2010-2011 Out Covers

Out has the highest circulation of any gay, nationwide, monthly publication (is there any other gay, nationwide, monthy publication, other than maybe Details?), due in large part to the celebrities on Out’s covers over the past two years. Here they all are:

(Note: February 2010 had an unknown swimsuit model on the cover, January 2010 was part of the December 2009 “Best Of” double issue featuring Cyndi Lauper and Adam Lambert, and the most recent December/January issue was also a “Best Of” issue and featured  Julianne Moore on a horse; I left those covers out.)

Twelve issues, starting in March of 2010 with Ewan McGregor and ending with Adele’s May/June issue directly above. Nine of the twelve–or, 75% of the issues–have straight men and women on the cover; just three (Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Cheyenne Jackson, and Tom Ford, who I see is kissing his boyfriend on the cheek, not the lips) have openly gay men. Sorry, no lesbians, bisexuals, or trans. I’m told that the current July issue, featuring an openly straight and openly shirtless football player on the cover, has started a Serious Conversation (as serious as conversations prompted by shirtless football players can be) about homophobia in sports among straight people on, uh, ESPN.com message boards. Fine. Explain to me how Out is a gay magazine that celebrates gay people.

 
ADDED: In response to some of the comments:

The “bitter attempt” I’m making (that’s what someone called it in the comments below) is not to create controversy (if I wanted to create controversy, talking about Out would hardly be the way to do it), but rather to point out that the most recognizable gay print publication in the country is not interested in showing a national, mainstream audience who gay people really are. And that’s fine. Out can be whatever kind of magazine it wants to be. And the argument that straight people lending their voices to the gay community helps gay people become more accepted may be true, in a horrifically sad sort of way. Is that why/how you want to be accepted–because of a celebrity who otherwise homophobic people think they can relate to? Is that what it’s come to, gaining validation via a celebrity rather than who you are and what you have to offer? Do you have anything to offer? Are you okay with eventually being tolerated only because of Harry Potter?

Also: Openly and delightedly sexually objectifying straight, shirtless athletes on the cover of a gay magazine and then crying and complaining and demanding an apology when some other straight athlete uses the word “faggot”? Sorry, you can’t have it both ways.

18 thoughts on “2010-2011 <em>Out</em> Covers”

  1. looks like the Justin bond issue is missing from Aril-ish I think, Between Britney and Adelle. So you can give em and least one point for featuring a trans-gendered person.
    THe cover is worth looking up. Is great.

  2. So a lifestyle magazine needs to feature homosexuals on the cover to be considered relevant to gay people? Now that more than a little stupid.

    So let’s say a straight lifestyle magazine features a homosexual on the cover, what would we do then?

    How about the fact that the vast majority of models featured in DNA magazine are in fact straight.

    If you truly believe this Zach, call a spade a spade, and don’t just single out one publication.

  3. I read the post and did actually think, hey so they couldn’t find any out gays to profile in a large graphic way that is gonna stand out on a train platform or something; then I thought (I did have a subscrptn, actually eons ago to Out) well at least they are giving gay friendly, ok or gay dependant, people a platform to help our cause simply by saying, it’s just that basic; civil rights are civil rights…

  4. I think the major issue is that gay publications chose commercial interests over the so called “gay agenda” and use their media outlets to promote media that is done by straights that “might” appeal to members of the gay community instead of supporting media releases from gays for gays more. Also it might have left a bad taste in some people’s mouth when some media publications let closet cases declare their heterosexuality in a gay magazine. Though it was OUT that did that famous cover of Anderson Cooper and Jody Foster outing them when they never came out in public.

  5. Like the lyrics of an old Yes song “Don’t surround yourself with yourself” you move back two squares if the real world was not included; there may be 75% straights on covers but what is the percentage in the real world? I’m not saying improvements can’t be made, but is any publication perfect? As a further note, one commenter remarked that they didn’t know half these people, maybe now they do- nice of OUT to educate us, especially about our straight allies, since we are a minority we need all the support we can get for equal rights.

  6. I can’t think of a single person on the cover above who is not at the very least gay friendly. Daniel Radcliffe is in fact very gay friendly and has never shied from that. Darren Criss plays a gay guy on Glee. I’m guessing Ewan MacGregor’s cover issue was to promote the gay film he did with Jim Carrey. Kylie, Christina, Britney and Nicki would be nothing without their gay fans.

  7. Peter Everhard

    It is more than a little bit “unfair” to now blame “the economics of gay media” on the current owners of Out Magazine. The current owners of Out didn’t create this mess. In fact, I think one of the guys (if not THE guy) who came up with “the strategy of an advertiser friendly Out Magazine” is right now the “silent partner” of an allegedly “popular gay blog” (if you consider a blog devoted to gay marriage, dadt, Twilight and “Sex and The Fucking City” a gay blog).

    Since no one else stepped up to the plate to buy the mess left behind by the old Planetout gang, I think it is safe to say that there wouldn’t be an Out Magazine at all without Out’s current owners.

