Adam Lambert Plays the Gay Card
The closing performance of last night’s American Music Awards is generating quite the buzz today — and if he subscribes to the “any publicity is good publicity” theory, then Adam Lambert must be positively ecstatic this morning.
Last night, though, he was on the defensive.
“I do feel like there’s a bit of a double standard in the entertainment community, on television, on radio,” Lambert told CNN backstage. “I feel like women performers have been pushing the envelope, especially, for the past 20 years. And all of the sudden a male does it and everybody goes ‘Oh, we can’t show that on TV.’ For me, that’s a form of discrimination and a double standard. And that’s too bad.”
Sorry, but no. That won’t fly. Pushing a dancer’s face into one’s groin and overtly fingering and groping in another’s crotch isn’t problematic because people are homophobic. Adam Lambert’s getting slammed because he threw out a raunchy mix of bondage, soft porn, and not-so-implicit sex during a prime-time broadcast.
And speaking for myself, that’s really the bottom-line problem. I’m pretty much sick to death of having to send Adorable Child out of the room, or bar her from seeing certain performances on YouTube, because of the utterly inappropriate worldview of a disconnected entertainment industry.
Furthermore, the suggestion that people would be just dandy with it had it been heterosexual, or performed by a female, is flat-out wrong. While I’m absolutely sure that some folks are reacting negatively because overt gayness freaks them out, a woman emulating oral sex with a man, or fingering his genitalia (much less both) would also have brought widespread condemnation and revulsion. This simply does not have a place in our family rooms.
In fact, the correct word here is not “discrimination”, Mr. Lambert. It’s “vulgarity”:
1. characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste: vulgar ostentation.
2. indecent; obscene; lewd: a vulgar work; a vulgar gesture.
3. crude; coarse; unrefined: a vulgar peasant.
And it’s a gender-neutral adjective.
The criticism isn’t coming because he’s gay. He’s getting hammered because there’s nothing ground-breaking about vulgarity. It’s been common in sleazy bars and porn theaters for decades.
Still — there is an upside to all this controversy. It’s allowed last night’s off vocals and clumsy onstage fall to be completely overlooked.
Maybe that’s what he’s hoping for.
55 Responses to “Adam Lambert Plays the Gay Card”
roro80 (to paulleblanc333): “If you make an effort to stop embodying these words, you might hear them less.”
I took Paul's statements to be a general observation of the quality of conversation between many people on many websites. Not everyone and not everywhere. But on some websites people indiscriminately throw out such words out of anger or ignorance, rather than use them in a considered way. By writing this my intent isn't to defend Paul, but to point out that some websites are filled with loonies and political (and other) discourse in this country, especially online is not constructive. We've all seen how some people label Obama a commie and other things…. I'm glad TMV has mostly reasoned comments even though we all rant (especially me on certain topics, though I hope I've gotten better) from time to time.
I went back and reread all of Paul's rants on this thread and I didn't see anything in them that would justify someone labeling him a homophobe, racist or hater. That said… there are a couple comments he made that I will point out to him in my next comment.
Paul said, “You know what?? Maybe “I” don't want his sexuality shoved in my face when I'm trying to watch a musical award show. Maybe he should save those kinds of antics for his concerts, and warn people ahead of time this is what they may see so they can have the time to decide if they want to or not.”
Then in another comment, “While I do not think it is right for anyone to spit upon others for their sexual preference, or their religion, etc. I also feel it is not right to push one's sexuality, religion, or anything else upon everyone else.”
My question is this, do you consider two men kissing each other on TV during a musical awards show to be pushing their sexuality in others' faces? Is this what you would prefer not to see? Or is it the “groiny” stuff that was part of Lambert's performance which you consider pushing the limits?
I didn't watch the American Music Awards nor catch Lambert's antics on the internet, so I can't really comment on whether what he did was inappropriate or not. From what I've heard, I don't think I'd be all that offended by it, but at the same time, I don't think I'd want my children (if I had any) watching it.
This incident brings up an important topic, and this is how people in a free society deal with incidents like this. They could express their outrage via word of mouth. Or they could express their outrage on internet blogs as many of you have here. On the other hand, if you truly wanted to have an impact on the type of programming your television stations provide, you all would write letters to your local television station expressing your outrage. And if your really wanted to put your money where your mouth is, you would write to your local television station telling them that your were no longer paying for their programming and then you would promptly cancel your cable subscription.
That last thing, we ought to do, however, is to insist that the government further censor television more than it already does. That's not what people do in a free society. You all have the right to watch television, but unless you own a particular television station or created a particular television show, you have no right to dictate to them (through the government), what they can and cannot show on television. Showing nudity, profanity, and/or violence on television is not an infringement on your rights. Whatever harm you feel such television programming is doing to you and your family can easily be resolved by turning the television off (and sending complaints to the television stations responsible).
I think one of the big problems in America is that virtually everyone has a vast sense of entitlement. People often think they are entitled to dictate what can and cannot be seen on television. Celebrities often think they are entitled to act like boors without suffering any consequences. Right-wing and left-wing moralists often think they are entitled to dictate what lifestyles should and should not be criminalized. And minority groups often think they are entitled to be loved and accepted by everyone they come across and that bigotry can somehow be magically cured by affirmative action and hate-crimes laws.
My advice to everyone is to project your values by serving as an example for others to aspire to. Let's not be so quick to turn to the government to solve such petty problems as what a certain television station chooses to air. If you present yourself and your arguments rationally and tactfully, then others will at least listen to what you have to say.
And those few of you who wish to continue hating gay people or whatever minority group that has earned your ire–that is your right–a right that you can always count on me to defend. But don't expect me to have any respect for such a position.
Hey Paul — I disagree with most of what you said about gay people, but I definitely appreciate your apology for the word “lame”. It is common where I live, and is used for a stand-in for “pathetic”, but that's what makes it offensive. Like, for example, using the word “gay” to stand in for “bad”.
Hey StockBoy — I don't know that I agree with your interpretation, but I could be wrong. I must admit, that after this statement (which I'm sure we've both heard four thousand times followed by a homophobic rant):
I didn't pay all that much attention. Generally when someone dares others to call him a name, it's indicative that he is embodying that name, and I therefore try to take him up on it.