Adam Lambert Responds to Out Magazine

MJ
So there you go. Adam responds. Nobody puts Adam in a corner. Or, he won’t be bullied into becoming the poster boy for gay rights. The. End. I hope, because this particular kerfuffle has gone on past it’s expiration date

ITA and thank you.

Adam is always so articulate in interviews. It is one of the things I admire about him most. He gets his point across here and he does it very well.

So there you go. Adam responds. Nobody puts Adam in a corner. Or, he won’t be bullied into becoming the poster boy for gay rights. The. End. I hope, because this particular kerfuffle has gone on past it’s expiration date.

It really has, and I hope this is the end of it.

Very well explained. Let. this. die. now.

Very good response, and I totally support what he’s saying. I’m glad he set the record straight about his management and didn’t let the impression linger that they were making a puppet of him, I respect him for claiming responsibility here. He does seem to be calling the shots to a large extent, maybe more so than most other Idol alumni? I’m fascinated by the glimpses of behind-the-scenes conversations with Simon Fuller etc., and always curious about how much freedom the Idols have, usually we don’t hear much about it, so this was interesting.

Good response, and hopefully will put the matter to rest.

thank you mj,and great responce Adam

so I asked my publicist to ask the interviewer to stay away from the political questions.

This is funny. He can’t ask the interviewer herself about that.

This is funny. He can’t ask the interviewer herself about that.

Negotiating the terms of an interview and asking these things is part of a publicists job. Otherwise, it becomes part of the conversation with the interviewee which defeats the purpose.

k0ka
11/19/2009 at 9:35 pm
so I asked my publicist to ask the interviewer to stay away from the political questions.

This is funny. He can’t ask the interviewer herself about that.

You must not understand how these things work, especially on the level that Adam is playing on. That’s what handlers and publicists are for.

The adam journey is very educational for the uninitiated.

The. End. I hope, because this particular kerfuffle has gone on past it’s expiration date

I hope so too. This best not take over his promotions for the CD.

I can talk about relationships and personal experiences because as an artist those things involve writing lyrics and that part of my process. But I didn’t feel comfortable talking about the March on Washington. I didn’t feel comfortable, so I asked my publicist to ask the interviewer to stay away from the political questions. I take full responsibility for that

I knew Adam was fully aware of what was going on.

Negotiating the terms of an interview and asking these things is part of a publicists job. Otherwise, it becomes part of the conversation with the interviewee which defeats the purpose.

exactly

MJ
So there you go. Adam responds. Nobody puts Adam in a corner. Or, he won’t be bullied into becoming the poster boy for gay rights. The. End. I hope, because this particular kerfuffle has gone on past it’s expiration date

Could not agree more. Nobody likes a bully, ever. I don’t want to think
about anymore either.

Wow, I clicked on the link and realized that his response was during an interview! From first glance, I would have sworn that it was a written response because it was so well thought out. His ability to articulate his points of view will benefit him so much in his career. And I agree 100% with what he said.

Wonderful response I particularly like this part of the interview that MJ does not have. (but has the link to it)

With things like the phrase ‘gay-gay’ ?
That was taken out of context. It was all taken out of context. And also, the other thing that I feel about it? If there are things going on behind the scenes with my management, it has nothing to do with my interview with them. He really crossed a line.

I thought this from the get go especially sense the Publicist is Gay!

Now on to the Music which is Fierce and Fabulous!!!

I just love that word “kerfuffle”. Go Adam!

“Very good response, and I totally support what he’s saying. I’m glad he set the record straight about his management and didn’t let the impression linger that they were making a puppet of him, I respect him for claiming responsibility here. He does seem to be calling the shots to a large extent, maybe more so than most other Idol alumni? I’m fascinated by the glimpses of behind-the-scenes conversations with Simon Fuller etc., and always curious about how much freedom the Idols have, usually we don’t hear much about it, so this was interesting.”

I also found it interesting to hear about the behind-the -scene conversations with Simon Fuller and 19 Entertainment. What he says, is different than several of the past idols have said about dealing with 19 Entertainment. Adam seems to have a lot more control and input than some of the other idols. Considering what Simon Fuller said when Adam signed with RCA, he must think Adam is going to be a big success and is willing to allow him to partially direct his own career.

Well said MJ and everyone else- Love how Adam took ownership of it.

Dhunken- couldn’t agree more- back to the AMA performance thread I go……..

What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.

It seems to me this whole brouhaha could have been avoided if the handlers had said “He doesn’t want to talk about politics” instead of using the word “gay” (or “gay-gay”). Of course that doesn’t take into account the “Don’t make him look too gay on the cover” bit, but Adam didn’t address that one.

Well said Adam. And thank you MJ for putting what I hope will be a period on this. Next! He is indeed the HBIC. A big Muah to you, Oh Fierce One.

You know, the use of “gay-gay” is Out’s version of the conversation. It may have been the way they “heard” it. We’ll never know for sure.

As for “don’t make him look to gay on the cover,” maybe they afraid they’d just put a blown up copy of the album cover up there.

Well done Adam! Leave politics out of it and just entertain us.

If there are things going on behind the scenes with my management, it has nothing to do with my interview with them. He really crossed a line.

That was the big thing about the letter, for me. Hicklin really crossed the line and was so unprofessional!
Yay, for Adam saying what he wanted and for being fearless.

What is so great about Adam is he is not afraid to be controversial or be completely candid. He is so introspective, so grounded, and so intelligent and articulate that I cannot think he will have a successful career. It’s true that 19 seems to have given him a great deal of leeway because he is so smart and so talented and they know they have a gift in their hands. If he is NOT successful recording artist, which I feel he will be, well, yes, they could drop him, but I think he will find a way to make music or go into film or whatever, but to continue being a musician and entertainer, as he always says.

Hi is brave in saying that Out crossed the line, knowing he will piss off a lot of people in the gay community. But he doesn’t want to be the poster boy or spokesman for the gay cause. He just wants to sing. This should be one of the greatest weeks of his life. I hope it is.

ADAM STORM is about the MUSIC.

Thanks, mj.

Personally, I find Adams comments to be a copout. And its not just Adam. Any entertainer who claims they can’t have an opinion because they’re not a politician is, IMO, being disingenuous. Everyone has opinions, and hopefully they are informed by reason and facts. It’s actually quite ironic that he said he’s not a politician, because that move is pure politics. Sidestep around the hot topic issues to avoid pissing anyone off and losing your support. Of course what he’s really doing is hoping the gay community will still support him even if he won’t support them. Good luck with that.

As a gay man who’s now on the public stage, to remain silent on the crucial issues of the day, ones that effect both him and everyone else in the gay community, is bound to disappoint and anger many. Certainly, it’s his prerogative to remain silent. I think he’s just choosing who he’s ok with pissing off, and right now, it’s the gay community. I understand that he doesn’t want to be boxed in as ‘the gay Idol Pop star’, but if he was as fierce as his image portrays, he wouldn’t be afraid to tackle that beast headon. Or, he can just party like it’s 1999 and forget about all of it (until he can’t).

I happen to believe we are living at a crossroads time, and that every decision made, whether it’s a ‘comment’ or a ‘no-comment’, is still a decision. I tend to admire folks who place themselves in a larger context than their own ambition, at every point in their career. Because in my view, the best way to stay out of boxes is to recognize and act on the bigger picture outside ourselves.

Well…all I can say is….any publicity is good publicity as they say…I wouldn’t worry about Adam…he’s locked in….I find it laughable that with so many gays in the entertainment biz…they go after one of the best things that has happened to the gay community….ride the wave folks…and simmer down…..cut the guy some slack…..as he would attest…he’s just an entertainer…..and a DAMN fine one.

movin2thabeet, would you expect Kris to expound on the the pressing political issues of the day in his interviews? Why should Adam be expected to, when virtually no other singers being interviewed about their careers would be?

There were and were a lot of great dancers who happend and happens to be gay. I wonder if they have ever asked about political things to them.
My guess is “Never”.
The reason is very clear, they are dancers, their performance is their words to the world.

Adam is a singer and performer, his weapon is his singing and performance, and it is by far radically changing great numbers of closed minds.
He never has to discuss about politics!

I really can’t understand why those “OUT” people whined.
It seems to me that they are looking down the power of pop culture.
Anachronistic!

movin2thabeet- Adam doesn’t remain silent-he LIVES what he believes. He does more for the “bigger picture” by refusing to be anything but an individual whose sexuality is only one part of him. I believe he has opened more minds this way than any soapbox ever could. It certainly worked for me and I know I am not alone.

Movin2thebeat:

You do understand that Adam’s demand to be taken seriously as a singer first is the ultimate political act? he is paving the way for many many gay people to follow who do not want to be defined first and only by their sexuality. Cop out? I think not. What he is doing here is akin to what some of the greatest civil rights leaders in our history have done. really!!

fierce as his image portrays, he wouldn’t be afraid to tackle that beast headon.

