Adam Lambert's AMA performance, Public Perception, & the Gay Rights Movement

[D_Rod Staffinbone]

By the way, a little secret of mine that I've yet to get over is my resentment at the "T" in LGBT rights. I've always harbored a resentment that transsexuals would slow down the emancipation of gays and lesbians. Drag queens are even more obstructive to achieving equality.

adam lambert is just trying to get some attention.

it's all very interesting. with chastity bono, being a lesbian was the first stop towards being transsexual. a lot of folks around here seem to think bisexual is the first stop to gay, that's not true either. we're all in this together. right?

the fantasy-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYt2...13BAA85D&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=14

the reality-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Eden
Wojtowicz was actually only 18 at the time of the attempted robbery.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

We all want to be recognized as humans whose ideas are, by definition, unpopular, but whose rights of existence are undeniable.

Hear, hear. You say it well joyboy.

 

[houtx48]

and this time next month few will remember what happened with Adam Lambert, memories are short.

 

[Principessa]

I'm sorry, WHY are we putting the drag queen in front of the camera?

Are we talking about the same drag queens that attend the S.F. Pride parade in roller skates and a nun's habit with a full beard?

By the way, a little secret of mine that I've yet to get over is my resentment at the "T" in LGBT rights. I've always harbored a resentment that transsexuals would slow down the emancipation of gays and lesbians. Drag queens are even more obstructive to achieving equality.

I disagree. Some men are just drawn to the stage lights and makeup. They aren't out to make your life or anyone else's difficult.

This is the United States, after all, and not Europe. I think drag queens are a relic of an old self-image and sensibility. They are sort of like seeing a picture of Aunt Jemima in 1940's advertisements. Drag queens do seem anachronistic. We live in an age where it's ok to be gay - and we're making progress on transgender identity. So you can be one thing or the other. Drag queens are like living in the land between, and a caricature of the movement. Drag queens seem to me like a curiosity from several bygone eras.

I disagree. Some men are just drawn to the stage lights and makeup. They aren't out to make your life or anyone else's difficult. If you are gonna exclude the T in GBLT, then you have to get read of the B, too. Because the bisexuals can't make up their minds who to fuck. :tongue: :not:

 

[Bbucko]

I'm sorry, WHY are we putting the drag queen in front of the camera?

Are we talking about the same drag queens that attend the S.F. Pride parade in roller skates and a nun's habit with a full beard?

First of all, those "drag queens in a nun's habit" are called The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and are a world-wide non-profit charitable organization who've raised over a million dollars for various AIDS causes over the years.

As to the rest of this insufferable thread, I can't believe you resurrected it, let alone started it in the first place. I'd hoped to ignore it, but as you've seen fit to continue this conversation after it had slithered quietly into the night, I'll do so after having eaten my dinner.

 

[nudeyorker]

First of all, those "drag queens in a nun's habit" are called The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and are a world-wide non-profit charitable organization who've raised over a million dollars for various AIDS causes over the years.

As to the rest of this insufferable thread, I can't believe you resurrected it, let alone started it in the first place. I'd hoped to ignore it, but as you've seen fit to continue this conversation after it had slithered quietly into the night, I'll do so after having eaten my dinner.

Thank you. You beat me in the post and the mirror of my thoughts!

 

[joyboytoy79]

First of all, those "drag queens in a nun's habit" are called The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and are a world-wide non-profit charitable organization who've raised over a million dollars for various AIDS causes over the years.

As to the rest of this insufferable thread, I can't believe you resurrected it, let alone started it in the first place. I'd hoped to ignore it, but as you've seen fit to continue this conversation after it had slithered quietly into the night, I'll do so after having eaten my dinner.

Why, yes they ARE the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence! And they happen to be strong advocates of gay marriage. Maybe, that's what Will's beef is, since he appears to NOT be an advocate of marriage equality.

