue Reeves, Brad Pitt

>and others listed above, these guys know they have a gay fan

>base out there and they accept it, they accept the fact that a

>lot of us gay boys hope and wish that some of the rumors may

>be true. When these actors perform in their movies there is

>always something, no matter how small or large that is geared

>towards the gay guys who are going to pay to see the movie.

>Whether it is Tom dancing in his briefs in 'Riskey Business'

>or Brad Pitt muscled and sweaty in 'Fight Club'.

 

 

I think you make the mistake of assuming that other people, people you don't even know, have a point of view that is similar to yours. Why would they? If an actor is straight and has never experienced any homoerotic desires, it might not even occur to him that dancing around in his underwear would be titillating to gay men.

 

>As for Kyle, I tend to side with him in that he probably did

>have a relationship with Tom. Why he didn't keep quiet, who

>knows, that's just the way things go.

 

Why side with him? Did he ever come up with any evidence to back up his story? If not, is there anything you base your opinion on other than wishful thinking?

[VaHawk]

Why do people give a damn, one way or the other, what Tom Cruise does with whom where? That is all his business. Regardless of what others opine, I don't need to have him or any other celebrity be tagged as gay, to feel good about the fact that I'm gay. What is this crap about gays looking at TC dancing in his underwear in Risky Business, as no one, even "gays" even knew who he was before this movie, as you state!! In addition, I SINCERELY DOUBT Tom Cruise had anything to do about the scripting of that movie at that stage of his career!

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with TC suing anyone over unfounded acccusations, regardless of their nature. The mere fact that he won the case in a court of law, proves that the accusations had no merit! I am SICK AND TIRED!!! of gay people who feel it is their RIGHT!! to publicly "OUT" other people, regardless of how that affects that person's life, just so they can have some kind of "banner" to flaunt that says "he/she is one of us"! If you need this to justify who and what you are, then you truly are "PATHETIC!" and need to accept yourself for who you are and get on with your life! :-(

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

> I am SICK AND TIRED!!! of gay

>people who feel it is their RIGHT!! to publicly "OUT" other

>people, regardless of how that affects that person's life,

>just so they can have some kind of "banner" to flaunt that

>says "he/she is one of us"!

 

A-Fucking-men!! (no pun was intended although it turned out kinda cute, eh? ;-) )

 

When I was waiting tables during college, the place I worked at hired these two very flamboyant gay guys who were friends. I was not out to my co-workers. I felt it was my personal business and none of theirs. But they were VERY out, VERY flamboyant, and VERY obnoxious. While a few of our co-workers found them somewhat amusing, the vast majority found them offensive.

 

Anyway, one night these two guys happen to see me at a gay bar. The very next day at work, I come in and all of my co-workers start coming up to me asking "are you really gay?", "I heard you were at a gay bar last night, is this true?" It was the first of two times in my life that I have ever been outed. And I was fucking furious! Although I was able to control myself (and believe me it was difficult), I really really REALLY wanted to hurt them. And hurt them badly. Had they not quit about three days later, I might very well have.

[Flower]

I am SICK AND TIRED!!! of gay

>people who feel it is their RIGHT!! to publicly "OUT" other

>people, regardless of how that affects that person's life,

>just so they can have some kind of "banner" to flaunt that

>says "he/she is one of us"! If you need this to justify who

>and what you are, then you truly are "PATHETIC!" and need to

>accept yourself for who you are and get on with your life!

> :-(

 

LBB, VaHawk and woodlawn--well thought, well reasoned, and well said....AND I agree 100% and therefore you MUST be right! :7

 

Usual suspects or not, it's funny how some of these mo's can go on and on and on about speculating (or fantasizing as the case may be) that TC is gay, based totally on cnjecture and rumor and NO facts nor EVIDENCE whatsoever, and then when that fact is pointed out to them, they get huffy and just plain bitchy -- or maybe just defensive, as they really know how mindless their frolick is :+

[ad rian]

>That statement doesn't make much sense to me. An attorney

>can't knowingly permit a client to give perjured testimony,

>and that includes filing an affidavit containing false

>statements. Cruise's attorney (isn't it Bert Fields?)

>wouldn't simply object to the filing of such a suit if he

>believed the filing would require false testimony, he would

>have to quit. Some people think that is why Howard Weitzman

>refused to represent his longtime friend O.J. Simpson in the

>murder trial.

 

That's a slightly different point. If an attorney has actual knowledge that a witness will perjure himself, he cannot let hi take the stand, or he must retire from the case. I did not suggest that Tom's lawyer hadactual knowledge but that in giving advice one weighs risks and rewards. I think the potential of recovery is so low, and risk of a "Mark Fuhrman" moment so great that most attorneys would advise a client against proceeding, but unlike in the situation you suggest, without actual knowledge, their would be no breach of any ethical duty to allow the client to proceed. But I bet his better advice to Tom was noted in a memo to file if not to Tom himself.

