05/02/2006
Ian McKellen on tying the knot in Britain: "I really can't see why the government couldn't just say gay people can get married - that would have been true equality and so much simpler. But that hasn't been done because they couldn't face the furore. So they've passed a law that is not available to straight people. Straight people cannot have a civil partnership they have to get married. Extraordinary."
Brandon Flowers says Bruce Springsteen provided needed inspiration for The Killers' forthcoming record: "Springsteen touches on the American dream, and that's everybody's dream. And it's such a great idea — whether or not it's still happening today. Most of the songs are about getting to that place, of making it to the promised land. I don't think it's about getting rich; it's the idea of working hard and having your castle in the sky. And that idea runs through the record. It's very optimistic. And we're all from working-class families, and that's why our songs are good, because we don't do it half-assed. Nothing was handed to us, and so we don't settle. We're not afraid to throw a song away because it's not good enough. A lot of people won't do that." (via pink)
Pathetic: What's the DNC's strategy to combat divisive attacks on gay rights by Republicans in the coming elections? Avoidance.
Thirty-nine right wing and religious activists arrested in Moscow for disrupting public order with their gay nightclub protest, inspired, local activists say, by "homophobic remarks by the city government and religious leaders."
Paris Hilton to grace the cover of Out magazine...
Philips Bodygroom presents an entire site about shaving your nuts and bush to make your manhood look an extra inch larger.
Christians disinvite Clay Aiken from fashion show: "We were so excited about Clay Aiken appearing as a young man who promotes Christianity in the music industry, and then we started to be inundated with e-mails referring to scandal. We searched for his public response and couldn't find one, so at this time we will have to err on the side of caution until these matters are resolved."
Posted 1:48 PM EST by Andy Towle in Elsewhere | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
A Christian fashion show?!? Held where? In a Wal-Mart parking lot with one of those huge white revival tents? That Clay would have agreed to show up in the first place proves he isn't gay! (Poor guy...)
Posted by: Michael W. | May 2, 2006 2:13:28 PM
Rather, Paris Hilton to DIS-grace the cover of Out. Ugh.
Posted by: Mats Sexton | May 2, 2006 2:31:31 PM
A fashion show "committed to promoting the virtues of modesty and purity in our culture."
What the hell?
Posted by: Steve | May 2, 2006 2:36:13 PM
hello andy....seems i just can't quit you. avoidance?? haven't read your story, but something that came up recently....vis a vis hillary clinton -- two times in a row it was wonderful for many to see her marching past washington square in the pride parade....yet, certainly not her alone, but one could hear the drain in the bath tub when it came time to step up to the plate with the anti-diversity mythical "melting pot" boneheads at the podium.
Posted by: ricardo | May 2, 2006 2:41:06 PM
**So they've passed a law that is not available to straight people. Straight people cannot have a civil partnership they have to get married. Extraordinary.**
the thought police really have the semantics spinning around....now, the vatican faces a decision regarding infection protection in relation to couples married in the church. condoms by l.a.m.b. -- speaking of modesty and purity. life is life is life -- i can hear central european industrial throbbing pulsing beat.
Posted by: ricardo | May 2, 2006 2:51:10 PM
Well, it's so great to see the new "OUT" editor living up to his promise of making the magazine so special. Maybe because the WeHores made her Grand Poobah of their Pride parade last year, he thinks she's gay.
As for Dean and de Dems, who have nothing to shave so that they might look longer--buy your President Mitt Romney Inauguration tix now.
Posted by: Leland | May 2, 2006 3:02:36 PM
**We're not afraid to throw a song away because it's not good enough.**
hats off -- formulas suck in art just as it can't replace a good tit. yes, it becomes amazing what some people will actually include on their easel or songsheet. pretty flexible in some cases, but the past few months in particular -- oh, lord, i've seen some work and wondered, even prayed, for the dear souls who would continue to sculpt with such rubbish. pray, meditate, chant, dance, sing for this culture! it needs it.
Posted by: ricardo | May 2, 2006 3:16:55 PM
Jeez, I wish people would spend half as much time on Lyndsey Graham & Jon Kyle as they have on Clay.
Posted by: hadassah weinreb | May 2, 2006 3:37:30 PM
Out featuring Hilton on its cover is like an NAACP's first newsletter cover devoted to Buckwheat.
No, I take that back. Buckwheat was a real Black person, after all.
Posted by: Jacko | May 2, 2006 3:48:48 PM
Okay, Out magazine is having Paris on the cover? Yuck!
