I’m exhausted by the uproar over Adam Lambert’s sexually charged performance on Sunday night’s American Music Awards.
It’s just so expected. Of course people freaked out over a dude getting sexual with another dude in such an aggressive way on national television. Of course they did. That’s what we do in this country. Unapologetic sexuality always upsets us, and when we see it on programs we assume are going to be vanilla (like the American Music Awards), then we get even more pissed.
And god forbid the sexuality on display should come from a woman. Or a gay man. America’s tiresome fear of sexual strength in anyone other than a heterosexual man can be predicted like the chimes on an obnoxious clock.
Sigh.
I watched Lambert’s performance, and it’s not even that remarkable. Years of absorbing the MTV Video Music Awards have inured me to the shock of leather and straps and what have you. Madonna gave this performance at the VMAs 19 years ago, and it’s got as much oral sex and overt gay-assitude as Lambert’s little show. I mean, really… Madonna’s cunnilingus is really overt. No wonder my mom didn’t want me to watch it.
And you know, of course my mom didn’t want me to watch it. And I can see why parents wouldn’t want their kids to watch Lambert. But here we are, same old America, still in a place where instead of saying “turn that off,” we say “Adam Lambert is going to hell, and so is Dick Clark Productions.”
Meanwhile, as my friend Casey pointed out to me, no one is angry about Lambert opening his set by pulling a woman across the floor. Because we don’t get mad about that. That’s a man treating a woman like a sexual object. That’s okay with us. Of course it is. And do the YouTube commenters ever say, “Don’t push your heterosexual nastiness in my face?” or “Do what you want in your bedroom, breeder, but don’t do it on TV?” No. Of course not.
Ugh. I’m exhausted and I’m frustrated. Dammit, people. There are gay people everywhere. No matter where you are in America, you are not far from a gay person right now. Maybe it’s time to accept that and stop being shocked and horrified and offended. You don’t have to think being gay is acceptable, but just shut up about it. No amount of hateful screaming is going to make gay people go away. No amount of outrage is going to get us off your television, so sit down, change the channel, and accept the fact that part of the beauty of living in America is that people have the freedom to do things and celebrate things even when other people don’t like them. If you can do that, then I promise I will not leave angry comments on YouTube videos that have the audacity to celebrate the things you like.
In other news, part of me wonders if any of this Adam Lambert brouhaha is sincere. I’m sure Lambert was at least partially aware that his actions wold ignite a maelstrom. I’m sure part of his act is a rebel posture. But I also feel like some people are just getting angry about this because they’re supposed to get angry, you know? Like, so many people in this country are conditioned to hate gay people that they just automatically bash something like this without even thinking about it. They’re mad, even if they don’t really know why.
And that’s just exhausting. And frustrating. To take my mind off it, I’m going to go enjoy Thanksgiving with my awesome friends, look forward to Christmas with my awesome family, and then maybe even kiss my awesome boyfriend in a public place.
18 responses so far ↓
1 BHL // Nov 25, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I was far more offended by the introduction to Eminem and 50 Cent in which I thought I heard someone (approvingly?) say that one of them had 12 rape convictions.
Also? Adam’s singing was waaay pitchy, dawg.
2 Casey // Nov 25, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Mark, thank you for voicing your appropriate outrage, no matter how exhausting it may be.
For me, this is the most salient point from your post:
“No amount of outrage is going to get us off your television, so sit down, change the channel, and accept the fact that part of the beauty of living in America is that people have the freedom to do things and celebrate things even when other people don’t like them.”
The commentary and backlash to Adam’s performance makes me sad and sick and tired. I am dismayed that, in two-thousand-effing-NINE, we are still screaming about three seconds of one boy kissing another. In the meantime, women are being dragged around stage, humping Adam’s leg, and descending from poles as he grabs at their crotches, and no one says a word about it.
The backlash is so filled with hypocrisy I can’t stand it. If you’re going to question the morality of the performance because of a homosexual kiss, don’t you have to question the morality of women being grabbed and humped and shoved around? Apparently you don’t, and you know why? Because, for all their outrage, the people who call the homosexual kiss “disgusting” find the sexual objectification of women titillating.
The reaction to Adam’s performance is both homophobic and mysoginistic. It’s just gross.
