The Ethics of Outing.

[Sfmike64]

And neither your father nor your current partner were people in positions of power. 

That's the crux of the difference, to me. 

In 2010, George Rekers, a prominent Baptist and proponent of "conversion therapy" torture was found to have employed a handsome young sex worker to go on a trip to Europe with him. Were people supposed to just pretend that wasn't happening in full view of the world? He claimed the young man was there to "lift his luggage." So that became a hilarious cliche and Rekers was forced to resign from the "conversion therapy" torture organization (NARTH) he had founded. He was ruined.  Rekers was also one of the founders of the nasty Family Research Council, which is virulently anti-gay.

Is that a bad thing? I certainly don't think so. He was telling gay people they could "change" through their devotion to Jesus n stuff while at the same time getting dicked by a pretty rent boy. He's human garbage. 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Sfmike64

[norefusal]

i don't out people in my everyday life. if i choose to continue to deal w them i differer on an individual level. for ex: i'll have sex w a married "str8" guy and have 0 interest in his personal decisions. i kinda get the "this is just sex, not my identity or my life" aspect of it. however a gay guy i once slept w who after told me he was closeted just cause it helped his business i got mad at an never saw again. to me this was cowardice. i'm out an although it may have hindered me professionally this is the price i was willing to pay for the sake of equal rights. 

[ErosWired]

58 minutes ago, norefusal said:

ex: i'll have sex w a married "str8" guy and have 0 interest in his personal decisions.

When we look at this issue from a perspective of personal ethics, it’s often because someone feels personally conflicted by what he perceives as another person’s compromised ethics. He may see a ‘straight’ man in a bathhouse, and know that the guy has a wife and children, and think:

That guy is being dishonest with his spouse, likely putting her at risk for STIs, and putting his selfish desire for mansex over his vows and his responsibility to his family. Shouldn’t someone call him out on it? Doesn’t his wife deserve to know?

…and consider outing him while he’s fucking him.

That is unethical.

Unlike ass, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. If a man feels strongly that another guy’s behavior is ethically questionable, he cannot participate in or otherwise encourage or support that activity and still judge it.

Now, does the corollary to ‘not support’ mean ‘actively act against’? That’s a different set of ethical considerations, involving a right to personal privacy and the potential responsibility for unforeseen and unintended consequences.

 

[viking8x6]

Well, after cogitating on this for a long while about 4am, I can't exactly say "I slept on it", but I have a bit of different perspective, which may seem to some like hair-splitting, but here goes:

ethics are the societal rules within which we are acting (or which we are flouting). There are two sets in operation here:

1. The "old" ethics of the repressed anti-gay culture of the 1950s, as derived from roots in puritanism and Victorian society. These are the ethics that the closet case promulgates and purports to live by. By these ethics, there's nothing wrong with outing him; in fact, we are expected to do so.

2. The "new" ethics of the sexual revolution and the modern LGBTQ+ movement. These are the ethics that many of us here (including the site owner) promote. By these ethics, there's nothing wrong with outing him, because there's nothing wrong with him being gay, nor even with him having fun outside his partnership (as long as the partner permits that).

So the problem with the outing isn't really an ethical one. It's a moral one.

morals are our individual ideas of right and wrong, from wherever each of us derives those. They might align with the ethical codes to which we subscribe, and they might not. And that can vary on a case-by-case basis.

Is there anything morally wrong about outing the guy? It seems to me that the question here is whether it's OK to create trouble in his life (public and private) because he's a hypocrite whose actions promote an ethical code with which we personally disagree while flouting that ethical code himself in his private actions. Ironically, if we align our morals with the ethical code he's promoting, that's OK (an eye for an eye). But if we align our morals with the ethical code that says gay is OK, we're much more likely to say outing him is NOT OK (judge not, lest ye be judged).

 

[Leatherman667]

Why out anyone? I know clergymen who never attack gay men or preach against gay activity!  Why out them? It’s wrong, ethically wrong! I cannot understand why anyone would want to do it. As for politicians, if they are anti gay, deal with it in your conversations with them. If they don’t listen then out them, if you want. I find this whole thread off putting. I would never out anyone. 

[hntnhole]

17 hours ago, ellentonboy said:

This "holler then though"attitude needs to stop

None of these responses seem to reflect any "holier than thou" attitude, in my humble opinion.

As many threads seem to do, this one has evolved from one plain old regular guy sneaking off to the tubs, to a gay, closeted public figure using his/her public position to attack the same folks he/she sneaks off to have sex with, and that's what makes the difference from where the thread started, and where it evolved to.  

Rather, the responses in favor of a "situational ethics" issue reflect the instinct to serve justice upon someone whose soul is so corrupted, they have compromised the privacy they so noisily compromise in others.   If a closeted public figure rails against "the gays" in a public way, he or she is acting out his/her own self-hatred by condemning all the others like her/himself, which invites some measure of counter.  

I do not condone, and have never "outed" some regular guy - married and cheating - or cheating on a boyfriend - or anything similar.  The issue the above respondents are reacting to has evolved to addressing justice upon those who are one of us, yet seek to harm us.  I think it's healthier to be open and honest in my own interactions, but that's only my personal bent.  

That said, we're still buddies, yeah?

