Bitches are bitching about "Out" magazine throwing Jodie Foster and blue-eyed girl Anderson Cooper on the cover despite the fact that they're not open about their sexual determination. Well, it IS called "Out" magazine.
Critics within the gay community are blasting the mag for essentially outing Cooper and Foster in the new issue (whose cover features two models wearing masks of the newsman and the actress)."Your right to privacy is a constitutional right," says Chris Ciompi, editorial director of Genre, Out's major competitor. "Maybe Jodie and Anderson would prefer to be known for their work, not their sexuality. The climate of the United States today still would not allow that to occur. With Anderson, many people would perceive his credibility to be undermined."
"I think [Out editor] Aaron Hicklin wants to use [Cooper and Foster] to sell magazines," Ciompi adds. "It's politically reprehensible, when he has a list of 50 gay people, to choose two people who are not out."
Keep reading for what people who supported the move had to say.
Hicklin tells us that "if you live in New York City, and if you're gay, it's not too long before you spot Anderson Cooper at certain bars or concerts."In the case of Anderson, we felt that was a bogus argument because he's talked about his life numerous times, he's been the cover subject on lifestyle magazines and men's magazines like Maxim. He's allowed his personal life to be scrutinized with one exception - his sexuality, his relationships."
Hicklin confirmed that, upon the advice of counsel, the magazine nixed the idea of putting pop star Clay Aiken on the cover or the list, though he's still mentioned in the article.
Neil Giuliano, president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, tells us that GLAAD "does not condone or participate in the outing of individuals," but he doesn't think Cooper and Foster are defamed, because that would presume "it was a bad thing to be lesbian or gay."
I KNEW Anderson Cooper was the guy who banged me after the Erasure concert! His touch was like silk. Dude, honestly? And I don't like to get serious. Ever. But let a bitch live. If they were out there all "gays suck" then fine - run pics of Jodie attacking her ladyfriend with a big honkin' dildo. But they don't wanna talk about it. They're from another era, or scared or have shitty relatives or whatever. We know it, they know it. Who gives a shit? If they don't feel they were put on the Earth to further the cause or whatever, then fine. Granted, them not being out makes everyone uncomfortable and for people who are ferociously out, it's part of their personality makeup get all resentful and hatey about it. But whatevs. Everyone just have a martini and and tend to yourself. Good lord, everyone's so damn serious.
adamblast says:
Nobody's forcing them to come out, or in fact doing *anything* other than saying the truth: that in spite of their "I don't like labels" or "It's a private matter" BS they're gay and already semi-open about it.
Being a world-famous closet case is *not* a victimless crime. They're collaborating with homophobia, collaborating with the system that makes gayness shameful and immoral. They're perpetuating homophobia for dollars. And if people want to call them out for it, that's America, too.
rose no thorns says:
Why should people have to talk about their sexual preferences if they don't want to? Should every single gay person who's a celebrity hold a press conference announcing it or something? And I don't get how not saying I'm Gay collaborates with homophobia. I also think public figures/celebs who are gay, have the right to protect the privacy of their partners, especially given the current obsession of the media with celeb love/sex lives. I think you can be gay and happy and support gay causes without being all "look at me, look at me. I'm gay and I have something to say."
You says:
Yeah, but Jodie Foster has been with the same woman for 14? 15? years, and still denies it, which is bogus. Also, she has kids, and a lot of states (all?) don't let gay couples adopt. It's about advancement - if there had been a way for people to hide their skin tone, people would have lied about being black to "fit in", which does a disservice to everyone.
cb says:
People did and do hide their ethnicity it's called "passing". That's a part of our history - AND when people did it, you didn't find black folk "outing" their relative.
kelly says:
The right to privacy is not a constitutional right. In fact, the word doesn't even appear in the constitution.
asshat.
EraserFan says:
I feel the need to OUT J.Harvey. You all may not know it, but J.Harvey is a simpleton who has trouble with basic mathematics and such life skills as 'opening mail'. Also, the other day I saw him kissing a WOMAN! Oh, the horror.
EraserFan says:
Oh, and one time I saw a blimp.
Maple Jenny says:
The 9th Amendment is where privacy comes from--it basically says just because the Constitution listed certain rights specifically doesn't mean you don't have other rights. And God knows, if we need anything today, it's a right to privacy.
Of course, I am reading a gossip blog.
tim says:
"With Anderson, many people would perceive his credibility to be undermined."
Do we care about these "many people" who would lose trust in Cooper's opinions?
Knowing that he is gay would only undermine my perception of his credibility if he was giving his personal opinion of the missionary position with his wife.
I wish the magazine would start outing everyone, so that uptight people (both gay and straight) would have to get over themselves and just relax.
