Australia | GQ | Gus van Sant | Lance Black | News | Taylor Lautner

BigGayDeal.com

'GQ Australia' Apologizes for Suggesting Gays are Sexual Predators Who Can't Resist Hitting on Taylor Lautner

GQ Australia has apologized for an article they published about Taylor Lautner in which it explored rumors that he is gay, and asked whether director Gus Van Sant or screenwriter Dustin Lance Black hit on him at a recent business dinner.

LautnerFrom the article:

"No, definitely not," Hollywood's highest paid teen said when asked whether either Van Sant or Black made a pass. "I think they know I'm straight. But they're great guys. They're a lot of fun." Adding rather blandly: "It's not a coincidence that there was a writer, a director and an actor at dinner."

Black ripped GQ over the article:

Really Mr. GQ writer? I’m curious, will you be asking all of the handsome actors I’ve ever had the privilege of working with or meeting if I made passes at them as well? I’d love to be there when you ask Sean Penn that same question. Or, Mr. GQ writer, were you projecting your own unprofessional desires onto me and Gus? Perhaps? Or worse still, are you a homophobe? Above and beyond this clear attack on my character, I’m shocked that GQ would allow their writer to lean on the scurrilous, outdated stereotype that gay men are by nature sexual predators. I mean, would you have asked this same question if it were Diablo Cody and Kathryn Bigelow at dinner with Mr. Lautner? Leaning on lies, myths and stereotypes about gay people is hateful, harmful and outdated. It’s not the 1950s anymore GQ, it’s 2011 and it’s time to grow up.

GQ Australia has responded on its Facebook page:

Hi guys,

We’ve seen some of the comments floating around regarding our recent interview with Taylor Lautner and apologise if anyone was offended by anything in the article. It certainly wasn’t our intention to paint anyone in the story as a sexual predator. The point we were actually trying to push was that Taylor is irresistible to virtually everyone – regardless of sexuality or gender. Hence the film crew cheering at his shirtless scenes while shooting Twilight, and Mark Wahlberg deeming him better looking than Leonardo Di Caprio.

Taylor is an extraordinary young gentleman, and we can’t wait to see him achieve even greater success in the future. That’s why he’s on our cover – because GQ Australia prides itself on offering readers the best possible advice and insights that help you be modern, successful gentlemen. Whether you’re into fashion, food, fitness, pop culture, politics, travel, technology or cars GQ Australia strives to provide you with top-quality editorial content that allows you to make your own discerning choices.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Go Black!

    Posted by: hmhm | Oct 19, 2011 8:41:25 AM


  2. Australia is a very homophobic country. It's probably the only country in the Western world which does not allow gay marriage in any of its states or territories. It is miles behind the rest of the world.

    As for GQ, it's a pile of garbage with a puerile bent.

    Posted by: jason | Oct 19, 2011 8:49:20 AM


  3. That's not an apology, that's a dodge. Tell them where to stick it.

    Posted by: yonquersconquers | Oct 19, 2011 8:49:50 AM


  4. I would expect a vapid reply coming from a magazine that pushes the superficial, exclusively.

    Posted by: Your Mom | Oct 19, 2011 8:57:01 AM


  5. @Jason While its true that Australia does not currently allow same-sex marriage, I dispute that it is a very homophobic country. I sincerely doubt that it is any more homophobic than the US or many other western countries. There are homophobes all over the planet unfortunately, even in the most gay-friendly of countries. The US for example has nearly 300million people and still can only manage a tiny percentage of their states in support of same sex marriage. Australia is the same physical size as the US but has only approx 25million people and is moving towards gay marriage fairly steadily I think, certainly public polling supports it as a majority which means percentage-wise I think we are doing fairly well. The Labor Party are allowing a conscience vote on it at a federal level which means that supporting it may become part of the platform of the governing party. I dont expect it to happen overnight, but I am confident that Australia will definitely get there sooner rather than later.

    Posted by: OberonOZ | Oct 19, 2011 8:57:47 AM


  6. The old "we're sorry if anyone was offended..." apology. I will definatly not be buying Australian GQ in the future...oh thats right I already don't.

    Posted by: Grant | Oct 19, 2011 8:58:27 AM


  7. GQ Australia is run by intellectually challenged creeps.

    Posted by: jason | Oct 19, 2011 8:58:36 AM


  8. "Cars?" Australia GQ has cars?? I is jealous. What american no-car-having rag have I been reading?

    Posted by: ZOMG NATALIE TRAN | Oct 19, 2011 9:04:29 AM


  9. The classic non-apology apology. We're sorry if *YOU* were offended. Where they use the passive verb but the reader is actively "offended". How about being sorry for offending or being offensive instead passive aggressively insuating we're being overly sensitive. And the sales pitch at thhe end really twists the knife.