    1. the simple fact of the matter is that “The Gay Adult Community” is the entity that has let down Gay People. The Gay Adult Community has a quantifiable list of gay consumers and a legitimate right to claim that it represents x numbers of actual gay people. However,

      Instead of the Gay Adult Community stepping up to the plate and demanding to acknowledged and legitimate representatives of its gay consumers, Gay Adult has sat by and watched a handful of pathetic fuckers use the word GAY to hustle for charitable donations and every other kind of pity fuck they can get from Corporate America. AGAIN,

      Here Media is clearly sustaining an Iconic Gay Publication that absolutely would not exist without Here Media. What is the gay adult community doing?

  8. Daniel Radcliffe has donated millions of dollars to The Trevor Project. That’s why Out interviewed him. He was just given a Hero Award for his philanthropy dedicated to LGBT teens.

    COME ON Zach, what is your real beef with Out?

    Do you really not understand why Britney, Niki, Adele, Kylie and Gaga are on the cover of a gay magazine? Seriously? If they didn’t have millions of gay tweens/twinks supporting their careers, the wouldn’t HAVE careers. Have you seen any one of their concerts? Wall to wall gay.

    So clearly, they are of interest to gays which is why they are on the cover of a gay magazine.

    It seems like you’re making a mountain of of a mole hill or someone at Out pissed you off and now you’re putting them on blast (but not really because of the content of the mag)

    OUT magazine is a pop culture and style magazine targeted toward gay folks.
    All of the above are HIGHLY of interest to Out’s target.
    Not to mention there’s tons of gay stuff INSIDE the magazine.
    Out isn’t “Cat Fancy”, Out is supposed to appeal to a wide variety of diverse interests across the spectrum of gay folks.
    This just seems like an easy target thing.

    You mock other gay blogs for getting their knickers in a twist over nothing or over-reacting and I think you might be guilty of it here.

    Out, The Advocate, Instinct all have tons of gay content and employ tons of gay people (regardless of whether or not each issue has a lesbian, gay or bi person on the cover).

    If you don’t like the magazine, don’t read it but writing multiple posts on a blog that is supposed to be primarily about porn (though I know you write about other stuff as well) and tweeting epeatedly slamming out because it doesn’t do exactly what you think it should is weirdly obsessive about a magazine you claim to hate and think no one should be reading.

    I mean let’s be real, how exactly does it effect you or The Sword if folks read Out Magazine? They aren’t even the same kind of media so it’s not like you’re in competition and Out isn’t promoting homophobia or anti-gay rhetoric so what’s the real beef?

    I don’t get why this in particular seems like such a big deal to you.

    When you break it down , it makes sense for every one of those people to be featured in OUT (for different reasons).

    1. I pretty much agree with everything you said, Pickles.

      And, I’ll also add that these posts about Out magazine come off as a bitter attempt to create controversy over a non-issue. Out is a magazine, not a LGBT advocacy organization. Their mission is to sell magazines. Guess what sells magazines: celebrities on the cover. As Pickles wrote, Daniel Radcliffe is a huge ally to the LGBT community. He’s certainly done more than enough good through his association with the Trevor Project to warrant a cover.

      My opinion: The Sword should stick to porn.

      1. The “bitter attempt” I’m making (that’s what someone called it in the comments below) is not to create controversy (if I wanted to create controversy, talking about Out would hardly be the way to do it), but rather to point out that the most recognizable gay print publication in the country is not interested in showing a national, mainstream audience who gay people really are. And that’s fine. Out can be whatever kind of magazine it wants to be. And the argument that straight people lending their voices to the gay community helps gay people become more accepted may be true, in a horrifically sad sort of way. Is that why/how you want to be accepted–because of a celebrity who otherwise homophobic people think they can relate to? Is that what it’s come to, gaining validation via a celebrity rather than who you are and what you have to offer? Do you have anything to offer? Are you okay with eventually being tolerated only because of Harry Potter?

        Also, there is something truly insane about openly and delightedly sexually objectifying straight, shirtless athletes on the cover of a gay magazine and then crying and complaining and demanding an apology and losing your shit when some other straight athlete calls you a faggot. You can’t have it both ways, ladies.

  9. If they focused on gay issues, showcased lesbians and had homosexuals on the cover, it wouldn’t make any money.

    It’s publication that reaches out to mainstream America. It has to turn a profit to exist.

  10. As a 100% gay man, I’m not a fan of any of these people, I hardly recognize almost half of them. Ewan McGregor is the only exception, and that’s because he was Obi Wan in Star Wars

  11. Billy Joe has gone on record several times backing away from being labeled bisexual. It’s funny how gay people still try and claim him.

    1. He did once say that he was bisexual, but he’s been married to the same woman since 1994 and they have two kids. So, uh, yeah.

    2. And aside from that, he’s definitely been an ally of the community. I mean, Green Day did take Pansy Division on their first major label arena tour. So, even if he’s not actually making snugglebunnies with other men, I’d argue that Billie Joe has some kind of Queer Media bona fides.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 50 MB. You can upload: image. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Scroll to Top