Ian Roberts | Magazines | News | Rugby | Sports

Rugby Icon Ian Roberts Battled Slurs with Kisses

Ianroberts1

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

Comments

  1. This article is wonderful!!!! I just read it today. What a fascinating story about a brave and decent man! Michael Rowe is an AMAZING writer, and to a TS goddess like me, Ian Roberts is a piece of god! Yum! I just wish he was into t-girls.

    LOL---reading "Peter Parker" makes me wonder who the real pedo is. A grown man who names himself after a kids cartoon character in a movie played by an actor who looks about 17. LOL Peter, your jealous of Ian Roberts, girl, and you ain't hiding it too well. "Scruffy beard, chest hair, muscles." Yeah, just like Ian Roberts has! Dont be a saggy-ass WeHo hater because your no highschool football player no more. LMAO!!!!!!

    Posted by: Cara Mia | Jul 16, 2007 5:09:47 PM


  2. Cara Mia...about ten years ago, when I first began to use the internet regularly, I christened myself 'peterparker'...I liked the name because it struck me as funny...it seemed loaded with sexual innuendo...but I had no idea it was Spiderman's 'civilian' name because I've never been a fan of comic books and the Spiderman movies had yet to be made/released...after a couple of people on the 'net addressed me as 'Spidey' I asked one of them why he was calling me that...he informed me that it was Spiderman's 'civilian' name...for me, the name has little to no connection to Spiderman...it's simply a sexually suggestive play on words that could easily be someone's actual name.

    As for being jealous of Ian Roberts...I'm more envious of his football career than I am of his looks...though I do find him attractive (something I stated in my first post in this thread).

    Posted by: peterparker | Jul 16, 2007 5:22:02 PM


  3. Wow, I don't know why everyone is attacking each other. I'm in disbelief. If the gay community can't even agree to disagree, or respectfully disagree, on such irrelevant and seemingly light hearted topics such as this, then there really is no hope for the gay civil rights movement to advance. The cattiness, disrespect and pure hatred towards someone plugging away on a keyboard thousands of miles away is baffling.

    Posted by: Cory | Jul 16, 2007 5:55:32 PM


  4. I just re-read Pee Pee's dishy post:

    "...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."

    So, in other words you admit to basing your maliciously spread Internet gossip about his "creepy and unsettling" "weakness for young men who do not appear to be of the age of consent" on who you see him STANDING NEXT TO ON A SIDEWALK outside a GAY BAR on SANTA MONICA BLVD in WEST HOLLYWOOD when you walk past with Precious (or Muffin, or Peaches, or Ming-Toy or whatever your child-substitue on the glitter leash is named.)

    That, and out of date newsclippings you've trolled the Internet for?

    LOL---glad we finally got your "facts" out on the table here. Nice one, Pee Pee. Way to go.

    Posted by: Joey | Jul 16, 2007 5:59:11 PM


  5. Cory, it's about whether or not it's right to seriously slander strangers on the Internet just because they're celebrities, or whatever. Anonymously accusing another gay man of being a pedophile isn't a "light hearted topic."

    It looks to me like the guy who wrote the article called some of these jerks on their ugliness and they've been attacking and smearing him and Roberts since then (again anonymously)since then. That's pretty disgusting, IMO.

    Posted by: Joey | Jul 16, 2007 6:06:04 PM


  6. Don't back tread now peter parker...tell those west hollywood mini-me's and their pet tranimal JUST what you think of them....i got your back. (can't you just picture a bunch of tiny queens with some trannie sitting around with ian roberts posters on the wall)LOL. this is prolly the best thread EVER.

    Posted by: Bring It On...again | Jul 16, 2007 6:23:25 PM


  7. That pretty much sums it up, Joey. Well put. This is how malicious gossip gets spread until dumb shits like the ones on this site believe its true based on reading enough misinformed posts by assholes like Peter Parker.

    Posted by: Jonesy McJones | Jul 16, 2007 6:29:26 PM


  8. JOEY,

    Interesting that you call me Pee Pee. That reminds me of a particularly vicious troll who has followed (stalked?) me around another queer related internet site. Apparently, he's found me here and decided to post under the name JOEY. Nice.