    Posted by: andy | Oct 19, 2011 9:18:48 AM


  10. GQ, FU.

    Posted by: Danny | Oct 19, 2011 9:29:04 AM


  11. What an insipid self-serving non-apology! I am so fracking tired of "sorry IF ANYONE was offended" That's not an apology. And if you don't know if anyone was offended then it's clear you don't think you owe anyone an apology. Next we'll hear "I'm sorry if anyone was offended by my non-apology." What a load of BS. On reading it over I begin to contemplate the possibility that the non-apology wasn't written by a human at all, but rather by some GQ-owned computer that they use to placate readers. Probably, just someone with a very small brain, however. In fact, while I do find the question inherently offensive, I think the apology is MORE offensive than the original question. Of course -- people don't read GQ for it's stirring intellectual content -- they probably don't READ it at all. What a waste of paper (and trees).

    Posted by: Alex Parrish | Oct 19, 2011 9:31:26 AM


  12. I've never seen an "apology" include as blatant a promotional blurb as this, "Whether you’re into fashion, food, fitness, pop culture, politics, travel, technology or cars GQ Australia strives to provide you with top-quality editorial content that allows you to make your own discerning choices".

    They were exploiting any interest an "apology" would generate by using it to promote their magazine. How very sincere.

    Posted by: Dastius Krazitauc | Oct 19, 2011 9:37:15 AM


  13. Not an apology, I don't care about any aspect of this story but come on GQ, just don't say anything.

    Posted by: Fenrox | Oct 19, 2011 9:59:27 AM


  14. To be fair, Gus Van Sant creeps me out. But so does Taylor Lautner.

    Posted by: Gregoire | Oct 19, 2011 10:26:49 AM


  15. I'd find it very easy to resist hitting on Taylor Lautner and his gymbot body and that fugly face, with that nose that looks its met a few fists.

    Give me Russell Tovey or Sam Huntington any day.

    Posted by: Henry Holland | Oct 19, 2011 10:36:16 AM


  16. Black needs to be a lot less sensitive. They were just asking if one adult male was hitting on another adult male. If that defines "sexual predator" to Black, then it sounds like he is the one who is struggling with some (internalized) homophobia.

    Posted by: Bradford | Oct 19, 2011 11:15:41 AM


  17. That would be like hitting on a plastic blow-up doll.

    Posted by: jomicur | Oct 19, 2011 11:15:56 AM


  18. @BRADFORD, I think Dustin's problem was the insinuation that they would hit on a supposedly straight man. As a gay man I dont go around hitting on straight guys, though that is a common stereotype.

    Posted by: JWL | Oct 19, 2011 11:27:28 AM


  19. I love how that act as if Taylor is the one that needs to be apologized too, and completely ignore Lance Black when he is the one they insulted and fired back.

    Posted by: Top to Bottom | Oct 19, 2011 11:56:34 AM


  20. I will have to say I agree with alot of comments on here . What I learned years ago and I learned this from the last president Bush. You must look at the words used in the sentance and know what they all mean. Look up discern in the dictionary. I used my phone app " to distinguish mentally, reconize or as distinct or different , DISCRIMINATE . You call this a apoligy? You have to look at the words people.

    Posted by: Dan | Oct 19, 2011 12:15:02 PM


  21. "Australia" has a GQ Magazine? Bahahahahahahahahahaha ha ha ha ha... (catches breath)... BAAAAHHHahahahahaa!

    Posted by: Hollywood, CA | Oct 19, 2011 12:53:02 PM


  22. That's not an apology.

    Posted by: Rob | Oct 19, 2011 2:19:09 PM


  23. It's been said before but I have to agree that this is you're standard BS apology. I couldn't care less about Taylor Lautner, and it goes without saying that there are more important issues in the world that what crap lines the pages of Australian GQ, but come on!? Eventually "apologies" that deflect the onus back onto the people being apologised to should be result in a spell in the stocks. Either apologise or stand your ground!

    Posted by: Sean | Oct 19, 2011 2:52:51 PM


  24. Now I must issue an apology for writing you're instead of your. Now I hate myself.

    Posted by: Sean | Oct 19, 2011 2:54:31 PM


  25. Actually, NO they did not apologize.

    Their own statement said "apologize IF".

    When people use the word "if" it means they AREN'T doing something. They WOULD, "IF", but they aren't.

    I can understand if Fox news falls for this crap, but Towleroad should know better.

    Posted by: Randy | Oct 19, 2011 3:03:05 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «The Second Full 'Tintin' Trailer is Here: VIDEO« «