I think the exact oppposite is true. He is fierce because he is exercising that very perogative you mention, to choose not become to political or socially active for gay rights. He is doing this on his terms, which won’t be easy, as we’ve seen. Despite the path he could take to potential messiah status, he wants simply to be a singer and entertain people. To me that IS the bigger picture.

I’ve never thought that he should have to carry the fate of the gay community on his shoulders so I understand what he’s saying. If the editor had a problem with any of this he should have either not had Adam in the magazine or hammered it out privately instead of turning it into a public ambush.

Shana weighs in (with a pimp of MJ’s, that’s so nice!).

shananaomi
fair comment, via @mjsbigblog: Adam Lambert Responds to Out Magazine http://bit.ly/30qfe5
12 minutes ago from Tweetie

I really like Shana, and it really does seem like she’s not holding any of this against Adam in the least. I wish she hadn’t been pulled into this whole thing in the first place. Hopefully, like MJ said, this issue is as settled as it’s gonna get and the media can move on to something that doesn’t make me feel all stabby. Like the AMAs!

casey718
11/19/2009 at 9:46 pm
Wow, I clicked on the link and realized that his response was during an interview! From first glance, I would have sworn that it was a written response because it was so well thought out.

I thought the same thing. I could have sat at my computer for an hour editing that statement and it wouldn’t have come out even half as clear and coherant as he verbalized it on the fly.

Now hopefully the next thing Adam and his “team” do is instruct all of the interviewers to avoid the OUT kerfuffle as a topic while he is doing his PR rounds for his album. It is about the music peeps. It would suck if he has to rehash this on every radio interview/talk show for the next several weeks. Move on please.

k0ka
11/19/2009 at 9:35 pm
so I asked my publicist to ask the interviewer to stay away from the political questions.

This is funny. He can’t ask the interviewer herself about that.

That’s what publicists are for. Following adam is really fascinating and educational. You learn things everyday. He is so intelligent and articulate. Let this die. ’nuff said.

AMA is just days away!!!! I am so excited!!!!

I get that Adam is more comfortable aiming his fierceness through image, performance, fashion… That’s great. He also happens to be living at a time when gay rights are up front and center, about to either be stuffed further in the closet, or to be liberated. That is the climate he (and we) currently live in. For a gay person, that climate is in your face, most, if not all of the time, famous or not.

So when a gay person finds themselves in the public eye, they have an incredible opportunity to help move the dial toward freedom and justice. If they refuse to take any piece of that mantle, yes, that is an opportunity lost. There is so much at stake right now that to have no opinion can only be seen as putting self-interest above concerns for your community. Not fierce, in my book. My definition of fierceness involves facing challenges and battles head on, without fear, or when there is fear, using it as a tool to sharpen one’s strength. The rest is just posing.

“I happen to believe we are living at a crossroads time, and that every decision made, whether it’s a ‘comment’ or a ‘no-comment’, is still a decision. I tend to admire folks who place themselves in a larger context than their own ambition, at every point in their career. Because in my view, the best way to stay out of boxes is to recognize and act on the bigger picture outside ourselves.”

Adam is in a tough position, either he can do what he wants or do what every “special interest groups” want him to do. He would never be able to satisfy all these different people and would end up unappreciated and burnt out from never ending demands. Adam has stated he just wants to sing and will not be someone else’s puppet. Adam doesn’t need to get on a soapbox and spend the rest of his career making a statement for the next great gay social issue. He can simply make a bigger and louder statement by being a success professionally and personally.

Because of mj’s I am going to start using the word kerfuffle. I love that word and it is way under used.

More pluggage for MJ.

Yeah, I was kind of upset about the issue re: Shana, b/c it was such a great interview and her remarks tarnished it (tho Aaron certainly did 100x more).

Oh, more music, please, more music…let the music play, I wanna get away…

And I couldn’t agree more. He said what he wanted to say to EW.com and to ET (of all places!!!). Now let’s MOVE ALONG HERE. NOTHING MORE TO SEE.

I just dont think that Adam at this point in his career should be spending time on political issues. He does have opinions obviously but why must he express all of them now. There is a time and a place and I think that he has every right to focus on his career now and is under no obligation whatsoever to be the poster boy for gay rights. I could not have said it better when he said not all gay men are the same. We do not all think the same or act the same…

So when a gay person finds themselves in the public eye, they have an incredible opportunity to help move the dial toward freedom and justice. If they refuse to take any piece of that mantle, yes, that is an opportunity lost. There is so much at stake right now that to have no opinion can only be seen as putting self-interest above concerns for your community. Not fierce, in my book. My definition of fierceness involves facing challenges and battles head on, without fear, or when there is fear, using it as a tool to sharpen one’s strength. The rest is just posing.

Except that if he did, he’d lose this position entirely. Sorry, but he hasn’t been around long , not well established enough to survive doing so. Then what? Not only is his opportunity to make a difference gone, but so is his chance at fulfilling his dream.

If he was to go out and start being the activist, he’d step over that line of controversy. People would label him just another activist and his ability to be a musician of any repute would be gone. Two or three years from now (if not 5), assuming he’s gotten some amount of respect for his music by the general populace, he’d be able to get away with being more vocal, but now? It’d be suicide.

As it is, just being out and proud of it does do more to help then just being a talking head. He doesn’t avoid his sexuality, but he doesn’t make it the main issue either. It just is.

Let me tell you, most people who are on the fence about gay rights will be more likely to fall in favor of said rights by just seeing gay people being people. Someone getting in their face is an instant turn off, and just more likely to make them dig in. Sorry, I’m gay and even I can’t stand to listen to Rosie O’ or Alexis Arquette. They’re rude, and overbearing, and frankly just do more damage with all their shouting then good.

There is a time and place for both, and Adam knows that. OUT and their allies can afford to ignore it, they’ve don’t nothing but preach to the chorus for years. Who ever really listens to them? Straight people? Why would they even be reading a gay magazine to begin with? Other gay people? Please, OUT is the gay version of Elle. Who reads fashion magazines for political advice?

Standing ovation for Adam. He deserves this not only when singing. Adam knows what he is doing, what he wants and the best part of it is that he knows how to express it. He does not chicken out. Fierce!!!

So when a gay person finds themselves in the public eye, they have an incredible opportunity to help move the dial toward freedom and justice.

Since he is in the public eye he can do that just by being out and living his life.

No one person is a monolithic representative of any group or society. I’m Irish – but I certainly don’t represent myself as indicative of Irish culture or society at large. It’s insane to expect that of anyone – so Adam’s dead on, imo. I also think too much damn time is spent trying to fit people into neatly packages boxes – gay/straight, black/white. Truth is so much more complicated (and interesting) than that. I understand Out Magazine – it was conceived of as an agenda-driven vehicle. Still – they have no right demanding anyone adopt every aspect of that agenda. We have political parties doing that at the moment – and look where it’s landed us! No one willing to even listen for fear of stepping outside perceived ideological bounds. Adam wants to sing. Just that – sing. And as both fan and music consumer – that’s all I really want from him. Oh – I’m interested in his opinion, his artistic influences and sense of style – but I don’t care how gay he might or might not be – or how he wants to express that. It’s interesting from an artistic point of view. I’m a writer. I used to be an actor and theatrical director. That informs my writing – as does my being Irish, having been homeless at one point in my life, and surviving childhood abuse – but none of those things define my life – not as a single entity. Out Magazines pot-shot was pure theatre; spectacle designed to garner attention and push their agenda (laudable or not ‘“ it’s still an agenda). Using an up and coming artist as center ring attraction was not only heartless (again, imo) – it was irresponsible. I hope future interviewees will take all of this in due consideration the next time Out asks for a feature.

HermeticallySealed, all I can say is AWESOME post. I fell in love with Adam the singer who just happens to be gay. He is changing one person at a time just by being himself.

movin2thabeet, would you expect Kris to expound on the the pressing political issues of the day in his interviews?

Good point. What do we know about Kris’ political or religious beliefs? (We know more about Adam’s religious beliefs than Kris’s-go figure?) Kris was a worship leader at a church. Why don’t they ask him about prayer in the schools? Now, if he wants to represent the church he worked at and become politically involved-that would be fine. But right now he just wants to make music.

Certainly, it’s his prerogative to remain silent.

Yes, it is. However, Adam has been anything but silent. He has given his thoughts on denying gay marriage. He has talked about what it’s like to be a gay teen and come out to your parents. Adam has discussed his relationships (now and in the past) and how young gay couples have a lack of role models to look to. He even discussed how relationships with other contestants on AI evolved. Adam has said time and again how he can’t and won’t live his life hiding who he is.

Adam is many things, but he has not been “silent” about who he is and where he stands.

Thanks for sharing that, TFLS. Appreciated.

I think the whole back-and-forth is part of the PR rollout. Controversy, buzz, whatever you want to call it — it keeps his name in the headlines, and that’s all that matters.

movin2thebeat…”Any entertainer who claims they can’t have an opinion because they’re not a politician, is IMO, being disingenuous.”

