“I think this surrogacy thing is crap. It is utterly hideous. I think it’s egocentric and vain. And these endless IVF treatments people go through. I mean, if you are meant to have babies then great. But this whole idea of two gay guys filling a cocktail shaker with their sperm and impregnating some grim lesbian and then it gets cut out is just really weird. If I did have the impulse to be a parent, I would adopt—or foster. But this whole thing of forcing the idea of parenthood on us gay men is so bogus. Marriage? Babies? Please. I want to be illegal. I want to live outside the mainstream.”
That’s Rupert Everett, currently starring in his Broadway debut Blithe Spirit alongside Angela Lansbury. Self-hating? It wouldn’t be lovable grouch Everett if it wasn’t.
More from his interview with The Daily Beast:
You’re so old-fashioned.
Or am I slightly ahead of the curve? It has to change. These awful middle-class queens—which is what the gay movement has become—are so tiresome. It’s all Abercrombie & Fitch and strollers. Everybody has the right to do what they want to do, but still…
It’s good to know you’re not judgmental. Do you regret having come out as a gay man? Does it anger you that a lot of actors who are gay have chosen not to come out and have better careers to show for it?
No. What I find I regret—what pisses me off—is this complicity among everyone else against a queen even though they don’t even know it. Even people who consider themselves thoughtful. So what people say about me is, “Isn’t it amazing that you didn’t really try very hard in your career? Your career is so up and down.” But the reason my career is so up and down is that I get very little opportunity. There is just very little opportunity for a fag. That’s the reality. There isn’t. But I have no regrets for being out. None. It’s not like I’m missing out on that much. Being an actor in Hollywood is not that great a job anymore. It’s become the sluttiest job on the planet. It’s not remotely serious. It’s not like we’re talking about Hollywood in the 1970s that I’m missing out on. If we were talking about ‘70s Hollywood, then I’d be killing myself because the product back then was so astonishing even though it was still thought of as commercial cinema. I’m not that upset not to be in Ocean’s 15 or whatever.
Can somebody just tape his mouth shut please. He wants to be illegal, then he can move to Iran and be so illegal they’ll execute him. He doesn’t want to have babies with a “grim lesbian,” then he should not have any, he’d no doubt be a terrible father. Nobody is forcing him, though apparently he doesn’t see it that way. It’s about time this idiot learned to stfu.
He’ll get a lot of flack for his comments but I love his honesty. Personally I’m getting a bit tired of the constant drumbeat for assimilation in what passes for gay media these days. It’s refreshing to hear a contrary opinion.
Since when does not wanting to mimic straight people make you self-hating? I agree with what he said, and I’m had glad he had the balls to say it.
Mark (another one)
Quentin Crisp reincarnated.
The caption is a bit misleading, isn’t it? He did not say that gays having kids is egocentric, he said that surrogacy is. He may well find couples who choose all sorts of procedures, including invitro, somewhat ego centric, when one considers the number of unwanted children out there. Agree or disagree, at least one could see a line of reasoning there.
I’m not a Rupert fan–he’s always been a curmudgeon, well before he came out he complained bitterly about his career–but I am a great fan of properly representing what one said.
Misleading caption. While I won’t label gay parents who’ve done that “egocentric,” I’ll agree that I personally have no interest in it and have every intention of adopting. Enough breeding!
I completely agree with him. There are so many unwanted children in the world. I compare it to going to a breeder for a house pet when there are so many being put down.
I can’t understand why surrogacy would be considered “egocentric and vain.” Perfectly normal to insist on having a biological child in lieu of adoption. I know that dropping $100K for that purpose, as opposed to less than half the cost to adopt a child in need of a home, is the epitome of selflessness. Can’t imagine what Everett was thinking. His argument is borderline socialist when you think about it, and we all know the staying power of that boogeyman.
He’s boring and cranky, but self-hating? C’mon, Queerty. Learn what words mean before you use them.
I kinda come from this belief that gay is part of evolution to regulate procreation so it doesn’t make sense to make a baby if you can’t, but would make sense to adopt a child who has no parents and little opportunity.
To be honest I agree with his opinion on IVF, really, many children currently alive need homes- why make go to such expense to make one?
