The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

The Gay Barometer and the Missing A-lister Gays

NotHardUp1

NotHardUp1

What? Me? Really?
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Posts
25,257
Reaction score
6,616
Points
113
Location
Harvest
Still looking around for the A-list gays whom we should have seen by now at the top of professional sports, in cinema, in government, or even pop music (including rock).

Credit is due those who rose high in their fields (Tom Daley, Ricky Martin, Freddie Mercury, Lil Nas, Neil Patrick Harris, etc.), but we still seem to live in a society that rejects gays in the role of alpha male.

Where are the Jason Stathams, the Barach Obamas, the Tom Bradys, the Davis Lee Roths, the Novak Djokovics, etc.) of this generation?

If I do the math, there must still be the majority of gay men in those alpha roles who are yet closeted, a reality we do not seem to be addressing as a gay population.
 
Pete Buttigieg

Tim Cook (CEO of Apple, although I don't like him)

Ian McKellen, Jim Parsons, Ellen DeGeneres, Elton John
 
Last edited:
Greg Louganis

Looks like sports, cinema, government and pop music rock are all covered
 
I think Hard mean hot fappable ones or, at least, still relevant like Obama... explicitly said "OF THIS GENERATION"... not rotting all farts from all previous generations.
Although he did mention Freddy (dead for over 30 years) or Ricky, who had to masquerade their orientation while they were riding high in their prime.
And ones who have not fallen out of grace, the sort of people who did not need to be pushy and bully to arrive and stay and remain accepted as the gay oddity in the old system, like Ellen, throwing all her popularity titles in public to a school teacher for not considering her role model enough.

Tolerance and gayness as role model or mere mainstream coolness are just a phase, like they were back in the jazz era or the glam one: the fact that you miss more public exposure is proof enough.
 
Brexiteer: appropriately, David Bull.

But true that it could be said for anyone bitching under any other party or law firm.

They are not A-listers even for their own electorate.

The combo one is named "Street".
 
The Lord Cashman, the Lord Adonis, the Viscount Crookshank... named by the people baptizing Ikea furniture.

Shouldn't the surname "Price" be banned? Imagine your kid one day runs for office...
 
Peter Thiel is happy to stand in as arch villain trying to demolish democracy.

And actors like Matt Bomer, Jim Parsons, Jonathan Groff, Luke Evans, Lee Pace and dozens of others are not shy about being Out.

Andy Cooper and Andy Cohen are not insignificant forces on TV...something that would have never happened when I was young.

Yannick Nézet-Séguin is one of the most sought after conductors in the world now.

When it comes to pro sports though, they stay in the closet because their fans demand the subterfuge of straightness.

And if we accept that 10% of the population might be homo, the numbers would be small anyway.
 
Does rock still exist? I mean as a young thing... creative and all that.
Cinema and pop and showbusiness in general at the natural breeding ground of open-out-loud homos. But "sports"? And politics and the real top, not the minion level... well, if you do not count city major minions-of national-governments as such...
 
rareboy said:
Also worth noting who holds office as openly LGBT around the world.

A generation ago...virtually unthinkable.

They may not be the razzle dazzle 'A' listers that we want to be starring in the movies of their own (and our) lives...but they are the leaders we need.

en.wikipedia.org

List of openly LGBTQ heads of state and government - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
I think the definition of "A-lister" is what was demanding... is there a gay Taylor Swift, is Sam Smith A-list enough, or just the usually niche gay in the niche field of show biz.
 
rareboy said:
Peter Thiel is happy to stand in as arch villain trying to demolish democracy.
Click to expand...
More happy to bankrupt those having outed him as gay than serving as role model in the guise of gay villain in an old-Style Bond movie.
 
Thanks, Belamy, for covering when I was not on, as you said exactly what I would have.

I am not taking the shine off anyone who is out and a public figure, but most of those named are absolutely not A-listers

By now, if we had anywhere close to representative numbers, then 5%-10% of current leading men in Hollywood would be gay. Nowhere near that number are out.

Same for pro-sports, not a stray Olympian here and there already in a Speedo.

We just don't see representative numbers that equate to our assumed percentage of the population. Either gays have not made the grade, been exluded, or are closeted if present. Nothing I'm reading in this thread so far is evidence of the contrary rather than just selected exemplars of the few.
 
backagain said:
Gays are the few, so the numbers would be lower.
Click to expand...
Again, he is talking in proportion: he is pointing out that the numbers do not correspond even remotely to the assumed 5-10% of gay people.
Not saying that there should be 50% or 80% of top gay field tacklers, F1 drivers or ball grabbers in general, or leading politicians, but that they are far from being even a 5%: they are just same old tolerated freak show, simply now they are also allowed to be out (at their own risk, Ricky Martin, Rupert Everett), and do not pretend they are perfectly straight.

Let everything change so that everything remains the same.
 
Last edited:
Why WOULD they reveal their sexual preference? It isn't relevant to their areas of prowess and isn't anybody else's concern.
The general public's obsession with other people's private lives is nauseating.
 
pigface said:
Why WOULD they reveal their sexual preference? It isn't relevant to their areas of prowess and isn't anybody else's concern.
The general public's obsession with other people's private lives is nauseating.
Click to expand...
It is not a question of forcing everyone to boast their sexuality: the fact that it is preferred not to expose one's sexuality is too often not because it is of nobody's concern, but precisely because it is still too harmful when the norm is exposing heterosexuality in an hypersexualized society, to the extent that people do not even realize and simply take for granted: for example, putting females everywhere on view when you could be putting men in at least half the cases (parity? equality?), and with clothes that are "creative" instead of the usual male burka ridiculously considered "formal" and "elegant", it is a sign that homosexual people are still more "separated but equal" than anything else, and that is already too much for too many people pretending to be defenders of freedom.

Gays are granted a new social role, that which they ever had in previous more tolerating eras (Jazz Era, counterculture era...) along with women: they are just colourful people to add colour in times in whihc gaudiness is in fashion because the straight male master considers it tolerable or, rahter, useful (politically and economically), for a while.

Even accounting for the people who do not expose it, the numbers are still low.
 
pigface said:
Why WOULD they reveal their sexual preference? It isn't relevant to their areas of prowess and isn't anybody else's concern.
The general public's obsession with other people's private lives is nauseating.
Click to expand...
Althought Belamy nailed it, I would add that we cannot have it both ways.

Our mantra cannot be Out and Proud and then cheer on closeted men who hide their orientation because it allows them the cover of respect and profitability because they literally are posing as straight males.

And, it doesn't come down to sex, but sexuality. The public distaste for open discussion of sexaul acts in non-private discussions isn't a factor, as one's sexuality is reasonbly discernable in most cases by one's general living patterns.

Although single males not appearing in any social bond may well be celibate, gay, or straight, at some point people go on vacations, meet up in cafes or bars, live together, and do other social things that eventually imply sexuality, even if public displays of affection are not shown.

In an era of social media, gay men avoiding all indications of same-sex attraction can fairly be termed to be closeted, even more so if celebrities presenting a public face and social interactions.

For the record, the all-too-common affectation of using "bro" every other minute to serve as code for "straight friend" is just as suspect as a gf who is a beard.

If we've actually made the progress we've claimed has come to pass, then ESPECIALLY the entertainment professions should have not only the 5% to 10% proportionate representation by gays, but also the much higher percentages that their professions actually attract. I'm reminded of a meeting of my native plant society in North Carolina about 20 years ago when they announced a scholarship was given for a gay landscape design student. Really? Is there some implication that gays are in any way disadvantaged in horticulture, landscaping, or floriculture and related fields? Hardly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top