Here's an image of Sister Roma, of the San Francisco chapter, posing for NoH8campaign.com: http://www.bouska.net/noh8/gallery/0797.jpg

 

[Bbucko]

Why would it surprise anyone that the dim, flavorless broth known as the OP's self-awareness wouldn't extend to the Sisters?

 

[bearman66]

I think Adam went too far simulating oral sex on prime time network TV and this was not the best use of what might be his 15 minutes of fame to push an agenda. I don't have a problem with the kiss. But I'm not a parent, and most parents would have expected their children to be able to watch the AMA's without any need of viewer discretion, especially when there was no viewer discretion advisory given, nor intended, since this was not planned by the AMA and network. I think the display reinforces many peoples' beliefs that homosexuals are depraved perverts lacking self control, versus presenting people with the image that we are as normal as any human being can expect to be. We still live in an age where many otherwise rational adults associate male homosexuality with pedophilia and other deviant behaviors, and this display does nothing to alleviate those fears. It's most likely an action that hindsight is 20/20, as Adam is still young. I certainly hope at his age, he's not cynical and jaded to the point that he thinks that extreme behavior is the only way to draw attention to what he feels is a just cause. Nor do I think that he would be so naive as to believe there would be no backlash to this. But he's selling a lot of tunes right now, so it goes back to the old Hollywood saying, " There is no such thing as bad publicity."

 

[Bbucko]

First of all, why you felt the need to start yet another Adam Lambert thread, when we've already got a perfectly fine one here was something of a mystery to me until I actually read it, and saw that your arch-nemesis Flashy was arguing along your line of reasoning, which evidently makes you uncomfortable.

Your pedantic prohibitionism and the tiresome church-lady clucking begins with your first paragraph and rapidly goes downhill from there.

During another Adam Lambert thread, I was generally supportive of Adam Lambert's AMA Performance, thinking that this kind of overt sexuality, by heteros at least, is a fairly commonplace thing, and so, therefore, Adam should be able to perform a gay version of unbridled sex just as Madonna and others routinely do.

Do you really believe that Madonna offers "unbridled sex" in her televised performances? I'm not asking if you think that someone somewhere else might be shocked by Madge's onscreen antics, but whether you, yourself are.

This is no small point, because none of her cultural sabre-rattling has ever been personally offensive to me. She has made her place in American popular culture by being provocative to the very-easily offended while winking and nudging everyone else.

Link me one clip of her doing anything that you find genuinely troubling.

But this judgement isn't sitting well with me. I keep thinking about it. Gays are in a struggle right now for marriage equality and adoption rights --- all the stuff of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that other americans enjoy.

Adam simulating oral sex onstage is a bit over the top and, I think, hurts the cause for the larger gay rights struggle. We are still fighting social cons in states with gay marriage propositions on the ballot who love to bring up the effects of the "gay lifestyle" on children. There are still Anita Byrants out there (check the right wing websites) that continue to view gays as trolling for random sex in public parks, restrooms, adult bookstores.

Here we're getting to the crux of your argument, where the civil rights of millions of taxpayers are jeopardized by an over-exposed and marginally talented runner-up of a televised karaoke contest's exhibitionistic quest for publicity. This is utter bullshit, of course, but it does give you the opportunity to pick up the ball of self-loathing and carry it 98 yards for a "touchdown" in a rush to demonize the sexual choices made by adults with whom you try desperately to distance yourself, pulling Jason_Els and me into the middle of your orgy of self-righteous hand-wringing and finger pointing.

I would give you way too much benefit of the doubt if I said that you resurrected a dead old thread from another forum here just to prove some point. It doesn't. The only person who brings up anything about the struggle for full civil equality in that thread is you. I found your argument facile and moralistic there and find it much more so here.