Frankly, I find it refreshing that Adam just wants to be an entertainer and performer. I do not like having to listen to someone I paid to entertain me talk about politics. I go to a performance to get away from the heavy political environment we face every day! Call me shallow but…..I just want to relax, enjoy myself, and be entertained!!

Now I have to go back and watch the FYE video again.

I have been very entertained by Adam since day one on AI, he always gives 110% of himself to his music and the audience. My opinion regarding the continual hammering from all sides regarding his private life, his human being life is the audience is sucking the life out of this wonderful young man. He is fighting so hard to be recognized as the gifted vocalist and entertainer that he truly is and hopefully someday he will be treated as such.

So when a gay person finds themselves in the public eye, they have an incredible opportunity to help move the dial toward freedom and justice. If they refuse to take any piece of that mantle, yes, that is an opportunity lost. There is so much at stake right now that to have no opinion can only be seen as putting self-interest above concerns for your community. Not fierce, in my book. My definition of fierceness involves facing challenges and battles head on, without fear, or when there is fear, using it as a tool to sharpen one’s strength. The rest is just posing.

As Adam has pointed out, “not every gay man is the same gay man”. Your definition of “the mantle” – i.e. doing something to help achieve equality for gays – seems limited to overt political activism. What happened to the notion that simply being an openly gay celebrity (or non-celebrity) would help in the fight for gay civil rights?

Adam is right. His strengths lie in being an entertainer. Consequently, he’ll do the most good for the gay community by being the best entertainer he can be while also being openly gay. That seems to be the route chosen by Ellen and NPH. I’m sure he’ll make his share of appearances at functions that involve organizations like the Trevor Project, GLSEN or GLAAD.

Who knows? Maybe down the road, he might choose to take on YOUR narrow interpretation of “the mantle”. Hopefully, along the way, he’ll have won a few major awards, achieve a platinum album or two and sold out a few concert tours.

You do understand that Adam’s demand to be taken seriously as a singer first is the ultimate political act? he is paving the way for many many gay people to follow who do not want to be defined first and only by their sexuality. Cop out? I think not. What he is doing here is akin to what some of the greatest civil rights leaders in our history have done.

I think Adam should totally forget performing FYE at the AMAs and just sing MLK’s “I Have A Dream” speech while donning his best Lady Gaga-esque outfit. Then all the world will join hands and sway back and forth in harmony and true everlasting peace.

Broad strokes here – either Adam is a raging activist or he’s a singer/performer. Well, there happens to be a wide vast world in between. If Adam had agreed to be on the cover of the magazine and had candidly answered any questions asked of him, I don’t think it would be the end of his career or created an impenetrable cramped gay cage for him to live in. It might have made some of his straight woman fans uncomfortable however.

I’m more concerned about people’s understanding of civil rights. It is exactly the seamstress on the bus, the farm worker in the fields, the gay Marine, the gay teacher, and yes, the gay singer who just want to go about living their lives and be treated like everyone else. That’s the point. When they are not able to because they are not being treated fairly, then they (and we) need to step up and speak out if we have any chance of ‘A Change Gonna Come’.

Yet, when has Adam not spoken his mind about gay problems, when it’s his choice? He has talked about wanting to get married, he has spoken of a lack of good role models for gay youth, he has talked about the hardship of being a gay teen and the fear that goes with it. He has gone the gray area here. But it’s been his choice, not because others demanded it, or because he was being forced to do so.

Any entertainer who claims they can’t have an opinion because they’re not a politician, is IMO, being disingenuous.

I didn’t get the idea that Adam was saying he didn’t have an opinion, but that he didn’t have an informed opinion. It wasn’t his particular area of expertise. I admire somebody who doesn’t shoot his mouth off about something he doesn’t know about. We’d probably all be the better for it if more people took that approach.

Is Adam’s viewpoint, he gets to have his views and from what I see OWNs them happily. For me case closed, dead horse beaten, pipe smoked…

NEXT.
(oh yeah AMAs)

I totally understand his desire to focus on being an entertainer, and as a new one, not wanting to get into politics. And I certainly understand him not wanting to be put into a box, neither personally nor sexually. And I’m glad to hear he feels he’s got control of the publicity end of things. And I understand him wanting to go to mainstream magazines like RS before a niche one like Out. The one comment, though, that the Out editor made, that I’d like to understand better is the one that Adam could only be on the cover if there were several people. If there was that stipulation, I’d be interested in his thinking on that.

In any case, this has bumped him in the news cycle, so publicity-wise, it’s been a good thing for Adam, though probably annoying and a little distracting, too. Good that it’s moving on. (And wishing the clock would run out on overused words like it does on over-thought non-issues.)

…thinking happy thoughts, though, on how cool the video and AMA stuff looks, but I need to go to that thread to ask a question…

then they (and we) need to step up and speak out

Really? Are you a disciple of the Aaron Hicklin school of how people should represent themselves to others? It sounds quite like you are telling Adam and others how to live their lives.

They way I see it is like this: any one person–famous or not–only NEEDS to do what they feel they can and should. Not what you or I think they should.

I don’t think an artist or an entertainer has to be political. One does not need to be all things. We’re good at different things. Especially just starting out in the public eye, Adam is entitled to concentrate on his artistic vision, his new cd, his music and stage act, his brand new post-AI career, and not be expected to also carry the mantle of saving the world for gay acceptance at the same time. A similar burden isn’t forced on heterosexual artists and it’s not fair to do it to those who happen to be gay. A person is about more than their sexual orientation. OUT has a narrow vision, and see the world through that tunnel. Adam’s concerned right now with his career, not with politics or causes.

I also respect Adam for knowing what his limits are right now and stating them clearly. And for sticking up for his management.

I think the whole back-and-forth is part of the PR rollout. Controversy, buzz, whatever you want to call it ‘” it keeps his name in the headlines, and that’s all that matters.

You think all this is just PR? I think that is a very jaded outlook. I seriously doubt Adam or his team wanted this Out-gate to have occurred. He doesn’t need that kind of PR.

Adam’s name was already in the headlines…

Hi webster, I seriously doubt that he (or his management, as assumed before) didn’t want him to be alone in the cover. It has been proven that this particular 100 Issue always features groups, not individuals in the picture, each one of them with a characterization.

Anyway, I’m so glad that he made this statements, because really, this should be the end of the saga and now he can focus on what he needs right now.

AMA show and promos!!! Yay!!

Broad strokes here ‘“ either Adam is a raging activist or he’s a singer/performer. Well, there happens to be a wide vast world in between.

Actually, I don’t see anyone else making broad strokes except for you. Others have rightly pointed out that Adam has hardly been silent about numerous aspects of being gay. Have you read any of his interviews in Rolling Stone, Details or OUT?

HermeticallySealed, In answer to your question, here is what Adam just said, “It was my desire to stay away from talking about certain political and civil rights issues because I’m not a politician.”

That’s the sentence that got me all riled up. Because for me, above all else, above all fangirliness or love or admiration for anyone, comes my over-riding sense of fairness and justice. Right now, the gay community is essentially being treated as second class citizens and I am not OK with that. I applaud those who speak out on behalf of others, those are the folks I most admire. I just have very low tolerance for someone claiming to be fierce who comes ready with a conditional list. I know, I know. He just wants to entertain and party and give people a chance to forget about their lives for a little bit. He plays fierce as an image cause it turns some people on. Great. Terrific. Enjoy.

Let’s just be clear here. It’s OK to talk to a gay magazine but it’s not OK to talk about the issues that effect the reader’s lives – like the military’s ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, or same-sex marriage laws, or hate crimes legislation or job discrimination. Just talk fashion, sex and music and you’re golden. Got it.

ETA: Yes, I’ve read many of Adam’s interviews. I understand he has an aversion to boxes and he wants to do it his way. I admire groundbreakers and folks who have no interest in following society’s scripts. Adam wants to choose his own battles. I’m not sure we really have that choice. The man is gay at a time and place where being gay is under assault. He can entertain us all he wants, but that truth still remains when he walks off the stage.

Adam is so articulate his words make me cry. As soon as my pre-order of For YOur Entertianment downloads from ITUnes on Monday I will take my IPod and drive to the cemetary where my grandfather is buried and softly play the album through my earbuds into his headstone. Adam truly understands what my grandfather went through in the Japanese internment camp during WWII and I’m sure if he were alive he would love Adam for all he does to fight injustic and inequality in this world by breaking down barriers and refusing to be boxed in because of stereotypes. The people at OUT should be ashamed of themselves. It is like FDR all over again.

movin2thabeet
11/19/2009 at 10:37 pm
I get that Adam is more comfortable aiming his fierceness through image, performance, fashion’ ¦ That’s great. He also happens to be living at a time when gay rights are up front and center, about to either be stuffed further in the closet, or to be liberated. That is the climate he (and we) currently live in. For a gay person, that climate is in your face, most, if not all of the time, famous or not.