And maybe suck a dick or two.
adamblast says:
CB said: People did and do hide their ethnicity it's called "passing". That's a part of our history - AND when people did it, you didn't find black folk "outing" their relative.
Passing was a kiss-up to power then, and it's a kiss-up to power now.
At least when Blacks and Jews tried to "pass" they were fighting hard oppression. When Hollywood celebrities try to pass they're simply looking to maximize their earning potential. They're perpetuating homophobia for dollars. And all this "privacy" bullshit is a lie--being hetero is casually observable in nearly every aspect of life. Being gay is not only about the bedroom.
Get Real says:
If I'm not directly f@#king you or wanting to f@#k you, you have no business knowing my sexual preference!
adamblast says:
Baloney. If that were true, all weddings would be private and closeted. Fact is, the whole world knows if you're straight. Only being gay is hidden, and it's not because of privacy, its because of shame or complicity.
Get Real says:
All weddings are private as far as I remember. Weddings are for close friends and family not the world. Things are not as black and white as you would like them to be. Some people don't fit either of these catagories and frankly some people don't have to choose one and tell the world just to make them feel comfortable. If I'm f@#cking you then you would know or not. It's that simple.
Debra says:
Sorry to report that Chris Ciompi is incorrect when he says "Your right to privacy is a constitutional right." The U.S. Constitution, which he apparently has never read, provides for no such right. As an editorial director, you would expect him to know that he needs to get his facts straight before opening his big mouth. Unless, of course, he was referring to some other constitution. In which case: never mind.
Hank says:
Why do gays spend so much time gay-bashing straight individuals?
Just wondering.
Maxy Maxy says:
The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.
Olivier says:
Chris Ciompi WISHES Genre were Out's major competitor. Ain't been no contest for years.
rc says:
"And all this "privacy" bullshit is a lie--being hetero is casually observable in nearly every aspect of life. Being gay is not only about the bedroom."
so Adam, you're saying it's not ok for gay people to want to do all the same things as everyone else? you think all gay men should do stereotypical gay things and stereotypically selfsegregate and talk about how great it is that they're gay all the time?
I call BS. by saying things like that, you play right into the hands of people who talk about "the gay agenda" and how "gays are trying to subvert american culture with their own". since when did being gay require you to do certain things OTHER than being attracted to a member of the same sex. would you call an African-American who, say, listens to classical music and loves Italian food a race traitor because they dont want their lives to be determined by one lone factor?
not everyone who's gay wants their life to be about being gay, and it's not necessarily because their ashamed. straight people dont make their lives about how they're straight. when i describe myself to people, i don't say that i'm straight. it's none of their damn business. why should being gay be any different? by saying it is, YOU are the one promoting a culture gap.
Tiffany says:
The Constitution doesn't contain a lot of basic rights because the framers felt they were self-evident.
They almost didn't have a Bill of Rights at all because they felt (and they were right) that people would feel they were the only rights we were allowed.
Jodi Foster and Anderson Cooper have a right to be private about their personal lives. I have the right to not tell anyone anything I don't want to. I can choose not to talk about my children, or my predilection for OASIS. I can choose not to talk about my pant size or whatever.
I hate outing. Not everyone on the planet is an extrovert, not everyone is comfortable with putting their personal life out there. It's unkind and impolite.
Sure, you can do it. You can also excuse it for whatever reason you want, but just because you have an excuse for something doesn't make it right. Yeah, maybe you have a hole in your sock and don't want people to see your big toe, but its still rude to walk through someone's carpeted house with muddy shoes. So, you are late for an important meeting, but it doesn't excuse driving on the shoulder of the road during a traffic jam and trying to squeeze in ahead of other people.
I just think this is wrong to do to two very private, intellectual, serious people who are just trying to do their job.
margaret says:
Anderson Cooper is gay? What? I would've of never thought of that! He looks so straigth! I don't believe he is gay, Unless there are pictures to prove it!
Chris says:
Kelly,
You should have paid more attention in school; the right to privacy IS a Constitutional right. The word is not mentioned in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that there is a Constitutionally protected right to privacy. Also, various state constitutions have an explicit right to privacy (e.g. California), and some of those states (e.g. California) hold that the right to privacy protects you from private parties violating your privacy, not just the government. Furthermore, in many states you can bring suit for public disclosure of private facts.
That being said, I think the editor of Genre, Mr. Ciompi, gives too simplistic of a spin on the legal implications of Out's cover. The right of privacy has to be balanced against the news media's First Amendment right to publish information of legitimate public concern. As public figures who often give interviews in which they discuss various aspects of their personal lives, one may argue that Ms. Foster's and Mr. Anderson's sexual orientation (although perhaps not the details of their sex life) is subject to the newsworthiness privilege.