Ian Roberts | Magazines | News | Rugby | Sports

Rugby Icon Ian Roberts Battled Slurs with Kisses


Gay rugby icon-turned-actor Ian Roberts is looking fantastic in the pages of the upcoming "Sex" issue of The Advocate, where he's featured in a cover story.

Ianroberts2_2Roberts discusses the difficulties of breaking into Hollywood, and goes into great detail about his recently-wrapped up involvement in trials surrounding the murder of gay teen Arron Light, which I've posted about here extensively.

Roberts also discusses his coming out in 1995, which was prompted by a "degrading" article in an Australian tabloid:

"I enjoyed the actual moment. It was empowering to be out. All the confusion that had been part of my life suddenly vanished. When the whole world knew I was gay, I wasn't angry anymore. It's a whole clash about what it means to be a man, about masculinity. People would say, 'You must be the exception to the rule [of what gay men are like]. You don't swish around, you're not a cross-dresser.'"

Also noted is the strategy he used when fans would shout "faggot" or "cocksucker" from the stands. He'd return the slurs with a wink, or something more direct:

"If anything, I took it as a compliment. If they were, by any chance, cute, I'd give them a cute kiss at some point during the game. It became a rugby league story—if you got kissed by me on the field, you weren't half bad to look at."

The issue hits newsstands on July 17th.

You may have missed...
Ian Roberts Cleared of Assaulting Ex-Boyfriend [tr]
'Big, cuddly softie' Ian Roberts in Court on Assault Charge [tr]
Ian Roberts Testifies About Murdered Friend [tr]
Gay Rugby Icon Ian Roberts in Superman Returns [tr]
Gay Rugby Icon Ian Roberts Testifies About Abuse [tr]

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. I hear about all this stuff about Ian wanting to act and his difficulty finding work in Hollywood????

    Can he actually act?

    Posted by: Marc | Jul 13, 2007 9:40:03 PM

  2. ian you rock!! a total manshow!!

    Posted by: alan brickman | Jul 13, 2007 9:55:39 PM

  3. you show gay athelites how to react to the slurs and the fact they should come out sooner and own it!!

    Posted by: alan brickman | Jul 13, 2007 9:57:18 PM

  4. plus gays buy lots of sport clothing and the companies should give you endorsements contracts based just on that!!

    Posted by: alan brickman | Jul 13, 2007 10:12:00 PM

  5. God! The author of this Advocate piece was such a douche! (Should I be surprised?) All I was saying was I thought Ian was fug. But I'm sure the author and Ian are still BFFs. (If Ian remembers his name.)

    Posted by: Jaimie | Jul 14, 2007 12:02:35 AM

  6. Oh, and Michael Rowe, PS: way to go on a tirade railing against catty fags and then write the bitchiest post on the planet. Take your "rugby is the manliest sport" drivel and ride it like your jumbo dildo.

    Posted by: Jaimie | Jul 14, 2007 12:06:14 AM

  7. "Michael, I share your point of view regarding the knee jerk reaction of many gay men when confronted with the celebrity of a muscular, masculine gay role model."

    girl. please. could we have a definition of "masculine"?

    Posted by: jmg | Jul 14, 2007 1:34:58 PM

  8. LOL. I gotta admit this thread is hysterial....first the rugby queen wants the world to stand at attention because he played the "most masculine" sport of THEM ALL..but his feelings are hurt by some people thinking he's dog faced (sorry, the man was cute but now has steriod face)and then..his editor/writer/stalker jumps on the webiste calling for a cease and desist and to give Ian "the respect that he is entitled to" (cue thunder claps and lighting))...first, Ian you need to get a life it seems, if after all the mountains you've climbed and blah blah,,.you are upset because some people think you're busted in the face...and to the writer...girl, this is a blog,,,not your mama's house...we'll write what we want, how we want, about who we want and under any name we want....we're queer...with no fear....we're over you....

    Posted by: Thundermussy | Jul 14, 2007 4:01:29 PM

  9. ps. nobody said Ian wasn't nice...i'm sure he is...he better be with that mug and those flabby thighs.