3 Christy // Nov 25, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Thank you… No, no. This deserves more than that.
Amen. Glory hallelujah!
I watched the performance, and was actually sort of underwhelmed. There was way too much performance, and not enough actual… singing. You know? I mean, Adam Lambert rocked my socks off on Idol last season.
Part of me thinks that he did this on the AMAs to put himself as FAR away from Idol as possible.
Yes, it worked. And honestly, I don’t blame him.
But I’m so sick of hearing about this I wanna scream. Why is this a big deal?
If Lady Gaga did the same performance, I don’t think people would have heard as much about it.
Sure, a few would be upset and vocal. (And most of them live here with me in the South… unfortunately.) But still… girl on girl sexuality is ok, right? Especially when both girls are hot. And scantily clad.
I’m not even gay and this angers me.
But what I think is this….
Adam Lambert is talented. People like him. And all those people that are afraid of change and people that are different …. Well, they’re scared.
On the other side, I think Adam did go a little over the top. Not because I was offended by it, but because well… he’s a singer. Um. Sing!
I was ready to be blown away with this performance, but I wasn’t. This was the real tragedy of it all.
But I like your idea. Please take a picture of your public display of affection. I will post it on my desk… at my office in Tennessee.
4 Meg // Nov 25, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Christy is right. Amen.
5 ferretrick // Nov 25, 2009 at 9:31 pm
But on the other end of the spectrum, he was just slammed by Out magazine because supposedly he wasn’t “gay enough.” http://www.out.com/detail.asp?id=26168
I think that editor will be shutting up now.
Seriously, its like damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. He’s slammed by our community for not being “gay enough,” whatever the hell that means. He gets slammed for being too gay on national TV. I think the whole performance was Adam’s “fuck you” to both camps.
6 Holly // Nov 26, 2009 at 2:36 pm
amen and hallelujah, brother man!!
i’m thankful for you and The Critical Condition!
7 Roommate Joe // Nov 27, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Wow, a couple days late to this particular discussion. But I think there’s a lot more to this whole “brouhaha” as you say than simple homophobia. Of course, that’s part of it — certainly the part that pertains to the CBS Early Show blurring double standard. But do I think I straight male could’ve shoved a female dancer’s face into his crotch like that without an unproar? Could Justin Timberlake have? Absolutely not.
Also, this brouhaha is exactly what Adam was counting on. I suppose I could get some satisfaction from seeing the moral outragers fall right into Adam’s trap, but it was that very crassness and cynicism on Adam’s behalf that led me to hate the performance so much. The kid basically walked off the stage and recorded an interview in which he pre-blasted ABC for censorship on the West Coast that hadn’t happened yet. It doesn’t make ABC any less culpable for that censorship, but don’t tell me it wasn’t exactly what Adam wanted.
And can he stop invoking Madonna’s holy name every three seconds? At least until he’s contributed to the cultural landscape one fraction of a percent of what she has?
I also love how he is now so willing to drape himself as a victim of anti-gay politics after he so conspicuously distanced himself from gay politics in the “Out” aftermath.
This whole ordeal has really made Adam’s immaturity — as a performer and a person — come to light. And that’s disheartening in the extreme.
8 Mark Blankenship // Nov 29, 2009 at 1:05 am
Hey Joe… I take your point about J. Timberlake. I guess no one could get away with miming fellation on the AMAs. And if this had happened on the VMA’s, then it would probably have gotten little controversial attention.
But while there are other things at play is this flare-up, the homophobia pisses me off the MOST. The whole ABC hypocrisy of not booking a man who kisses men, yet booking a man who beats a woman… ugh. And those YouTube comments. Awful.
While I don’t share in its intensity, I understand your Lambert-based cynicism. I need a week off from him… then maybe I can start paying attention to his music. Which ideally will be better than any stunt he pulls.
9 Lynne // Nov 29, 2009 at 2:57 am
Mark, didn’t you once say something to the effect that you “didn’t like anyone to be flagrantly sexual in public no matter who they were kissing”? That sounded reasonable to me and still does. Why do we have to be subjected to flagrant public sexual displays? Why can’t the flagrant-sexual-display-persons redirect their behaviors to more private arenas? Does everyone have to approve of and allow everything because we are all bowing to the altar of ‘freedom of speech and expression? I don’t believe that. There is plenty of behavior and speech which cannot and/or should not take place in public, or in private for that matter.