This obsession with normalcy is not a good one for the gay community. We should have the right to marry, has a matter of human dignity, but must we emulate everything about them?
yeah, has anyone ever met married people with kids?? I’ll take a pass thanks…
His hostile reduction of the process of surrogacy to “cocktail shakers” and “a grim lesbian” is exactly the kind of distortion of our community that anti-gay forces have been using forever. They define us by one set of characteristics which may be disturbing or upsetting to some of the population, and that becomes “fact”. Clearly he knows nothing about surrogacy. It’s like he’s saying that his way of being gay is the only way to be gay. It’s unfortunate that he needs to demonize “these awful middle-class queens” which only serves to perpetuate divisiveness and self-hatred within the gay community rather than finding ways to appreciate ALL ways of being gay and to come together.
P.S. I’m sorry that I saw him in “Blithe Spirit” on Broadway last week. Jerk.
I hate to admit it, but IN SOME CASES he’s absolutely right.
I completely agree with Rupert, and I’m glad someone is saying these kinds of things. Most of the women alive today of child-bearing age are literally incapable of not having babies. So many millions of babies are born EVERY DAY to people who can’t take care of them and/or don’t want them. We, both as humans located (geographically and demographically) in a place where it is possible not to have babies, AND ESPECIALLY as humans who aren’t going to be getting anybody accidentally pregnant, have a duty to our fellow-humans, and to the planet, NOT to add to the tragic excess of people. If you REALLY want a friggin baby, adopt.
@Howard: That’s a fair point, Howard, but I think the point of his comment was that it was selfish in light of the adoption option. I mean, when you consider surrogacy costs it is a fair point very crudely expressed.
The Gay Numbers
@ML: I don’t know a single gay couple married or with kids who worries about someone like you. So, you keep talking about pressure, but it sounds like its internal rather than external.
The Gay Numbers
Re adoption versus surrogacy
I plan to adopt so I do agree that it is better to adopt since there are so many kids who need parents that no one takes in. but it’s each person’s choice. It’s odd to read so many comments about how you personally should have a choice, but then disparage other people’s choice. I would say to someone thinking of surrogacy really give a look at adoption, but I would not judge them because raising a kid is such a deeply personal decision. Not everyone is Maddona trying to impress the public. Perhaps, the problem here is the circles in which some of you run.
What he fails to realize or comment on is that adoption and fostering are almost impossible in our “free” country right now, for gays, and that option is being increasingly pressured to be nonexistent. Read up on recent legislation, Rupert. You can’t just become a foster parent or adopt easily, and it’s even more unlikely if you are gay. The fight isn’t about making “us” and “them” the same (which, by the way, that mentality is divisive in itself) but about making ALL options open to ALL people, regardless of orientation. Having your own child is something everyone has a right to and many want that for themselves…whether straight or gay. Why should a gay be denied that? Having a family and that family being loved, productive, cared for, just living their life…how does that harm gay or straight? That picture can go a long way in impressing upon those so opposed to the gay community that it’s just people living their lives and doing so, many times, to the benefit of others, such as a child in need…and hopefully, sway those adverse to removing the limitations placed solely because of orientation.
I think it’s all in what a person wants for their own life…not everyone is cut out to be a parent..but those that wish to be should be at least given the opportunity to do so, without the interference of people who don’t wish to do so themselves, nor those that can’t see beyond their own rigid opinions.
It’s part of the equal rights fight, a big part of it. And there are many who can benefit from it…both biological offspring and not.
Beyond that, Rupert is a cranky ole shit who lost his acting mojo long ago; but if wants to be that…it’s his life…just don’t be surprised if others don’t agree with ya, Ru.
Being Rupert Everett is egocentric and vain.
@jay: “adoption and fostering are almost impossible in our “free” country right now, for gays”
Wrong. It’s actually very easy in most states. I think there are only two — Fla. & Ark. — that have specific anti-gay adoption laws on the books. Some states, like CA & NY, actually have AD CAMPAIGNS encouraging gay couples to adopt.
I concur with Jay. Adoption for gays continues to be a discriminatory process.
When my partner (who is adopted) and I decided to have a family, we looked into adoption first, and decided we didn’t want to go down a long path of waiting and to be put towards the bottom of the adoption list just because we are a gay couple. We were lucky to have had the financial means to utilize surrogacy to have our family. Many lives have come together through that process, and all are better for it. We were blessed with three children in fourteen months…there’s nothing egocentric about that…just a lot of hard work and a lot of love that goes around every day.
Rupert, let’s try to take more of a stand to support our fellow gay brother and sisters and for the very personal decisions we all make for the betterment our lives and families. Cheers!
Rupert Everett is a HAS BEEN! He is so irrelevant to reality and the LGBT fight of today. Listening to him bicker is like Pat Buchanan talking about his love for Richard Nixon all the time on MSNBC while the other hosts roll their eyes.
