I don’t really know how I should feel about this, other than, I think that it is pretty messed up. Neither Anderson Cooper, nor Jodie Foster have publicly come out of the closet, and I don’t think that Out Magazine should be doing it for them. I personally would be extremely offended and freaked out if I were outed without my permission, and without my consent, especially on the cover of a national magazine. Sure, they MAY or may not be gay [retracted], but, either way, that is their press conference to hold; not Out Magazine’s. Bad form, Out Magazine, bad form. I know that it is important to have gay figures in society, and especially, in the public eye, but it is not right to go around outing people that, for whatever reason, have chosen not to come out publicly themselves. Not everyone needs to be pressured into a situation where they have to air their private lives in the tabloids. If Jodie and Anderson are true to themselves, and comfortable in their lives, and are out to their friends and lovers, it is up to them to choose who to share that information with.
What do you think? Do you think that Out was out of line? Or, do you think that because it is pretty clear that both Anderson and Jodie are gay, that it is Out’s privilege to push them out of the closet and proclaim them as gay to the world? I personally would be deeply offended if I were in their position; not because they were smearing my name or saying anything wrong about me, but because they took the extremely personal thing of coming out, out of my hands. Again, what do you think?
I don’t think they did anything wrong. What’s the big deal? They’re both public figures. They gave up privacy and freedom from speculation about their personal lives the day they became famous. Fair game.
I thought Anderson Cooper was already out, so shows how much I know.
I totally agree about them being public figures, and I would totally expect this sort of thing from some other publication, but in this case, I really don’t think it is appropriate. People that understand how difficult and life changing coming out really is should have been able to personalize this very situation, but they didn’t.
Sure, they have the right to say whatever they want, I am not suggesting otherwise, but I think that being that Out is a gay publication, that the people working there would have had a little more respect for the act of coming out, and what it means for those that are outed in this way. It was just bad form on Out’s part, and they should have honestly known better, or at least been a little more compassionate. I personalize it, and that is why I feel it is messed up.
Hannah, he is out to himself and his friends/family, but not out as in Ellen-out. To come out publicly as a gay figure in the media is very different than just being out to those you have personal relationships with.
I have personally seen him at a gay bar in Atlanta, I have no doubt he is gay, but it isn’t the place of Out magazine to make him a gay media figure, without his knowledge and consent.
Jodie Foster is Gay?
She was hot in Contact.
Yes. I am a geek.
Out of line to do that. It’s a personal call.
I agree with you totally.
BTW, these are two people I’m glad we have on our team!
Agreed. Coming out is a very personal decision and OUT Magazine should have enough decency to respect that.
I am with you Duane. I think if we are having a gay top fifty, it should be people that are comfortable with themselves and proud to be gay. To me, that would allow you in the top fifty. If you have to hide your gayness for whatever reason, why would we want you at the top?
And another thing, I don’t know many of the people they picked, but isn’t one of them a porn director? Why would that put you in the top fifty. I think they need to adjust their priorities.
I don’t know. The “glass closet” is kind of silly to me. AC and Jodie aren’t scared teenagers being pulled from the closet. They live relatively openly gay lives–with partners and children (at least in Foster’s case). I’m not saying they need to become posters, but to pretend the elephant in the room isn’t there just makes everyone look at the elephant.
I totes understand the “it’s a personal decision” argument. But if you’re okay with it, as they both seem to be personally, then what’s the big deal?
When we live in a world where we aren’t yelled at, beat up, discriminated against, killed, etc. then it will be wrong to out people.
Until then, anyone that can possibly help our cause has a moral obligation to do so, even if it is just coming out and adding visibility.
I’m more upset that Perez Hilton is higher on the list than Marc Cherry and Chi Chi LaRue…=)
I think it’s ridiculous. It devalues the whole publication. I’m not an avid reader of Out or anything, but by doing this the magazine is no better than Perez Hilton’s blog. Not the smartest way to remain credible.
It’s not the media’s job to drag someone out of the closet or to make details of someone’s personal life public. This issue of Out will certainly sell a lot of mags (and get drop cards all over bookstore floors) and get Out plenty of hits on their website. All of this due to a month’s notice on the cover
I remember reading about when Bob Mould was outed (Spin Magaine, 1994). While he was never closeted to anyone who knew him, he wasn’t out publicly, but the article outed him. To read his blog now (modulate.blogspot.com), he is happily out. But he’s in a good place now, for sure.
Here’s an interview where he discusses it at one point:
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=14247
These are some of the things Bob Mould says in the article:
“That [ story ] was the moment when everyone officially knew what I thought they already knew,” he said. “I got no resistance [ to my sexuality ] among my music fans, and actually got an additional group [ of fans ] who are looking for gay artists. It was a nice addition.”
“I was reluctant to be out professionally for multiple reasons,” he said. “Music is music, and music is a universal truth that really defies gender and sexuality. I was nervous that all of my work prior [ to coming out ] would be [ re-analyzed ] . Second, I really wanted to protect my family, who lived in a conservative part of northern New York; I thought they may have to deal with some scorn from their community,” because of the announcement.
Until then, anyone that can possibly help our cause has a moral obligation to do so, even if it is just coming out and adding visibility.
Isn’t the problem that people assume they have a moral obligation to do something (not be openly who they are for fear of prosecution) the reason that both of them in the “glass closet” in the first place? Honestly no offense, but as a strait guy that sounds just about as “righteous” of an assumption as anti-gay religious zealots that keep people like them (supposedly) in the closet in the first place.
