Gay BP Ex-CEO Featured in Times

[+ quoththeraven]

We're dealing with a real cast of characters here, and each may/does have his own agenda. It's too hard to figure the truth from this distance and after so many years. I think if I met any of the three, I'd plead a proctologist appointment and leave.

 

Would you plead a proctologist appointment because they're all assholes? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

[+ quoththeraven]

Thanks for the applause, Frankly Rich, jawjatek, and BVB, especially for plowing through that long tl;dr post. Before reading any of the underlying articles, I'd contemplated pointing out that none of us know these people, given that the responses to them varied so wildly, but before I did that I thought I should check out the articles out to see if they got us any closer to knowing these people and ran into a whole bunch of facts no one seemed to be talking about.

 

Jawjateck: I feel sorrier for Chevalier simply because he has less life experience and financial resources to fall back on. But for Browne to now set himself up as some sort of messenger for coming out strikes me as strange and deluded. Essentially, he's saying in the long run, Chevalier did him a favor.

 

And BVB: Despite trying to stick to the facts, I could be wrong or missing something.

[Frankly Rich]

If you remove the NY Times cookies, then you will get free access back. Of course it's okay, it's a newspaper!

[Newly]

Wow, this is a tough crowd. If Browne had simply hired a hooker for a night and paid him and the hooker tried to blackmail him that would be one thing. Instead an older man with a lot of money, prestige and power got his hooker to take himself off the market and be his pet for four years, and than dumped him without a penny. If he had adopted a puppy at the SPCA, given him the best vets, food and toys for 4 years and then dumped him on the side of the road when he wasn't a puppy anymore I don't think anyone would think very much of him. As for saying that there's nothing the law could do that's probably true in England, their legal system is very much geared towards shielding the rich and their nobility, but it seems like this type of situation is exactly what Palimony in California is all about. When someone gives up his/her career (such as it is) and life for you they at least deserve enough money to try to start a new career so they can take care of themselves. Four years is not a long time but given the value of youth to an escort Browne kept this guy during what were potentially his most lucrative years. I know Chevalier has to be very careful what he says in England, since their defamation laws are incredibly strict. I really am surprised that he doesn't strike up a deal with a US publisher and sell the movie rights. I bet this story would make one heck of a made for tv movie.

[+ FreshFluff]

Instead an older man with a lot of money, prestige and power got his hooker to take himself off the market and be his pet for four years, and than dumped him without a penny. If he had adopted a puppy at the SPCA, given him the best vets, food and toys for 4 years and then dumped him on the side of the road when he wasn't a puppy anymore I don't think anyone would think very much of him. As for saying that there's nothing the law could do that's probably true in England, their legal system is very much geared towards shielding the rich and their nobility, but it seems like this type of situation is exactly what Palimony in California is all about. When someone gives up his/her career (such as it is) and life for you they at least deserve enough money to try to start a new career so they can take care of themselves. Four years is not a long time but given the value of youth to an escort Browne kept this guy during what were potentially his most lucrative years.

 

I'm sympathetic to this, especially the bolded part. But I don't think it's fair to assume that Browne dumped Chevalier because he was no longer a twink.

 

According to Chevalier himself, Browne broke up with him after he stopped being willing to accompany Browne to social events. According to the Times article, Browne met a 32-year-old guy (who had written to him) right after Browne resigned, and they are still together.

[+ WilliamM]

I'm sympathetic to this, especially the bolded part. But I don't think it's fair to assume that Browne dumped Chevalier because he was no longer a twink.

 

According to Chevalier himself, Browne broke up with him after he stopped being willing to accompany Browne to social events. According to the Times article, Browne met a 32-year-old guy (who had written to him) right after Browne resigned, and they are still together.

 

You make Browne's relationship with the thirty-two year old seem like a happy ending. I'm not so sure if Brown treats his new friend as he supposedly treated Chavalier. Chavalier's version, if true, is essentially being a trophy wife who could only associate with Brown's rich and famous friends to the point he no longer could remember their names. In Chavalier's interview he mantains that he often felt inadequate about many things, especially when Browne's friends remembered his name, yet Chavalier himself had reached the point of name memory overload. I am sure the break up was far more complicated. And perhaps Browne new friend will be mature enough to fully carry out the duties of a trophy wife.

 

The above is really just a statement. I am more interested in your response to my suggestion last night that Browne might have found a job where he could be free to be gay. You responded about a lower level corporate job. The thrust of my comment was the opposition -- a job in an entirely different field. Sorry I was not more clear. Finally, if Browne truly left Chavalier with no money or compensation of any kind, it's likely he will do the same to the next man.

[+ quoththeraven]

When Browne was starting out, there were no jobs where he could safely be openly gay. For crying out loud, gay sex was illegal then. Can we stop chasing this red herring, to mix metaphors? And as it turns out, he can be openly gay and still have a career in business, as he's discovered. His leaving BP has more to do with lying under oath (for which he could have been prosecuted but wasn't) and other non-frivolous allegations of misconduct.

 

As for his latest boyfriend: We don't know anything about him other than his age and that he wrote a letter of support shortly after Browne was outed. He's a decade older than Chevalier was when they first met. I sincerely hope he's someone with his own career and source of income and that he maintains his own home or apartment. Even if their economic status is unequal and Browne pays for all of their socializing and vacations, at least he would have something to fall back on if they broke up and would be better able to adjust to no longer living large. If he's moved in with Browne without some legal recognition (i.e., marriage and the economic and inheritance rights that affords), then heaven help him if they ever part ways.