So when a gay person finds themselves in the public eye, they have an incredible opportunity to help move the dial toward freedom and justice. If they refuse to take any piece of that mantle, yes, that is an opportunity lost. There is so much at stake right now that to have no opinion can only be seen as putting self-interest above concerns for your community. Not fierce, in my book. My definition of fierceness involves facing challenges and battles head on, without fear, or when there is fear, using it as a tool to sharpen one’s strength. The rest is just posing.

I understand what you are saying, but at the same time the CHOICE to do so or not do so should be left up to him and he should be not only allowed that choice but respected for making it openly.
He did not enter the public eye on a gay agenda and then conveniently abandon it for his career, from the get go and unlike the silent majority of many sports stars, actors and musicians, not to mention politicians and religious personalities, he has been OPENLY out for several years.
He has said he is first and foremost an entertainer, he has followed through on that, according to many he has jeopardized his career by coming out so early in his career, yet it’s still not good enough.
I admire him for his courage and also his common sense in the current climate and his strength in owning that the decision was his.
These are indeed admirable qualities because he is not misleading and is not hiding his sexuality.
My opinion only of course.

movin2thabeet-

Someone on yesterdays headlines thread (yingyang I think) posted a link to an article that stated that no gay singer has ever had a hit in the USA after coming out, except for “Candle in the wind” which was successful mainly because of the tragedy of princess Di behind it.
And so- Adam, with his ambition to become the first one to do it here, might really be making history and advancing progress by just being able to unopoligetically do that. Like many others have stated- if in his field of expertise he can touch people and influence them, then there really is no reason for him to be vocally “political”- he’s winning people over much more efficiently with his craft.

You go Adam!

I don’t understand how it can be overlooked all the issues he touches when he’s talking about his experiences as a young man growing up “different” to his peers, his perspectives on relationships and the lack of role models, how he values monogamy,’ ¦

For a 27-year-old, I think he offers a lot, he’s extremely insightful. Why also demand from him to tackle political topics he doesn’t feel ready for? I don’t think those expectations are reasonable or fair, in my opinion.

So there we go. He doesn’t have to be a flag bearer or a gay activist, just a gay man who thinks sexy is sexy and wants to make people dance. “Not every gay man is the same gay man”–exactly. Besides, Adam talks a LOT about being gay, mostly because that’s all he’s ever asked about. To expect more than that and to be “counting on him not to mess things up” for the whole gay community, like Hicklin wrote? Is completely over the top and over the line.

I’m thinking Adam should stay off the twitter and keep on giving excellent interviews like this one. Funny what a couple hundred more words can do for you

I find it interesting that some people feel that Adam, however willing, is required to meet the needs of a community that seems so rarely to support him.

I’m more concerned about people’s understanding of civil rights. It is exactly the seamstress on the bus, the farm worker in the fields, the gay Marine, the gay teacher, and yes, the gay singer who just want to go about living their lives and be treated like everyone else. That’s the point.

There are many people on this board who are gay or are heavily involved with causes that affect the GLBT community. I haven’t seen any of them express that they expect for Adam to become a vocal political activist. They are proud of him for living his life as truthful as he knows how at 27 years of age. He is doing exactly what you said-trying to live his life and wanting to be treated like everyone else.

It’s called freedom. In this country we have the choice to be political or not. We have the choice NOT to vote.
Adam may not be marching on Washington, (he may one day) but he is being a fine representative by being brave enough to be completely out, proud, and honest.

movin2thabeet–
I sympathize with your feelings about this, as I think that our country’s official attitude towards gays and lesbians is an outright embarrassment, and because I think we find ourselves at a crucial moment where this might finally change. But I don’t think Adam has any more responsibility to step up and become an activist in this cause than any one of the rest of us, gay or straight. He only has a heck of a lot more to loose, and also more of a reason to resent being boxed into a role. Both of these are, I think, totally legitimate reasons for his choices.

I am, as usual, really impressed by Adam’s response. It is straightforward, full of common sense, and most of all avoids the posturing that made Hicklin’s letter so unappealing. Adam is not making a drama out of this, and for someone with as natural a flair for the dramatic as he has, I think this instinct to be direct and human about it is really nice.
He also takes full responsibility for the situation, when it would have been more than easy just to push it off on his handlers. That is honesty.

One more thought: no one would ever expect, for example, Lil Rounds to speak out on, say, unequal sentencing guidelines, or racial profiling, or affirmative action, or any number of issues that speak to the tremendous inequalities faced by African Americans in this country. For one thing, it would feel like an unfair racial prejudice to push that on her just because she is black. For another, she has no reason to be an expert on any of these issues, and like Adam, she might be reluctant to lead a political battle that does not feel directly like her own.

I say, fair enough, Adam, fair enough. Now go and entertain us; that is a demand that I feel it is fair to place on your shoulders.

The. End. I hope, because this particular kerfuffle has gone on past it’s expiration date.

Amen

I do not like Adam’s choice to stay silent on political issues, but I respect his right to make that choice. American Idol is supposed to be fun entertainment. I just feel like this whole incident, and season 8 in general with its politically charged nature on both sides has just sucked the fun out of this whole process. These are heavy serious issues being brought up, and it just feels strange to do it in the context of American Idol.

I love Adam for his honesty, his depth, his willingness to speak his truth and stand by it. He makes no apologies for who he is and as I have watched him over these past few months, I have never seen him shy away from his truth. He also calls bullshit when he sees it and has quashed untrue rumors about himself, swiftly and with humor. This is unconventional in a public figure, especially in a world where any press is good press.

So I believe his statement and take him at his word that he has made these choices for himself and I respect him for his choices. He is living by example. Good for him. That takes courage.

I appreciate that Adam will not allow himself to be placed in anyone’s box, and this is difficult for the human brain, that likes to organize things and people into categories. It’s neater that way. Well, Adam isn’t neat, or tidy like that. He does not fit into any preconceived notion of how a gay public figure should or should not act. He’s Adam, and as he should have the freedom to follow his vision, so should any of us. He is living his passion, his vision, his truth and encourages others to do so as well.

midwifespal -

“One more thought: no one would ever expect, for example, Lil Rounds to speak out on, say, unequal sentencing guidelines, or racial profiling, or affirmative action, or any number of issues that speak to the tremendous inequalities faced by African Americans in this country. For one thing, it would feel like an unfair racial prejudice to push that on her just because she is black. For another, she has no reason to be an expert on any of these issues, and like Adam, she might be reluctant to lead a political battle that does not feel directly like her own.

I say, fair enough, Adam, fair enough. Now go and entertain us; that is a demand that I feel it is fair to place on your shoulders.”

Girl, you over there reading my mind or what? we are blessed to be neighbors!!

GlambertOfPeaceAlways
11/20/2009 at 12:08 am
Adam is so articulate his words make me cry. As soon as my pre-order of For YOur Entertianment downloads from ITUnes on Monday I will take my IPod and drive to the cemetary where my grandfather is buried and softly play the album through my earbuds into his headstone. Adam truly understands what my grandfather went through in the Japanese internment camp during WWII and I’m sure if he were alive he would love Adam for all he does to fight injustic and inequality in this world by breaking down barriers and refusing to be boxed in because of stereotypes. The people at OUT should be ashamed of themselves. It is like FDR all over again.

This touched me and brought tears.

Mr, I guess it depends on what you would consider a hit. Off the top of my head, I can name some fairly famous gay or bisexual performers: Rufus Wainwright, Melissa Etheridge, Indigo Girls, K.D. Lang, Boy George, and of course Elton John, who I believe is doing very well for himself. Actually, all these folks have done/are doing pretty well. But yes, none of them are contemporaries on the pop scene. Lady Gaga remains the closest comparison, both musically and as a self-described bisexual.

I have no doubt that Adam has massive challenges ahead of him if he wants to both be free to be himself and also be a huge star. It’s a long shot anyways for any artist to rise to the top. But yes, an out gay person definitely will have even more obstacles.

Adam is so articulate his words make me cry. As soon as my pre-order of For YOur Entertianment downloads from ITUnes on Monday I will take my IPod and drive to the cemetary where my grandfather is buried and softly play the album through my earbuds into his headstone. Adam truly understands what my grandfather went through in the Japanese internment camp during WWII and I’m sure if he were alive he would love Adam for all he does to fight injustic and inequality in this world by breaking down barriers and refusing to be boxed in because of stereotypes. The people at OUT should be ashamed of themselves. It is like FDR all over again.

Adam truly is the light and the way. It IS that deep, despite his modest assertion otherwise.
Thank you, GlambertofPeaceAlways. Thank you and God Bless your Grandfather. What a devoted grandchild you are, sharing the gift of Adam.