Agreed. Totally ‘out’ of line. Whilst we’re at it, why only 13 women in a list of 50 powerful gays?
Now I remember why I don’t read OUT magazine, or the Advocate for that matter…
chrisafer,
I think that it is important to make sure that it is their decision to come out publicly; it is their call, not Out’s.
and Cyanbane, totally. I don’t think they have a moral obligation to be out and proud; this is something that is highly personal, and with the out status, especially as public figures, consequences and reactions come with that status. I am all for having more out gay and lesbians representing us in the media, but it isn’t our choice as to who they are, and when they come out; it is totally up to them. Coming out shouldn’t be something that is forced, or done without your permission, and that is what Out magazine is doing here, and it is wrong.
As for perez hilton even being on this list; WTF. Also Chi Chi Larue? I love my porn as much as the next queer boy, but seriously? Most powerful? Give me a break. And yes Deb, more lesbians would be nice, I would think that it could at least be more 50/50 rather than 70/30; there are a ton of powerful lesbians doing great things, and they deserve to be on there. We are all gay, and the “gay white male as the standard” needs to change for us all to gain ground.
Out is lame at best. capitalism at it’s finest: i’m going to make a buck and screw who ever gets hurt in the process. granted anyone who may be closeted and on that list is probably financially independent, it’s still a personal decision.
You really would think that the people at Out would know better. I wonder if they even thought about what would have happened if their own sexual orientation was splashed all over a magazine cover before they came out.
That’s just it Kim, I don’t think that they even thought of that; which is why I am so surprised, to be honest.
“Sure, they MAY be gay (i.e., I’m pretty sure that they are)…”
So it’s okay for you to proclaim them as gay on your blog, but it is not okay for a magazine to do it? Sure, Out has a few more readers than you, but it’s the same thing. And I have seen it on so many blogs. How many people assume Sanjaya is gay or look for every chance to prove Jake Gylenhaal is more like his Brokeback character than he’d like to admit?
How come it’s only bad when it’s on a magazine?
GREAT point. Note that this statement will be immediately retracted from my post.
Like him or not, Musto is a reporter and has been for a very long time, and he knows these people are gay. Other reporters do as well but have not reported it.
To call the cover shameful is to insist that there is something shameful about being gay. There’s nothing shameful, in my opinion, about being gay, therefore, there’s nothing shameful about accurate reporting about gay celebrities. Who cares if they’ve said so in press releases? This is simply accurate reporting. (Anyone who balks at that should actually READ the article on out.com.) Would anyone balk at the reporting on Lindsay Lohan’s latest boyfirend? Hardly. So why get your panties in a twist over this?
Moreover, these people are celebrities, and actively seek public attention. Anyone who fusses over this should immediately and forever resist reading US, People, and any other magazine that reports on the personal lives of celebrities. You can’t have it both ways: Celebrity reporting is bad–whether gay or straight—or it’s OK.
Beyond that, Musto didn’t out these people. They’ve been reported on (not just gossiped about) as being gay for years.
At best, that is a huge stretch. Outing someone without their permission is very hurtful and denigrating, especially in a society that does not widely accept homosexuality. While I get your point about suggesting that being gay is “wrong” being associated with being outed as wrong, I wholeheartedly disagree with this action.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay, but being gay is who you are. It is a personal fact about you, and it is something that is up to you to share with the world. It is not the place of anyone to call you out of the closet, and splatter your sexuality all over the front page. Doing what Out magazine did is unconscionable, and goes beyond “just reporting”. If you don’t see it that way, that is fine, but that does not remove the feeling of disgust that many gay people share with me towards Out magazine, on this subject. Being out is a very personal action, and it isn’t right, especially coming from a gay publication, of the media to take that action for you.
Being out is a personal decision for you and me–private individuals who don’t trade on their personal lives to achieve celebrity. That’s certainly not the case with Anderson Cooper. In fact, Cooper was at a gay bar in Chelsea just the other night. He’s obviously not too concerned over this. I think it’s very telling that people who are up in arms about this are talking about their own feelings: “How would I feel if I were outed?” That’s beside the point. There are different rules for people who seek celebrity, and none of them should feel shocked with details of their open private lives is made public. Besides, Musto didn’t out these people. They were outed years ago. And yes, in print.
While I do agree, I just expect better from Out. I mean, this is gays ganging up on gays here. That’s why I am all up in arms about it. I think that Out should have taken the high road, and they didn’t.
Sure, they may not really care, but I don’t see how personalizing the outing experience lessens the argument at all; in fact, I would think if anything, it would strengthen it.
I accept the idea that people approach “outing” differently, but it’s kind of a false argument in this case–since no one was outed. This is just reporting, and an essay about high profile people who are irrefutably gay, and the ways in which they sidestep the question when asked by reporters. The logical next step (if all the people who say “shame on Out magazine”) have their way, is for Out to only report on people who agree to be reported on. That’s not journalism, that’s reprinting press releases.
Here’s where you are missing the point. Anderson Cooper and Jodie Foster are not out to the public, and are not out as public figures. They are out to their lovers and friends, but they technically have not come out officially, and Out magazine “outed” them, which is something they have obviously chosen to avoid. That is the point here, not the facts of whether or not they are or gay, but the fact that they have made the choice not to be out publicly, and Out magazine did it for them, without their permission.
Being gay is one thing, being out is something else. Just because you are gay, and are seen in gay clubs, doesn’t mean that you are truly 100% out. In their case, they obviously were not out in the media, and it should be their choice to publicly come out, if they so chose to. Until then, it is just speculation (whether or not it is true).