Outing

It's rare for a Facebook page to garner the kind of attention people are giving this piece by journalist Itay Hod, formerly of CBS. (A very qabalistic name, that.) Hod wonders why he should refrain from "outing" a Republican congressman who has compiled a formidable anti-gay-rights record.

here’s a hypothetical: what if you know a certain GOP congressman, let’s just say from Illinois, is gay… and you know this because one of your friends, a journalist for a reputable network, told you in no uncertain terms that he caught that GOP congressman and his male roommate in the shower… together. now they could have been good friends just trying to conserve water. but there’s more. what if this congressman has also been caught by tmz cameras trolling gay bars. now what if you know that this very same guy, the darling of the gop, has also voted against repeal of don’t ask don’t tell, opposed the repeal of doma, is against gay marriage; and for the federal marriage amendment, which would add language to the us constitution banning gay marriage and would likely strike down every gay rights law and ordinance in the country?

Are we still not allowed to out him?

No. And I'll tell you why: Because what Hod presents as conclusive evidence may not be conclusive at all.

I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about.

A few years ago, a reader directed my attention to a rather outrageous long-form YouTube video about the history of gay actors in Hollywood. The documentary decried the sufferings inflicted on those who could not be open about their sexuality. Now, obviously, there was indeed a lot of unnecessary pretense in the film industry -- decades ago. The examples of Rock Hudson and Montgomery Clift come to mind. We are all glad that the prejudices of yore have been largely overcome.

I use the word "outrageous" to describe this particular video because the narrator solemnly informs us that most actors are gay. Not only that: The video asks us to believe that, as a general rule, gays are the only truly creative people. In other words: If you're a boy-who-likes-boys, you deserve a cool, high-paying job at a movie studio or ad agency -- but if you're a guy who likes curvy women, get used to saying the words "Welcome to Wal-Mart!" That's all you're good for, you piece of non-creative garbage.

The video went on the decry the ill-treatment given to Paul Reubens, a.k.a. Pee-Wee Herman. The narrator sadly informs us that Reubens was drummed out of the industry after he was caught masturbating in a theater showing gay porn. This claim is repeated several times. Poor gay Pee-Wee. His career was ruined just because he was gay gay gay. Oh, the intolerance of it all...!

Of course, this is bullshit. The film Reubens attended was Night Nurse, starring Sandra Scream, a woman with a figure no sane person could ever describe as "boyish." She is now a metaphysical counselor in Orange County, and although I've never met her, I am reliably informed that she is an absolutely lovely person.

(Even though I can't blame Reubens for what he did, I would never have been in such a position, having invested in a VCR for just such contingencies.)

My point is this: Some gay writers, for reasons best known to themselves, are perfectly willing to tell lies if doing so conveniences their argument. Of course, let us quickly stipulate that there are plenty of non-gay writers who commit the same sin, for all sorts of reasons and in all sorts of contexts. Across the board, dishonesty and manipulation are inescapable parts of the human experience.

And that's why we should maintain a taboo against "outing" others: The person doing the outing may have an angle.

The writer who pretends to be giving you the (pardon the expression) straight skinny may, in fact, be a deceiver or a rumor-peddler. For example, it is entirely conceivable that someone who doesn't like a congressman's voting record might go so far as to concoct a smear designed to make said congressman look like a hypocrite. And if said congressman denied the charge, he'd probably end up making things worse for himself.

And that brings us back to Hod's piece about that allegedly gay politician in Illinois. A lot of people presume Hod's claims to be accurate, even though he has produced zero evidence. Evidence may crop up in the future, but right now, we have nada.

Another point: How many sleazeball writers have assured us that Hillary and Huma were sleeping together? By what metric do we consider Hod better than said sleazeballs?

One doesn't have to do much googling to discover that Hod is talking about Aaron Schock, a politician for whom I have no affection. Even if we leave his votes on gay rights out of the equation, he's exactly the sort of far-right, tea-stained toady I can't stand.

But even when dealing with a creature like Schock, there's no excuse for publishing unverified, second-hand tales. Even politicians should be allowed to reveal only what they choose to reveal about their private lives.

And there's certainly no excuse for this article, in which blogger John Aravosis scries "gayness" in Schock's Instagram posts.

In one instance, Schock offers his audience a picture of himself in which he wears a pair of ugly greyish plaid pants. Aravosis would have us believe that only a homosexual would wear such trousers. I'm unconvinced. Frankly, Schock's sartorial choice reminds me of those inane wide-patterned suits Reagan used to favor before someone told him that he looked like a doof.

I don't get it. Is Aravosis saying that only gay men have bad taste in clothing? But I thought that good grooming was supposed to be an indicator...! Well, which is it? Let me know by tomorrow night, because I'm going somewhere and I have to choose between my nice cashmere sweater and an old hoodie splattered with paint stains.

In another allegedly revealing Instagram, Schock allegedly outs himself by displaying a picture of a shoe collection, which includes one pink pair. If Aravosis had read the text, he would have understood that Schock bought shoes for his nieces, and that the purpose of his post was to publicize a "socially responsible" footwear company which donates heavily to children in need.

I wish people like Aravosis would understand the harm they do to their own cause when they set their gaydar-detectors to hypersensitive. As I said on an earlier occasion: Although we were told that gay liberation would free straights from having to conform to stereotyped "macho" behavior, those stereotypes have, in fact, grown far more inflexible and absurd during my lifetime. Look at nearly any movie from the 1970s and you'll see what I mean.

Now, thanks to Aravosis, Congressman Schock has locked down his Instagram account. Presumably he is studying each photo to make sure that he is always depicted wearing trousers of unassailable heterosexuality.

Cah-MON. This is ridiculous.