Reader comments · Rupert Everett: ‘I don’t want to be part of heterosexual norm’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Rupert Everett: ‘I don’t want to be part of heterosexual norm’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. As usual, comments and statements from Rupert Everett are about Rupert Everett and what he wants for himself. What he really wants of course, is just more publicity, to keep himself in the public eye. What is so sad though is that whenever he needs to open his mouth it is always about him, and never about others and what might be best for them. This man typifies in the inability of narcissists and hedonists to put themselves in other people’s shoes. It’s all me, me, me, and bugger the plight of others.

    If he really wants recognition so badly, let him go off for ten years and silently do a Mother Theresa! If he does that he can have his Knighthood as well!

  2. Mihangel apYrs 20 Jul 2009, 7:48pm


    he’s a luvvie, principal aim in life self-publicity.

    At least he’s not as slimey as Fry

  3. Brian Burton 20 Jul 2009, 8:10pm

    What is he talking about, the last years of Illegality? A great many of us did! He ought to just stick to acting. There is one thing about Rupert Everett–He dose not have a penchant for the philosophical!

  4. Mihangel, I’ll agree with you there all right. A million times better looking than Fry and nowhere near as slimey. The way Fry has slithered into the traditional role of eccentric old Englishman puts my skin on edge!

    Brian, I think one of the reasons he keeps making these extraordinary statements is that he has become known as shallow and fickle, without substance, and so he isn’t being offered the roles any more.

  5. ‘……”the last years of illegality” focused his character.’

    Well, yes, the gents did go like a fair then.

  6. Simon Murphy 20 Jul 2009, 10:36pm

    I do agree with him when he says that “the only downside to being childless was not having anyone to “mop you up when you’re older”. ”

    Not that there is anything wrong with being a parent, nor should gays suffer legal discrimination if they wish to become parents. However a marvellous thing about being gay in my view is the lack of pressure to reproduce. The thought of beimg a parent is entirely alien to me. I like my dog too much.

  7. Eddy must be a disgruntled ex of Rupert’s.

  8. John Macdonald 21 Jul 2009, 5:00am

    I totally agree. I have always and still do make a stand against the Hetrosexualisation of the gay community. It is wrong and I have never wanted to live a lie. Getting married, having children and playing happy families repulses me. Make a stand to be gay and nothing else and be proud of it.

  9. Edward in Los Angeles 21 Jul 2009, 5:27am

    Re: the post before mine: “Make a stand to be gay and nothing else and be proud of it.” And what is your definition of being gay? Childless, single and not playing family? I understand you have personal needs John MacDonald — but you would have flunked a logic class in college, if you ever took one.

  10. Yes, John, do tell us what being gay means to you. To me it means only having a man in bed with me at night and by my side through each day in whatever I do. Everything else is normal and usual. Work that is no different from the work heterosexuals can do. Shopping that is no different from shopping that heterosexuals do. Interests in art, literature, film, travel, and so forth that are no different from the interests that heterosexuals have. And if my partner and I were younger it would be great to adopt and raise a child, and not just be confined to cats and dogs as we have been. So do tell. What is the “being gay” that you so want? Is it standing on the plinth in Trafalgar Square outraging everybody with how big a dildo you can shove up your arse?

    Liam, I have never met Rupert Everett. If I did though I would tell him that a lot of us are fed up with his egotistical self-obsessed pronouncements. Interesting that you think because I have an opinion about his proclaiming his backward beliefs about gay liberation every six months or so that I must be a disgruntled ex of his. You’re another one who needs to go off to university and subject himself to a good course in logic.

  11. Simon Murphy 21 Jul 2009, 1:00pm

    Eddy: No 10: You say: “What is the “being gay” that you so want? Is it standing on the plinth in Trafalgar Square outraging everybody with how big a dildo you can shove up your arse?”

    You do accept I hope that what you describe above is just as morally defensible as having children.

    I absolutely believe that if a gay couple want to have children then they should be allowed to do so. But I am worried that the minority of gay people who actually do have children are placing themselves in a position of moral superiority over those gay people who do not want children.

    Having children is a choice. As a choice it is no more valid or worthwhile than being childless. And it really annoys me to hear gay parents behaving in such a judgemental manner towards gay people who do not share their goals.

    Your comments about dildoes up the arse Eddy is just as homophobic as if it was a straight christian saying it. You have no right or authority to sit in judgement on how another gay person lives their life. And you should be ashamed of yourself for acting in such a homophobic manner.

    Does anyone know how many gay men or lesbians actually reproduce? I would reckon it is a small minority of people. You’d never guess from the way they pretend that reproduction is a goal of every gay person. It is not. Like I already said for many people one of the good things about being gay is the lack of pressure to reproduce.

