What Just Happened to Rebel Wilson Is Not Okay
A PRIDE month memo: queer lives are not here for our entertainment.
I've said it before: actors do not owe us access to their entire lives, no matter how much some of us believe "they signed up for" zero privacy. Usually, though, I'm talking about the public’s behavior. It is unacceptable, for instance, when a so-called fan records a young actress at a shopping mall against her wishes. It's bad enough when regular people decide that a certain celebrity "owes them" something. But what about when it's the press that so rudely intrudes upon an actor's private life?
It's the sort of behavior many of us would attribute to some unscrupulous paparazzi, or to an overtly sensationalist gossip rag.
Sadly, that's not always the case.
Recently, The Sydney Morning Herald, a real and legitimate newspaper with millions of subscribers first attempted to "out" Rebel Wilson's romantic relationship with a woman, next published an opinion piece complaining that the actress cheated them of the story, and then ran a note denying they had done anything wrong at all.
Since June is PRIDE month for the LGBT+ community, many people assumed that Rebel Wilson's latest Instagram post about finding a Disney Princess was made in the spirit of celebration. In the post, Rebel wrote:
"I thought I was searching for a Disney Prince, but maybe what I really needed all this time was a Disney Princess."
The photo of Rebel and her girlfriend came as a big surprise to the public, but the tone of the post came across as happy.
It wasn't until the Sydney Morning Herald published this opinion piece, that people began to put the pieces together. Wilson's post was made in response to the newspaper's warning that they were going to out her same-sex relationship.
In the opinion piece, columnist Andrew Hornery took on a strange tone—part hero, part-jilted lover, but catty through and through.
Coming out, Rebel style.
In a perfect world, “outing” same-sex celebrity relationships should be a redundant concept in 2022. Love is love, right?
So, it was with an abundance of caution and respect that this media outlet emailed Rebel Wilson’s representatives on Thursday morning, giving her two days to comment on her new relationship with LA leisure wear designer Ramona Agruma, before publishing a single word.
Big mistake. Wilson opted to gazump the story, posting about her new “Disney Princess” on Instagram early Friday morning, the same platform she had previously used to brag about her handsome ex-boyfriend, wealthy American beer baron Jacob Busch.
She even had her “bestie”, the actor Hugh Sheridan, doing radio interviews on breakfast FM on Friday morning, during which he gloated about introducing the women to each other six months ago. Apparently, they had hit it off pretty much immediately but had kept the relationship under wraps.
Considering how bitterly Wilson had complained about poor journalism standards when she successfully sued Woman’s Day for defamation, her choice to ignore our discreet, genuine and honest queries was, in our view, underwhelming.
Of course, who anyone dates is their business, but Wilson happily fed such prurient interest when she had a hunky boyfriend on her arm.
This is understood to be Wilson’s first same-sex relationship, at age 42 and in an era when same-sex marriage is legal in many parts of the world and — thanks to decades of battling for equality — sexual orientation is no longer something to be hidden, even in Hollywood.Up to now, Wilson had identified publicly as a heterosexual woman.
It is unlikely she would have experienced the sort of discrimination let alone homophobia — subconscious or overt — that sadly still affects so many gay, lesbian and non-hetero people.
She and Agruma have grown very close in a short time. Wilson’s mother Sue Bownds, who lives in Sydney, recently flew to LA to meet Agruma, while the couple have openly discussed having a family and getting married.
Wait, so let's get this story straight. The Sydney Morning Herald asked Rebel Wilson to go on record about her current relationship which she's had "under wraps," and was given two days to respond before the newspaper published a photo of the pair and effectively outed their relationship.
The writer then has the audacity to complain that the actress "opted to gazump the story," aka, she chose to swindle them of the story by posting about the relationship herself. The nerve!
If there's any doubt about Mr. Hornery's true feelings of malice, he makes sure to bring up the actresses' defamation suit again Woman's Day, a more overtly shady magazine that basically called her a liar when they printed her real name (as if celebrities never take on stage names) and published unsubstantiated allegations from an anonymous former classmate about Wilson's background. (As if every one of your classmates knows your entire life story, riiiight.)
But Mr. Hornery didn't stop there. He didn't just bring up the defamation suit along with the suggestion she overreacted "considering how bitterly Wilson had complained about journalistic standards." He didn't stop at suggesting that she is, indeed, a cheat or liar.
The writer took it even further by accusing the actress of being all too happy to publicize her previous relationship with a man. He threw shade on Wilson for keeping her current relationship a secret, since "sexual orientation is no longer something to be hidden, even in Hollywood" and declared it "unlikely she would have experienced the sort of discrimination let alone homophobia..."
Really, dude? Your newspaper essentially forced her hand, and now you're complaining that she hasn't been a good sport about it, while making a dig that her response has been "underwhelming." None of that feels unsavory to you? None of it a bit... mocking or simply disrespectful?