[Frankly Rich]

Reminds me of Liberace and his boyfriend. I only know of them from the movie Candelabra, but didn't Scott get dumped and left penniless by Liberace?

[Lookin]

Perhaps they're both assholes. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GZot5oy9sIc/Ug1LooQ_Y0I/AAAAAAAAHMo/UVCJ5igV9BY/s1600/mooning.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GZot5oy9sIc/Ug1LooQ_Y0I/AAAAAAAAHMo/UVCJ5igV9BY/s1600/mooning.jpg

[+ FreshFluff]

You make Browne's relationship with the thirty-two year old seem like a happy ending. I'm not so sure if Brown treats his new friend as he supposedly treated Chavalier. Chavalier's version, if true, is essentially being a trophy wife who could only associate with Brown's rich and famous friends to the point he no longer could remember their names. In Chavalier's interview he mantains that he often felt inadequate about many things, especially when Browne's friends remembered his name, yet Chavalier himself had reached the point of name memory overload. I am sure the break up was far more complicated. And perhaps Browne new friend will be mature enough to fully carry out the duties of a trophy wife.

 

The above is really just a statement. I am more interested in your response to my suggestion last night that Browne might have found a job where he could be free to be gay. You responded about a lower level corporate job. The thrust of my comment was the opposition -- a job in an entirely different field. Sorry I was not more clear. Finally, if Browne truly left Chavalier with no money or compensation of any kind, it's likely he will do the same to the next man.

 

There were some fields in which being gay wasn't a huge hindrance in the 1970s/1980s, but not many. Most people choose jobs based on their talents and interests. And even in those fields, if he happened to have a boss who didn't like gay people, he could have tossed Browne out for that reason alone (without even pretending otherwise).

 

Also, the article implies Browne did not accept himself as a gay man back then, so it's unlikely he would have considered it.

 

As for the new guy, I don't see it as a fairy tale ending at all, and I was surprised that the NYT treated it that way. I was responding to newtothis, who wrote:

 

If he had adopted a puppy at the SPCA, given him the best vets, food and toys for 4 years and then dumped him on the side of the road when he wasn't a puppy anymore

 

My point was that the reason for the breakup was not simply a result of Chevalier's having aged.

[+ WilliamM]

When Browne was starting out, there were no jobs where he could safely be openly gay. For crying out loud, gay sex was illegal then. Can we stop chasing this red herring, to mix metaphors? And as it turns out, he can be openly gay and still have a career in business, as he's discovered. His leaving BP has more to do with lying under oath (for which he could have been prosecuted but wasn't) and other non-frivolous allegations of misconduct.

 

 

In my original post on page one of this thread, I wrote that I am several years older than Browne. I understand that when Browne started out (late 1960s, early 1970s), he had few choices. That was less true in later years. My comment was about changing careers later in life, perhaps in the 1980s or slightly later. I would not expect you to go back and read something I wrote in this thread on Friday night. But, now that you know, please reconsider your red herring comment.

[+ quoththeraven]

In my original post on page one of this thread, I wrote that I am several years older than Browne. I understand that when Browne started out (late 1960s, early 1970s), he had few choices. That was less true in later years. My comment was about changing careers later in life, perhaps in the 1980s or slightly later. I would not expect you to go back and read something I wrote in this thread on Friday night. But, now that you know, please reconsider your red herring comment.

 

Sorry, I did miss that your point was about changing careers mid-stream, so I take back the red herring comment. But changing careers isn't easy and sometimes isn't even possible. I'm not sure what careers his work experience had more than a passing application to would have been welcoming enough in the 1980s where he wouldn't feel being openly gay was a possible impediment to advancement, and I'm curious what fields you're thinking of. It's not like there was any guarantee he could get a job outside of his field or whether he'd like it, and he was presumably busy enough that he might reasonably feel that it wasn't worth spending his time and energy on something so uncertain.

 

Looking at his CV via Wikipedia (probably accurate enough for this purpose), his first executive position was in 1984, he held various CEO positions for BP subsidiaries thereafter, and became CEO of BP in 1995. He spent his entire career, from university to his resignation in 2007, with BP. That's not a resume that would inspire most headhunters or those in a position to hire someone changing fields after fifteen or so years (i.e, after he officially joined BP fulltime in 1969 and before his promotion to an executive position in 1984, which is a short time in which to climb so far!) It also means he'd built up seniority, perks, and the like. I'm not sure it's realistic or fair to expect someone to make such a leap -- any new career could be as uncongenial as the old one, if not more so, and he clearly thrived on his work -- for the possibility that he could be out without repercussions, itself also dubious at a time when AIDS dominated the headlines.

 

Also, trading away ambition, status and remuneration for personal happiness and freedom? Not a choice most men make. If we fault him for not making that choice, there are a lot of other men who should have changed careers as well, and I'm not just thinking about gay men.

[Frankly Rich]

Apple CEO Tim Cook marched with their gay employees in today's SF Gay Pride parade. Just to show solidarity, no doubt.

 

http://www.towleroad.com/2014/06/apple-ceo-tim-cook-marched-with-lgbt-employees-in-todays-sf-pride-parade.html

[zeyfur]

Thats it ! I am never going to buy another apple product again. Apple is part of the gay mafia trying to make everyone gay .;)

[+ FreshFluff]

Thats it ! I am never going to buy another apple product again. Apple is part of the gay mafia trying to make everyone gay .;)

 

Yeah, their logo always seemed a little fruity.

[bigvalboy]

Yeah, their logo always seemed a little fruity.

 

Ha...clever!