One more thought: no one would ever expect, for example, Lil Rounds to speak out on, say, unequal sentencing guidelines, or racial profiling, or affirmative action, or any number of issues that speak to the tremendous inequalities faced by African Americans in this country. For one thing, it would feel like an unfair racial prejudice to push that on her just because she is black.

Mmhmm, exactly. Although Lil Rounds isn’t exactly in a position to influence many people so let’s just say…Beyonce. No one expects Beyonce to be a civil rights activist for the black community. She’s just an entertainer, and by being a popular entertainer who many white people like, probably has improved people’s general perceptions of black people far more than if she went aggressive, vocal activist on us.

Way to go Adam. Set up that strawman and then knock it to the ground! Woo. Not.

Let’s see, the editor bitches in his original letter about how your management wouldn’t let you appear solo on the cover and how they were instructed to make sure that you don’t look “too gay” or “gay-gay”. So, you respond by saying that you don’t want to get involved in politics. Where is that coming from? I just re-read the letter and I don’t see him bitching about you not wanting to talk politics.

And, please explain, in what context is “gay-gay” appropriate?

Look, I’ll defend anybody’s right to not get involved in politics or be the poster boy for something or to be outed. But that doesn’t seem to be relevant to the text of the letter that I read.

So, nice interview with Adam. Very nice sentiments. I agree with them. But it doesn’t at all address what the editor was bitching about in that original letter, IMO.

BTW If you try to slam my message, I’ll rip a page from Adam’s play book and accuse you have hating puppies. Don’t be hating on puppies! My message has nothing to do with puppies, but I gotta pick something everybody will agree with (just kidding, rip my message apart as much as you like).

Kirsten, I think he was also responding to the letter from the actual interviewer where she discusses the conversation his publicist had with her before the interviews. She represents the magazine, so was included in his response to the magazine.

Kirsten, I think he was also responding to the letter from the actual interviewer where she discusses the conversation his publicist had with her before the interviews. She represents the magazine, so was included in his response to the magazine.

Well, I have to find that letter. Maybe he should start sending snarky tweets to her instead of the editor if that’s who his beef is with.

I would still very much like him to tell us the context for the “gay-gay” quote. I’m curious why he just waved it away by saying it was out of context. If he gave us the context, it would make his case that much stronger. Or not.

Well said Adam and I applaud him for his honesty. I detest people when they assume that if you’re like them that you breathe, think, eat and do everything like them and that you’re obligated to be like them. We’re all different people. No two people are alike. I don’t force people if they have different views from mine. I respect them and give them their space. And I would want people to respect my beliefs and not to try to turn me around.

Adam opened doors for future artists that it’s okay to be different and that people will accept them for what they are and that they shouldn’t be discourage or afraid. His agenda is to share his special gift to his fans. And that’s how it should be.

I just hope this is the end of it. Let’s just enjoy his beautiful music.

I’ll find a link for you Kirsten.

http://www.popnography.com/2009/11/an-open-letter-regarding-an-open-letter-to-adam-lambert.html

Here you go!

Kirsten,
take another look at the editor’s letter. It went way beyond complaining about the use of the term “gay-gay.” I agree that is a really unappealing term, but used by a gay man, to a gay man, it is really code for what the rest of the editor’s letter was complaining about, which was Adam’s (or Adam’s team’s) reluctance to present him first and foremost as a gay man. Hence Hicklin’s bitching (in, frankly, language easily as offensive to women as “gay-gay” is to gays) about the Details shoot, about Adam’s not appearing on the cover of Out during or right after Idol, about Adam’s potentially “messing this up” for gay America. And as austinmidwife points out, Adam is also explaining his reluctance to talk politics, which the interviewer talked about directly in her note, and which Hicklin referenced indirectly to support his claims. I think Adam clearly addresses all these accusations in this comment–accusations that, in fact, themselves present the “context” for the “gay-gay” comment. Hicklin’s unreasonable expectations were exactly the “gay-gay” that Adam and his handlers were, uncouthly, trying to avoid. They could just have put it a lot better.

austinmidwife–right back atcha, girl.

ETA–he didn’t tweet at the interviewer because she wasn’t the one who publicly attacked him in a weirdly aggressive “open letter”

After the bitchy tweet, 19 Publicist to the rescue!

I have issues about him not wanting to become the poster boy of the gay community. It seems he uses his gayness whenever it suits him and when people criticize, he often uses the “I’m just a musician.” or “I don’t want to be political.” OR my fucking favorite: “It ain’t that deep.”

Please. I can understand not wanting the burden of being a gay role model but sometimes, it’s not anybody’s choice. But if he doesn’t want to, it’s fine. There are better people to emulate, especially those whose gayness doesn’t feel like just a fashion statement.

I’m done with him.

Let’s see, the editor bitches in his original letter about how your management wouldn’t let you appear solo on the cover and how they were instructed to make sure that you don’t look ‘too gay’  or ‘gay-gay’ . So, you respond by saying that you don’t want to get involved in politics. Where is that coming from? I just re-read the letter and I don’t see him bitching about you not wanting to talk politics.

Read the editor’s letter. He does talk about politics.

Here you go!

Thanks, it’s an interesting read. I guess it’s this point:

I briefly met Adam, and then the publicist and I walked out to the balcony, at which point I was cautioned against making the interview “too gay,” or, “you know, gay-gay.” Specifically I was discouraged from asking about the March on Washington that upcoming weekend or other political topics. I pointed out the difference between the Advocate, Out’s sister newsmagazine, and Out, which is more broadly a men’s fashion and lifestyle book, but obviously made no promises one way or the other.

It doesn’t seem like she wanted to talk about politics in the first place. She even pointed out to the manager that she works for a fashion and lifestyle magazine, not the more political Advocate. Perhaps it is she that is offended because she thinks that the manager thinks that gay magazines are all about politics all the time. And again, there is the “too gay” and “gay-gay” quotes. What do they mean in the correct context?

Again, I defend Adam’s right not to be a poster boy for the gay movement or to talk politics or be outed (well, he outed himself, but if he hadn’t have wanted to be out, then nobody else should have outed him). What he says in his response is true and valid and well-spoken. I just think that his response misses some of the issues that were raised and I’m not sure if it addresses any of the issues that were raised by the editor.

We’re curious whether you know that we made cover offers for you before American Idol was even halfway through its run. Apparently, Out was too gay, even for you. There was the issue of what it would do to your record sales, we were told. Imagine! A gay musician on the cover of a gay magazine. What might the parents think! It’s only because this cover is a group shot that includes a straight woman that your team would allow you to be photographed at all — albeit with the caveat that we must avoid making you look ‘too gay.’ 

He doesn’t explicitly say that Adam’s team required Adam to not be solo. It seems that he could be drawing the conclusion that this is the reason Adam was allowed on the cover this time, while he wasn’t allowed to appear on Out during the Idol run, while in reality American Idol participants just aren’t allowed to do magazine spreads. At the very least there’s some ambiguity here.

And what the heck were they doing offering him a magazine cover DURING the Idol run, while he hadn’t even COME OUT yet? Except, oh wait. Out aspires to the Perez Hilton brand of journalism. See Hicklin’s previous debacle with “outing” Anderson Cooper and Jodie Foster by putting them on the cover…using stock photos…without their permission.

Clearly he is the height of professionalism, and truly cares about the gay rights movement and the rights of individuals to express their sexuality in freedom. He’s not twisting things for the hits at all.

The context of “gay-gay,” imo, was probably that it was said in a joking manner. “Oh and dude, try not to stay out of the political stuff okay? Adam doesn’t want to go into that. Not too gay-gay, stay with the music.” Which…isn’t great, but in a country where “That’s gay” is still a common phrase even among people who AREN’T homophobic, it’s not a shockingly homophobic abomination of a statement either. Not half as terrible as this gem of Hicklin’s, anyway: “You’re a pioneer, an out gay pop idol at the start of his career. Someone has to be first, and we’re all counting on you not to mess this up.” Now THAT kind of attitude is not progress. At all. I believe Adam, and the Huffington Post writer, and Slezak, explained why far more articulately than I could, so I’ll leave it at that.

well said, midwifespal! I don’t think I can put it any better.

about Adam’s potentially ‘messing this up’  for gay America.

The editor is totally out of line there. He has no right to pin all that on Adam.

Read the editor’s letter. He does talk about politics.

He does, but the politics of gay rights in general. In a world where it’s okay for an openly gay man to be in a hetro photo-shoot, but not in a “gay-gay” one. I don’t think he’s complaining that Adam didn’t want to talk about the minute details of Prop 8 opposition. He’s just asking what the “don’t make him look gay-gay” means for acceptance of gays.

Just to be clear, I don’t think that the editor was in the right about all things. I just don’t think Adam’s response posted here responds to all of the editor’s complaints.

And I cannot re-iterate enough that I defend Adam’s right to not want to talk politics. Most Idols won’t even say which political party they support because that never ends well for them. He’s an entertainer.