Well, editor Bevan Shields has since followed up on recent events to defend his newspaper and writer, in A note on Rebel Wilson.
On Saturday, the Herald published an article about Australian actor Rebel Wilson and her new partner Ramona Agruma. The article ran online and was a small item on page 36 of Saturday’s print edition.
The article has promoted some public attention and I’ve been reading this feedback closely. In the interests of transparency I wanted to offer the Herald’s view on this issue.
Our weekly Private Sydney celebrity column last week asked Wilson if she wished to comment about her new partner. We would have asked the same questions had Wilson’s new partner been a man.
To say that the Herald ‘outed’ Wilson is wrong.
Like other mastheads do every day, we simply asked questions and as standard practice included a deadline for a response. I had made no decision about whether or what to publish, and the Herald’s decision about what to do would have been informed by any response Wilson supplied.
Wilson made the decision to publicly disclose her new partner — who had been a feature of her social media accounts for months.
Private Sydney is a column in which the writer’s interaction with his subjects is often part of the story. Saturday’s piece followed that theme in giving readers insights into our interaction with Wilson and her PR team. This was not a standard news story.
We wish Wilson and Agruma well.
Bevan got one thing right in that note. Technically, the newspaper didn't out Rebel Wilson. She made that choice and came out about the relationship herself. However, by insisting that the Sydney Morning Herald handled this situation like any other relationship, including any hetreosexual one, is a pretty cheap shot during PRIDE month.
The Sydney Morning Herald has chosen to exploit the story in any way they can, while talking zero responsibility for what they've chosen to print and what they threatened to publish.
One would think that any scrupulous writer and newspaper staff would know that handling a potentially closeted celebrity's queer relationship cannot be handled the same as a heterosexual one. Given that this is reportedly Rebel Wilson's first homosexual relationship, it stands to reason that her feelings about opening up a be talking about the relationship might actually be... complicated.
The writer essentially weaponized the strides the LGBT+ community has made in terms of equal rights and acceptance against Wilson, and then, he used the tired bisexual trope and prejudice that her actions are somehow incomprehensible.
For Bevan or anyone else to act as if Hornery didn't do that to Rebel is a prime example illustrating why PRIDE month even exists. We don't know the full story—we don't know how Rebel views or labels herself in light of her current relationship but even if she doesn't consider herself to be bisexual, the display of prejudice is apparent to outsiders like myself. Such prejudice gets perpetuated by people both outside and within the queer community. Sometimes, it happens with an air of misogyny, since female celebrities are typically scrutinized far more cruelly than their male counterparts.
And sometimes, if happens simply as a supposedly unavoidable byproduct of fame. The whole "but they signed up for it" argument.
As the story often goes, we don't allow celebrities to own their private lives. We don't wish to afford them their privacy.
All too often, we behave as if becoming a public figure in any sense of the word means relinquishing your basic human rights.
What's happened to Rebel Wilson is really a travesty. It's something none of us need to defend, and it's something none of us should ignore.
Celebrities do not owe us access to their private lives simply because they're in the limelight. And queer celebrities are not here for our entertainment. The Sydney Morning Herald clearly wanted to cash in on the supposedly "juicy" gossip that Rebel Wilson is suddenly dating a woman after decades of heterosexuality. The only way they're able to do that, however, because so many of us, the public, consider such news "salacious" and eat it up with wild abandon.
Likewise, many among us are guilty of ignoring the nuance and complexity of human relationships that we immediately jump to conclusions about a person's private life. "But she was so public about her last boyfriend?"
Yeah? And what of it?
It's always possible that she felt her hand was forced then as well. Or, it's possible that she could even regret being so open about her previous relationship. For some folks, transparency becomes a regret, the sort of choice that comes from a good place but winds up costing too much.
Again, we really don't know what Rebel Wilson's feelings are and why she chose to keep her relationship on the down low, but it was her right to do so. We're talking about an age-appropriate relationship between an actress and a designer. There are no known interpersonal power dynamics at play here to make the secrecy concerning. The power struggle here exists on a social level. What we feel entitled to get from a female or gay entertainer.
PRIDE month is not a mandate for every queer person to publicly "come out," and it's not okay to throw shade on a person who, from an outsiders' view, appears to be hiding in the closet.
What the Sydney Morning Herald did to Rebel Wilson is absolutely abominable, yet I can't help but feel that we,the public, are also partly to blame.
I’m still crowdfunding for my ongoing lipedema treatments and next surgeries. Please share the link to help raise awareness of the disease they call fat.
If you love my work and want to support my efforts to break cycles of stigma and shame through awkward honesty, visit me on Ko-fi. From there, you can follow and support my future projects, and subscribe to my newsletter.
For futher reading: