Indegayforum article on Attention Whore.. er.. I mean Adam Lambert

Comments

jeff's picture

eh

http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/32011.html

---
"People who are happy are slugs... They do not move the human race forward."
-- Camille Paglia, on Oasis

Lol-taire's picture

I'm pretty racked with

I'm pretty racked with self-loathing from time to time, but your Mattachine-Society-The-Shit-Years website is a bit much even by my standards.

David Bowie right, did this better in the 1970s. And he was a sexy beast. Not like that oddly dough faced, latter stage reality tv glam-rock redcoat.

I know the backlash is homophobic, but I almost bloody sympathise. Reality tv talent stars have the sex appeal just suppurate out of them, like the pus from a wound.

The problem isn't that he gave a bad impression of the sexually transgessive gay lifestyle, that puts middle America of it's dinner (good).

The problem is he gives an aeroplane meal version of sexual rebellion, that failed because it missed it's marketing appeal.

Pop music is meant to be stupid and sexy and annoy the other generation.

It's just three times reheated glam rock homoeroticism. My dad had David Bowie, I had Brian Molko (!), the kids get him.

Didn't think anything could be worse than Brian Molko.

The fact is if they hate the thought of you fucking- which they do- they will regardless of whether you promise them that you don't, you won't and you simply don't want to.

The straight audience (or the actually straight audience as imagined by advertisers and executives) already define the expression of our sexuality in the media. That would be your lot as neuter sissy camp and sexless. Our lot as sexy bisexual sirens, who kiss girls (and like it...) as though we've got a pair of repelling magnets in our pockets and one eye always over our shoulder.

So don't make it easier for them by mandating that we're all going to pretend not to have one.

We don't just want marriage licenses, we want real visability. We want a stake in our own culture (even you'd agree with that).

So we ask for it on our terms.

When my nan made my dad turn the telly off sometime in Essex in 1972, because David Bowie was cavorting about with Mike Ronson, she wasn't won round to tolerence by a Cliff Richard Christmas record.

But you know 20 years later when my mum and dad were watching Queer as Folk (UK version, obviously), she had to sit through it because the television buttons were in the hands of another generation.

We progress by pushing against existing boundaries, not by agreeing to new ones.

ElvenKnight's picture

meh

He can be as sexual as he wants. The point is that on American Idol he downplayed his sexuality for personal gain and now he is playing up to it for the same reason.

Lol-taire's picture

That wasn't the point

That wasn't the point though, was it?

That was only a bit of her point.

The meaty bit of her point was this bit:

"They are worried because they think gay life is exactly what you portrayed on the American Music Awards: focused on the kind of sex that turns people into animals (almost literally, in this case, with crawling dancers leading you on leashes), geared toward enticing children (ABC is a network owned by Disney, for heaven’s sake), degrading, rapacious, empty.

This is why mainstream America votes against gays, Adam Lambert. Not because of people who have families and jobs and bills and weddings. Because of people like you, who use sexuality thoughtlessly in order to advance your own agenda, instead of thinking about the very real consequences your actions will have on others’ civil rights."

In the end of course he's only doing what his pop svengalis of various stripes tell him. Which I think is a waste of a stage.

jeff's picture

Well...

This seems to be flawed logic. How could you downplay your sexuality a few months ago, and play it up now for personal gain, to win over the same audience with similar goals (winning Idol/selling records)?

---
"People who are happy are slugs... They do not move the human race forward."
-- Camille Paglia, on Oasis

ElvenKnight's picture

...

she's right insofar as to say that examples such as adam lambert's aren't exactly the best way to go about winning the struggle for hearts and minds. Bigoted/Uneducated folks who saw his performance could've s easily have said " See... this is EXACTLY why these people shouldn't have equal rights."

jeff's picture

And...

What kind of performance of Adam Lambert's would really turn them around?

I don't think it's anyone's goal to turn around bigots and uneducated people.

---
"People who are happy are slugs... They do not move the human race forward."
-- Camille Paglia, on Oasis

Lol-taire's picture

See, and that's what he

See, and that's what he second half of my post was about.

If we swap him with David Bowie for a minute- because Adam Lambert is gross and boring- then it really doesn't matter what they think when they see his performance.

Because they don't think better of us when they see neutured or acceptable depictions of lgbt people (like the camp sidekick, or the femmed up bisexual who only sleeps with men). All it does is allow them to file the gays away into a very narrow and uncomfortable little cultural niche. One that we didn't even agree to in the first place.

If the price of equal rights is that we shut up and live in a sort of transparent closet, then it's not really equality at all.

I think we need to be provocative sometimes. I think we need to be sexy and even alienating. Every old lady in the country loved Liberace, but he wasn't going to win rights for us. The Queen invites Cliff Richard over for Sunday lunch, but is he going to usher in our liberation?

You don't achieve equality on the bigot's terms. They don't mind you being their hairdresser. They don't mind me being wank fodder. But they mind if we speak up, if we act out.

And the acceptable models of heterosexuality are deeply fucked up as well. We don't want equality with that. I don't want to be equivilent to a straight woman (frying pan, fire).

We don't want to meet their standards. We need to create new standards.

You can only be shocked once.

Once they've seen it a few times, they won't even remember that it didn't used to be normal.

We can't creep up on them and expect that they'll get used to us that way. Bit by bit begging scraps tolerance. Maybe they'll let us shake hands across the bed like Brick and Skipper. Maybe they'll let us be in a film where we don't die in the end. Fuck off. Because that way, they'll always be shocked each time we ask for that little bit more.

We're not asking them nicely for tolerance.
If they don't accept us, it's not like we're going to magically become straight. If it's not a choice for us. It's not a choice for them.

If they find us disguting, we don't apologise and say we'll try harder not be to be next time.

They're right to be scared. We are, for example, redefining marriage- in the same that feminists have been redefining marriage for decades. And I know the that party line is that we're not a 'threat' to old ideas about men, women, relationships, marriage etc, but actually by definition we are. And that's good.

I don't think that all expressions and manifestions of gay sexuality blah blah blah are intrinsically good or never worthy of criticism anthing like that- it's just that the furore wasn't about the issues within gay sexuality, it was the problem of the existance and public expression of male male sexualilty at all.