This weekend, Aaron Hicklin, the editor of Out magazine, wrote about the release of its Power 50 list — also known as the outing issue — One reason he gives for the magazine's policy is that the people on the list are "member[s] of a glass closet" who have "never publicly acknowledged [their] sexuality." While this semantically dubious label might offer him enough cover, under an appeal to a reader's sophistication (i.e., only clueless rubes still don't know that ______ is heterosexual), it doesn't really answer why Hicklin thinks it's up to him to take "the final step" to come out for those who he admits "are not willing to."
Two additional glass closet cases join the list, a distinction they may not appreciate. One has earned opprobrium from gays for his Republican-supporting positions, while the other is a married media mogul.*Hicklin goes on to suggest that being in the closet isn't really a personal choice or decision, but rather an anachronistic symptom of a collective, and as yet unfulfilled, struggle for civil rights (e.g., the legalization of gay marriage) — gay equality.
The first president to acknowledge gays and lesbians in his inaugural speech is now busy undoing years of Bush's political mischief. Perhaps my days of outing people will soon be over.But who else will coyly argue that gimmicky stunt covers that force people out of the closet by acknowledging that it is "so bullying and judgmental" without actually bothering to deny that it isn't?
*Answers: Matt Drudge and Barry Diller, respectively.
"The first president to acknowledge gays and lesbians in his inaugural speech is now busy undoing years of Bush's political mischief. Perhaps my days of outing people will soon be over."
Ewww! That is some seriously grody self-justification.
whatever. if people want to be in the closet that's their business but they shouldn't expect actual gays to keep their secrets for them. it's not out magazine's job to keep the secrets of public figures. (the question of what out magazine's job actually IS is obvs debatable.) if these people want their gaiety to be secret then they should be more secretive about it. why should they be able to have it both ways? on one hand i don't see any compelling reason to out barry diller-- unless he's writing me a check i don't care about barry diller either way-- but considering that his sham marriage is basically his only effort toward closetedness, i don't see how or why anyone else should be expected to be precious about it. if you don't want your gayness to be public, don't live a publicly gay life.
Whatever. I have no sympathy for people who are still in the closet in 200-fucking-9. Grow a spine. If you don't want people to label you gay then don't have gay sex.
There is a difference, however, between being closeted and living an out, but private, life. Those people should really be left alone.