So, doesn't it seem kind of pathetic that Out has more straight faces on its covers that GLBT folks? Could you imagine Ebony or Latina magazine always featuring Caucasian or Asians on their covers? Of course not. Instead, GLBT folks are supposed to be grateful that straight people are brave enough to appear on the cover of Out. Out is the Uncle Tom of magazines.
And Paris Hilton? Come on. What the Hell has she done for any human being besides market herself? She's not known for strong political stances, charitable works, or creativity. Paris is known for being a millionairess who bought her fame. Why should that be rewarded?
From a feminist perspective, she's a walking disaster: a woman who gained her fame by being pretty and playing dumb? Aren't there other women who are tough, smart, and sexy?
Paris Hilton? Damn, how low can Out go? Now we know!
Posted by: noah | May 2, 2006 3:57:36 PM
Jacko,
What?
~
Posted by: Gilli | May 2, 2006 4:02:02 PM
Re: Paris on Out
Could we please withhold judgment on Mr. Hicklin's work at Out?
He's certainly got his work cut out for him.
BUT since he just started a week ago, you won't be seeing an issue with even his slightest influence before August.
If Musto's cover story with that no-talent whore is already being flogged to Payola Six, you can bet you're going to be seeing it on stands any day now (cover of June's "Hot" issue, perhaps?). Therefore, it's the doing of disgruntled pre-Hicklin staff members whom Judy Wieder granted neither the courtesy of an interview for the top job nor the title of "interim editor."
Posted by: 24play | May 2, 2006 4:03:52 PM
Oops.
Okay, I get it.
^_^
Posted by: Gilli | May 2, 2006 4:05:26 PM
And BTW, could y'all please get over this hangup about OUT having straight people on its cover? All that bitching is just beyond tired.
Covers are about sales, people. And there just aren't enough out gay celebrities in the world for them to have one on every cover--let alone ones who would actually sell copies.
No straight man is demanding that every woman on the cover of Stuff (or every man on the cover of GQ, Details) be straight. All they ask is that the cover subject be either someone they want to be or somebody they'd like to fuck.
What we should demand of Out when it comes to celebrity covers:
1) Only people gay men are actually interested in. That means precious few gay reality stars enjoying their 15 minutes of fame. And even fewer hardbodied C-list straight actors who just happen to be playing gay in minor roles in D-list films or TV show. And no repeat appearances by QaF, L Word, or W&G stars long after after the shows have jumped the shark.
2) No known closet cases! Ever!
Posted by: 24play | May 2, 2006 4:17:17 PM
There is a reason magazines like OUT don`t feature more LGBT stars on the cover - it`s called the closet.
Posted by: Peter Rivendell | May 2, 2006 5:11:28 PM
The best way for the Democratic Party to care about gay issues is for them to win control of the house and senate. For gays to stop supporting the party would be akin to the religious right threatening to stop supporting the Republican Party because they don't try hard enough to overturn Roe v. Wade. I would say its like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
As a gay man, I abhor the numerous ballot initiatives that will be used to garner Republican votes. At the same time, I realize that it is difficult to make gay issues a focal point of the Democratic Party's agenda.
What I do know is that if the Democrats take control of the house and senate, they will do the right thing to protect my rights. If that means that gay issues might have to be placed on the back burner of the agenda for the time being...as unpopular as it is to say, I can live with it. Sometimes you have to choose your battles in order to win the war.
more observations here:
www.thoughttheater.com
Posted by: Daniel DiRito | May 2, 2006 5:15:12 PM
"Covers are about sales, people. And there just aren't enough out gay celebrities in the world for them to have one on every cover--let alone ones who would actually sell copies."
While in reality covers are about sales which support and drive the magazine, a lot of gay men and people who support Equal/Gay rights seem to be stating their desire to see more positive role models featured. That being said, on the basis of supply/demand, wouldn't the sales of Out magazine increase? Personally I don't know too many GLBT consumers interested in Paris Hilton/Reichen/15 minute'rs gracing the cover. Out magazine is supposed to be a means of support for the GLBT community, a tool for educating, improving and informing the community. The comparison of Out to magazines such as GQ and Details is the equivalent of comparing apples and oranges. Out magazine needs to better define itself; is it a glamor magazine or more? What is it's purpose in regards to GLBT issues and the community? Assuming it's taking a more serious stance, it should reflect this on it's cover and features. Otherwise, it falls back into the category of mindless beauty magazines filled with dillusions of Chanel and D & G ads. I should hope after all these years, it takes a more political stance as JFk Jr's George once did. With the genocide we're facing, we need it...
