With his days on American Idol behind him, Sanjaya Malakar‘s been making the talk show rounds. For some reason his publicist – or whoever handles this perplexing star’s affairs – decided to book him on Jimmy Kimmel‘s late-night chat fest. Why? We don’t know.
We do know, however, that Jimmy Kimmel managed to perpetuate his long history of douchery and make himself look like a hypocrite. Oh, Jimmy, you truly are an overachiever…
After a bit of pleasantries, Kimmel broaches that old, perhaps inappropriate, subject: 17-year old Malakar’s sexuality, asking why oh why Malakar would “offer” People his heterosexuality. Here’s a bit of transcript for those of you too lazy and/or technologically impaired to watch the video:
Jimmy Kimmel: You did an interview with People Magazine and you almost went out of your way to tell them you’re not gay. Why did you do that?
Sanjaya Malakar: I didn’t go out of my way to do that.
JK: You didn’t? Because it seemed like you specifically…I told them a similar thing but they didn’t believe me. Do you feel like you had to say that?
SM: (shakes head)
JK: No, you didn’t? It was just something you threw out there?
SM: Yeah.
JK: Okay, because it a little bit odd to throw out there like you feel you have to clear the air. And, of course, as you hear, not that there is anything wrong with that if that was your thing. And you’re a kid. You don’t even know what you are. At this point in your life. I was humping furniture at this point when I was your age.
Because, sadly, nobody would sleep with him. Not even the dog.
What we can’t decide is whether Kimmel’s just being a total dick or just a bit of a dick with a healthy dash of actual concern. Aside from the fact that it’s a bit inappropriate to be asking a 17-year old kid about their sexuality – especially one who ain’t no Einstein – but didn’t Kimmel go after Gawker’s Emily Gould for that whole Gawker Stalker thing? Kimmel not only blasted Gould for posting celebrities’ locations, but tore her a new one over a Gawker reader’s assertion that Kimmel was drunk. This Malakar thing isn’t exactly the same thing, but Kimmel’s definitely intimating something here: Malakar’s gay. A bit more incendiary than saying someone hits the bottle, especially considering – again – Malakar’s only seventeen (forgive our Puritanism) and not the sharpest tool…
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Sort of makes those potentially transphobic comments to Rebecca Romijn smell like roses, huh?
Jimmy Kimmel quizzes Sanjaya Malakar about gay comment [AfterElton]
Jimmy Kimmel puts Sanjaya on the spot… [Out in Hollywood]
Lamb Cannon
deep thoughts….
Regarding “douchery” … well-turned out term that derives from the more popular “douche-bag…”
rhetorical q: why exactly do we excoriate jerx with this term? Although it may be unlovely in the extreme, the lowly, much-maligned douchebag actually serves a unique and (for us gay bottoms) tray helpful purpose….
jimmy kimmel and his ilk have no such purpose…. perhaps instead of calling people “douche-bags” we should call them “kimmels”
nystudman
I wouldn’t watch American Idol unless someone were threatening my family if I didn’t, and I think Jimmy Kimmel is a total no-talent brainless dolt (which makes hiim a perfect TV talkshow host). But … I thought his question and the general way he handled this kid was perfectly fine, with discretion and even taste. He didn’t put him on the spot, he just asked why he told a magazine wasn’t gay. So what’ sthe “douchery” here?
Martini-boy
If Sanjaya were conscious enough to talk about NOT being gay in People Magazine, then I’m sureh he’d be conscious enough to figure out if he’s gay or not. Being smart has very little to do with liking boys. Sure, it helps if you want to express how proud (or not) you are about your sexuality; but the underlying truth is still there…
Lavish
I think Kimmel handled it ok. If Malakar went out of his way to emphatically say he’s not gay, why not look into why he was so adamant about it? It wasn’t insulting or offensive.
Ciao!
Ryan
I wouldn’t really have a problem with it, if it weren’t coming from Jimmy Kimmel and his holier-than-thou attitude. He’s such a hypocrite. It’s not okay to say someone went to a bagel shop in manhattan 2 hours ago on a website – because it could be unsafe – but it’s perfectly okay to try to publically out or insinuate someone is gay (when that could actually put someone at risk).
Kimmel is pretty much just a terrible human being.
jack e. jett
douche bag is a compliment for j. kimmel.
jej
Alan down in Florida
Jimmy Kimmel is Sarah Silverman’s boyfriend. Please stop them before they breed.