    No, JOEY, I'm not basing my misgivings about Ian Roberts on young men I've seen him standing next to on a sidewalk. I've never seen him stand next to anyone on a sidewalk. Rather, my misgivings are based on A) the fact that Roberts, a multi-millionaire celebrity football player took an unrelated, underage, homeless prostitute into his home...a fact that he himself spoke about after it was revealed in the press, B) the fact that pictures of Robert's former lover Ben Prideaux reveal that Prideaux resembles an undernourished fourteen year old and C) the fact that several times I have seen Ian Roberts walking down the sidewalk in front of the bars in West Hollywood in the company of another guy. Each time it appeared to be a different guy. And each time the guy looked *very* young. As in, if-you-didn't-know-better-you-might-think-I-was-still-in-high-school young. And I've seen him entering clubs on Santa Monica Boulevard with the same sorts of guys. Maybe Mr. Roberts is simply being a mentor for gay youth. But I assumed they were dates.

    And finally, I've never slandered Ian Roberts or anyone else for that matter. Everything I've stated about Ian Roberts has either been written about in the press or witnessed by myself. And I've never made any allegations. I've merely said that he seems to like men who are so young that it creeps me out. And it does.

    xo,
    peterparker

    Posted by: peterparker | Jul 16, 2007 6:47:37 PM


  9. Another shift for Pee Pee.

    Now it's gone from seeing Roberts "from time to time in West Hollywood" to seeing him standing "on the sidewalk outside the bars" when you take Foo Foo out for her evening walkie, to "several times" you've "seen him walking on the sidewalk" outside the bars with "a different guy" each time. Then you say you've "never seen" him "stand next to anyone" on a sidewalk. Then where were these "disturbingly young" guys? Hanging in the air above his head? (Btw, you seem to spend a lot of time on sidewalks outside the bars watching for Ian Roberts, Pee Pee. Maybe you ARE a stalker as well as a slanderer.)

    And you DID slander Roberts. You called him a murder suspect. You called him a pedophile suspect. Neither of those things were true according to up to date press. You posted them online like they were facts. You've suggested sinister motivations behind seeing someone you don't know with strangers on the street you've never met. At the very least you're a gossipy WeHo fag, Pee Pee. I don't blame you for being too gutless to use your real name for the slander.

    Posted by: Joey | Jul 16, 2007 7:28:11 PM


  10. "I KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT"

    That was the famous line from the Supreme Court case in which Justice Stewart concluded that the material in front of him was pornography and therefore had a lower level of first amendment protection under the Constitution.

    That expression is now applied in a lot of different contexts. "I KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT" also applies to steroid abuse. After living in various gay ghettos for my entire adult life I can recognize steroid use at first glance. Just one look at those pictures that are the subject of the post and in my opinion I know it when I see it.

    P.S. On another legal note in favor of Peter Parker, a simple statement of fact is not "slander". You can't sue someone for slander for stating the truth. That is why you will never see Anderson Cooper or Jodie Foster suing Out Magazine for putting them on the cover of the magazine...it is simply the truth. Peter Parker appeared to me to just be making a simple objective statement of fact in each of his posts. It was not slander as Joey would appear to believe.

    Posted by: TONY THE TIGER | Jul 16, 2007 7:48:08 PM


  11. JOEY: I was referring to the INITIAL post, not what it has become. Initially, it was a light hearted post about Ian Roberts. My comment was WHERE the commentators have taken this post. I agree that anonymity can bring negative consequences. As someone who has studies social psych for years, the internet has brought a very perplexing issue to the forefront in psychology: that 99.9% of the time, when people are anonymous, they tend to act in horrible ways in which they would not had they been in a physical, face to face situation.

    I strongly believe that there is a more mature and appropriate fashion to address the "mud-slinging" and negative commentary. Either ignore it, and it will go away, or prove that you are above such disrespectful antics by not contributing to the fire and demanding respect. It seems everyone is more interested in insulting each other than truly addressing the "slandering" and "insults". If anything, the above commentary has proven how INHUMANE everyone seems to be towards each other, and we are not proving ourselves any differently.

    Posted by: Cory | Jul 16, 2007 8:05:18 PM


  12. Woo-hoo!I just read this article. Its fantastic. Amazing job and incredible photos. GREAT cover.

    Now, this weird thread.

    Hmmm...on one hand we seem to have the writer of the article, Rowe, making a post objecting to crude posts about the interview subject, Roberts.

    Then we get a smarmy letter from "Peter Parker" accusing Rowe of being "obsessed" with his interview subject and not being "objective."

    Why? Based on Rowe objecting to crude posts about the interview subject.

    During the smarmy letter, Parker brags about being a highschool football star (or wtf, as if we're supposed to be impressed by how butch he is with his "formerly broken bones." LOL)

    Then we have more ugly personal shit about the writer and Roberts by trolls and flamers like Tony The Tiger, and Thundermussy, and MichaelRowesMirror.

