How to come out with Out

Oh yes we did.

I'm pretty proud of Out today, and not because they're paying me to write this. At a certain point there are just things that need to be said, well, out loud.

The billionaire entertainment mogul David Geffen and newsman Anderson Cooper head the list of America's most influential gay men and women in Out magazine's May 2007 issue. Chat show host Ellen DeGeneres, philanthropist Tim Gill, and Massachusetts congressman Barney Frank round out the top five in the first ever list of its kind. Others who make the top 50 include personal finance guru Suze Orman (#13), Rolling Stone founder Jann Wenner (#11), actress Jodie Foster (#43), and Superman Returns director Bryan Singer (#32). "We expect some flak for daring to create a list like this," says Aaron Hicklin, Editor-in-Chief of Out, "But it's a mark of real progress that the vast majority of men and women who made our Power 50 have attained their positions without feeling the need to hide their sexuality to do so."

(Read the whole list here.)

Michael Musto's cover story, "The Glass Closet," names names and calls out those who not-so-secretly sleep with their queer paramours while still enjoying all the luxuries a public denial allows their powerful careers. "It's true that stars are free to put up whatever walls they want in order to maintain boundaries with the public," he writes. "But even at their most controlling, straight stars never seem to leave out the fact that they're straight in interviews. Whenever a subject tells me, 'I won't discuss who I'm dating' or 'I resent labels,' I generally know not so much that they're passionate about privacy but that they're gay gay, gay."

I penned a companion piece to Musto's manifesto, surveying the agents, managers and publicists who help advise clients how to go public -- or not. Every day on Popnography we walk a tightrope of legal and ethical implications with every joke about Anderson Cooper's gay ways, so I was pleasantly but genuinely surprised to hear that -- for the most part -- the tide seems to be turning in Hollywood.

With the help of the best and brightest professionals, I even put together a How To Come Out list for the next generation of potential glass closet candidates. (Rule No. 4: Don't overcompensate, and don't flat-out lie.) There's no money-back guarantee, but I now believe that there's a way for a major A-list star to come clean and keep his career onward and upward.

It might not even be too late for Anderson and Jodie.

Comments

[Nikki]

AWESOME cover... I can't wait to read the article!!!

[Alicia]

Woohoo! Rock out with your cock out--and that's directed to Shana AND Anderson.

[Andy]

So did Mr. Cooper pose for the Out cover? If so, it seems strange that he'd show up for a photo shoot for an article about him being closeted.

[Andy]

ahh... models are holding masks. got it.

[Bryan]

This is very disheartening to see how Out is patting themselves on the back for this truly violating story. Sure, Anderson Cooper has been "out"-ish, for a long time now, and Jodie Foster has been to a lesser known degree. But these are people's lives here: not yours, and they certainly aren't yours because you share a sexuality. Whatever someone, who has any degree of fame, chooses to do with a given aspect of their lives is his or her own business, and to see "Out," gladly parading this cover story is truly disappointing. Naming names, and creating a list of all childish, sensationalist things, nails the coffin shut on what could have been a valid story-- exploring how some celebrities have obtained fame and continue to do so without going public with their sexuality. The professional way to do that story would be going over the topic, and not naming names-- because that is completely unnecessary. Even though "Out" appears to be concerned with getting everyone OUT-OUT-OUT! and screaming, they should at least be sensitive to the community they supposedly represent, and realize that not everyone is comfortable making a screaming spectacle of themselves. If Foster, Cooper, or anyone had wanted to do a big media coming out, they would have. End of story.

[raymond]

Bryan, this argument is so boring. You would never say that about the compulsory heteronormativity of every other celebrity story in every other magazine. Yes, there are times when the closet/stealth is necessary for survival. Yes, people deserve to make private decisions about their life without intense scrutiny and judgment. But what exactly is so "violating" about having one's sexual orientation acknowledged? Would you use such strong language about the constant coverage of the compulsive heterosexuality of Britney and Angelina or anyone else who has even been featured in a news story -- ever? No, it's common, it's normal, it's ok. Shame breeds secrets and keeping secret makes the shame fester. The best disinfectant is sunshine so let's get it all out!

And in the Out list, these are all people who are known within industry as being out, which means if they are out at work, you can bet they're out to their family and close friends. No one is being "violated" except for the straight people who are still homophobic and now have to acknowledge it because the gays are getting uppity and not willing to make nice to appease them.

[Bryan]