  12. Mihangel apYrs 21 Jul 2009, 2:02pm

    @Simon Murphy
    we here so much about gays and lesbians wanting kids because they get reported as being out of the ordinary, as well as all the homophobiic crap that goes with being “unfit parents”.

    I imagine a large proportion of gays, men anyway, haven’t got the same nesting instinct, or sublimate it into nephews, nieces, and sometimes into younger friends who they can look out for.

    The media only report what is newsworthy or sensationalist!

  13. Simon Murphy 21 Jul 2009, 2:21pm

    That’s all very well Mihangel apYrs. But the fact remains that most gay men (and probably lesbians) don’t have children, don’t want children and will never have them.

    I worry if we’re approaching a point where the minority of gay people who have children are assuming the position of ‘acceptable’ gays. They are not. They are 1 aspect of the gay population and they cannot and must not start judging people who don’t share their reproductive urges.

    Like I said it is just as moral and valid to be childless as it is to have children. And for gay people to condemn Rupert Everett for not wanting them is just as homophobic as come christian group condemning gay parents.

  14. Brian Burton 21 Jul 2009, 3:41pm

    Edward (California Dremin’)
    College…? Bright college days, Oh! carfree days that fly…To thee we drink with our glasses held up high! It’s a good thing colleges were invented, sex and education go hand in hand. College beds were big enough to fit one and a half persons. So it was easier to continue laying on top of each other afterwards!
    Edward you asked the definition of Gay?……Look no futher than Pink News! It is composed of Beautiful idiots and Brilliant lunatics, just what WE all should be!

  15. Simon, I think it’s rather fearful of you to be “worried that the minority of gay people who actually do have children are placing themselves in a position of moral superiority over those gay people who do not want children”! What utter nonsense. There will be gay and lesbian people who will want children and those who don’t, just as there are heterosexual couples who want children and heterosexuals who do not.

    And, Simon, there is nothing homophobic about my rhetorical question as to whether the poster thinks “being gay” consists of the right to show everbody how big a dildo he can shove up his arse. I use rhetoric, Simon, in order to provoke an answer to the question: what on earth is it that John so preciously considers as “being gay”. It is clearly something much greater and larger that simply sharing his life with a man.

    It strikes me that there may indeed be some gay men, and lesbians, who have a phobia about children. The idea of fostering or having children is repugnant to them. That’s quite a separate thing, or at least it should be, from being gay, i.e., simply wishing one’s partner (or partners!) to be of the same sex.

    I have so often agreed with you, Simon, as you have observed. Though I have noticed you have never openly supported anything I have said. Nevertheless it is not a surprise that we differ on at least one point, or two. It had to happen sooner or later. Brian Burton will view this post as my retrieving my head from up your arse, will he not? Eh, Brian?

  16. Brian Burton 21 Jul 2009, 7:52pm

    Eddy, dear Eddy, I Love you, (as a brother!) I read your comment and I’m proud of you. Children and animals, strickley Taboo and best to be a million miles from those subjects. But never mind, just store the info. and remember what I’ve said. I think poor old Rupert is just being…..poor old Rupert! We all strive to make our mark. Some were born great. Some achive greatness. And some have greatness thrust upon them. This ever-changing life of yous and mine will give us all the answers one day, Dear Eddy!

  17. Simon Murphy 21 Jul 2009, 7:58pm

    Fair enough Eddy. But you must accept that a higher percentage of straight people will have children than gay people. That is simply a fact because it is far easier for them.

    Having children is not a repugnant idea to me Eddy. I simply don’t want them. I never have and I don’t think I ever will. That is my choice and it as morally acceptable and valid as someone else’s decision to choose to have them.

    I think we are heading down a dangerous and judgemental route to condemn Rupert Everett or any other gay person for speaking out about his opposition to the idea of having children. He is not condemning other people’s choices but simply expressing his own equally valid opinion.

  18. Rupert Everett is a prick. It’s not his views on having children that offends me, but his opinions on gays becoming part of the “heterosexual norm”. If that means having all the rights and choices that straight people have, then bring it on. Would he rather that we all stay in the shadows, living the stereotypical gay life of clubbing, drugs and anonymous sex? If that’s how someone wants to live their life it’s their choice, but don’t criticize those of us who don’t.

  19. Simon Murphy 22 Jul 2009, 1:35am

    Andy: No 18: You say: “Would he rather that we all stay in the shadows, living the stereotypical gay life of clubbing, drugs and anonymous sex? If that’s how someone wants to live their life it’s their choice, but don’t criticize those of us who don’t.”

    Well equally you shouldn’t criticise him for living his life that way if he so chooses.