Jewels R
Well it proves you can take the man out of the man show but you can’t take The Man Show out of the man. Give the kid a break. If he was a little more savvy he’d replied he addressed the issue because everyone’s been yapping about it.
Groove on.
Ian
Kimmel is an ass. Quizzing a 17 yr old kid who looks like he’s barely out of puberty about his sexuality? Disgraceful.
Unfortunately, I think Kimmel was just mimicking PEOPLE magazine, which did the same thing. The reporters there quizzed this kid about his sexuality, and wrote a story about it. Why did they do that? What is the fixation on this kid and his sexuality? Why is that the focus of their article?
I supposed we’re accustomed to seeing the relentless speculation about celebrities and their sexuality. Look at all the buzz around Jake Gyllenhaal or Wentworth Miller. Everyone wants to know if these guys are gay or not because they’re way too pretty.
But it is unseemly when this type of speculation is centered around a minor. He’s a kid. His mother is sitting right there in the audience.
For chrissakes, leave this kid alone. It’s barely tolerable when adults are interrogated about their sex lives, but a 17 year-old? C’mon! That’s pathetic.
Kimmel, PEOPLE magazine, and the other grown-ass adults need to grow up.
Claire
Sanjaya is actually really quite bright, but he’s very shy – it even says so in his AI profile. Kimmel aggressively dislikes Sanjaya, he lampooned him mercilessly for weeks, and he’s been very homophobic in the past. Clay Aiken was able to overcome Kimmel’s barbs and form a friendship, but Clay is almost ten years older than Sanjaya and far less shy.
An adult demanded a shy teenager he did not like to explain his sexuality on national television – with the inference that Sanjaya was lying. Not acceptable, as far as I am concerned.
laura
This reminds me of that time when Barbra Walters interrogated Marcia Cross about her sexuality on The View. There was speculation that Marcia was a lesbian. And Barbra Walters asked her flat-out if she was gay. Marcia was shocked, flustered and obviously uncomfortable. And her parents were also sitting in the audience. It was horribly awkward.
However, Marcia Cross is still an adult. She had enough experience to handle Bawa Wawa.
Jimmy Kimmel and the other were out of line. It’s rude, intrusive and unnecessary. In this case, Sanjaya is only 17. People forget that he’s just a kid. If someone did that to my teenaged son, I’d go ballistic.
But I am impressed with Sanjaya. I think he’s a very smart and secure kid. He’s handled all the tabloid attention and negativity extremely well. Better than most adults.
Samantha
I found it distasteful that Jimmy Kimmel brought the issue of sexuality up to a 17 year old. I can’t imagine a single 17 year old kid of my acquaintance that I would want to see subjected to being quizzed on that subject by an adult male of short acquaintance. Add the studio audience which included his mother and sister and the broadcast audience and it’s a plainly disgusting thing to do to a kid.
I thought Sanjaya (as usual) handled it amazingly well. But he shouldn’t have had to. Idiotic and off base comments about his singing or references to his hairstyles are one thing. But sex is or should be private and, particularly with a child, should be an absolute no-go zone.
The People article was iffy but the slant was not what Kimmel suggested. Sanjaya was talking about how growing up in an all-female household had improved his ability to relate to women which made him quite popular with girls. I think his quotes were more a comment on the mindset of teenage boys regarding anyone differnet–particularly anyone who doesn’t see women as being incomprehensible–and a lot less about sexuality.
thatgirl
I think a lot of the way that Sanjaya has been handled by the media has been pretty shocking, actually. He’s just a kid. I kind of wonder what he’ll make of this in ten years. What would be great is if he is able to parlay all of this attention into a career veejaying for MTV. I think he’d be quite fun to watch..
cutabv
THIS IS A WONDERFUL BOY WHO HAS BEEN JUDGED FOR HIS SEXUALITY RATHER THAN HIS BEAUTIFUL VOICE.I KNOW THAT HE BARELY HAD A VOICE CHANGE,AND EVERYBODY WAS COMPARING HIM TO PEOPLE ON THE SHOW 10 YEARS OLDER.LET HIM GROWW UP AND DECIDE WHO HE IS.I CAN SAY THIS FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE,HE HUGS LIKE A MAN !