As everyone who posts here knows, there are members who will contribute here who'd never dream of stepping foot in the Sex with a Large Penis forum and who might not be aware that, in addition to our (generally thoughtful) posts here, we have something to say about sex that might tarnish our images slightly were they to be "exposed" here. It appears as though your are looking for broader support in chastising Jason and me (singled out among the many of members who posted in that thread for quotation here) for our views regarding something you personally find unsavory.

This just underlines your fear and loathing through this entire argument: I do not now nor have ever courted popular approval for anything I do, sexual or otherwise. You, obviously, are craven and beholden to the opinions of those who will never meet you, or if they did still wouldn't approve of your "lifestyle" or "deathstyle" as it's also commonly referred to elsewhere.

My hedonism bears no bearing on whether or not I "deserve" equal rights, much less on some lesbian couple with three kids in Kansas: period. And just because you personally don't approve of the way I happen to live my life doesn't mean that I'm obliged to tolerate your petty attempts to slap me on the wrists for it, either.

A month ago, there was a discussion here in the midst of an "adult bookstore" thread (How Do You Get A Blow Job in a Bookstore?) which centered around the thrills of sticky floors and dark booths and anonymous BJ encounters.

To my mind, the anonymous encounters in these video jack-off booths were actually an extension of the gay sex of the 1940's & '50's: clandestine rest stops and furtive sex in park bushes. I kept thinking to myself: we don't have to live like this anymore. There are all kinds of mainstream ways of obtaining sexual contact.

----------

In this thread, I made the following comment:


"Bookstore sex" is the same kind of randy sex - like public-park-sex-in-the-bushes - that people like Bill O'Reilly and social conservatives love to point to as gay depravity. Or zeroing in on the 2 or 3 drag queens at the gay parade.

Bookstore booth sex, bathhouse sex, public park sex, restroom sex --- they're all activities the gay movement must evolve past. It's not about being puritanical. It's about being practical in order to advance the gay agenda in today's politics.


Bbucko, a sensible commenter, posted this: I'm actually kinda surprised by your puritanistic attitude, WT. Jason's an adult and fully capable of testing and pushing his own limits.

And part of the erotic charge is precisely the clandestine nature of the encounter; not everyone fantasizes about lover sex on cool blue sheets with soft jazz playing on the hifi. Leave him be.


Jason Els, also an insightful poster, wrote: Why must we evolve past anything to satisfy homophobes? I agree that public park and restroom sex are inappropriate but I take complete exception to bath houses and adult books stores where age of entry is restricted.

What you're saying is that we have to assimilate to be accepted. Meanwhile straights are boinking each other all over the place including public parks, parking lots, and restrooms (albeit usually in age-restricted bars and clubs) without any comment from the homophobic press. What you're actually advocating is a double standard and that doesn't advance anyone's agenda beyond those who believe that if society is to accept gay people that it requires that they hide their sexuality outside of private (or even in private in the case of bath houses and bookstores). These pernicious people want gay people to appear straight, restrict their sexual obviousness, and essentially become acceptable by being house niggers to straights. "If you want acceptance you'll have to do it on our terms," is bullshit and not a single civil rights victory has ever been achieved by pretending to be something you're not.

----------

Yes, in general, "assimilate to be accepted".

No, to be assimilated is to be rendered faceless.

I am a unique human being, not part of some group that can be parsed and stereotyped and dehumanized. I am an individual, and I have no interest in subordinating my behavior to your expectations or anybody else's. What's more is I don't have to: this is America where I'm sitting. As long as I'm not a felon, my participation in the franchise of full civil equality is not dependent on the approval of anybody.

I have no idea about you, but I did not ask permission from anybody before I came out.

I do not think Adam Lambert is doing the gay movement any favors at this time with in-your-face displays of simulated oral sex and gratuitous kissing in front of an audience of 14 miilion.

And it's not just Adam. The struggle for gay equality is not going to be derailed by a cheesy AMA performance. I'm trying to get at something deeper and larger than Adam Lambert. We need to modify our public displays of (perceived) lewdness -- whether at the Pride parades or Award shows -- until equality gains full momentum.