    I want a gay community where we are free to live our lives as we see fit with the same legal and social protections as straight people. I do not want to be part of a gay community which demands conformity in how we live our lives.

    Rupert Everett has been critical of gay people who want to be parents and various other aspects of gay relationships. He has NEVER calld for gay people to be legally discriminated against. I do not understand why some people get so threatened by him expressing his opinion. How he chooses to live his life is entirely his own business.

  20. Mihangel apYrs 22 Jul 2009, 7:27am

    Simon M, I don’t disagree with you, I was just pointing out why it was newsworthy – the redtops love something to moralise about!

    I also agree that the straight world may be starting to believe that this is what all gay people will want – heteronormalisation since its the “best” way, so why wouldn’t we choose it?

  21. I approve of Andy’s view, #18, when he asks, “Would he [Everett] rather that we all stay in the shadows, living the stereotypical gay life of clubbing, drugs and anonymous sex? If that’s how someone wants to live their life it’s their choice, but don’t criticize those of us who don’t.”

    I disagree with Simon’s response that one “shouldn’t criticise him [Everett] for living his life that way if he so chooses”.

    There was an awful time in this country when being gay meant flitting from shadow to shadow, or in the dark of night, riven with guilt, only being able to indulge in the forbidden love like a thief in the night. Being suppressed in that way instilled heart-thumping fear and guilt. Those feelings are extremely powerful and once accustomed to they become difficult to dispel. They are no longer necessary and they are certainly not healthy or desirable, however, conditioned by them as some gay men were and are, they have great difficulty now letting go of them, despite the raft of legislative change that no longer makes flitting from shadow to shadow necessary. As an example, gay men who wish to continue having sex in public toilets with the fear of the police or heterosexual strangers discovering them, or worse possibly attacking them and even knifing them, men who are closeted and possibly even married who only gratify themselves by stealing away to saunas and sex-clubs, are clinging to a way of life that is no longer necessary, which is extremely psychologically unhealthy, and which is riven with an “excitement” that negative, self-sabotaging, and an artifact of an earlier age.

    People, like Everett, who are not being forced into behaving in this way, perhaps like that poor young lad in the States at the moment, but who continue to “be gay” in this way need to seek the help of a qualified mental-health therapist. Everett has written at length of his having received therapy so one can only conclude that his therapy did not address this particular issue.

    Brian Burton, thank you for kind comments!

  22. Maybe I’m being naive here, but is it possible that the only functioning definition of what makes us gay is we’re attracted to people of our own gender?
    Some of us walk on the wild side, some of us want to settle down, some of us are camp as Millets and some of us appear straight in every major respect barring the partners we choose.
    It’s a broad church.
    Why do we require factions carping at each other for expressing their gay identity the way they see fit? Surely it’s whatever floats your boat, as long as it’s not harming anyone.

  23. Simon Murphy 22 Jul 2009, 12:33pm

    But Eddy. Rupert Everett is openly and unashamedly gay. He does not apologise for it. He does not hide in the shadows as you describe. If he chooses to live a life of promiscuous abandon (I’m not saying he does – I have no idea how he lives his life) then that is his choice, through which he is harming no-one. And I think that gay people who moralise about his way of living or condemn him for it are no different than the christian bigots. The christians want us all to live lives of heterosexual conformity. Sadly there seems to be a growing contingent of gay men who want us all to live lives of homosexual conformity. And it is a conformity closely linked to the heterosexual, monogamous way of living. That’s totally fine if that’s what you’re into. If you are not into that however then you should not be criticised for how youo live your life. It is not Rupert Everett’s job to make life easier for other people. He can live how he likes and he is free to talk about that. So long as he is not promoting discrimination (which he is not) then he should not be judged.

  24. Simon, I hear what you have said, but let’s get back to what John said originally. I don’t believe he has returned to enlighten me as to what his definition of “being gay” is, though whatever definition it is it would appear from what he says that it is one which is somehow at odds with simply being a member of society. In the absence of his definition of “being gay”, as opposed to being a gay person who cares for a child, can you enlighten us as to what he might mean?

    As regards Everett, get his biography out of a library. (Don’t waste money on purchasing a copy.) I saw it going for 99p in “The Works”, the remainder chain. In it refers to his selling his body for sex in his younger years and, in his later years, to steamy sessions in toilets with other men while high on drugs. If caring for a child is to be excluded from the definition of “being gay”, then can we, please, not also exclude renting one’s body and other debasing activities such as having sex in toilets with other people high on drugs?

    We all await your august pronouncement, Simon! :-)

  25. I think there is a point to the statement that gay community is becoming more and more normative, conservative and conformist. Increasingly I hear criticisms of the diverse elements and open sexuality from within, and I find this rather disturbing. We fought very hard for many years to change attitudes and now we are taking 10 steps back in our own attitudes.

