Joanna Schroeder takes Gawker to task for attempting to out not just one, but two celebrities in one article.
When I was in high school, I worked at Red Lobster. It turned out to be an okay job, if you don’t mind smelling like hot butter and shrimp scampi after work.
The most important moment of my “career” at the RL was when a cute, sweet, muscular young host was hired and I was assigned to train him. His name was Brian, and I was incensed that the jerk never looked twice at me. I mean, hello, I was 17 and had long blonde hair. Isn’t that all you need?
And so I decided he was gay. And I told a few people I was just sure Brian was gay. Finally I cornered our one “out” gay server, Mike, and I asked him point-blank, “Is Brian gay or what? You can tell me.”
Mike looked at me squarely and said, “First, I don’t know if he’s gay. Second, I wouldn’t out him even if I knew. Third, this is not your business. Shut the hell up. Fourth, you’re not so cute that just because an 18-year-old boy doesn’t drop dead in front of you means he’s gay. Could you be more arrogant?”
My eyes watered. Matt was right. What the fuck was I thinking? This was a small, conservative town. And I thought that because I was good friends with the gay guys in my high school that I somehow had some right to talk about someone’s sexuality. I was sick with myself.
I never did that again.
♦◊♦
I’m glad I learned that lesson at 17, when I was still able to claim stupidity and teenage obnoxiousness as my excuse. But seriously, what the hell is wrong with the media right now? Do I need to corner the media at large in the break room and tell them to pull it together and stop trying to out people?
The stories of Richard Gere and the hamster were scandalous twenty years ago… Haven’t we progressed as a society since then? Didn’t we learn something about not making a joke out of homosexuality back when Matthew Shepard was brutally tormented and murdered in a hate crime? Shouldn’t we all, as a society, have grown up and realized that someone’s sexuality is their own frickin’ business? Beyond that, shouldn’t we have all learned that sexuality is sacred? That it is a part of who we are, and it is a major part of how society sees us? So much so, that it can cost a person his or her life?
We must ask ourselves why we care whether or not Anderson Cooper is gay. Ladies and gentlemen, chances are pretty good that he wasn’t going to date you anyway! So shut up about it already.
And now Gawker has implied that Robin Roberts got her interview with President Obama because she is supposedly a lesbian. Here’s how Gawker makes this make sense (hot tip – it still doesn’t):
Last night, Politico published a breakdown of how ABC’s Robin Roberts scored the President Obama gay marriage interview yesterday and, through several producers and media analysts, offered up these non-media-related credentials: Black. Christian. 50-year-old. Sports fan. Female.
The only part the report omitted was the near-open secret that Roberts is a lesbian.
Hmm, I wonder why Politico didn’t offer that up? Oh, wait, because Robin Roberts hasn’t publicly said that she is a lesbian. And, being as I don’t know Robin Roberts and she hasn’t told me that she is gay, I would go the same route as Politico and shut the hell up about speculations regarding her sexuality.
Gawker took another step beyond attempting to out Roberts by then trying to out Drudge Report’s Matt Drudge after he removed his link to their story about Roberts’ alleged lesbianism. And Gawker is so super proud of their outing Drudge, that they actually made flashing updates so you’d be sure not to miss the big outing of Drudge at the bottom of their big outing of Robin Roberts story.
Ugh, it all grosses me out. You got the big scoop, Gawker! President Obama talked to Robin Roberts about gay marriage because she is thought to be a lesbian! But wait… Maybe it’s more that Roberts is a friendly with the Obamas? Nah. Or maybe that she’s one of the top names in television news? No way! It’s definitely because she’s thought to be a lesbian! Because really, how did a Black woman (who isn’t Oprah) land such a great interview!? It can’t be that she’s a competent journalist–Oh sorry, I mean, “lady reporter.”
♦◊♦
Now, I’d be willing to listen to arguments from the LGBTQ community that when celebrities remain in the closet, it sends a message to young LGBTQ people that being out is bad, that gayness is bad, and if you want to be a success that you have to stay in the closet. That seems like a valid reason to want celebrities to come out of the closet. Being a heterosexual woman, I cannot attest to what a young gay person experiences in seeing their role models remain closeted. So ultimately, I won’t take a stand on this particular angle.
But I can say confidently that Gawker’s outing-attempt twofer is sitting in my gut like a rock.
What do you think? Does your sexuality become fair game when you enter the public eye? Did Matt Drudge have it coming to him, after all the times he’s scooped others at their own expense? Is Gawker just saying what everyone else is thinking?
Is there ever a reason to attempt to out someone without their consent?
It would be nice if “outing” someone wasn’t used for such nefarious means. Let’s face it most of the time when someone gets obessed about sussing out someone’s orientation, especially in the political arena, its usually for the purpose of attacking them or playing some sort of gotcha! game.