Posted by: CJ | May 2, 2006 5:15:21 PM
"What I do know is that if the Democrats take control of the house and senate, they will do the right thing to protect my rights. If that means that gay issues might have to be placed on the back burner of the agenda for the time being...as unpopular as it is to say, I can live with it. Sometimes you have to choose your battles in order to win the war."
As much as I hate to admit it, I've always believed this to be true. The reality right now is compromise, in some strange way. Gay rights THE political hot button at the moment, on both sides. While I do believe more dem's believe in supporting gay rights, admitting so will not get them elected. Getting into office and slowly turning the tides/educating the public/political reform is one of the surest ways.
Posted by: CJ | May 2, 2006 5:27:19 PM
Paris,,,, on OUT,,,, what a waste of good paper,,,
Posted by: rebas66 | May 2, 2006 5:41:31 PM
Can't we please talk about important things?
Like how strangely HOT that "Phillips BodyGroom" video is?? I watched it twice hoping he would open that robe!!
Sorry..sometimes levity & sex helps!
Posted by: charlie | May 2, 2006 6:01:58 PM
CJ,
Let's see: Cindy Crawford, Bono, Garth Brooks, Barbra Streisand, Robert DeNiro, Elizabeth Hurley, Charles Barkley, Edward Norton, Barbara Walters, Michael J. Fox, Calista Flockhart, one of William Wegman's weimaraners...
Which of those George cover subjects screamed politically relevant to you? (And BTW, George was on its last legs when JFK Jr. died. The idea of a glamorous politial magazine was a non-starter--with both readers and advertisers--that never would have been gotten funding without his name attached.)
The fact that George, like every other mainstream glossy mag, threw nothing but celebrities (models, singers, actors, newsreaders) on its cover should tell you that the cover is a lot more than just an introduction to what's in the magazine. It is first a selling tool.
Out needs a complete overhaul to make it interesting, provocative, smart and relevant. But even full of engrossing, enlightening content, it will still need to sell copies.
And very few "role models" are going to be able to do that. Gene Robinson, Ian McKellen, George Michael, Stephen Merritt, Tammy Baldwin, Matt Foreman, Barney Frank, Augusten Burroughs, Melissa Etheridge, Rosie O'Donnell, Marc Cherry, David Geffen, Janis Ian, Edmund White and even Jake Shears are all worth reading about. But they're going to sell about half as many copies as Heath Ledger, Tom Cruise, Justin Timberlake, Vin Diesel, Christina Aguilera, and Mariah Carey...or even some nameless, 22-year-old, half-naked straight model.
And you need the newsstand sales to generate subscribers.
Out claims a circulation of about 120,000. But it's a fourth or fifth tier buy for advertisers. They need to be convinced to throw Out a bone after they've already placed ads in GQ, Details, Vanity Fair, Esquire, Vogue Men, and even Stuff and Maxim.
Out needs to get to 200,000 circulation (about half the circulation of Details, the smallest mag above) to be even mildly competitive in that field. And to do that they need to fill the magazine with information (or at least perspective) that gay men aren't getting everywhere else.
But first you've got to get them to pick the damn thing up.
For a lifestyle title, flesh and star power are what you need on the cover.
Posted by: 24play | May 2, 2006 6:23:19 PM
1. I`m with Charlie on the Philips video - oddly sexy.
2. Don`t vote for people who wouldn`t vote for you.
Posted by: Peter Rivendell | May 2, 2006 6:45:41 PM
24play,
As for your comment on celebrities gracing George magazine:
"George departed from the format of traditional political publications, whose audience was made up primarily of people in or around the political world. The general template for George was similar to magazines such as Esquire or Vanity Fair. The consistent underlying theme was to marry the themes of celebrity and media with the subject of politics in such a way that the general public would find political news and discourse about politics more interesting to read."
George's main point was blending celebrity with politics, in this it succeeded. Bono and Streisand have done a great deal for global causes. Bono is incredibly political, and everyone knows Babs was a huge political supporter/contributor for the Clinton administration, as well as the Democratic Party. Not to forget Michael J. Fox's stance on stem cell research, etc. etc.
