Did Kristian just come out?

milkboys Clips & Spots 13 Comments

I remember reading an article a few years ago on the Destroyer Blog that argued, that we should stop caring about the sexual preferences of teen idols. I can’t quite remember anymore what the reasoning was (and I can’t find the post either, get a search function, Karl! :p) but it made a pretty good point.

I do believe though that there’s also an argument to be made about how out teen stars can have a positive impact on the lives of other queer teens just by being an example, someone they can identify with.

In either case, it’s fair to say that this should always happen on the terms of the star, they should have the choice in the matter and be able to decide if they want their sexuality to be a topic of public debate or not.

That being said… I think Kristian Kostov of very recent Eurovision fame came out in a more or less subtle way in a video (that he actually made before the Eurovision finals) with Australian contestant Isaiah Firebrace:

Comments 13

  1. “I do believe though that there’s also an argument to be made about how out teen stars can have a positive impact on the lives of other queer teens just by being an example, someone they can identify with.”

    Absolutely. There’s so much negativity about homosexuality (even bisexuality to an extent) that it’s still necessary and will be for at least another generation (in America) that “certain types” of people “come out” and be recognized for themselves and press upon everyone that being gay isn’t any obstacle to having a preferred career. If someone in science (a celebrity of sorts) is publicly outed (by himself and not others), then it helps other gays recognize that they can be just like this person — a person of science that can do good and be recognized for such. That goes for all professions.

    When gays watch TV and look for “themselves” [professionals who are gay] but don’t see them on the screen or in any other media, then they begin to feel their worth is much less than a typical heterosexual. This is what can lead to severe depression and even suicides. The more homosexuals are not just accepted, but also looked up to in their careers — for their careers and not their sexuality — the less bullies will have any kind of real influence on the populace.

    And the primary source of derision of alternate sexualities throughout the world is “RELIGION” in all its concepts. PERIOD. The sooner a society can rid itself of “religions” and its charlatans, the better off a society will be for future generations. And I put “religions” in quotes because they really aren’t “religions” [which is only the belief and worship of deities], but instead, socio-political idelogies because their entire purpose and intent is to control all societies and accumulate as much wealth as they can.

    1. It’s not entirely true that religion is the primary source of derision of alternate sexualities throughout the world. The primary alternative sexuality throughout the world always always was, and still is, adult male attraction to boys, not “homosexuality” in the modern sense.

      The primary source of derision of adult male attraction to boys is equally gynocentrism and religion. Gynocentrism and religion feed off of each other. But just as important, adult male guilt over attraction to boys is a potent motivator of evangelical religion in the world. You cannot get rid of the influence of religions without getting rid of what motivates men to go along with it. You don’t seem to understand that, from your far-off vantage point, that it is not about wealth.

      So I think you have it inside out.

  2. “In either case, it’s fair to say that this should always happen on the terms of the star, they should have the choice in the matter and be able to decide if they want their sexuality to be a topic of public debate or not.”

    I agree and disagree with that statement. If said “star” has been vocal (whether by his words or influence in any way for legislation) against gays in any respect, then I’m in favor of a “forced outing” to show society their hyprocrisy. This particularly applies to religious people who have been instrumental for policies against gays, for example, Ted Haggard and those like him. And those hypocrites in our government as well — the same applies.

    1. Listen to what he says are his idols: Beyoncé (gay icon), Justin Timberlake (gay icon), Troye Sivan (gay). And at the end of the video he’s basically asking Isaiah out.

      I reckon he’s as open about it as he can get away with without getting into trouble with his label for turning off all the teenage fangirls that are buying his music.

  3. It was not a smart thing adding to the publicity about Kristian’s sexuality. He currently lives in Russia, haven’t you wondered why he wasn’t open about it given the current (potentially life-threatening) situation for gays there? This article is another forced unwanted outing, the more incomprehensible if we care for him. ;(

    1. How is this post an unwanted outing?? It’s literally just an official video with Kris. If he would be worried he wouldn’t have said any of the things he did so chill, he’s fine and he can take care of himself.