Raymond,

The main flaw in your argument is that you're/anyone who decides that this "outing" is a good thing is that you are doing just that: deciding something for someone. It doesn't matter if, as if that's something that can be known, "letting the sunshine in" is the best way to deal with one's sexuality, in terms of getting rid of shame. Like I said, these are people's lives, and people's lives concerning a deeply personal choice. What anyone thinks would be better for them is nothing more than preaching, and interfering with the way people want to live their lives which-- ideally, in this country-- should be freely. And if all these people are out in the industry as they already are, that has little to do with being out to the world. Perhaps Jodie Foster would rather answer questions about her choices of film roles instead of having the press ask her who she's sleeping with and/or raising children with.
When it all comes down to it, it's a matter of personal choice, and obviously, for whatever reasons, these people-- these Anderson Coopers and Jodie Fosters-- have made the choice to not want to create a spectacle of themselves, and "Out" is making that spectacle: which is nothing less than a violation.
To answer your question you posed which you answered for me: yes. To a degree, the media's constant obsession, intrusion, and violation into the personal spaces of heterosexual celebrities is a violation. You mentioned Angelina Jolie. She kept her relationship with Brad Pitt as a "secret;" in that it was something she wouldn't talk about to the press. Of course, most people knew they were together, but she had other things she decided to talk about/focus her career on. When personal matters like one's relationships and families are something the person is willing to talk about, like Angelina did in adopting children, she made the choice to want to talk about that aspect of her life, because there she felt there was a reason/cause to, and not because someone strong-armed her into doing what they thought was best for her.
And lastly, any straight people who are "violated" by being forced to knowledge that gay people exist and have to be dealt with aren't even of concern to me. I care about these people who are being made issues of without his or her say. Not every gay or lesbian has to be an all out public champion/role model for his or her sexuality. The harm that comes in "mentioning" someone like Foster or Cooper's sexuality at such a high level comes from the fact that sexuality-- especially homosexuality-- is a thing so intimate and personal, so still controversial in this day and age, that the only thing a free society can do is respect and individual's privacy and let him or her live her life on his or her own terms.

[raymond]

Child, please. If they truly prioritized privacy so damn much, maybe they wouldn't also pursue a passion/career that puts them on televisions and movie theaters for everyone to examine. Also, what's wrong with saying "Sure, I'm gay, but I don't talk about my private life -- next question." Why is 'gay' any more intimate than saying "yes, I'm married, but I don't talk about my husband in interviews"?

Sexuality is NOT personal and intimate in this society. Sexuality is shoved down our throats into our brains at every possible moments, via magazines and tv and ads in the subway train. Oh wait, HETEROSEXUALITY is forced on us. As soon as its queer, it's suddenly become intimate and personal? Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

I agree, being gay is still a controversial thing in society. But no, the "only thing a free society can do" is not to keep hiding under the guise of privacy and perpetuation systematic oppression of deviance (and sexuality in generally, because frankly, most straight people are pretty fcking repressed when it comes to honest expressions of sexuality), but instead we could NORMALIZE everyone's choices, then everyone they can truly be respected.

[Bryan]

Let's not descend to the level of children, so do not call me one.
Your entire argument has still not changed, and it's still subjective. You're casting a judgement on what you think is best for people, and acting like it should be law.
You're confusing professional privacy with personal privacy, too. Someone like Jodie Foster is a film actress, and of course that puts her face in the public eye. But only for the purposes of her acting. Jodie has always been extremely private, and it's my understanding that the only reason she now lives in the "glass closet" is because an intrusive and violating photographer snapped pictures of her and a girlfriend/parter some years back? The press hounds celebrities like crazy, but in no world does that make it right. Just because we see people in such a high profile way does not mean the public is entitled to every aspect of his or her life. Some celebrities feed off of it, like the late Anna Nicole Smith, but when has someone like Jodie Foster ever wanted anything but her professional career thrust into the public eye? You talk about everyone's sexuality being shoved down our throat's-- but that doesn't make it right that ET, The Star, and company profit off the nasty human desire to gossip and know everything about the personal lives of famous people. That desire of people, and the media's desire of profit which causes them to feed it to said people, is something which will never go away. But as long as there will be people like that, the consumers and the producers, there will always be people who don't care, don't want to hear about it, and, most importantly, don't want to be a part of it.
What's outrageous about this is someone like poor Jodie Foster never asked to be made an issue out of, like this, like "Out" is doing. A progressive, an advanced, an equal society would let anyone, regardless of sexuality, live a private life and a public career if they so wished-- however repressed in whatever way some people thought it. Obviously, this is such a hot button thing that it has the power to divide a community, and it does so by having an elite few of the community thrust the ones who wish to be more quiet into the middle of it, right in the eye of the controversy. "Out" appears to be proud that they're breaking down barriers and taboos because they supposedly feel that getting everything out in the open will magically make these people's lives so much better. Even if that could be true, it's no one's call, especially "Out's," who gets thrust who, without his or her permission, to the front of it.
It's simply my moral belief that it's wrong for people to use others' lives in such a way, that intrudes upon personal matters so.

[raymond]

Simply saying my argument is subjective does not magically make yours objective. Yours is still very much an opinion.

It is simply my moral belief that we should not be hypocrites. And people should not lie. Being in the closet is lying. It is also my moral belief that there is nothing morally wrong with being gay, and therefore, who cares if we talk about it? If this is all part of the nasty human desire to gossip for you, then why don't you just write it off as such? Why does it matter? Do you write moralizing letters to the editor of all the other publications too?

And oh yes, poor Jodie Foster. Poor wealthy, white, Oscar-winning Jodie Foster who can keep on being in the closet and not have her life change one bit because of this article. This article is bigger than naming Jodie Foster and Anderson Cooper. This article is about the big lies in our society that we are perpetuating. Did you read the piece, and how John Amaechi TOLD reporters he was gay, but they would not print it? Where's your moral outrage about that hypocrisy?