    Then we discover that Parker admits he's "jealous of Roberts football career." That he obsessively searches the net for clippings about Roberts going back to 2005. That he remembers what Roberts' ex looks like, and his age seems to be (wtf? How creepy is that?)

    Also, that Parker watches for Roberts every night on the sidewalks in his west hollywood and checks out who he's with, then rushes back to his computer to gossip about it, and accuse Roberts of being a pedophile and a murder suspect.

    (Don't forget, according to Parker, it's the WRITER who is "utterly obsessed.")

    Holy crap. Who's obsessed? Parker, chill man. Stalking isnt a real hobby. LOL

    Oh, and Tony...? Slander is when you post something that isn't true, like that Roberts was a suspect in Arron Light's murder, or that he was a suspected pedophile when in fact as seen here the Sydney police never considered him one. You should keep up with developments in Internet-related laws regarding slander. (Cooper and Foster had no basis for suing Out magazine because they didn't put Cooper and Foster on the magazine. They put two models with clearly marked cutouts of their faces, and didn't try to say it was the real deal.)

    Timmy

    PS: Tony, no one believes you have a subscription to The Advocate you could cancel. Glad you admitted you lived in gay ghettos your whole life. Believe me, it shows in your catty posts.

    Posted by: Timmy | Jul 16, 2007 8:38:06 PM


  13. I can't understand why Timmy (and various other geeks and freaks) think that I must be a troll or a bitter queen to recognize that Ian Roberts is fugly.

    I am certainly not a troll.

    When a troll or a freak or a geek approaches me at the gym or at a bar or in Fire Island I treat them with the utmost respect in declining their advances.

    Posted by: Tony the Tiger | Jul 16, 2007 8:44:59 PM


  14. lol. I love these silly queens who say "you shouldn't do this, or post that and you should stop being mean". bitch, I stand by what I said. Ian Roberts is fair game, honey, we will tear him to pieces if we deem it appropriate. The man runs around with young looking guys and he is on steroids and it shows in his face. and we will talk about it. as much as we like. this is a blog and if you or m rowe or whoever is offended. tough shit. scroll down and keep it moving. otherwise, buckle up hon, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

    Posted by: ThunderMussy in the Flesh | Jul 16, 2007 8:53:40 PM


  15. :::YAWN:::: Wow, what an original post, Thunderpussy. Glad ur not just another dumb bitchy tired boring trashy stereotype cum to life. LOL

    Posted by: Flame | Jul 16, 2007 9:02:37 PM


  16. Ian is that you? i told you to only say that when we're alone! naughty boy! ooops, that would be me....

    Posted by: ThunderMussy | Jul 16, 2007 9:14:46 PM


  17. Timmy,

    Sweetheart, I recommend you take an introductory legal class to learn A) the difference between libel and slander (hint, libel is printed, slander is verbal) and B) why nothing I've posted here would ever be successfully argued in a court of law as constituting libel.

    True, I erred when I said that NSW police had considered Roberts a suspect in the disappearance of Arron LIght. It was a misunderstanding on my part based on a vaguely worded sentence printed in the Sydney Morning Herald. When I reallized my error, I corrected it and provided a link to that page to illustrate how it was I misunderstood the reason for the surveillance of Ian Roberts by New South Wales police.

    Timmy, you are wrong when you say police never suspected Roberts of being a pedophile. In fact, at the time this story broke a headline in the Sydney Morning Herald read: "Roberts was suspect in paedophile case". The article that followed went on to say "...Ian Roberts became a suspect in a police investigation after he befriended a homeless boy who was caught up in a major paedophile ring..." and that "NSW police investigating the case quickly cleared him of any wrong-doing...". Yes, Timmy, at one point NSW police thought Roberts might be a pedophile. The article, by the way, is the same one I read in which I misinterpreted the reason why NSW police surveilled Roberts. You can find the link to the article in one of my posts above.

    As for being jealous of Roberts' football career...who wouldn't be!? Hell man, Roberts not only earned millions and millions of dollars as an elite athlete, he also got to shower with the team after practice! What red-blooded gay guy wouldn't be jealous of that?! It sounds like my idea of a dream job. That doesn't mean I have an axe to grind.