The man is gay at a time and place where being gay is under assault. He can entertain us all he wants, but that truth still remains when he walks off the stage.

Adam is a 27-year old young man, who is a son, brother, cousin, nephew, singer/performer, songwriter, who is gay. When he walks off the stage, he is a 27-year old young man, who is a son, brother, cousin, nephew, singer/performer, songwriter, who is gay. Boy, there is so much for him to think about as to whom he is.

I just think that his response misses some of the issues that were raised and I’m not sure if it addresses any of the issues that were raised by the editor.

The editor has his own agenda. (selling magazines) He outed Anderson Cooper and Jody Foster without their consent. He isn’t exactly the poster boy for moral integrity. He’s a bully.
He made the whole story up about 19 denying “Out” a cover during the season due to “wanting to sell records”. Both Slezak and the editor at Afterelton confirmed the fact that no one is allowed to do individual interviews/covers. The editor is a liar.

There are better people to emulate, especially those whose gayness doesn’t feel like just a fashion statement.

Adam’s gayness has never felt like a fashion statement to me, especially not with the extremely insightful and contemplative things he’s said about his love life. But I guess that sort of stuff gets overshadowed by the big drama like this.

Adam isn’t out to be a role model, especially not a political role model. If that loses him fans…so be it.

Gracious, and goodness. If Adam looked any more gay on the cover of OUT he’d be riding Drake! This is a freaking tempest in a teapot. The proof of such is the damn cover! That they did the cover. If they were all full of righteous indignation the letter would have started something like this…

Dear Adam, we are sorry that we cancelled your interview and photo shoot for OUT. You and your handlers offended us with you refusing to be photographed in all your gay glory. Instead you wanted us to allow you to butch it up and ungay yourself. So screw you, and your self-denial.

Sincerely, the bestest gay editor on the planet!

I am so sick of this, but this entire season was predicated on whose afraid of the big, bad gay. So I guess it’s lurching to it’s preordained conclusion.

I think it’s fucked up that people expect you to be something they expect you to be. Then when you refuse to be that person, they get their noses bent out of shape. Really it’s not that deep. No one person should have to take on the cause of an entire group. Who has been asked to do that? Seriously? Why him? There is some serious hypocrisy going on.

I’m off to bed, folks. It’s been real. Tomorrow, hopefully, no more OUT-rages. Yay. It has taken up far too much of my mental energy already (nobody’s fault but my own). Sleep well, y’all.

I never have and never will listen to anyone who shouts at me from a literal or figurative soapbox. Hearts and minds are not changed by loud intimidation, but by example. One of the most important things a writer learns about communication is to “show, not tell.” Showing who you are and what you stand for gets the point across far better than telling others what they should think or how they should behave.

Adam is a FREE gay man — not an indentured servant to a cause because of who or what he is. This is reverse discrimination; dictating to someone that they must live their life or express themself according to what a particular society deems acceptable is exactly what all human rights activists are — or should be — fighting against.

Long post coming. Please forgive me, I’m still trying to pass Politics 101:

So, about that Adam Lambert guy … and politics. Poor guy is trying to be a singer and stay out of politics. From what I’ve seen and heard, at one time or another, he’s tried to not answer questions about his sexual preferences, about same sex marriage and about health care reform. I do recall his letting it slip once that he actually had very strong opinions and was, in fact, very very liberal in his views. His opinions seem pretty obvious to me but he doesn’t want to declare them publicly. I don’t blame him. His music seems to be pretty divisive and his politics probably are too (inside and outside the gay community). Adam is trying to stay neutral or at least not alienate people by keeping his music and his politics separate … but it really isn’t possible to do this.

The old-guard activists know that there really is no neutral position in politics. You can say yes or you can say no but you can’t stay out of it. Not choosing is, in itself, a choice. It means (a) not-yes and/or (b) don’t care. You know the adage. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. By not doing something to help, you are, in fact, hurting. And that’s how they see Adam. Not coming out or not coming out to help … implies that he doesn’t agree or doesn’t care. And that sends a political message all by itself. People will wonder why he doesn’t agree and/or doesn’t care enough to do something. Or they’ll think that he isn’t brave enough or he’s a hypocrite of some kind.

You can’t really be Switzerland unless you obviously help both sides or obviously try to interfere with both sides, equally. Being Switzerland sounds easy but it ain’t.

So, by not coming out to help, Adam is, essentially, saying no I won’t help. And that looks bad. People in the mainstream see it as justification for their own view and people in the gay community see it as a betrayal or as setting a bad example for others who might be thinking about joining the movement. It’s bad form all around. And in this respect, Adam and a lot of others like him are just screwed. Can’t win for trying.

Only Adam has gone even further to offend the gay establishment. He’s saying that they are old guard, old-fashioned, out moded and no longer necessary. In fact they, the guard, are part of the problem. We don’t need to be a cohesive community anymore. Society has cleaned up it’s attitude enough for us to benefit more by just being ordinary people. I’ll be a singer who happens to be gay instead of being a gay singer. Well geeze Adam … now the activist establishment is supremely y pissed at you.

But maybe Adam is more right than wrong. I happen to agree with him. Except that it ain’t that easy because there are still battle lines to cross … like same-sex marriage. There has to be a “movement” to win that one because this war isn’t going to win itself. And an Adam Lambert could help or hurt that movement by choosing wrongly or by trying not to choose at all. Sorry Adam.

The only thing he can do, really, is beg for time and promise to choose later when he’s made a success of himself… Because, oh yeah, failing to succeed would also hurt the movement. But no pressure.

And by the way, that critique about people emphasizing their butch or fem side and not recognizing that there are masculine and feminine sides in everyone…. that’s gonna go down really well too.

But you couldn’t have avoided any of this by staying in the closet. So, in general, it just sucks to be a high profile gay person and this is an especially bad time.

And this is another area where Adam is correct. Amateurs shouldn’t play at politics. Who can even dream of winning at this game unless they work at it full time. If you’re a singer or actor, you may not (understatement) be well-enough equipped for it.

tootheatrical - perfect post. Everything I’ve been trying to say, except said better. Bravo!

And NewFan great analysis of the situation. I don’t usually fangirl comments, but I’ll make an exception for these two.

“Adam is a FREE gay man ‘” not an indentured servant to a cause because of who or what he is. This is reverse discrimination; dictating to someone that they must live their life or express themself according to what a particular society deems acceptable is exactly what all human rights activists are ‘” or should be ‘” fighting against.”

Yeah! You go! And I think his point is that we should all be free to be who we are and wear our identities with pride and conviction. In one of the many interviews that came out today he said, “I don’t say do what I do, I say do what you do”. And he’ll keep doing what he does, very well, I might add. I mean, he wants to entertain and I am highly entertained by him every day!

The only thing he can do, really, is beg for time and promise to choose later when he’s made a success of himself. Because failing to succeed would also hurt the movement. But no pressure.

What are you wanting him to choose? What is he going to “rightly or wrongly choose”.

One more thing I’d like to say about boxing people into almost stereotypical representatives of who they’re supposed to be: I don’t believe sexuality (or any other part of being human) is either/or. Maybe it’s the virtue of when I came to maturity – but sexuality was much more fluid 70′s/80′s. You could be mostly straight, enjoying same-sex exploration when the mood hit – or kinda bi – with a preference towards one gender or the other. That – and you fell for who you fell for. Sex was fun ‘“ an adventure. I’ll freely admit to having a very good time. I was an actor working mostly in theatre, touring the world, learning about humanity. No labels ‘“ just living. Adam reminds me often of myself, actually; not in practice as much as spiritual discovery. I re-wrote who I was during my 20′s ‘“ finally becoming the ‘me’ I’d always seen inside my head.

I certainly don’t expect anyone else to follow my path…..so I can’t help but take umbrage that the editor of ‘Out’ expects Adam to behave as he proscribes ‘“ as opposed to being the person Adam sees (whatever that may be). Oh – I understand the reasoning. Gay rights are under siege right now. But that editorial took Adam to task for more than not being sufficiently politically active. It castigated his sexual choices ‘“ saying he can’t be ‘gay-gay’ if he overflows the box. How dare he have photos taken touching a woman? Or say he finds woman ‘pretty’? Doesn’t fit; too far off the scale, yadda, yadda. *sigh* Makes me understand why Adam finds the 80′s so attractive. It was a freer time. Less boxing, more acceptance ‘“ on a whole host of levels. So ‘“ I’m with Adam. Truly. I get what he means ‘“ and I’m fine with it. So just keep singing, sweetheart. Enjoy yourself ‘“ ’cause it all goes by quicker than you can possibly imagine.

NewFan – I know a lot of anti-establishment people, most of them in the same national Burning Man community that Adam hails from. They are intelligent, outrageous, gender-bending, creative, boundary pushing, artistic and really really fun. they live their lives on their own terms. Some are serious activists and some are just living by example and do not get caught up in the serious activism piece of marching and writing letters and being deeply politically active. They are too busy living their lives and that is the way they are choosing to fight for change. The old guard is threatened by this particular brand of free-thinking because these people will not be categorized or boxed in to any one label.