I have to disagree with Jimmy, outing a public figure for cheating on their spouse and outing someone for being gay are to completely different things. Cheating is harmful to the one being cheated on. Cheating can also be hypocritical is the cheater is publicly vocal about others that cheat. Let’s face it, catching a senator who just voted against gay rights legislation with a young male “baggage handler” is ripe stuff. But being gay is harming no one. People’s sex lives should be private. Who they sleep with is nobody’s business unless the act directly involves you or is… Read more »
So, why is someone else’s sex life your business again?
You don’t know if they are poly or if they are havong sex with someone else unless:
1. You are the person they’re having sex with, or
2. You were hiding under the bed.
Bottom line: mind your own business no matter the situation.
So correct me if I’m wrong, your argument is as follows: Because cheating harms someone that makes it ok to out someone publicly for cheating? Following that logic if someone being gay goes against their parent’s wishes and therefore “harms” them then it is 100% A-OK to out them for being gay (or bi damnit). “Who they sleep with is nobody’s business unless the act directly involves you or is harmful to others (or they are a Bible-thumping, God loving, gay hating Republican).” I thought it was especially telling what you mentioned in parenthesis here because I feel it underscores… Read more »
Jimmy, someone’s parents are not harmed by their child as coming-out as gay. The parents may feel harmed, but they are not. They are hurt, they are confused, but in no way are they harmed in that they are going to lose their job, they are getting bullied and beaten, or anything else. A person can’t stay in the closet just to protect mom and dad’s feelings. That is not being true to themselves, but rather not being themselves in an effort to spare someone else’s feelings. Mom and dad are adults, and so is their kid. The parents will… Read more »
I tend to agree with Rachel Maddow’s opinions on publicly outing someone. Sadly I can’t remember exactly where I heard or read her saying this, or I’d quote it. But paraphrased it’s like this: -The more out lgbt public figures there are, the better. So, by all means, we should encourage closeted public figures to come out. -That being said, the decision whether to come out or not is an important and extremely personal one. So every individual should have control over when and how they come out, if they do at all. -Now that being said, a person forfeits… Read more »
I’ll add that personally, I understand wanting celebs/politicians/etc to come out. I totally get why lgbt individuals sometimes take it personally when Anderson Cooper refuses to talk about his personal life, or when an lgbt magazine interviews with Matthew Bomer and totally ignores his sly coming out in an awards acceptance speech. Everyone likes to see representations of the groups they belong to in the media, and that’s particularly true when your group is under-represented and misrepresented…and just stigmatized in general.
But yeah, I still think it’s not okay to out someone unless they’re working against lgbt rights.
Personally I resent the idea that I need to come out “for the cause.” I get why the sentiment exists, but I still resent it
Yeah, and I totally get that. Personally I wish that no one cared. There was no coming out, because there was no ‘in’ in the first place. Like…wouldn’t it be great if a person’s private life was just that, their private life? If it didn’t have all these political implications because no one cared whether you were sleeping with a man or a woman (or both, or neither, etc).
That makes perfect sense, Heather. I can totally get behind Maddow’s stance.
She’s frickin’ awesome, so I’m not shocked.
If you think it’s ok to out someone for cheating on their wife then yea it’s ok to out someone for being gay. Either someone’s personal life is off limits or it is completely open to scrutinization. You don’t get to draw lines and say it’s ok to out you for this but not that.
Uh no, those aren’t even remotely the same thing. First of all, I don’t know whether it’s right to out someone having an affair or not, but certainly a case can be made that the spouse/s.o has a right to know if their partner is being unfaithful.
Contrarily nobody “deserves” to know if any particular person is gay (OR BI DAMMIT) That is most definitely nobody else’s business but theirs until they choose to make it their business.
“gay (OR BI DAMMIT)”
Good point.
Still not making the connection between someone else’s personal life and you. What business is it of yours unless you are married to the individual?
Exactly. They are focused on “their right” to shame someone for behavior they don’t agree with
Funny how familiar that sounds…
“Uh no, those aren’t even remotely the same thing. First of all, I don’t know whether it’s right to out someone having an affair or not, but certainly a case can be made that the spouse/s.o has a right to know if their partner is being unfaithful. ” They are exactly the same thing in this context. While you can certainly make the case that their spouse deserves to know, you cannot make the case that the public deserves to know. So, I repeat. Whether someone is gay (or bi damnit) or cheating on their spouse or having sex with… Read more »
“Uh no, those aren’t even remotely the same thing. First of all, I don’t know whether it’s right to out someone having an affair or not, but certainly a case can be made that the spouse/s.o has a right to know if their partner is being unfaithful. Contrarily nobody “deserves” to know if any particular person is gay (OR BI DAMMIT) That is most definitely nobody else’s business but theirs until they choose to make it their business.” You’re so blinded here by your political correctness. Let me highlight it for you: What if a man and woman are married… Read more »
Jimmy I honestly meant to post this earlier, but I forgot.
i misread what you were trying to get across, and I forgot that part of the article was talking about public outing of a famous person.
No, in this case I agree with you- if, I dunno, Keanu Reeves cheats on his girlfriend then that doesn’t need to be splashed across page one any more than if Keanu Reeves had sex with another man.
Affairs should be kept private too, if only for the sake of the wronged s.o.
Exactly.