Why would Out Magazine send a straight male reporter to Hot Nude Yoga?

Typical Out.  If it wasn't bad enough that they put straight people on the cover 10 times more often than gay people now we are getting trashed in the articles.  They have no shame.

Because Out is a lousy rag now. If you want a little of everything read Instinct which is my favorite and Genre is a close second. 

Incredible that a magazine that calls itself OUT sends what is probably a pathetic closet queen to do this story. If he's so straight why was he afraid his penis "might betray him and get aroused." What, there aren't enough gay free-lance writers/journalists to go around?

If this was OUT's attempt to be "open-minded" by assigning a straight-identified guy, it sounds like it back-fired badly. There's absolutely nothing "heterophobic" about a gay magazine using writers and reporters who have an open -- out -- understanding of gay men and gay life. 

 

 

The issue's straight focus is not isolated to the HNY piece as it also profiles a straight fitness model, who does not even use his real name nor discloses his sexual orientation in his video/blogging platform at one of the most popular gay hardcore picture and video websites.

As was the case with the HNY piece, it left me thinking if Out could not find a single proudly-out gay fitness model available to give him a little press? At least doing that would have some correlation with the magazine's name.

I gave up on Out a long time ago.  Their propensity for putting hot straight men on the cover and then trying to justify it inside in a article wherein the straight hunk a) emphasizes how straight he is and b) emphasizes how gay-friendly he is, just really began to annoy the hell out of me and I couldn't take anymore.

We don't need any straight writers, straight story subjects or straight anything in our magazines.  There is no crossover appeal into the gay magazine arena and it's not as if any straight men are ever going to start buying copies of Out or (unthinkably) subscribing.  So this is one case where there's no point to diversity.

Maybe the fools at Out thought that their readers would find humor and/or titillation in the idea of a straight guy going to HNY?

http://rjr10036.typepad.com/proceed_at_your_own_risk/daily_dose_of_yoga/index.html

It's a story about nude yoga! Please leave your outrage at home. It's a magazine, not a manifesto! As for Evan's criticism, he's clearly not a reader. I am, and here's the list of covers since I began subscribing to the magazine: July 2007: Mika - gay; August: Nate Berkus - gay; September: Mark Jacobs - gay; October: John Barrowman - gay; November: Tom Ford - gay; December: Bill T. Jones, Thom Browne, Bryan Batt - gay, gay, gay! (Plus Mary-Louise Parker and Jennifer Hudson, not gay but we love them). As for comparing Instinct to Out... Instinct reads like a magazine that is put together in someone's bedroom, and is so desperate for bona fide homos that it puts gay reality contestants on the cover. i'd rather have straight guys on the cover that are interesting and relevant to my life than some dude who made third round on Project Runway.

We're here, we're queer!  OK...geez.  I read the article and thought it was very witty.  Let's remember the target audience for Out.  It's gay people, right?  I don't think this article (or this magazine) has much influence on straight people's views of the homosexual lifestyle...so I wouldn't worry about that too much.  I actually find it interesting and humorous to get a straight guy's take on a gay experience.  I'm fairly confident that Aaron was thrilled to have a profile done on his business, even if the journalist was straight and poking a bit of fun at it.  I'm happy that Out seeks to present views from both sides of the fence.  I'm also happy that magazines like Details (whatever one may think of it journalistically) are willing to show their queer sides once and a while (OK...frequently, in the case of Details).  This is entertainment, guys, not the HRC quarterly review.       

I originally wrote about this article almost a month ago as I found it neither funny nor instructive. I am not even that hard to please. You say that you found it “witty.” Did you author it or are in any way related to either Out or Details magazines? I am playing Nancy Drew here, but what’s a first-time poster doing addressing the responses of a month old blog entry? I am just asking some questions.

I hope that no one reads Out expecting an academic journal nor an “HRC quarterly review” of sorts, but simply to see some well-photographed guys, good graphics, color, wit, a little irreverence. It also would be nice for the magazine to showcase the work of talented gay men, and there are at least a dozen I can think of who could have gotten some mileage out of the experience for the readers and maybe even gotten laid to boot.

I didn't even notice the dates, and I wouldn't have known that it was a faux pas to comment on such an "ancient" topic (this is not a typical activity of mine).  I was led to this by the author of the original blog post, who is a fellow HNY member who mentions this in his bio.  I happened to have read the article very recently and just thought I'd throw in my two cents.  No offense, but it just surprised me that all the posts were so negative.  That said, I'm glad there are people like yourself who are passionate about the gay community. Keep it up.      

I get where you are coming from. This site greatly benefits from the contribution of people with different perspectives. I actually like it when people are articulate in expressing their feelings about almost any subject.

A few weeks back I went to see a play with four other guys. They loved it. I hated it. When asked what I thought, I turned it around and got them talking about why they liked it. I finally gave me opinion and they were shocked that I at least did not think that it was ok.

Since no one was trying to convince the other that they were wrong, it was nice to hear and express the reasons behind the opinions. No offense on the feedback. Maybe I'll run into you when I make my first visit to HNY in the next couple of months. I do agree that Star could not buy better publicity, but there are others who are ready to pounce on the writer if they run into him.

I just wish that Out was more frothy and, with a name like Out, there are some implicit expectations on my part that it will all about the gays.

How about giving us your perspective on HNY as you are a member and no one can give a better perspective than an insider. Do you think it has any yogic benefit? Just another avenue to get naked some some guys? A little of both? None? Something else?

Thanks for your feedback and participation.

I loved your piece! I'm not a regular reader of OUT, just grab it occasionally when I'm in the US, so I'd missed that article of theirs.

I love yoga, I'm gay, I find it very natural to practice yoga naked; so really there's nothing weird about HNY. Anybody with some yoga experience will understand that clothes just get in the way.

There's no logic to sending a straight reporter to test an openly gay group, other than trying to get a sensational headline? Who cares what a straight guy thinks of a gay group?

Anyway, thanks a lot for exposing that article for what it is!

Namaste

Thanks for the update on OUT. I remember buying the first issues of OUT when it first came out, maybe I had a subscription, but that was enough for me. Too, fluffy. I can pick up bar rags for free and read the same thing.

Yes, there are plenty of gay free lance writers available. Most of them are engaged in writing about the war, or taxes, or the election. The few gay, free-lance, hack writers must have had too much self respect to write an article with such a stupid angle. So, yeah, they had to go with a straight, free-lance writer, who didn't knowany better.

I love the idea about the Jane Goodall angle, that's what an editor does. You should be editing OUT.

.