As for Out magazine, do you think the lack of circulation is mostly due to its covers (or lack thereof)? Paris Hilton? I honestly can't imagine Paris Hilton, someone who has done little for causes in general, increasing circulation of Out magazine. Perhaps Out magazines target market is dissatisfied with its lack of pertinent material. Perhaps out of homophobia it isn't receiving as much attention in Newstands and Bookstores. Perhaps gay men are tired of seeing talent less millionaires and six packed models gracing the cover. I agree, they need to restructure their core, determine their target demographic and cater to it (which as a politically oriented gay mag should be just that, gay issues) and market themselves for better exposure. It's utter non-sense to assume that putting over-exposed celebrities on the cover will generate better sales because that's what the public wants.
>But first you've got to get them to pick the damn thing up.
>
>For a lifestyle title, flesh and star power are what you need on >the cover.
If that's what they wanted, wouldn't the current star power/half naked men be increasing sales? The May 2006 issue currently out has a "Footballers" star half-naked, tight abs and all, strattling a designer clad model. Some of the primo intelligent and enlightening topics inside include: "Jonathan Rhys–Meyers exclusive: Our 'Hottest Straight Guy' tells us about his vocal gay fans, getting typecast, and his love of women’s shoes" and "Hat Etiquette". Out mag's covers have blended in with every other glam mag rag on the stand to date. It hasn't been working, and placing D celebrity Paris Hilton isn't going to help matters...
The solution? The GLBT community needs to demand better, and Out hasn't/isn't been supplying much to demand...
Posted by: CJ | May 2, 2006 7:22:35 PM
CJ,
I'm afraid you're mostly talking in circles here. I agree that Out has sucked for years. And I think Paris is a lousy choice. She's a lightweight celebrity, she's 2 years past her prime, and most gay men aren't that interested in her.
Yes, George succeeded in being exactly what it said it would be. Apparently you enjoyed it. It had its high points. But the magazine failed miserably in the marketplace. Even if JFK Jr. had lived, George would have been shuttered long ago. (And let's not cherrypick cover subjects to support your point. Bono and Barbra are the ONLY half-political people on that list of covers. All the rest are celebrity fluff. Which doesn't mean there wasn't serious stuff inside. There was.)
As I've said, I'd love to see Out be thought-provoking and substantial. But it's a lifestyle magazine, so it's going to be full of fashion, home, travel, entertainment and grooming coverage. And it has to compete against magazines have that same mix. At best it might emulate GQ, which does all of that style coverage plus features about soldiers in Iraq, unsolved murders, preachers caught with their pants down, and the Bush administration's efforts to promote an invasion of Iran.
If you want pure politics and opinion, pick up your local gay paper or subscribe to the Advocate. I'm sure that in between coverage of Reichen, the Queer Eye guys and Ellen's last 3 lovers, the Advocate still has a little news in it.
As for Out's current cover, I'm sure it's not selling well, because:
1) The photo's hideous. There's way too much shadow for a cover shot of unrecognizable models. And the flesh is hardly featured.
2) The styling's atrocious. I like the over-the-top, return-to-glamour YSL tribute spread the photo's taken from. But that style's way too arch for a cover. It works much better for the B&W photos inside. And this particular photo looks like a bunch of West Hollywood hairdressers were in charge of the shoot.
3) The fashion's worse. (What you can see of it, anyway.)
4) And the coverlines blow. "237 Products You Can't Live Without"? I'll admit people might want to see 237 Hot Summer Looks. Their curiosity might be piqued by 237 Ways to Improve Your Sex Life. They might even be excited to to learn about 237 Bronzers. But products? PRODUCTS?! Please. We're shallow whores, yes. But don't remind us of it. And who gives a rat's ass about "Celebs Say Goodbye to Will & Grace"?
Just because a cover has flesh, doesn't mean it's automatically going to sell. It's got to be well done. (See Men's Fitness or most issues of DNA.)
This one is really poorly executed. But I'm sure a number of Out's boy covers of the past year (especially the swimwear special with model Nicholas Lemon a couple months ago) sold well. The Madonna issue might have even sold well thanks to sheer star wattage (despite the fact that she looked like JarJar Binks in the supplied photo).
And BTW, while the straight actor who plays gay in Footballer's Wives is profiled inside (yawn, typical Out), he's not pictured on the cover.
Finally, my main point, again, is this: Out's got to get some must-read, substantial content to hold readers AND they've got to wrap it in impossible-not-to-notice covers to get those readers in the door. They've got to have both. And the commercial focus of the wrapper will not detract from stellar content.
Posted by: 24play | May 2, 2006 8:24:41 PM
There are people that still read Out?!
Posted by: Rob | May 2, 2006 10:06:24 PM