Why is outing so bad?

[Rick Munroe]

I just posted the following in response to someone's post in the Politics section about the "outing" of CA Congressman Dreier, but then I realized that what I had to say had little to do with politics, and everything to do with being gay. So I'm going to re-post it here, because I'm interested in hearing other guys' takes on this.

 

The other poster had said:

 

>It is both shocking and disappointing when I see gays outing

>other gays

 

(Before I reply, let me say that I personally would never out anyone -- I never have and I never will. In this business, I know all too well that discretion is key and I respect other people's privacy. Having said that, I'll now put on my Devil's Advocate costume...)

 

Why is it so shocking and disappointing? What if some other private detail about Dreier's life had been revealed against his will, say for example (I'm making this up) the fact that his hair is dyed? What if someone posted on a website that David Dreier really has a full head of gray hair? Would you find that equally shocking? What if someone found out and revealed that he is 1/4 African-American? Would you find it as disappointing that someone did not respect his wish not to have his "blackness" exposed? Or would you think, "Hey, he's got nothing to be embarrassed about that; what's the big deal?" Why do we only care so deeply about someone's privacy being respected when they are in the closet, but not, say, when some paparazzi photographs Farrah Fawcett sneaking out of the hospital with bandages all over her face, fresh from cosmetic surgery? Why is there no outrage over that invasion of privacy? You're probably going to say that this is different, because someone's life will be "ruined," but don't you think that the sooner we all stop thinking of being gay as some horrible thing to be kept secret, the sooner outing will stop having the negative effect it now does?

[marc anthony]

Why do we only care so deeply about someone's privacy

>being respected when they are in the closet, but not, say,

>when some paparazzi photographs Farrah Fawcett sneaking out of

>the hospital with bandages all over her face, fresh from

>cosmetic surgery? Why is there no outrage over that invasion

>of privacy?

 

This is an interesting post, Rick. And actually, I do care about Farrah's privacy, even though she is a celeb, and neither appreciate nor condone what paparazzi do.

 

 

You're probably going to say that this is

>different, because someone's life will be "ruined," but don't

>you think that the sooner we all stop thinking of being gay as

>some horrible thing to be kept secret, the sooner outing will

>stop having the negative effect it now does?

 

I guess the point of the matter now is that our society has not evolved to the point where outing a gay is typically inconsequential to his life, and the issue is who should make the decision whether someone will have to pay that price. That person, or a 3rd party outer.

 

Would our society evolve to an "enlightened" point faster if more and more people came out? Probably true. But again, for all the martyrs who may have to sacrifice some personal comfort for this cause, who should make this decision?

 

Difficult answer, but central question.

[Spida]

Just because there isn't outrage that doesn't make it right. However, I do think that if someone puts themselves in a specific position such as being a celebrity or a polititian then they have to deal with these issues. We live in the real world, so if you are a polititian and you are gay you should be prepared to be "outed" no matter if it is right or wrong! As with your line of work Rick there are positions you put yourself in and you have to deal with comes from that.

 

It is not horrible to be gay however, it will effect your life in many lines of work due to the perception of others. I do not think anyone should be outing anyone else, who you sleep with should be your business and is not who you are. However, I do not feel bad for people in most situations that are outed. They put themselves "in harms way" and you have to be prepared for what comes.

 

(I hope this is only posted once, I have tried 3x!)

[mansniffing]

The subject is pretty hot.

Here's some humor to calm the fires.

 

Democrats plan "Girlie Man" doll of Schwarzenegger in drag

[trilingual]

It's a question of distinctions (or nuances), something people who can only think in black-or-white terms have difficulty understanding.

 

As a general rule, people's private lives SHOULD be as private as they want them to be. Of course, there are exceptions to this general rule. For example, society seems to be in consensus that one's private practice of pedophilia isn't something that should be protected, because it causes a larger harm.

 

Similarly, it's a fairly well-recognized excepiton in our society that people who choose to make themselves public figures waive at least some of their right to keep the details of their lives private. That certainly is true for political figures, who frequently set themselves up as moral examples and role models for the rest of society. In this regard, such a person's sexual orientation can be just as much a matter of public interest as other facets of their private lives, like the sources of their wealth.

 

In the case of "outing" a public official, there is a further distinction to be made between those (of whatever party) who don't wish to disclose their sexuality but also don't use their position to actively work to persecute other gay people, and those who actively do harm to other gays (sometimes as a means of maintaining their "cover"). Politicians like Barney Frank and Gerry Studds (before they were outed) come to mind as being in the first category. They may have been closeted gays, but they weren't using their positions to persecute other gays or deny us our rights (nor was their sexuality causing other general harm). That's not the case with some other politicians, though. In that case, their sexual orientation is fair game, because they are hypocrites and, in their hypocrisy, they are causing broad-scale harm to other people. Public figures who do that aren't deserving of protection.

 

As for hypocrisy, it seems to be an abundant natural resource. For example, I suspect that many of the people who so emphatically argue against "outing" anyone, regardless of the circumstances, applauded enthusiastically the "outing" of President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. The affair was sleazy, but it was a private, consensual matter between two adults, and it wasn't causing harm to the general public (although it was potentially causing harm to Clinton's own family). This lapse in private morality was deemed worthy of generating a vast and expensive investigation, and an impeachment proceeding. Yet when someone "outs" a closeted politician who is actively harming other gays (some of whom, of course, are also his consituents) the same people would argue that he doesn't deserve exposure, no matter what. There's a certain lack of consistency in such thinking. Perhaps some reflection on this situational and selective lack of consistency might be a useful endeavor for those who engage in it.