You cannot be so naive as to think that we will achieve full civil equality because we'll have finally achieved "respectability", are you? If so then you're a bigger fool than even I thought you were. Assimilationists have a (banal) point but miss the bigger picture: no amount of conformity will change their minds. GLBTs will continue to be viewed as fundamentally flawed and social pariahs no matter how much we subsume ourselves to fit into what's "normal".

Your retardataire musings are destructive to the notions of diversity and of finding one's self-esteem in one's differences, not similarities from the mainstream: I'd much rather be fascinating and unique than drab and ordinary. And since you've shown that you're not just playing Devil's Advocate with this demonetization of those with whom you disagree, you're actually as evil as those who advocate against GLBT equality: disgusting and beneath contempt.

 

[jason_els]

Rights are just that, rights. As Americans, we all have the right to be equal before the law. As it is, many people do not believe that. Too bad for them. So long as the Fourteenth Amendment stands as the supreme law of the land, those people are impediments to gaining what is already rightfully ours. It's not a question of begging them, asking them, bending to their expectations, or waiting patiently for times to change. It's a question of making the necessity of our rights known and creating penalties for blocking access to our rights. This is what women did, it's what blacks did, it's what we need to do.

Those drag queens were the heroes of Stonewall and jumpstarted the gay rights movement. They knew that there is never a convenient time to move to the front of the bus. You just do it and keep doing it until you wear down the bigots, assholes, fearmongers, wafflers, and those who want to control your life. You make them acknowledge you. You make them move out of the way.

I think Uncle Buckles is being too hard on you. I don't think you've considered this issue very intently because I think that once you apprehend the gestalt of it, the answer is obvious and it becomes enormously frustrating that others don't. I hope you'll reply here because I'd like to discuss this with you.

And please read and re-read what joyboytoy said. I think his post was fantastic.

 

[Northland]

During another Adam Lambert thread, I was generally supportive of Adam Lambert's AMA Performance, thinking that this kind of overt sexuality, by heteros at least, is a fairly commonplace thing, and so, therefore, Adam should be able to perform a gay version of unbridled sex just as Madonna and others routinely do.


But this judgement isn't sitting well with me. I keep thinking about it. Gays are in a struggle right now for marriage equality and adoption rights --- all the stuff of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that other americans enjoy.


Adam simulating oral sex onstage is a bit over the top and, I think, hurts the cause for the larger gay rights struggle. We are still fighting social cons in states with gay marriage propositions on the ballot who love to bring up the effects of the "gay lifestyle" on children. There are still Anita Byrants out there (check the right wing websites) that continue to view gays as trolling for random sex in public parks, restrooms, adult bookstores.


--------------------

A]


----------

Yes, in general, "assimilate to be accepted".

I do not think Adam Lambert is doing the gay movement any favors at this time with in-your-face displays of simulated oral sex and gratuitous kissing in front of an audience of 14 miilion.

And it's not just Adam. The struggle for gay equality is not going to be derailed by a cheesy AMA performance. I'm trying to get at something deeper and larger than Adam Lambert. We need to modify our public displays of (perceived) lewdness -- whether at the Pride parades or Award shows -- until equality gains full momentum.

Which is odd considering how in the past 6 months you've indicated happiness at Vermont enacting gay marriage. http://www.lpsg.org/129195-vermont-lawmakers-legalize-gay-marriage.html


You sang the praises of New York as a gay marriage bill wended its way through- http://www.lpsg.org/133488-ny-gay-marriage-passage-close.html -although more than 5 months later the State Senate is still playing their clown show, making power plays and effectively shutting down any progress.

A few weeks ago, you expressed anger that in Maine, the marriage bill had been overturned at the polls. http://www.lpsg.org/156475-more-maine-gay-marriage-fallout.html


Now, you say homosexuals should just take whatever scraps they can get and then assimilate. Who is it you've got whispering in your ear this week Willtom? Your views change every few days as you attempt to please your latest object of desire on this board.

