Anderson Cooper decided to throw his hat into the ring over the whole "Did she or didn't she?" fracas in terms of Beyoncé's recent performance during Obama's inauguration.

Although one may have expected him to perhaps have a giggling fit, he was able to contain himself and applauded her performance, no matter what it turns out to have been.

Anderson Cooper decided to throw in his own two cents on the recent Halifax mayoral run. Mr Cooper's choice: Tuxedo Stan, a cat (unofficially) running for the Tuxedo party, on a platform to have stray cats spayed and neutered. In his piece on the Ridiculist, Cooper states that he wishes he was invited to a dinner party in Canada, where the topic of a cat running for mayor becomes a good idea. I have a better idea, Mr Cooper. Come to dinner at my house, we can discuss the issues in Halifax's mayoral race, and then you can host a debate between the candidates.

Let's do it.

On Monday, July 2, a glass closet was quietly shattered.

Yesterday, Andrew Sullivan published a letter he received from Anderson Cooper, in which he writes, "The fact is, I'm gay, always have been, always will be, and I couldn’t be any more happy, comfortable with myself, and proud."

In the hours that have since passed, Cooper's discussion of his private life has become newsworthy. Here are some of the more interesting takes on the matter.

***

Over at Gawker, a timeline of Cooper's "open secret." The guys at Gawker are kind of obsessed with Cooper. Their former writer Brian Moylan touches on the subject. 

Michael Musto chimes in, considering he had somewhat "outed" Cooper a few years ago.

The HuffPo has an interesting op-ed on why Cooper's coming out is a big deal, while the National Post says, "Nah."

Oh, and a conservative writer decided to make an interesting joke of the whole thing.

Speaking of jokes, those crazy kids at Next Media Animation even took it on.

And perhaps most interesting of all, Kathy Griffin speaks up about why she never outed her New Year's Eve co-host.

No, really he does.

On last night's segment of The Ridiculist on Anderson Cooper 360, Cooper decides to deride Dyngus Day.

Apparently Dyngus Day is a real thing, a day celebrated mostly by people of Polish origin, to celebrate the end of Lent. Cooper keeps it together rather well during his segment, but upon the mention of pussy willows, he loses his shit and starts to giggle. For over a minute. Though "titter" really is the better word, don't you think?

It reminds me of a scene in John Waters' Serial Mom. 

I can never look at pussy willows seriously since I saw that movie. And now, since I have seen that moment, perhaps, even Anderson Cooper. Because he titters like a girl. But then again, when I can't stop laughing, I sound like Muttley from Wacky Races.

Personally, I hope Anderson has a really good sense of humour and puts himself on The Ridiculist for his laugh. I'll gladly join him.

Sullivan operates a site called STD Carriers (note: since his appearance on Anderson, I have had some difficulty accessing the site, no doubt due to bandwith issues on their end), which is a user-generated site/forum where people can post names and images of individuals they claim have various STIs, from herpes to HIV. Sullivan uses himself as an example of someone who has been victimized by someone who did not disclose the full extent of their sexual health, as he once dated a girl who had herpes. He has been quoted as saying:

It was based on a personal experience. I was dating some chick during college who didn't disclose to me that she had herpes. I was kind of upset about that, and I kind of created the site and put her on there as kind of like, the first person. It kind of made me look like I was looking for revenge, but I actually wasn't doing it for revenge.

I don't know Sullivan, or the person who purportedly gave him herpes. I don't know the extent of his relationship with this individual. But this all just feels a little bit like the "Burn Book" from Mean Girls.

As for Sullivan, he simply passes the buck, saying that he is not responsible for the content placed on his site, since he didn't put it there. However, he does offer to remove the information, with proof of negative test results. And for $1,000, he will also help you, using his other business, "clean up" your online search results. However, this may not help, because we all know that the internet is kinda forever (Google Cache, anyone?) but he defends himself from this by saying, "If somebody's on it, and I remove it, it's going to disappear eventually — unless some other people decide to search engine copy and post links to it."

Oh, and did I mention he also sells T-shirts on his site? Or the fact that he uses a biohazard sign when you use his search engine while you wait to see search results?

When I was single, I would treat any sexual partner as a possible risk. As a cisgendered gay male living in the 21st century, there are a number of sexually transmitted infections a person can get from various acts. You can minimize (not eliminate) those risks by choosing to do or not do certain sexual acts. You can wear condoms to lower the risk of HIV transmission, but that doesn't eliminate the risk of infections that are obtained through skin-on-skin contact. Or you can choose to only have oral sex, but you can still contract various STIs in your throat if you choose to do so without a condom. I accepted those risks every time I had sexual contact with another person.

Disclosure, especially when it comes to one's sexual health, is a very difficult thing to do. It's also a touchy subject in Canada, when nondisclosure can even be viewed as a criminal activity. To come out and say that you are HIV-positive, or have herpes or HPV or hep C, can affect a person's life in all sorts of ways. I can't speak to those effects on a personal level, as I have not had to deal with those things. But I have received calls and had conversations with individuals who disclosed to me that they had tested positive for various STIs, and I have had those conversations with other people as well. But these conversations are private matters.

We as a society shame individuals who have STIs. Sullivan's site is nothing more than a sexual witch hunt, all in the name of "protecting" people and "providing a service." It seeks to shame people who have next to no way to defend themselves. And on top of it, Sullivan is profiting from the shaming of the individuals who are listed on his site.

There's only one person here who should be ashamed, and that's Cyrus Sullivan.