[norefusal]

let those among us without sin cast the first stone. 

can any of us, especially us older guys, honestly say we never once ever tried to pass? there was a time when it seemed like basic survival. 

and as for the closeted guys at the bathhouse: isn't the whole point of anon sex to avoid all such conundrums? i don't relish the idea of suckin maga dick but im sure it's happened 😜ignorance is bliss imho 

[Hottightass4u]

Be careful what you wish for.

[Bimarried001]

I am a dl married man and I know many other dl married men that hang in gay venues. Most guys enjoy the company of these married men. We frequent these places because we feel safe. 
But if word gets out that dl men are being outed you will certainly see a drop. But my question is why? Why out ordinary non public figure dl men? 
What are gay men gaining by doing this?

[backdoorjimmy]

On 9/17/2023 at 3:06 PM, brnbk said:

Is it ever moral to out a gay man?

I'd say no, but there are times when people are justified in not following the moral code of never outing someone

 

On 9/17/2023 at 3:06 PM, brnbk said:

Some cases are easy to judge, say instances where a politician or preacher is having gay sex secretly while preaching or legislating against gay people and homosexuality. However a same person, choose to be closeted, say a politician who is gay or bi and is in a marriage (heterosexual) but his routine  involves mid-week trips to a gay bathhouse, is it ever OK to let the public know. 

I'd definitely say these are about the only times when it's okay to out someone. Or maybe if someone isn't outspoken on the issue, but they're sexually assaulting men. Then it's okay to out them, too.

Outside of the above scenarios, when I think about people being outed against their will it feels like a theft of sorts. They're being robbed of their right to remain private and their decision to come out at a time of their choosing, or not at all. I remember reading that Harvey Milk was one of the people who outed Oliver Sipple, the man who saved the President's life in the 1970's.

It felt like a gut punch just reading about how he begged to not be outed, only to have it happen anyway because these people decided it was more important to showcase a gay hero than for the man to have the choice to remain closeted. It ruined his life in many ways. His family disowned him and he wasn't even allowed to attend his mother's funeral (that's on the family, but again, his choice to prevent this was taken away). I can't imagine his despair - he died alone in his apartment and was so isolated that they didn't find his body for 10 days. 

[TaKinGDeePanal]

I look at it with a "do no harm" perspective. Unless their decisions are ones that are going to hurt those in the LGBTQ+ community, their private lives should remain private. However, the moment they cross that line, they are fair game.

[ErosWired]

12 hours ago, viking8x6 said:

ethics are the societal rules within which we are acting (or which we are flouting). There are two sets in operation here:

Only two? And two sets of societal rules that happen to agree that, for varying reasons, outing someone is not unethical? Therefore we are to understand that regardless of whether we happen to be from one era or the other, our community’s societal rules sanction outing as perfectly acceptable?

I’m afraid I don’t buy it. There are many layers of interaction, unspoken agreement, and tacit mutual consideration that comprise the social contract that undergirds society. One of the fundamentals is to do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you. Because this is a matter of equivalent social exchange that promotes parity between individuals - thereby discouraging or de-escalating conflict - it becomes part of the fabric of social expectation. More, it’s a rational framework. These features place it within the scope of ethics.

So one must ask oneself, “How would I react if I were the one being outed?” How many people would shrug and say, “Meh - I’m good with it.” Precious few, I’d say. From this perspective, is it ethical to force someone into a situation if you would object to the same treatment? Objectively, and considered in isolation, it is not.

[hntnhole]

15 hours ago, Bimarried001 said:

Why out ordinary non public figure dl men? 
What are gay men gaining by doing this?

That doesn't make sense to me either. As far as I can tell, they gain nothing, and only compromise their own self-esteem by some measure.   

[hntnhole]

Interesting subject matter: there aren't any cast-in-concrete answers to the question, and it implies degrees of harm to the 'out' GLBT+ communities (apologies if I left anyone out). 

Some married guy that sneaks off to take loads once in a while is one thing.  No one's business but his own. 

Some gay politician that attacks gays/lesbians publicly, and then sneaks off to the tubs to fuck - or some cleric that thunders from his pulpit against gays/lesbians and then sucks off  the altar boys is something else entirely.  When no one but the conflicted guy is harmed by his behavior, there's no harm to either the gay community or the public perception of us.  In that case, let the alleged "outer" stew in his own juices until one fine day he (hopefully) wakes the hell up. 

I vote for live and let-live, until the closeted guy opens his mouth, publicly condemning his own kind to whatever self-centered end his fevered mind can dream up.  Publicly demonizing any group of folks is, by definition, an open invitation to an equally public response by the attacked community.  Those who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones in the first place.  

Edited September 19, 2023 by hntnhole

[viking8x6]

11 hours ago, ErosWired said:

Only two? And two sets of societal rules that happen to agree that, for varying reasons, outing someone is not unethical?

 

 

Well, I did say I was splitting hairs. I chose what appear to me to be the two dominant paradigms in American society with regard to perception and treatment of homosexuals.

Quote

One of the fundamentals is to do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you. Because this is a matter of equivalent social exchange that promotes parity between individuals - thereby discouraging or de-escalating conflict - it becomes part of the fabric of social expectation...

So one must ask oneself, “How would I react if I were the one being outed?” How many people would shrug and say, “Meh - I’m good with it.” Precious few, I’d say. From this perspective, is it ethical to force someone into a situation if you would object to the same treatment? Objectively, and considered in isolation, it is not.

You are perfectly correct here, and I completely agree.