To hell with Rupert. The only Everett we need is BRENT EVERETT
He is just ridiculous!
@HayYall: Why is it that gay people who want to have a marriage and family are suddenly demonized for it? Why does this ammount to “assimilation” and “mimic[ry]”??
Why do we have to waste time hating each other when there is so much important work to be done to ensure that we have equal rights to pursue our individual bliss?
I’m going to be pilloried for this but I think there is least some truth in my observation – I think many people are vain and egocentric to have kids; whether they are Gay or Straight is irrelevant. It is quite possibly a normal and “natural” feeling or attitude as much as any other human attribute but vain and egocentric nonetheless.
People “want” children so therefore they have them. People have children so they can have heirs, carry on the family name or any number of reasons. I’ve heard more than a few father’s talk about “my house, my job, my kid(s)”…like it is some kind of accomplishment to reproduce. Does anyone have children “for the good of humanity?” Now, having said all this, and please note again, it is many people I’m referring to, not most or all – I don’t think as wonderful as it is to have a child, nurture a new life, watch him/her grow, discover things etc. I would never say that it is mimicking straight people to want a child.
I’m not going to condemn anyone else’s choice of how they make their family. But, for me, the idea of hiring a “rent-a-womb” for the sole purpose of creating a child with (half of) my genetic material feels creepy and a little misogynistic. Like prostitution taken to a whole new level.
But again, that’s just how I would feel. So I can see his point and at the same time love and respect my friends who have had children through surrogacy.
The reason it equates to mimicry should be apparent, given the amount of press gay marriage gets. Straights get upset because they feel their unique institution will be taken away and sullied if gays get it, and gays want the opportunity to be equal with straights. I don’t have any problem with this at all as far as the ability for gays to marry goes, btw, other than personally I have no reason to want to do so.
The mimicry of having a child should be apparent as well, as it’s the product of the defining difference between homos and hets.
I’m not “demonizing” you by any means. Knock yourself out with your hubby and your house full of kids. But if you don’t see how you’re mirroring straight culture by doing so you’re just in denial.
Oops that last bit was directed @ Stitch
“Most of the women alive today of child-bearing age are literally incapable of not having babies.”
Wow. Your comment just made my freaking day. Get a life, dude. And if that’s too hard for you, why don’t you try putting yourself in a woman’s shoes. Ignorance is bliss, right?
Good on’ya Rupe – about time someone spoke their mind. PS – get a copy of his autobiography “Red Carpets and other banana skins – bet book I’ve read in years !
Old, bitter, and irrelevant; table for one.
When I want to lord it over others and feel full of myself my first impulse is to clean up shit, get vomited on and punched in the head, have no privacy or personal life and be kept awake day and night.
I don’t think opportunity has anything to do with it. If you are going to be obnoxious and sour then people won’t see you as being able to play a potential role in their next film. I think this guy only speaks so he can get his name in the media. Otherwise, he would fade away.
Ruining your formerly handsome face in an effort to stay forever young is egocentric and vain.
he aint that looney.
why cant gays be content with adoption?
Have you tried to adopt? First hand experience?
Also, what if you’re a single gay?
What hasn’t been brought up is, you don’t know what the genetic background of the child is. What psychological damage the child might have gone thru. If you have surrogacy, somewhere done the road, the child might encounter problems that can be traced back to hereditary problems. There are other factors to be looked at other than money.
Some of the posters here act like nobody ever gave up five years of their life wiping their asses, spoon-feeding them mashed bananas and listened to them babble until they were half blind with fatigue.
Never mind ridiculing people for “mimicking straights”. Thank your fucking stars some people (a good number of them straight) have the dedication and wherewithall to brats like you in the first place.
Enough of this silly talk; go call your moms and dads and say something nice to them. Do you think you crawled out from under a rock or something?
Apart from the whole “you should adopt rather than use IVF” issue, which I agree with, insisting on IVF also represents a desire to create another person in your own image. This alone is egocentric, for straight couple as well as gay couples. This kind of desire is often painful for the child who wants to break away from the expectations of their parents too.
If your wish to be a parent is truly about nurturing a child to the point they can live a fulfilling life, then adoption is the reasonable path. The need to pass on your genes should play no part in it.
‘scuse me… to RAISE brats…
The Gay Numbers
@strumpetwindsock: Amen to your comment. The gay community is weird. It’s like the little kid, who in order to prove he’s nothing like his parent does exactly the opposite of the parent. But, of course, this is just an immature orthodoxy in its own right.