Yes there is still a hell of a lot to fight for when it comes to gay rights. I should know. I’m living it. But I do not find Adam’s desire to remove himself publicly from the active fight problematic. If anything, his desire to simply be able to live as he is, to be an entertainer and excel at what he does best while still never denying his identity refreshing. Most of my gay and lesbian friends long for this and when someone like Adam comes along and just does it, with flair, pizzazz and glitter, it helps those who are in the fight with the political skills. Because there he is in all his gay glory, having gained much respect for his musical ability and much love from his many fans and a clearly captured media, showing those who are fighting for gay rights that the fight is working! This alone is pretty damn good.

hi gemini1

it’s not me who wants him to choose. But his choices are to become an activist poster-boy or start splaining why he won’t … or play his music really loud to drown it all out, … make lots of money and eventually move to Madagascar or some other place that could be quieter.

I’m recommending the last one.

**waving** Hi tootheatrical … thank you for my new name … will MJ allow me to change NewFan to NotSoNewFan? or have I stuck myself in a time warp?

Actually, I might have to change my name after using so many words tonight… Time to start fresh with a new identify.

Because failing to succeed would also hurt the movement.

There’s still a movement?

My feeling on this is if you want to “move” the movement forward, eat more fiber.

Movements have their time and place, but once passed there are always those who were relevant at the time who try to hang on to their power from the glory days. That’s where Out is right now. It’s pretty much lost its relevance.

In its hey-day, Out was a shocking, provocative magazine that was dedicated to “outing” famous people, hence the name.

I’m with Adam. Being gay shouldn’t put you in a predefined box. You should be free to be yourself. Two of my best friends are gay men (not partners) and surprisingly to most people they are both Republican and neither think same sex marriage should legalized. One loves Ann Colter and the other cherishes his autographed picture of Reagan.

Not every gay man and woman are the same, thank God. If anyone told either of my friends they were hurting “the movement” they would both laugh their gay asses off.

Well, one would laugh his ass off, the other would say “Fuck that shit!”

hi gemini1

it’s not me who wants him to choose. But his choices are to become an activist poster-boy or start splaining why he won’t ‘ ¦ or play his music really loud to drown it all out, ‘ ¦ make lots of money and eventually move to Madagascar or some other place that could be quieter.

I’m recommending the last one.

Okay-I get it now. Hey, how about Germany? Adam loved it over there and I’ve heard it is much more accepting!

I’m out! Good conversations tonight. Once again, Adam never fails to get us talking.

Yes there is still a hell of a lot to fight for when it comes to gay rights. I should know. I’m living it. But I do not find Adam’s desire to remove himself publicly from the active fight problematic. If anything, his desire to simply be able to live as he is, to be an entertainer and excel at what he does best while still never denying his identity refreshing. Most of my gay and lesbian friends long for this and when someone like Adam comes along and just does it, with flair, pizzazz and glitter, it helps those who are in the fight with the political skills. Because there he is in all his gay glory, having gained much respect for his musical ability and much love from his many fans and a clearly captured media, showing those who are fighting for gay rights that the fight is working! This alone is pretty damn good.

You’ve made me cry austinmidwife. I wonder if there’s a way to get this to him. Seriously. (There isn’t a good smilie for this)

Beware of political movements. Notice how they eat their young first. Heaven forbid that Adam might actually be recognized as the positive result of the movement’s efforts over the last 25 years. One day Adam can pay homage to the shoulders of the activists he stood on to get where he is. But for goodness sake, let’s allow him to get somewhere first. Let him have some success for which he can then show some gratitude. Shame on those who would exploit him for their own political agendas. They have outed themselves as jerks.

My feeling on this is if you want to ‘move’  the movement forward, eat more fiber.

OMG Sparkles. Tears of a different kind.

And a new perspective on OUT magazine. I didn’t know its’ history at all.

Question: Would it be fun to send your conservative friends to Burning Man. Or…

Well, one would laugh his ass off, the other would say ‘Fuck that shit!’ 

maybe they’ve already been?

Out’s main complaint is the management not allowing adam appearing too gay in their cover and interview. Adam responds with the political issues, which I think is purposely avoiding the “too gay” issue.

If Adam asked his management to avoid political questions for him, did he ask to avoid his own gayness, too? Because to me, Adam can be “gay-gay” and “too gay”. I mean, did he not look at his own album cover and single choice, at all?

I see some poster say Adam doesn’t need to support a community that’s not supporting him. Well, maybe you need to first help this community before earning their praise and support. Instead, all adam does is perpetuating the stereotype.

Hey, how about Germany? Adam loved it over there and I’ve heard it is much more accepting!

Beware of political movements. Notice how they eat their young first.

Hi gemini1:

I guess anyplace he loves or anyplace that doesn’t have political movements. Perhaps he’ll buy his own island some day.

Night all. Twas fun.

NewFan
11/20/2009 at 2:15 am
**waving** Hi tootheatrical ‘ ¦ thank you for my new name ‘ ¦ will MJ allow me to change NewFan to NotSoNewFan? or have I stuck myself in a time warp?

Actually, I might have to change my name after using so many words tonight’ ¦ Time to start fresh with a new identify.

Funny, I was just about to respond to your latest post — which (I think) I “get” BTW — it seems to me that you are acknowledging (lamenting?) the position Adam finds himself in rather than chastising him for it. That sometimes it’s (unfortunately) all about perception and how others see us more than the way we really are.

What I was going to ask is if you read dovesland’s eloquent letter to the “idiotor” of OUT — she spoke about being part of the “old guard” and how they had to put ego aside and pass the torch to the new generation. I won’t even try to paraphrase because she did it so well. Anyway, you can read her letter right next door on Planet Fierce:

http://www.planetfierce.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=single&thread=170&page=9#6293

(It’s the second letter down . . .)

In addition to reading a very heartfelt and thoughtful take on the subject, the added benefit is that if you decide to stay on the Planet for any length of time you can change your name!!!! You can be NotSoNew Fan or even OLDFan if ya wanna! *I* did it – I’m adamauian over there so come on over and say Hi — or even Aloha!

Sherena
11/20/2009 at 1:54 am
tootheatrical – perfect post. Everything I’ve been trying to say, except said better. Bravo!

Thanks, Sherena — I’m like Adam: It makes me so happy when people “get” me!

@Movin2thabeet – wow you are really taking a beating in this thread! thanks for giving your well-stated opinion and handling the onslaught.

Of course what he’s really doing is hoping the gay community will still support him even if he won’t support them. Good luck with that.

Ever since the Reagan era 80s, it seems like anyone (or any group) seeking social change is marginalized & dismissed as a “special interest”, be it gays, blacks, or bleeding-heart liberals. For better or worse, America has always been about assimilation – every minority in america knows this – so ppl who are accepted by the broader community first have a better chance of having their voices heard by that community.

Perhaps you are right, that he will be seen as a throwback to progressives for not wanting to seem “gay-gay”. Hopefully his strategy will serve him (& you) well in the long run, since his AI song choices like “Black or White” and “Change is Gonna Come” foreshadow a career where he will use his public platform to speak for a better world.

his AI song choices like ‘Black or White’  and ‘Change is Gonna Come’  foreshadow a career where he will use his public platform to speak for a better world.

I forgot about that. AI Adam had more balls than Trapper Keeper Adam…Who knew?

Wow My whole previous post just disapeared. I guess i need to make it shorter…Hee!
Adam, as you all really know, does not care if he looks gay. What kind of statement do you think his AC made!! He loves dressup and he loves makeup, and he loves fashion. He occasionally puts “he” into his lyics, but he will tone it down a decible if he knows his crowd will be too shocked by certain….err…moves.
tootheatricle, I so agree….it is reverse discrimination from OUT’s Editor!
austinmidwife, I too belong to this community, but I live free. I am lucky enough to have equal rights & marraige rights “here”, and I feel so blessed!!
Our families are, so, onboard with us, even though they had initial awkwardness. We have frequently mixed our gay friends with our families and straight friends.
I am nobodys tool, not for the haters for any position. Like Adam, I believe it is all about the love and living your life on your terms. I will not compromise who I am but I don’t get confrontational either. I would perfer to choose my battles because this one is mostly won, but the world is still getting warmer and the homeless are still marginalized by our governments,
and violence against women is increasingly pervasive…..and the list goes on!
Give this guy a break! He needs to build his fanbase before he starts positioning himself on every gay issue. He is out and proud and that is how he should proceed!!!!!!!!!!

Please. I can understand not wanting the burden of being a gay role model but sometimes, it’s not anybody’s choice. But if he doesn’t want to, it’s fine. There are better people to emulate, especially those whose gayness doesn’t feel like just a fashion statement.