    Posted by: Thundermussy | Jul 14, 2007 4:07:36 PM

  10. I guess given how Micheal Rowe looks, Ian must be a god to him LOL

    Posted by: MichaelRowe'sMirror | Jul 14, 2007 5:44:47 PM

  11. The cover shot was good... but I think the one on the couch thing makes his inner thighs look unconditioned, and doesn't flatter his muscles. The blue shorts are supposed to draw the eye to his package, but in doing that... well, it also draws the eye to flaccid inner thighs. The lighting picks up the pale underside of his left arm, the shiny leather of the couch right next to his ass, and makes his inner thighs look more pudding like than they really are, especially with the shadow on the inside of his right knee. The light also washes out his cuts... as in the 'muscle cuts' or definition of muscle tone. Blame the photographer for that one.

    The photographer also stripped away his powerful masculinity and dominance when they had him pose his leg that's touching the ground in a way that's like a girl. If he had that foot planted firm on the ground, with the leg almost upright, it would have tightened the thigh, and it would have pushed his package up a little more, making it more prominent... and also would have been a visually dominant pose. You'd still be able tp see the small triangle, for those into the suggestive 'ass' shots. If only that leg had been moved, it would say 'c'mere NOW'... but with the leg loose and at an angle, his upper body says 'c'mere NOW' and his lower body says 'tee hee'. The stripes in the socks... almost visually on the same 'line' with each other, only make the 'spread eagle like a chick' pose stand out more. To get the shot right, the photographer would have stood more to the right, so the couch was at more a diagonal, and that would have allowed a better shot of gap between his legs, too. He would need to move the light away more, allowing for some shadow. Since Ian's got a flat gut, and wearing a tight shirt... the pose would also have propped his torso more upright... more commanding... on the couch... and shown off the definition of his chest better.

    There's nothing seductive, expensive, dark or mysterious about it. It's unfair to Ian, unless he wanted that soft feminine look. I don't like the pic, and I think they screwed it all up. It doesn't seduce the eye, and the outfit is... well... cheap. I think they could have done better if they stripped him down to a bare chest and pair of dockers that were almost nearly unzipped, put him on the couch, with one arm behind his head, like he has it, and the other on his thigh, palm up, very close to his crotch... it would look like he was beckoning you to come over, kneel down, and take a peek inside the pants. Or, have the dockers nearly off, wearing something snug under 'em, and that would have shown off his 'assets'... but the bright blue gym shorts and socks, just don't cut it. They must be trying to appeal to the really young crowd with that outfit. It doesn't look like a rugby outfit... because the pose doesn't come across as a rugby player pose. If some of you bitchy queens had a trained eye, instead of just drooling over his crotch, you'd be able to tell that he still has a powerful body, and that the pose and lighting is what makes him look weak.

    Ian appears to be a very deep, very intelligent, and very compassionate person... you can see his sex appeal and beauty in the more candid photos they have linked on the page. He IS a man... he has the body of a man... and the strength of a man... and that kind of sex appeal is hard to come by in a world filled with pouting... well... you know. Dime a dozen.

    And speaking of that: the writer, Rowe, proved his point. Some of you ARE shallow, bitchy queens... it's obvious in how you've phrased your opinions on this forum. I've read Rowe's work in the Advocate before, and I've read some of his books. You've judged him based on a sampling taken from an article this month. What you should do is grow a set of balls, and wait until the full article comes out. But, go ahead, be quick to judge. Lord knows you've done that all your life, which is why you probably have nothing better to do than post bitchy comments on a second rate forum. Get back to me when you're ready to make an INFORMED opinion, girls.

    Ta ta now. >snap<

    Posted by: Draigon | Jul 15, 2007 8:55:41 PM

  12. And I will clarify... Ian is a handsome man. If you've seen him in a match, you'd be amazed at his grace and power on the field. His face is pleasing to look at, and I'm sure any one of you would love to have his lips pressed up to yours... so quit yer bitching already. Give the guy a break.

    Posted by: Draigon | Jul 15, 2007 9:01:38 PM

  13. Why isn't there a word limit on these posts.

    "Draigon"'s post not only bore me to death but he could have made the same point in three sentences or less. Towleroad should offer a class on writing at the new school for all of its members. Ugh.

    Posted by: Tony the Tiger | Jul 15, 2007 11:36:20 PM

  14. Dear Michael Rowe,

    I'm not clear how or why you think that writing "I see him from time to time in West Hollywood..." is tantamount to 'inserting yourself into Ian Roberts' story.'. Seeing a celebrity on the street certainly does *not* mean you are part of their life or their story. It does, however, mean that you have a first person account of who they were with at the time you saw them. I do not know Ian Roberts. I have never spoken to Ian Roberts. But I have seen Ian Roberts on the sidewalk in West Hollywood a couple of times. Each time he was either alone or in the company of some *extremely* young looking guy.