Here, hereosexual want kids of their own, and therefore, there is something wrong with gays wanting it. As I said before, I think its cool to adopt, but the idea that someone is going to tell others they should adopt because they are moralizing to them about adoption is just as a reverse- orthodoxy.
Whatever straights do, we can’t do because if we do it, then “we are being forced.” The other variant of this argument that I love along this thread is “if you have kids, that’s placing some kind of pressure on me to confirm.” How does that work exactly? My actions that I do not require someone to perform forces them to act as I do? The selfish part to me is where they argue that we all must confirm to their reverse orthodoxy or we are confirming to straight orthodoxy. The third choice- that having kids is what we want never enters the picture.
Lets talk about Monkeys, they make me laugh.
WOW! Seriously right now???? well i used to be a fan of his….
Misleading headline, that not what he said.
While he is effectively ranting, he has a point about gays not putting adoption first before anything else.
Feeling as if you are so important that your opinion on reproduction should matter to the world is egocentric and vain. How is a gay couple’s desire to have their own biological progeny different from the egocentric and vain behavior of heterosexual couples that reproduce by biological or medically assisted means? Are heterosexuals to be considered incapable of, too good or not good enough to have children through adoption?
@Mike Barton: I don’t think it is different at all. But I think that there’s a fairly good argument to be made that the most ethical choice, under the circumstances, is adoption, for all similarly situated couples.
Can we please change the caption to: VapidWhiningAttentionwhore?
“Oh My Gaw. Guuuurl, I slept under Grayson’s room last night….”
@Mike Barton: A gay couple cannot have their own biological progeny. It’s a child outside of the coupling. That’s why it actually makes no sense. You have negative parents (meaning overproduction of children), so then nature balances with overproduction of parents. Adopt.
If you have the money and want a surrogate… then do it. If you don’t want to and want to adopt. Then do that. It’s really nobody’s business but the decision-maker.
“Egocentric and Vain” (?!)…well, finally two topics which Rupert Everett is certifiable expert on. I have no desire to have children, but it seems to me that GLBT parents should be celebrated for their choice (either biological or adopted) rather than torn down/judged…Being a good parent requires a tremendous commitment of time, energy, finances (etc.) so how about a little respect for those who have taken on that responsibility…
@Dennis: thank you Dennis for your understanding and support!
@ML: I agree!
ANYBODY having kids is egocentric and vain. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
@hardmannyc: I agree! Millions of children grow up in group homes and orphanages while people continue to have kids. I think it goes for anyone, including heterosexual people. Adopt, adopt, adopt!
Gays R Self Indulgent Morons
The fags on here insisting that gay people should only consider adoption are total morons interested in little more than hopping from bed to bed, night after night, searching for the ultimate sexual experience. Truthfully, you folks are embarrassing. It’s no wonder straight people think gays are fruticakes. Normal, white babies don’t usually go to gay couples. Why as a gay man should I have to settle for a baby born with disabilities or addicted to some drug? I opted to use surrogacy (and my surrogate was a happy, smiling heterosexual woman) so that I’d know my baby would enter the world healthy. You Queens hate being judged but the str8 world but you have no problem judging other gays. I guess the oppressed usually make the worst oppressors when given the chance.
Gays R Self Indulgent Morons
And for all you gays who think it’s wrong to use surrogacy, I hope none of you are in favor of gay marriage. Move to a state where civil unions or domestic partnerships are offered. And, if you don’t live in a state that offers any of those then move. Marriage is an ideal reserved ONLY for heterosexuals. Why should homosexuals strive for or even want the same thing heterosexuals have? If you’re gay you should be satisfied with lesser things. No marriage and you can only have the babies that nobody wants. So, adopt away. Yeah, great message for our community to send to itself. Life is about having choices and just because someone makes a choice that you wouldn’t make doesn’t mean their choice is wrong. Personally, I’d never adopt a child. Too many unknowns. But, I certainly don’t judge people who do. Regardless of how you became parent, I think it’s commendable to contribute to society in general by taking on the responsibility to raise the next generation. Some of you folks should learn to give something back to the world, rather than constantly taking and tearing down.
And, did you notice that he didn’t say a word about lesbians using artificial insemination? Guess it’s ok for lesbians to have biological children but not gay men. I guess because it’s normal for women to have babies. Guess gay men are once again shown to be abnormal? Great logic, folks.
Thanks Rupert for telling it like it is and expressing what a lot of us feel!
Comments are closed.