 

BTW, my use of the Clinton/Lewinsky case as an example isn't meant to be a general defense of everything he did as President. Unquestionably, Clinton grossly botched allowing gays to serve in the military, and he signed the Defense of Marriage Act (in the latter case, I don't recall if it was on principle or because he concluded that there were enough votes in Congress to override a veto). Still, Clinton was the most gay-friendly President we've had yet, and although they are harmful, neither "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" nor DOMA are permanently etched in stone. On the other hand, a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages or any similar benefits like civil unions, which our current President actively supports, IS etched in stone for all practical purposes. I would argue that is a significantly greater evil than anything Clinton did or supported.

 

In an imperfect world, one has to weigh advantages against disadvantages, the practical against the impractical, perfection against imperfection, good against evil. It's the only way to determine a course of action, or whether, on balance, something or someone is going to be good for you (or a cause you believe in). On balance, I have to conclude that closeted public figures who use their positions to persecute and deny rights to other gay people are not good for us, and are not worthy of our support or protection.

[Ignoto]

>Democrats plan "Girlie Man" doll of Schwarzenegger in drag

 

 

I have my Mapplethorpe nude photo of him, and I'm not going to give it up.

[eastbayguy]

>>It is both shocking and disappointing when I see gays outing

>>other gays

 

Yes and no. The whole nature of being closeted has changed markedly over the years. Early in my career I held a security clearance beyond top secret. Among the documents I signed in accepting my clearance was a clear and unambiguous statement that engaging in homosexual activity was grounds for clearance revocation.

 

Was I fully closeted during this period? No. Was I careful? Yes. Was I active in gay causes? To a degree, yes. Did I have sex with men and even live with one? Yes. Were there rumors at work? No doubt. But, I behaved in a totally professional manner and did excellent work.

 

Outing me in this circumstance would have gained nothing. My clearance might have been revoked or reduced in scope. I'd have had to move to a different department, but life would have gone on. I'm 1000% certain I wasn't the only one walking this tightrope in that period of time.

 

Situations like mine and others that are similar forced the closet door to remain less than fully open for many of our brothers for a long time. Progress has clearly been made.

 

Consider this: Those living private lives have a greater right to privacy than those living public lives. If you are a public figure and especially if you are an elected official, your right to privacy diminishes. (But doesn't entirely disappear.)

 

Here is where I'd support an outing: If someone enjoys the benefits of our community (sex, companionship, etc) and the enormous discretion our community is capable of yet is working actively against the overall best interests of the community, I'd support their closet door being forced wide open.

 

No, I'm not some liberal koo koo. In fact, I'm pretty conservative. Do I buy the whole "gay agenda", whatever that is? No. But, I do see an awful lot of people actively working to keep members of our community as second class citizens, denied the full range of benefits others in society possess. That's just wrong on several levels. If some of the people working against full and equal rights for all are members of our community, then their private life deserves a full, complete and public examination.

 

Thus, my criteria would be something like the following:

 

*Public figure/elected official

*Outspoken against gay interests, negative on gay issues

*Makes their personal life an issue

 

Frankly, I pity for anyone lacking the courage to live the life to which they are born. There is nothing wrong with being gay. Gay is not a choice or a lifestyle. Gay is who we are. Being straight is clearly less complex. A sizeable number of people in our community suffer from strong internalized homophobia. Being fully out to yourself is the first step. You have to end any self-loathing before you can meaningfully emerge in to the life and light for which you were born. On a case-by-case basis, there may be occasions where an outing is justified.

 

The fact is, being gay is still stigmatized in our society and strongly so. That stigma will remain unless and until all of us are fully out to everyone. No, I do not get a perfect score on this point. Only the passage of time and everyone being out will end the stigma. Most likely, every extended family in the United States has a gay family member or three.

 

All of us being out is essential if we want full acceptance by society. Our accepting ourselves is required before we can expect society to fully accept us as well.

 

--EBG

[woodlawn]

>Why is it so shocking and disappointing? What if some other

>private detail about Dreier's life had been revealed against

>his will, say for example (I'm making this up) the fact that

>his hair is dyed?

 

I would have thought the answer would be obvious -- the degree of seriousness of a violation of privacy is directly proportional to the damage that is done to the person whose privacy is violated. In our society the damage done to one's reputation by the revelation that one dyes one's hair is far less than the damage done by being "outed" because so many more people find being gay revolting than feel that way about gray hair.

 

 

>Why do we only care so deeply about someone's privacy

>being respected when they are in the closet, but not, say,

>when some paparazzi photographs Farrah Fawcett sneaking out of

>the hospital with bandages all over her face, fresh from

>cosmetic surgery? Why is there no outrage over that invasion

>of privacy?

 

Frankly, I've never understood people who seem fascinated by the intimate details of the lives of celebrities. Why would anyone care about the private life of some actor or musician whom he has never met and will never meet? I don't know the answer. You will have to ask some of the people on this board who keep starting threads on whether Tom Cruise is gay and similar subjects. It is people like that who provide the market for the photographs that paparazzi take and for the writers who write stories to accompany them in "People" and other fluff magazines. If not for those people, there would be no such photos or articles. That would be fine with me. I see no reason why artists and athletes should not have the same right to privacy as anyone else.

 

 

>You're probably going to say that this is

>different, because someone's life will be "ruined," but don't

>you think that the sooner we all stop thinking of being gay as

>some horrible thing to be kept secret, the sooner outing will

>stop having the negative effect it now does?

 

The sooner we all stop thinking of being gay as some horrible thing? Who is "we"? People whose lives revolve around being gay may have trouble remembering that there is a big wide world outside the gay ghettos of major cities, and in that world there are a vast number of persons who don't think being gay is a good thing. I hope and believe that will change in time, but until it does a person can have his reputation badly damaged by "outing." Wishing it were not so will not make the problem go away.