I thought Adam’s performance was disappointing on many levels and you may remember from past months I am a (vote-casting-by-the-thousands) avid fan of his. I think it was a woefully lame vocal when that is the very thing that should have been “So hot out the box” in this once-in-a-lifetime, debut performance in front of an audience of his peers and all of America. And I think, by his own admission, a pristine vocal was not his focus – confirmed when, after seeing his performance later, he stated he ‘wished he’d done a better job on the vocals’. Doesn’t that leave us with the fact that Adam primarily intended to present a very sexually charged performance that was meant to shock us and push the envelope? And even beyond that, perhaps to introduce an even newer, juicier ‘glam-sex-pop-rock’ genre of music than has ever existed before? I also was disappointed in his cop-out about the crotch rubs and Tommy-kiss later when he said something like…he was just trying to ‘keep in the spirit of rock and roll’. That remark just didn’t ring true and wasn’t up to Adam’s usual terse comments. Perhaps a higher road is still in the works for Adam…I will continue to hope for that.
A little poetic justice punctuated his performance when within minutes after his salacious crotch smashes and his own “Don’t trip off the glitz That I’m gonna display” lyric, he ironically trips and hurls himself into a barrel roll across the stage). …just sayin’…
Nothing new with all this – the sexual expressions keep getting more and more graphic whether boy/girl girl/girl or boy/boy. Did anyone think there wouldn’t be a buzz? The need for censorship just keeps getting ratified and challenged over and over again. Next year, or some day in the future, someone else will push the envelope further and Adam might become second page news.
You don’t have to think being gay is acceptable, but just shut up about it. No amount of hateful screaming is going to make gay people go away. No amount of outrage is going to get us off your television, so sit down, change the channel, and accept the fact that part of the beauty of living in America is that people have the freedom to do things and celebrate things even when other people don’t like them.”
What are you watching that you see enough instances of hateful screaming, or to the degree that it would chagrin your demeanor? Maybe we all need to ‘consider our sources’ because we will never get a full representation of reality (let alone truth) from any one ‘media’ source – mainstream or otherwise. Mark, I just hope you will remember that those fringe radicals who spew fear and hate do not and never will speak for a greater majority who may also think that homosexuality is (akin to being) unacceptable but also, though by gentler, more respectful methods, will not “shut up about it”. We all live in the same country where freedom of speech is a cherished right for all – not just for people who would celebrate homosexuality.
Maybe this other (non-hate-spewing) element is even more distressful or noxious to a pro-homosexual individual, I don’t know. I hope not. Can there be respect and friendship without full agreement and with certain boundaries?
I hope you had a relaxing Thanksgiving with your family and friends. I had some kind of weird bug that kept me glued to my recliner in front of my new 46 inch LED TV with blue ray DVD. Now, I’m doing way too much (cherry bonbon) couch time.
Best regards,
Lynne
10 Mike B. // Nov 29, 2009 at 10:30 am
Remind me again how Adam Lambert’s performance coincides with his philosophical stance about appearing in OUT magazine’s “Out 100″?
11 From the Blogroll XXVII: Catching Up Edition « Clyde Fitch Report // Nov 30, 2009 at 5:58 am
[...] The Critical Condition, Mark Blankenship pronounces himself exhausted with the controversy surrounding Adam Lambert, which is fair: the only person not exhausted by the sheer stupidity of it are homophobe [...]
12 Michael // Nov 30, 2009 at 9:05 am
Lambert’s performance was trashy, calculated, hate-baiting, and self-serving where one would have preferred for him to serve the music and his talent. Perhaps he was frustrated with all the nonsense about his queerness on AI and wanted to blast away his own earlier compromises, but to express that in this form was at best immature and ill-judged. At this point, I’m not even inclined to give him the benefit of that doubt: I think it was empty provocation.
The brouhaha over the kiss is, like almost all censorship, muddle-headed: if he had not been crotch-fondling and dragging a woman about at first, deliberately to offend, the kiss would not have gathered up all the collateral offensive energy–the storm would have been smaller, at least. Lambert played a two-man kiss as an outrageous act, which it need not be, and the nimrods took the bait.