      1. I am not talking about the video, which is great, but about the publishing of it on a gay site, which gives more visibility to his sexuality and could potentially be used against him. Many kids like Beyoncé and Justin Timberlake, it’s not that part that matters.

        I am sure Kristian wouldn’t mind the association with MB in a different context, like living in a civilized country with decent human rights.

  4. I dont think that what they say at that moment in the video is that telling. However what they say at 3:54 is pretty much as close as you can get to saying “Im gay” without actually saying “Im gay”.
    I mean they literary exchange rings for fuck sake. XD
    I mean sure you can still play it as just a joke but you know how it often is with these kinds of jokes. Its kind of saying it and masking it as a joke for plausible deniability.

  5. Woody (and others who ‘think’ as he does):

    No, it’s YOU who has it inside out. You’re so brainwashed with your version of “feminism” that you can’t/WON’T see what’s really going on around you.

    “It’s not entirely true that religion is the primary source of derision of alternate sexualities throughout the world.”
    Yes it is, absolutely. Not only that, but it’s also the interweaving of “religions” and governments which create negative societies toward homosexuality and even bisexuality. And no country in the world is immune to this deadly virus. Don’t think it’s “deadly”? Look at all the countries that literally murder homosexuals and even in countries that “don’t,” there’s a high rate of suicides among gay teens (male AND female). That’s the very reason I say there’s no longer any such thing as “religions” but instead, are socio-political idelogies because their entire purpose and intent is to control all societies and accumulate as much wealth as they can.

    To argue this shows just how ignorant you are to this topic. And to prove my point (with your own words), you try to pawn your blame onto: gynocentrism*. And you’re too lazy and ignorant to actually look around you (in America, just as an example). I’m not going into more detail about this because I’ve done it already in responses to you … look back a few weeks or months in the comments between us.

    “You don’t seem to understand that, from your far-off vantage point, that it is not about wealth.”
    When I said “wealth,” I was referring specifically to socio-political idelogies which you refer to as “religions.” Socio-political idelogies cannot survive without wealth [being currencies, land and privileges] as its main policy. And a major part of their “wealth” is social structure and privileges which is woven directly into governments. Look at any theocratic society and these are the absolute roots.

    * Gynocentrism: “refers to a dominant or exclusive focus on women in theory or practice; or to the advocacy of this. Anything can be considered gynocentric when it is concerned exclusively with a female (or specifically a feminist) point of view.

    1. I’m afraid that you are the one who is oblivious to human history, to human sexuality, and also to what is going on around you today. Your reading comprehension is very bad. You continually avoid any notion that you’re actually read what I wrote. Anyone with a brain can understand that you don’t see what I’m trying to say.

      You want to say that “homosexuality” and “bisexuality” as you know it, are the primary “alternative” sexualities among humans? That’s a very narrow perspective of someone who is, to use your term, brainwashed by current political ideologies.

      There is no term for the dominant form of natural male sexuality, which is the simultaneous capacity for attraction to both women and to early adolescent boys. You being a complete dolt, cannot understand what I said about the significance of this on the balance between genders, and also on religiousity. You don’t have to agree with it, but not understanding what I said shows your arrogance.

      For men to love both women and boys is technically “bisexual” but has nothing to do with “bisexual” identity of today. The “heterosexual” identity of today is a social construction which began originally with gynocentrists, who abolished the practice of men loving boys at various points in each human culture. If you go back far enough, most men across the whole world loved boys, and only a few men had sexual relations with women.

      When cultures end the pattern of men loving boys and try to get men to love women instead, it drives men into religion. The major world religions were all, at various points, fairly tolerant of men loving boys, until gynocentrists upset the balance – mainly because when cultures became more wealthy and the economy supported the dissolution of old gender roles, women demanded more “freedoms” without reducing the obligations which men were required to fulfil. Sometimes all it took was removing the physical separation of men and women.

  6. They both are young, cute and kinda effeminate, but claiming this is “coming out” is way far fetched.

    They are answering fan questions and one of them happened to be about their relationship statuses. I guess the main question is who is engaged with Kristian, assuming the ring removed was an engagement ring. I don’t really care if he is straight, bi, gay or other, in any case it should be his decision to talk about that if and when he chooses.

Leave a Reply

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