    In and of itself, an adult man in the company of a man much younger than himself would warrant no extra attention or suspicion. But when the man in question A) is someone who was accused of domestic violence by a former lover, an adult who is of slight build and has the appearance of a young boy and B) is someone who has previously admitted to Australian press that he took a homeless, underage, gay prostitute named Arron Light into his home and that Arron Light was later murdered and that the man was, for a short time, considered a suspect by the police, then I wonder what motivation that man has for continuing to be in the company of young men. Is he a saint? Or is he simply a guy who is attracted to extremely young men? After all, extremely handsome, multi-millionaire football stars don't often go around asking homeless underage prostitutes to move in with them.

    Don't get me wrong...I'm not accusing Ian Roberts of murder or any other wrongdoing. The Australian police cleared him as a suspect. And I don't nor have I ever believed Ian Roberts is guilty of murder. But it does seem that Ian Roberts has a weakness for young men who do not appear to be of the age of consent. I find that creepy and unsettling. I'm entitled to find that creepy and unsettling just as you are entitled to defend Ian Roberts, as you have in your post here.

    Perhaps Mr. Roberts has had no ulterior motives when he's been in the presence of men much younger than he is. Perhaps I've simply misunderstood the motivation for his kindnesses. Or perhaps, given the fact that I've worked with sex offenders, I see a few nuances in his past that raise my suspicions...however correct or incorrect.

    Michael please don't project your own experience of high school onto the rest of us. For the record, I was never pushed around or abused by anyone on my high school football team. I played on my high school football team and have the formerly broken bones (and the letter jacket) to prove it.

    Finally, MIchael, I was under the impression that a journalist was, above all, objective. Your post here sounds less like someone who is objective and more like someone who is utterly obsessed with the subject of your article. I'm sure that makes for a fine, balanced story.


    Posted by: peterparker | Jul 15, 2007 11:47:30 PM

  15. Looks like the writer called u out on ur bs, Pete and now ur whining. No wonder ur feeling like a horses ass right now.

    FYI, according to every police report, Ian Roberts was NEVER considered a suspect by the police in Arron Lights disappearance, and he was completelt cleared of the domestic violence charge against his boyfriend. That means found innocent.
    So Rowe caught u in at least one lie. As for the rest, I agree with him. U wish u were part of this storey and when he called u ur bitchy "smear" posts, u started to whine like a little bitch who just got spanked.

    Rowe did his job as a journalist and came to his own colclusions, sounds like. He was PAID to investigate and report on Ian Roberts life. Are u being "paid" for ur own obsession with him? U follow him around West hollywood and make notes of who hes with then gossip about him on a blog to ur bitchy friends? Ha ha.

    I dont think Rowes projecting. Sounds like ur the one obsessed with "young men who do not appear to be of the age of consent" and projecting it on Roberts.


    Posted by: Flame | Jul 16, 2007 1:16:27 AM

  16. You people are pathetic. The guy who interviewed Roberts and the director of his film both post responses to your bitchy posts and sleazy innuendos about Ian Roberts' character, and you all start screeching like scalded cats. Way to make their point for them. Rowe had every right to make his post in response to your ugly ones. That doesn't make him obsessed, it makes him a responsible person. Get over it and grow up. If you little bitches are too childish to deal with people calling you on shit, then stay off your Mom's Internet.

    Finally, Peter? Flame is right, the creepy one here is you---stalking Roberts through West Hollywood. I'd rather read Rowe's article than hear your version.

    Posted by: Joey | Jul 16, 2007 1:38:36 AM

  17. lol @ everybody in this thread,

    Posted by: FanGirlHater | Jul 16, 2007 4:36:02 AM

  18. Just picked up this magazine and Barnes and Nobles. What an amazing story! And on a hotness scale of one to ten Ian Roberts is an OH MY GOD! The pics are awesome!!!!!Kudos to the writer for a great job too.

    Posted by: Mark | Jul 16, 2007 10:22:23 AM

  19. What is everyone arguing over here?

    Ian Roberts is U*G*L*Y ugly plain and simple.