    As for your assertion that I 'obsessively search the net for clippings about Roberts going back to 2005...that (I remember) what Roberts' ex looks like...that (I watch) for Roberts every night on the sidewalks...", all I have to say is NOW look who is treading close to a libel charge! I don't 'obsessively search the net' for information about Ian Roberts. If, as I did, you type "ian roberts" into a google search, it will take about 15 seconds to yield articles on Roberts' various contacts with law enforcement as a result of the Arron Light investigation/murder and the unrelated charges of domestic violence against Ian Roberts. That's hardly an 'obsessive search of the net'. And the fact that, in two years, I've seen Ian Roberts a couple of times in West Hollywood hardly means I '...(watch) for Roberts every night...'. Puhleeze!

    And finally, I've never accused Roberts of being a pedophile. I've merely said that, based on what I've learned of him in the press and what I've witnessed personally, I harbor suspicions about Ian Roberts motivations to befriend those who are either below the age of consent or who appear to be below the age of consent. Saying I have suspicions is *hardly* an accusation of pedophilia.

    And finally, Timmy, one more hint about libel and slander: it's easier to successfully sue someone for libel when you are not a public figure...and I'm not a public figure. You might want to be careful there, buddy.

    xo,
    peterparker

    Posted by: peterparker | Jul 16, 2007 10:53:03 PM


  18. JOEY,

    Suck it.

    xo,
    peterparker

    Posted by: peterparker | Jul 16, 2007 11:00:09 PM


  19. I think "Peter Parker" should be sued by Spider Man for assuming his legal name without Spider Man's permission!

    Posted by: tony the tiger | Jul 16, 2007 11:03:14 PM


  20. Yeah, Pete, I'm shivering in terror. I think it's time for you to take Poppet out for her evening stroll. Maybe Roberts is standing outside Rage. The blog needs another update and you need some more dish for your diary. LOL

    Posted by: Timmy | Jul 16, 2007 11:14:33 PM


  21. I'd have to be able to see it before I could do that, Pee Pee. Got a magnifying glass handy beside your bed?

    Posted by: Joey | Jul 16, 2007 11:19:34 PM


  22. Peter Parker,

    Don't let these trolls get you down. This forum is their rare opportunity to come out of the shadows and converse with the rest of us.

    Posted by: Tony the Tiger | Jul 16, 2007 11:40:37 PM


  23. I'm surprised at the juvenile comments from Joey, Timmy and Thundermussy (hmmmm, those names do have a similarity, wonder if it's the same person posting in different names in a sad attempt at appearing to have support?). Seems you kids have a little too much free time on your hands, flaming someone on a message board. I guess schools out and the summer reading list is a bit dull eh? Why don't you all lay off of Peter Parker and let Mom have use of the computer for a while. I'm certain you can make use of your free time with a jar of vaseline and Mom's Rabbit.

    Oh, and Joey, your humor dates you very much, calling people "Pee Pee" and attempting to insult their penis size with that magnifying joke were about as humorous as they were when I was in middle school. In other words, either you're not a day over 14 or you have the I.Q. of a toaster (no, I take that back, that's an insult to toasters).

    As for the rest of you who seem it necessary to gang up online, something tells me if you were face to face with "Peter Parker" you'd shit yourselves faster than Bush on a cocaine high. Now go to bed, it's past your bed time and you don't want to piss off the 'rents.

    Posted by: Wow | Jul 16, 2007 11:50:47 PM


  24. geez, this thread gets better all the time! the amount of rage simmering beneath our lovely "gay" world is remarkable. And Miss Thundermussy, I'm not sure exactly why you feel Mr. Roberts is "fair game" - I guess because he's a celebrity of sorts, but I'm not sure how that dehumanizes him to the point where a faceless jealous and clearly aging twink on a webpage can rag on him - but for the record, btw, he doesn't do steroids. What you see on his face is the result of countless surgeries from the injuries sustained during his rugby career. You may have heard of rugby, Thunder? It's that game where they used to pick you last....

    Posted by: ron Oliver | Jul 17, 2007 12:38:54 AM


  25. The freaky journo is as icky as all the ridiculous jealous/picky/obsessive queens here. The comment about him looking girly because his foot is on the ground takes the cake. But equally pathetic is the queen who tries to call him to account because of whom he may choose to date. MARY! So he's got a face like a thug: cool. So has half the gay cartoon porn I see. And as for the steroid crap: I've seen the guy in real life, and he's dinosaur boned: just naturally built big.

    Posted by: Jimbo | Jul 17, 2007 6:50:38 AM


  26. « | 1 2 3 4 5 »

Post a comment







Trending


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