Lynne: To insist on using one’s freedom expressly to limit other people’s freedom is unseemly.
13 Rube Goldberg // Nov 30, 2009 at 12:45 pm
“The brouhaha over the kiss is, like almost all censorship, muddle-headed: if he had not been crotch-fondling and dragging a woman about at first, deliberately to offend, the kiss would not have gathered up all the collateral offensive energy–the storm would have been smaller, at least.”
I agree with this viewpoint. This whole controversy seems like a rehash of the Janet Jackson incident, where the climactic moment that people are hanging their outrage on is a product of an environment that magnifies the moment. “Wardrobe malfunction” might have worked as an excuse if the rest of that halftime show wasn’t obnoxious/offensive/horribly performed.
14 Lynne // Dec 1, 2009 at 10:53 am
“Lynne: To insist on using one’s freedom expressly to limit other people’s freedom is unseemly.”
Michael – Before the hair on the back of my neck unfurls, I want to be sure I understand your veiled comment. Are you talking about the hateful, disgusting you-tubers that Mark mentioned and who would also bring out my righteous indignation and make me want to puke darts in their pimply faces? Because I couldn’t agree with you more – the honorable right of free speech is wasted in such trash talk and a little court-ordered duct tape would be a ‘seemly’ application of justice right over the mouths of each and every offender.
But IF on the other hand, you are talking about the wonderful, lovely, compassionately soft-spoken, mostly un-pimpled, rosy-cheeked me (and other well spoken interested parties) then I would have to take great issue with you and rightly so. What do you know of my reasons for speaking my mind? To imply that I do so to “expressly and insistently limit someone else’s freedom” isn’t a fair statement at all. And I think you know that. So I ask you point blank, are you aiming a little dart at me in an attempt to shut me up or somehow put me in my place? If yes, then I’m sorry for you that you think I deserve that.
Is it necessary for me to qualify my exercise of the right to speak freely by assuring you that I am vested in the discussion? Are you really so incredulous at the thought that I could be vested in such a way other than a goal to (which is the farthest thing from my mind and heart) “expressly limit other people’s freedom”. There are in fact several weighty and well-grounded reasons why I am vested I would be more than willing to tell them to you, but for the sake of brevity, lets just say I am searching for the truth. Would that admission alone, knowing as I am sure you do just how essential truth is in the decision-making process for both individuals and societies, would that admission earn me the right (in your eyes and by your standard whatever that is) to exercise my right to speak freely of these matters? Or would I be required to go on to reasons two through three, no make that four…even five maybe.
…too late…something just got totally unfurled…
Maybe I speak prematurely and have not read your meaning correctly. Maybe you meant to squash the pesky youtube bugs with your comment. If so, I owe you a HUGE apology. But my gut tells me otherwise. If I was correct in my assumption, then this little diatribe of mine was a lot of words (surprise) to say….”cheap shot, Michael”. Not the most elegant way to exercise your own right of free speech – imho of course.
Lynne
15 Michael // Dec 2, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Lynne: I did direct the remark to you, and I was trying to be terse, not cheap.
If I understand your original remarks correctly, you are equating a man-on-man kiss with obscenity and want Mark and others to distinguish between homophobic hate-speech and your more decorous expression of what are nevertheless homophobic ideas. (I know–that’s not how you’d characterize it–but that’s what I hear.)
To insist on your freedom of speech is absolutely your right; but to use it to say that others should not be free to kiss in public seems an unlovely use of that freedom. I still stand by that.
Lynne, you want to be heard, you want to be understood, you want not to offend. But it is your ideas–that you and a right-thinking majority object to any public expression of homosexuality–that give offense. Your personal friendliness doesn’t change that.
16 Lynne // Dec 4, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Michael – you did misunderstand my remarks about Adam’s performance because I did not object to his kissing Tommy per se but only included it because that was part of the media brouhaha and Adam himself spoke of it in his after-interviews. But no, especially given the venue and the artistry involved, the kiss (alone) did not offend me. The grabbing and smashing of crotches – no matter what genders are involved were extremely obscene and I will stand by that.