I'm sorry, WHY are we putting the drag queen in front of the camera?

Are we talking about the same drag queens that attend the S.F. Pride parade in roller skates and a nun's habit with a full beard?

As has been indicated, those men are part of an organization, designed to bring rights to all. Even if they were not, why is it so objectionable to you that men-and dear lord, with beards, are in a parade? Are they of less value than a heterosexual or a homosexual dressed in a suit and tie, or any other person?

By the way, a little secret of mine that I've yet to get over is my resentment at the "T" in LGBT rights. I've always harbored a resentment that transsexuals would slow down the emancipation of gays and lesbians. Drag queens are even more obstructive to achieving equality.

As has been indicated, the T stands for Transgendered; that aside, are you saying transgendered individuals or transexuals or any other group should be denied rights? By excluding these fine individuals-I am speaking of Pearl and Velma and Mike among others-you are denying voices, which is in ways similar to denying the voice of a black man or woman or an Asian or anyone else. Regardless of what you see on the outside, they are all people and are all entitled to the same rights as the heterosexual white male. Discrimination isn't right under any circumstances and if you have your way and transgendered people are excluded, then you have indeed discriminated and denied.

This is the United States, after all, and not Europe. I think drag queens are a relic of an old self-image and sensibility. They are sort of like seeing a picture of Aunt Jemima in 1940's advertisements. Drag queens do seem anachronistic. We live in an age where it's ok to be gay - and we're making progress on transgender identity. So you can be one thing or the other. Drag queens are like living in the land between, and a caricature of the movement. Drag queens seem to me like a curiosity from several bygone eras.

A)Are you saying drag queens would be okay in Europe?

B)No, we do not live in an age where it's okay to be gay. If it really were, there wouldn't be any delay in getting marriage rights to all people, regardless of sexuality. If you really felt it was okay to be gay these days, you would not be suddenly lobbying for assimilation and civil unions only.

C)You really need to learn what a drag queen is before you continue any more of your tirade against them. Drag queens as such, are in general performers. They are not living in an in between land. Drag queens are not primarily cross dressers, which is perhaps where your confusion comes in. Many drag queens, lead perfectly regular lives-they have their on stage persona, much like any other performer, off stage, they dress as other men- trousers/shorts and button down/polo/t-shirt. Cross dressers are often transexuals (though not all cross dressers are) and some are in the process of transgendering (male to female or female to male). In general cross dressers, are more comfortable in clothing designed for a 'gender' other than what they've been tagged with being. As indicated, some are in the process of transgendering.


Equal rights for all-regardless of sexual preference or skin tone or religion. Anything less is an injustice to humanity.

 

[Industrialsize]

4 words that, in my opinion, have done more to hurt the gay rights movement:

"Straight acting and appearing"

4 words replete with self hatred

 

[D_Rod Staffinbone]

off the adam lambert topic but.....

Transphobia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

would the OP exclude the following incident from the recent hate crimes bill?
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=83210

in my previous post i was being sarcastic regarding chastity bono's case, and just trying to make a point.
sure personal self-awareness stuff happens, as was probably the case with chastity bono. "A" probably doesn't lead to "B",
if "B" isn't already there, at least to some extent. though i do believe some rewiring can happen with life experiences.

 

[B_Mister Buildington]

Terrible song, terrible performance, terrible wardrobe and makeup.

Decent simulated oral sex, I guess.

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

"I have never considered myself a candidate. I have always considered myself part of a movement, part of a candidacy. I considered the movement the candidate. I think that there's a distinction between those who use the movement and those who are part of the movement. I think I was always part of the movement. I wish I had time to explain everything I did. Almost everything was done with an eye on the gay movement," -- Harvey Milk, from a tape recording (November, 1977) to be played in the event of his assassination

--------------------


When I suggested the idea of civil unions, I was doing what I frequently do on this board, for good or bad, which is: thinking out loud.

