Amanda Lepore | Fashion Men | I'm Gay | Jason Wu | News | RuPaul

Who Outed Jason Wu? Part Two: Blame it on Ru


With regard to yesterday's post about who bears responsibility for the outing of fashion designer Jason Wu ... before there was the NYT, or Amanda Lepore, there was the RuPaul doll.

Who Outed Jason Wu? [tr]
(thanks philip)

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Tsk tsk biscuits...Bading bading bading... No one disputes that cultural awareness may help with the effectiveness of promoting what's right in certain cultures irrespective of their views on what is right (I don't particularly care of, for example, clitoridectomy is considered right by certain interpretations of is wrong...end of discussion). Taking advantage of certain memes, traditions, and beliefs to SELL the ethical choice to them. However, this is a different tune than what you were blatently promoting in the first entry, being that respect of cultural homophobia should be the overriding concern.

    If, however, you'd like to debate the merits and ethics of the closet period, which you seem to be angling for--in this particular situation, let's do that. Focus, grasshopper. In this case a particularly effeminate man outed himself to the new york times without expressing any concern that he'd prefer to remain closeted. His family is either deeply deluded for whatever reason or reasons, or they knew he, at least, gay. I opt for the latter, as it makes much more sense. If he were concerned, then he should have expressed that to the NYT. This later complaint seems to be of a circumstance for which he is entirely culpable for not practicing discretion in, it seems...any aspect of his life with regard to his homosexuality.

    Posted by: TANK | Jan 28, 2009 5:08:04 PM

  2. Further, the closet is only justified in extreme circumstances where the potential for harm is not only an afterthought or embarrassment, but nigh a certainty. This because of what it represents and the actual harm it perpetuates to more than just, in a specific case, the harm it causes to those proximate to it--but again, those, too. In this case, his family ties MAY (and oh brother...that's a mighty big assumption) be temporarily strained, but he won't be rendered homeless and forced into survival sex as a result of this outing. Mere convenience and avoidance of discomfort does not, itself, justify the closet.

    Posted by: TANK | Jan 28, 2009 5:22:23 PM

  3. The most interesting thing about this is that we never heard the story from Jason Wu's side. All we heard was "allegedly" Wu complaint about the "outing".

    Clearly, some jealous queens can't stand Wu's overnight fame and try to blackmail him. It's a pity. It's really shallow and it's really bad journalism. It's stunning that so many bitching queens are making such scathing comments, while it make little or no diffence from the hate crime that straight people put on us.

    Or are gay americans just generally shallow and self-hating under the puritan suppression?

    Posted by: adam | Jan 28, 2009 7:06:32 PM

  4. @tank: "Further, the closet is only justified in extreme circumstances..."

    What is your opinion on high school administrators outing students?

    What is your opinion on high school students outing their classmates?

    Posted by: justcurious | Jan 28, 2009 8:36:51 PM

  5. Lesson -- come out or someone will do it for you!

    BTW I am sure Andy has covered Alec Mapa.

    Posted by: David B. | Jan 28, 2009 9:19:24 PM

  6. An action's ethical value is determined solely by its consequences, and specifically the number of preferences it does, in fact, satisfy.

    As a general precept, the only one who has an ethical claim to outing one is oneself. There are obviously counterexamples, and that's why it's a general precept.

    However, there is a responsibility that comes with being closeted to family or everyone. Simply saying it's the closetee's business doesn't really capture the truth of a ones whom he has saddled that information with in trust; it's their business now, too. And it is his responsibility to insure that he informs them that he'd like it to stay that way. If he is remiss in sufficiently conveying it to them, and they out him, they are justified insofar as the harm it does cause is negligible--as in the case of a successful fashion designer. If they act in ignorance and the harm is more than negligible, both they and the closet case are at fault. The ones whom he has entrusted with that secret are also ethically bound to not reveal it given the potential for harm to the individual and others that they can foresee--which makes outing in malice just plain wrong if it serves no greater purpose than to harm the one in the closet. The NYT was justified, as Wu did not fulfill his responsibility, and the alleged harm was not even quality of life threatening given the information available to put through the metric.

    A school administrator hasn't the option of outing a student who likely is both financially and legally dependent upon his or her guardians, and in which there is good reason to suspect that harm would accrue to that person given homophobia amongst peer groups, teachers, parents, etc. The same applies to students. But this needn't apply to all people as there's a big difference in social position between a forty year old closet case with a wife and kids and a high schooler terrified of being disowned and beaten up. Both of whom have a claim to their secret, but the potential for harm obviously differs. I think you're referencing a specific case that I, too, am familiar.

    Posted by: TANK | Jan 28, 2009 11:46:20 PM

  7. i love how this has become an ongoing process of showing how jason wu was never in the closet to begin with.

    Posted by: Ian | Jan 29, 2009 11:33:46 AM

  8. @tank: thanks for your response. your thoughts on "the closet" are more nuanced than i originally interpreted them to be.

    as i mentioned earlier, i have doubts about this rumor...

    Statement from NY Times Style editor Trip Gabriel: "During his reporting, Eric Wilson asked both Wu and his partner, Gustavo Rangel, if it was okay to mention in print that they were a couple. They both consented."

    Posted by: justcurious | Jan 29, 2009 1:37:21 PM

  9. explains why the first lady looks so much like a guy? could she really be a drag?

    Posted by: dinob | Jan 2, 2010 6:03:56 AM

  10. « 1 2

Post a comment


« «Washington State 'Everything But Marriage' Bill Introduced« «