You’ve made a big jump from my objection to the graphic nature of Adam’s AMA performance to the assumption that I would “use my right of free speech to say that others should not be free to kiss in public”. If I implied that now or elsewhere in my comments then I do sincerely repent of it and would be grateful for the opportunity to amend it by saying this: I don’t like to see flagrant public sexuality – outside of age-appropriate lovers or married couples embracing and kissing in light, romantic ways”. I understand that homosexual individuals are as deeply in love with their mates as heterosexuals are with theirs and in this country, they should (and I believe they do in fact) have the right to express themselves in public places in the same way that their heterosexual counterparts do. No flagrant sexual displays for anyone is my preference which coincides with what the majority prefers and what the law upholds, thankfully.
You characterize my speech as homophobic…that is what you said you are hearing. And I think I can understand and appreciate where you are coming from, though I would have hoped by now you’ve been privy to enough of my sentiments to know that I am not driven by hatred and fear, as Webster defines the word ‘homophobic’. I have no fear or hatred of homosexuals. Just the opposite is true. As I’m sure you know full well, a person may unequivocally and unconditionally love and adore someone they don’t agree with.
My frame of reference, my valuing position can’t be described in one word, (that I know of), but if I absolutely had to, it would be more like “non-celebratory-of-homosexuality”. And I’m not trying to be impertinent here, nor am I trying to be “friendly”. I really could care less about that. You call it “decorous expression”. So be it. I am careful to choose my words because they are an extension and description of what I think and believe. And I am trying at all times to communicate and connect with a sometimes very hurting, and understandably distrustful segment of the population, which includes my own friends and family members. So your stubborn insistence that it is a moot point between my ‘decorous friendly speech’ and other “hate-filled” rhetoric of homophobes is not only unreasonable and false, I believe it is purposely crafted to condescend and insult me.
I told you I am searching for the truth and my search has brought me to a different set of conclusions than what the pro-homosexual community holds. Basically stated, I would conclude that homosexuality is not an equally ideal form of human sexual expression and of human social pairing and the professional psychological community got it wrong decades ago when they removed it from what they deemed a “pathological model” from their industry standards. That doesn’t mean I would denigrate, malign or abhor homosexual individuals or insist that they refrain from pursuing a life of happiness with each other. On a personal basis, it does mean that I would approach the matter with a bias toward reparative therapy while staunchly supporting an individual’s right to choose what they think is best for themselves. And it does mean that I will support, by my speech and actions, policies and legislature that represent more accurately what I believe to be true. I do that because it has practical application in my life.
Foremost, I would be very distressed if my children (of any age, but especially very young) would be required to endure science in the public school system that would be so wrong about something so essential. The public school system is supported by my taxes and attended by my children so I would have something to say about that and I do. I would also continue to object to homosexual unions being ratified by marriage, while conceding to them many other hopefully, significant rights that would help them live full and prosperous lives. There are other legislative areas that concern me as well. As a citizen, I believe I am within my rights to pursue and promote what I believe is true, voting for officials who represent my views and exercising my freedom to put forth my opinions, (as respectfully as I know how) in my private life and in public, as I am doing so right now on this forum.
I don’t know if that helps you understand a bit more where I am coming from. I am not asking you to believe what I believe. I’m not even asking you to concede that my beliefs are logical at all according to your standards. But knowing that I wholeheartedly believe what I just stated (whether or not it is indeed true and no matter what you believe to be true), would you not concede that I possess reasonable considerations for exercising my right of free speech – beyond your initial assessment that I am expressly and insistently trying to limit someone else’s freedom?
17 Michael // Dec 6, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Lynne: Again, I’m trying to be terse; if that comes across as brusque, I regret it.
So you don’t object to homosexual kisses in public after all; sorry to have misunderstood.
Yet you believe that gay relationships are categorically inferior to heterosexual ones, and you want that taught as scientific truth in schools and reflected in laws and in judicial opinion. Lynne, despite the dictionary definition of “phobia” as fear, the word “homophobic” is normally used in the looser sense of disliking, disrespecting, or denigrating of homosexual lives and feelings, and in that sense–the term applies to your ideas. You see gayness as inferior.