I know the movement has made great strides in just the past six years alone ("Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health", Nov. 18, 2003 ruling, Mass. Supreme Court) . In fact, I would daresay that I myself have been an enthusiastic chronicler and advocate of the success of same-sex marriage this past year.

However, it's become apparent to me that before the issue of same-sex marriage is taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, which, realistically, may take some years, the issue itself will continued to be decided at the ballot box (where applicable; after the state legislature victories, after the state Supreme Court victories... the public "decides").

California lost Prop 8 by a slim margin, 48%-52%. Maine lost Question 1 also by a slim margin, 47%-53%. These are two blue-blue states. Still, support for gay marriage, should trends hold, grows by 1% each year, which means that blue-blue states should be ready to narrowly vote in marriage equality in the coming few years.

I floated the idea of pushing civil unions as a political tactic. In fact, I specified that this musing was just that, a stratagem, and a stepping stone, not a final resting place:

I think from a practical point of view we all need to start thinking in terms of civil unions, just a name change, which will carry all the benefits of marriage, but will not explicitly be called "marriage". This tactic alone will allow us to celebrate victories in a majority of blue states.


It would be much easier to gain momentum I thought, and think, with a significant number of civil union victories under our belts than to hash & fighting out straight-forward marriage in difficult battles once the movement concentrates on those areas outside the northeast New England states.


willtom writes: Would it really be so bad to settle (temporarily at least) for civil unions, which is a more modest and achievable goal?

(I even specified "temporarily at least", meaning, rack up some victories, this isn't the endgame, so that when the issue eventually resolves itself before the U.S. Supreme Court, we come in armed, more of a force to be reckoned with. I did not consider that this would be a controversial tactic. And, anyway, senor rubirosa got my meaning.)

senor rubirosa writes: Much more achievable, and a far better beachhead from which to move to same-sex marriage than the current situation.

This is sometimes called gradualism, and I don't think it implies settling for second best if it actually accelerates movement towards a truly equitable rearrangement.

--------------------


Yes, I do see I have a problem with "transgender" and "transsexual" usage and tend to interchange the two. My drag queen/transgender/transsexual embarrassment, which I freely admitted (it's not something I'm proud of) stems from many years of seeing the media focus on the drag queens (and men in jeanless chaps, ass showing through) at Pride parades, sometimes to the exclusion of all else. I knew I was primarily gay by the age of 12. Even at 12, I knew the gay parades were a positive event, and I also instinctively knew that drag queens "in front of the camera" were bad PR, terrible packaging, an eyesore to winning the hearts and minds of moderate straight Americans. The idea of the mainstream media "branding" the Pride parades with an image of the 6'2'' loud, brassy drag queen in ruby red lipstick (sometimes with full facial hair) was bad advertising when the focus should have been on the passionate everyday (quotidian) marchers.


Edit: Thank you, Jason, for being so kind and circumspect. It did not go unnoticed.

 

[Industrialsize]

Drag queens are not EYESORES

 

[D_Rod Staffinbone]

No people in history have ever survived who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies. Dean Acheson


Appeasers believe that if you keep on throwing steaks to a tiger, the tiger will become a vegetarian. Heywood Broun


some people never grow, don't want to grow, don't want to admit that they're wrong. the same type of narrow-minded bigots that supposedly the all-seeing, all-knowing OP endlessly rants about in his tiresome posts.

 

[B_Mister Buildington]

Drag queens are not EYESORES

Good ones aren't. The ones you notice are. Because they look like mannish women.

 

[jason_els]

By excluding these fine individuals-I am speaking of Pearl and Velma and Mike among others

Who are Pearl, Velma, and Mike? Are they public figures or private individuals?

That was an excellent post. I hope it resonates with WillTom and causes him a moment to think.