    There is enough ugliness in the world (and in Chelsea and West Hollywood and the South End in particular) without having to see it on the cover of the Advocate in the form of Ian Roberts in particular. I am cancelling my subscription to the Advocate immediately (if the Advocate doesn't go bankrupt first).

    Tony the Tiger.

    Posted by: Tony the Tiger | Jul 16, 2007 11:46:46 AM

  20. I still don't see the whole "man's power" body thing...of course he's built like that...he does steroids...we could all appear hyper masculine after a round of steroids...or does noone remember the 90's?! inject testosterone=hyper masuculinity....noone watch professional wrestling?...when i look at older photos i see a normal sized athletic man...not particularly built...but athletic...now it's a steroid body...how hard is that?

    Posted by: RoidRage | Jul 16, 2007 3:24:14 PM

  21. and yes, a gay guy his age only dating guys that young should raise a red flag to anybody with two eyes...and then throw in the whole "murdered prostitute"?!...forget it...dark clouds over that one....seriously. it always comes out in the end...

    Posted by: RoidRage | Jul 16, 2007 3:46:36 PM

  22. Nice work spreading malicious gossip Peter. From a you to a dumb fuck like Roidrage and on and on. Do you know what "slander by innuendo" means? Maybe this is what the Advocate writer was talking about. Only assholes make posts about things they know nothing about. And Tony, you seem to be the definition of a loser. It repeatedly posting about how ugly Ian Roberts is what you do instead of working for a living?

    Posted by: Jonesy McJones | Jul 16, 2007 4:13:15 PM

  23. Dear FLAME and JOEY,

    No, Flame, I'm not feeling like a horses ass. I'm feeling like one of the few people here with even a shred of intelligence...especially after you showed up.

    Flame, I never said Ian Roberts was guilty of domestic violence. I said he was accused of it. And he was. A jury found him innocent. Then again, the fact that a jury finds someone innocent doesn't mean they truly are innocent. O.J. anyone?

    However, I must admit that I got one thing wrong: Ian Roberts was not a suspect in the disappearance of Arron Light. According to The Sydney Morning Herald, the New South Wales police briefly had Roberts under surveillance as a suspect in a pedophilia case involving Arron Light. Unfortunately, the writer for the Sydney Morning Herald worded the sentence in such a way that a reader might, as I did, draw the conclusion that Roberts was a murder suspect. He was not. He was suspected by the police of being a pedophile. (Interesting that I'm being castigated here for having the same suspicions that the police in Australia had.) You can read the article in the Sydney Morning Herald here:

    And Flame, you are wrong when you imply that I'm 'obsessed with young men who do not appear to be of the age of consent'. I'm rather partial to scruffy beards, chest hair and muscles...qualities I usually find on men in their late twenties to early thirties, the age group I favor.

    No, Joey, I'm not stalking Ian Roberts through West Hollywood. I live in West Hollywood. Every evening I walk my dog through the neighborhood. Occasionally, Ian Roberts is on the sidewalk in front of the bars at the same time my dog and I walk past. Simple as that.


    Posted by: peterparker | Jul 16, 2007 4:29:20 PM

  24. Umm, Peter? The news item you cited was from 2005. This is 2007. Try keeping up with the press, since you have no actual facts of your own to contribute besides your WeHo gossip.

    Since 2005, the NSW police have clarified that while Roberts HOME (which he shared with a female roommate and his boyfriend) was briefly under surveillance, at no time was Roberts HIMSELF suspected or investigated for being a pedophile. He was praised by the Sydney police for getting Light off the streets and into a safe place. That's also available in the press.

    And as for the domestic assault case, as Flame said he was found innocent. The exact wording on the charges, from the judge, were that the charges were "without merit." The fact that you need invoke a mutliple- murderer like OJ to make your point about Ian Roberts just shows how weak and confused your position is.

    Your misinformation and gossip twists facts just like Jonesy said in his post. You're obviously just another gossipy West Hollywood burnoutInternet fag who posts crap about celebrities on websites anonymously, then whines when someone calls you on it.

    Posted by: Joey | Jul 16, 2007 4:54:54 PM

  25. hey guys - thanks for the lively debate AND the borderline slander! It made for a great post this week on my blog! All the best, Ron O.


    Posted by: Ron Oliver | Jul 16, 2007 5:05:00 PM

  26. « | 1 2 3 4 5 »

Post a comment


« «Bill Richardson Apologizes for "Maricón" Moment« «