[ad rian]

>Anyway, one night these two guys happen to see me at a gay

>bar. The very next day at work, I come in and all of my

>co-workers start coming up to me asking "are you really gay?",

>"I heard you were at a gay bar last night, is this true?" It

>was the first of two times in my life that I have ever been

>outed. And I was fucking furious! Although I was able to

>control myself (and believe me it was difficult), I really

>really REALLY wanted to hurt them. And hurt them badly. Had

>they not quit about three days later, I might very well have.

 

OK, at the risk of being taken over the coals again, let me say that I have never found this claim to anonymity to be compelling. Many other visible "minority" groups have to get up every day and face both the positive and negative aspects that come from the social reaction to their visibility without the option or ability to claim invisibility. So you were angry, but could you imagine someone being angry if someone asked a Chinese person if they were Chinese? Or a Black person if they were Black? I find this expectation of anonymity by some members of invisible minorities like gays or (dare I say it) Jews to be a bit silly when viewed against the wider context described above. Ok, go ahead crucify me for saying it.

[ad rian]

>That's a VERY good point Mr. Flower. A very good point. By

>testifying under oath that he was not gay and/or had never had

>a homosexual experience would indeed open him up to perjury

>charges should this not be true (and proven so).

 

Yes, but you miss the point. There was no testimony from Tom. There was not even a sworn affidavit. There was just a Complaint in which he denied being a homosexual (What ever that means?), denied knowing or having sex with his accuser. The complaint does not even say that he never engaged in homosexual acts, and it did not deny that he did not have homosexual sex with anyone other than his accuser. This may sound technical to you, but as an attorney, let me tell you that is simply not a carte blanche denial. Maybe he is. Maybe he isn't. But this case does not move the ball any further down the court as far as I can see.

[Guest Bitchboy]

>>Don't look now but the usual suspects have managed to take

>a

>>mildly interesting post and turn it into the yawn of the

>>month.

>

>If you find it so boring then why the hell do you spend your

>time reading it? Somebody holding a gun to your head?

 

Since you ask, no, no gun present. I was enjoying it somewhat since I had a vested interest in the subject, but that was before you took it over with your myopic look at life.

 

 

Bugger

>off to some thread that interests you more. I think there is

>one on poppers, isn't there?

 

Yes, there is, but I've never used them and have no desire to start. However, I did have a relationship with a semi-well-known actor who found it necessary to get married to continue getting work. But since you are the self-appointed expert in all subject, I defer to your superior knowledge and your ill-hidden self-loathing.

 

And what's with ending all of your posts with one of those self-serving little questions you always ask? That's an overused method employed by most hack writers.

 

>

>

[woodlawn]

>Since you ask, no, no gun present. I was enjoying it somewhat

>since I had a vested interest in the subject, but that was

>before you took it over with your myopic look at life.

 

So why keep reading it? It's pretty stupid to spend your time reading posts that you claim to find boring and offensive, isn't it?

 

>But since you are the self-appointed

>expert in all subject, I defer to your superior knowledge and

>your ill-hidden self-loathing.

 

Here we go again with the amateur psychoanalysis. Is it the fact that you've had serious mental problems of your own that makes you feel qualified to analyze others? Or is it just that you read People magazine a lot?

 

>And what's with ending all of your posts with one of those

>self-serving little questions you always ask? That's an

>overused method employed by most hack writers.

 

It's as good a way as any of replying to the stupid, mindless insults that constitute 95% of your posts.

[phage]

No crucifixion here because I actually agree with your main point. It’s unfortunate that you had to bait others with the remark on Jews because I don’t think it is the same thing at all. Yes, the Jews consider themselves a race, but aren’t all religious affiliations equal? They all have the same basic transparency and everyone has the same opportunity to keep them private or make them public.

 

With regards to gay people though, I do agree with you. I am not out at work and not particularly flamboyant so it isn’t generally an issue, however, I had the same situation at a previous job. A very out coworker ran into me at a gay bar and told many of the people we worked with. Although it was a little inconvenient and annoying, I realized that his right to talk was as legitimate as my right to keep quiet. We aren’t part of some secret society who gets automatic confidentiality from everyone else in the club, and it makes the news much more interesting when it is a person that others are not likely to suspect. If it’s that big of a deal, you need to make choices about where you go and what you do in public.

 

I also recognize that most of the progress we have made as a minority group has been because of those individuals who are out and visible. They pay the price and others reap the benefits. I will never be an activist, but I’m not so filled with fear and shame that I’m going to go around resenting others for merely telling the truth.