  26. Brian Burton 22 Jul 2009, 6:54pm

    You are absolutely wrong in your comments. I simply cannot accept that you are hearing criticisms of the diverse elements and open sexuality from within. Where is this ‘Within?’ for instance and how long have you been aware of criticisms from this mythical place ‘Within.’ How did you come to the number 10 steps back in our attitudes? The Gay communities are advancing in leaps and bounds and that progress will continue. We do experiance stubborn, Homophobic attitudes on our journy, but we are ‘case hardened’ and carry on, and Love enables us to carry on.
    Love is fed by the imagination, by which we become wiser than we know, better than we feel and nicer than we are. by which we can see life as a whole…only what is fine can feed… Love. But anything will feed hate.

  27. Simon Murphy 23 Jul 2009, 2:27am

    Eddy. I do not think that if one has a child that it is beneficial for the child if his/her parent is engaging in drugged up toilet sex. Rupert Everett is not a parent however and has no desire to be a parent as he has so often stated. So if he chooses to get his sexual kicks by slagging about in toilets then that is his choice. He is harming nobody. It may not be to your taste or my taste but don’t copy the christian bigots by sitting in judgement on his behaviour. You don’t have any right to do that. Gaining our legal equality will be a hollow victory if it comes at the price of living a life of homosexual conformity where any difference from what is deemed ‘acceptable’ behaviour is condemned.

  28. Brian, good answer from you for the fearful Shoegirl.

    I find it extraordinary that people like Shoegirl, and Simon, are fearful that may end up being treated as normal members of society, that they will no longer be able to “be gay”. Notice, of course, that they do not tell us what this amazing “being gay” that they are fearful of being robbed of is all about! How does it manifest itself? I wanna know!

    I mean, perhaps I should be worried! Everyone in my street knows that my partner and I are gay. They invite us to dinner and parties and we have them in here. If the conversation turns to politics we state what we believe. We all tend to exclude the out and out Tories who live amongst us though occasionally they are in on the fun too and we then all make an effort to get on as individual and diverse members of this neighbourhood. Now it strikes me that according to some on this thread my partner and I are doing some horribly wrong, or we are missing out on something!

    Maybe when we get together with all our heterosexual neighbours at dinners or meetings or whatever we are not “being gay”? We appear to be fully respected and accepted but maybe we are completely wrong? Maybe we are missing out on something! I wanna know what that “being gay” is, what it is that my partner and I should be clamouring for and fighting for whenever we go for a walk down the street and stop to talk to our neighbours and their children.

    I also have a fear that maybe my partner and I are not “being gay” when we leave our street and go and visit our gay friends! I mean, we arrive at their houses, we go inside, we give them a hug or shake hands, we sit down, we talk, we drink coffee tea or wine, we have a laugh about all sorts of things, and then we go. But maybe we’re horribly leaving something out????? Maybe when we’re with our gay friends we are not “being gay”! Oh, dear! I mean we talk about gay issues and we talk about being gay but there’s clearly something that we are not doing. What is it?

    Please, please, TELL ME, what it is we are doing wrong or what it is we are failing to do! Tell me what it is we still need to do to “be gay”.

    And once you have told me what this “being gay” is constituted by, then please tell me how much we have to have of it before we can be satisfied and we can finally just settle down as functioning and equal members of our local neighbourhood and society in general.

    Simon, on a completely different track, sorry, mate, but you are not correct to align a dim view of drug-crazed orgies in toilets with Christian bigotry. Yes, it is true that your religionists of every persuasion, even the Christians, will condemn such behaviour and those who practice it. But you can’t seek to exonerate such behaviour simply because the religionists are against it!

    The fact remains that such behaviour is psychologically unhealthy, negative, and self-sabotaging. It is base and dehumanising, and it is not creative. It is the behaviour of losers, not winners. It is the behaviour of persons with very poor self-esteem, with low feelings of self-worth, of people lacking the wherewithal of making loving contact with other gay people through healthier means.

    And it is frightening to consider that for some people, possibly including Rupert Everett, such behaviour constitutes the essential heart of “being gay”! I’ll tell you what it really is! It’s a roller-coaster to self-destruction and a life of emptiness and nothingness.

    I challenge you to point to any person on the Independent’s recent list of the most influential and powerful 100 gay men and women in the UK and provide me with evidence that they spend a substantial part of their lives skulking in the shadows looking for anonymous sex or having it off down in the club toilets with three or four others. You won’t do it, I’m afraid. Why? Because it’s not part of a positively-focussed creative balanced and healthy lifestyle . . . which you have to have if you ever wish to experience happiness rather than occasional passing sexual gratification.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.