To quibble that you like gay people, you just don’t think their lives as AS legitimate as straights, confuses no one but yourself. Of course you don’t want hate speech and you don’t want hate-inspired physical violence, you even want to toss a few more rights to gay couples–but you also want gay children to go to school and learn that their spontaneous feelings make them sick and inferior, that the law views their relationships as unworthy of full sanction.
“Homophobic” may be a painful term; but it can’t possibly cause you the kind of pain such laws and assumptions cause in the lives of others.
And, again, to invoke the sacred principle of freedom to insist on your right to say discriminatory things and have them codified in law and textbooks is, strictly speaking, your right. To do so without a touch of irony, without a touch of awareness of the contradiction, is unattractive.
We are at the point of repeating ourselves. Are we done?
Michael
18 Lynne // Dec 7, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Michael, we might be repeating ourselves, but how come when you do it, you end up distorting my sentiments beyond recognition? In doing that, you make it rather difficult for me to disengage. But especially after your comment about what I want for gay children, my motivation to ‘be done’ has increased dramatically, so if that was your intent, then “well done soldier”.
“Yet you believe that gay relationships are categorically inferior to heterosexual ones”
“You see gayness as inferior.”
Your statements imply moral judgment on my part yet I see gayness as an outward manifestation of a flawed and wounded psyche – nothing to be ashamed of there. I think we all have similar wounds all centering on the same core principles – and occurring very early in childhood. I find myself agreeing with one of NARTH’s (are you familiar with their work?) earlier psychiatrist’s insight when he stated that “once my patients have achieved an insight into these dynamics-and realized there is no moral fault involved in their longtime and mysterious need-they have moved rather quickly on the road to recovery.” I would no more consider gays worthy of disrespect or denigration than I would if someone had some other medical issue to contend with. I would argue that right out of the gate, it is a medical issue rather than a moral one.
“Homophobic†may be a painful term”
If you continue to use the word “homophobic” to include the “looser sense of anyone disliking, disrespecting, or denigrating of homosexual lives and feelings”, or perhaps more precisely, anyone who does not agree with a pro-gay agenda, then I hope you will truly come to know (if you don’t already) how and when that came about and why it is so important to an aggressive gay agenda to be sure that anyone who is not pro-gay is considered a hateful bigoted homophobe. A calculated move, to be sure and very successful…in practice but not in truth.
“but it can’t possibly cause you the kind of pain such laws and assumptions cause in the lives of others.”
I agree that assumptions can definitely cause pain in the lives of others and because of that, truth is the best medicine for it. And there should be no shame or degradation in being homosexual, but I know it has not played out like that, which makes it one of the most sorrowful burdens (worthy of compassion and respect, and getting just the opposite) ever born by man.
“you just don’t think their lives are AS legitimate as straights”
If someone wants to pursue their life as a practicing homosexual then I am not interested in stopping that. But what of those who do not want to continue as practicing homosexuals or begin it? You have carefully and repeatedly avoided any discussion of this segment of the population and there have been some impressive successes for this group of motivated individuals who have chosen this different course. Would you impose your standards for these hurting individuals? Are their lives legitimate by your standards?
“but you also want gay children to go to school and learn that their spontaneous feelings make them sick and inferior”
That is the most offensive and unreasonable statement I have heard in all of our discourse to date, do you truly think that is my belief? Agh! How do I respond to such libel? Their spontaneous feelings are normal for someone who is experiencing attractions to their same sex, but to make a child feel sick and inferior is unconscionable and I would have nothing to do with it. I’m just not willing to abandon or distort the truth to make someone feel better. There are other ways to help them feel better but that shouldn’t be one of them. To me, it is equivalent in force and significance, tantamount to insisting that the earth is flat when we know it is not.
On that note, I think the conversation has indeed passed the point of being productive – it reminds me of two people who are more interested in being right than of reasoning together in an effort to uncover truth.
I sense your weariness, Michael. I feel it too. I am always on the defensive in our conversation as you skillfully parse my words, sifting them through your own highly discriminatory pro-gay filters, pushing and molding me into an insufferable bigot that you are better able to stomach, ignore or abuse while avoiding any meaningful questions that I pose to you. Don’t be fooled – that shoe is by far, a better fit on your own foot, Michael.
Leave a Comment