I’m done with him.

hypertwink, nice try but the issue of being a gay role model never even came up in the EW interview. Being an inadvertent role model WAS discussed in the OUT interview but at no time did Adam state he didn’t want “the burden of being a gay role model”.

I seem to recall you being mostly critical of Adam in the past. Can someone who was never a fan in the first place be “done with him”? If you feel his gayness is like a fashion statement, then I don’t think you’ve actually read any of his interviews in Rolling Stone, Details or OUT.

lulwut
I see some poster say Adam doesn’t need to support a community that’s not supporting him. Well, maybe you need to first help this community before earning their praise and support. Instead, all adam does is perpetuating the stereotype.

I really don’t understand why people would want to rush Adam into frontline activism. Why not let him focus on establishing his career for a while. He is probably the ONLY YOUNG gay star to be open about his sexuality at the beginning of his career in the US. His success can only help to improve things for other young gay people in the mainstream music scene. Stop trying to find fault with him not doing things to perfectly suit you and acknowledge that his courage will help the visibility and viability of the gay community.

hypertwink I was going to respond to you and wrote several messages going deeper into this debate but the decided it wasn’t worth it. People will have their views and I am not going to force my on them. Too bad Adam is not given the same courtesy.

ETA:

I really don’t understand why people would want to rush Adam into frontline activism. Why not let him focus on establishing his career for a while. He is probably the ONLY YOUNG gay star to be open about his sexuality at the beginning of his career in the US. His success can only help to improve things for other young gay people in the mainstream music scene. Stop trying to find fault with him not doing things to perfectly suit you and acknowledge that his courage will help the visibility and viability of the gay community.

I do know why either, he’s been on the radar for less then a year. I think his actions of trying to live an open and honest life should speak volumes.

Adam does have his own battle ahead of him. If people on here are right, he will be fighting the major radio company in the country for air time. Clearone is ultra conservative (or maybe homophobic). Gotta be tough to break into the music industry if the radio stations will not play your music because of your sexual orientation. He will either have to break them down or go around them. If that isn’t a battle I don’t know what is.

dab1234 – I think you mean Clear Channel, Clearone may take offense

This is all so riduculous. If clear channel has an agenda concerning gay artists, they might as well close shop because probably at least half of the people who are famous today are either gay or bi-sexual.

As for Adam: I guess honesty is not always the best policy? These people want blood…they aren’t satisfied with candor, outrageous talent and endless charm. No, they want it all.

So Adam, be yourself and we fans love you for your talent. We’re here routing for you. You are the best.

Well, one would laugh his ass off, the other would say ‘Fuck that shit!’ 

Sounds like guys I know, lol!

So Adam, be yourself and we fans love you for your talent. We’re here routing for you. You are the best.

All he can do is be himself – I’m reading on other sites people saying he lost their support with this OUT hoopla. Seriously, did he ever really have their support if this is enough to make him lose it? The man’s life is an open book, what else do people want?

Squirrely
11/20/2009 at 7:14 am

dab1234 ‘“ I think you mean Clear Channel, Clearone may take offense

OMG I am SO SORRY. Please forgive me, it is early in the AM. If Clearone is reading this, my bad.

In its hey-day, Out was a shocking, provocative magazine that was dedicated to ‘outing’  famous people, hence the name.

SparklesATL are you perhaps thinking of the shortlived and very controversial NYC magazine called OutWeek?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OutWeek

They pretty much coined the term “outing.” Out magazine, despite its name, has never made a habit of outing people, the Jody Foster-Anderson Cooper cover notwithstanding.

I hope we can focus on his music now. He is not running for president, he is an entertainer. If people would just leave his personal life alone and move forward, well, it would be nice. Adam is a singer, singer, singer…His voice is awesome. Leave him alone.
And yes, 3 days left…

Just to be clear, I don’t think that the editor was in the right about all things. I just don’t think Adam’s response posted here responds to all of the editor’s complaints.

So now Adam is obligated to respond tit-for-tat and line by line to every accusation leveled in Hicklin’s letter to satisfy some people? This is getting ridiculous.

Adam move to Canada. Our country has handled gay issues without political upheaval. You can live in peace and without pressure from political groups demanding your support.

So let’s look at it this way. Adam supports Out magazine. What does that do for gay rights? Nothing.

The process starts with America’s views of what’s right and wrong. It’s an equality and civil rights issue and as far as I can tell America is quite the hypocrite when it comes to equality and civil rights for gays.

So now Adam is obligated to respond tit-for-tat and line by line to every accusation leveled in Hicklin’s letter to satisfy some people? This is getting ridiculous.

No. He can do as he chooses. I just think he set up a strawman and knocked it down. Certainly, we see a lot of that in discourse these days, so if other people can do it, so can Adam. I just wouldn’t label it as responding to the article. He could have also have responded to the editor’s original complaint by saying “For your information Out Editor, I would never go out on an ice flow and club a baby seal”. Totally commendable and a sentiment I agree with, but not really relevant. Out didn’t want to do a feature article on his politics either. They are just annoyed that they were asked not to make him look “too gay” or “gay-gay”. Like there is some kind of acceptable amount of gayness.

Adam doesn’t have to respond to this issue at all, but I’m not going to be impressed if he chooses to dodge the subject and rant about apple pie issues (something almost everybody can agree with). Although, nice spin. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

And Again: Disclaimer: I do not think that Adam has to be the poster boy for gay rights or discuss gay rights or politics at all. I also do not think that the editor had any right to tell him “not to mess it up”. I agree that PR people always have and always will set limits.

will SparklesATL are you perhaps thinking of the shortlived and very controversial NYC magazine called OutWeek?

You’re right!! Thanks will for pointing that “out” to me. All this time I thought Out was the same magazine. I fear I have unintentionally re-wrote history.

OTT – Adam was at Drake’s art showing – very nice.

Kirsten no matter what he would have said I don’t think it would have satisfied you and that’s fine he can’t please everybody. It’s impossible.

That’s not true. I’ve praised things that Adam has done. I don’t praise everything.

Please don’t post assumptions about me.

As someone who has always had GLBT friends, co-workers, business associates, family both in the small east coast city I grew up in and here in LA, all of this really offends me.

It bugged the hell out of me that so much media attention went into Adam is gay, Danny is a widower church leader, X is a this, Y is a that during the AI season. It really bugs me that I listen to music and like or dislike an artist based on what I hear, not on what the media tells me I have to.

Just drop the agendas. Stop putting people into boxes and let the music live or die on its own merit.

Kirsten
They are just annoyed that they were asked not to make him look ‘too gay’  or ‘gay-gay’ .Like there is some kind of acceptable amount of gayness.

How did he choose to dodge the subject? He clearly said that the use of the phrase “gay-gay” was taken out of context.

How did he choose to dodge the subject? He clearly said that the use of the phrase ‘gay-gay’  was taken out of context.

And then neatly dodged out of telling us what the context was. For all we know, the context was even worse than implied by the editor. I’m afraid I don’t see too many contexts where “gay-gay” or “too gay” is acceptable. People often say “that was taken out of context” like that explains everything. It explains very little. It’s just smoke and lights like the Great Oz uses so you won’t pay any attention to the man behind the curtain. If you don’t give us the context, you haven’t justified your use of an offensive phrase. And frankly, it makes me a tad suspicious. People usually provide information if it exonerates them

Disclaimer: I totally agree with Adam that nobody has the right to expect him to discuss politics or be involved in gay rights. The Out Editor also had no right to tell Adam he shouldn’t mess this up.

All he can do is be himself ‘“ I’m reading on other sites people saying he lost their support with this OUT hoopla. Seriously, did he ever really have their support if this is enough to make him lose it? The man’s life is an open book, what else do people want?

Well, the fact is that we are at a very very tricky time in the history of the gay rights struggle. To me, it’s very comparable to the 60s and 70s in the black struggle for civil rights.

At times like that there is lots and lots of tension within the community of struggle about identities, identification, being “too black” or “too gay” or “not black enough” or “not gay enough,” etc. … It’s inevitable, because people have all different kinds of personal agendas — for some the politics is a huge part of their lives, for others it’s virtually no part, some see the political struggle as a help to them, some as a hindrance for various reasons…. It all inevitably gets kind of messy and you get a community that outsiders think should be united fighting amongst itself.

That’s clearly what’s happening here, to me. … And, in my mind, the Out editor has a perfect right to voice his take on it — which is valid in many ways, political ways, to my thinking — and Adam has a perfect right to voice his take on it — which has its own, personal validity, as well — and, in fact, it’s inevitable that both of these points of view, as well as numerous others that conflict with both of these, are going to be heard and fought over. That’s just what happens at this stage of a rights struggle. Happened with women’s rights, as well. It always happens.

Some people really honestly believe that everything personal *is* political and must be considered that way and other people honestly believe that the two realms should be separated, and people from those groups are going to clash. (I will say that more of my sympathy lies with the first group; but I do understand the point of view of the second as well, on the gut level.)

But the idea that that kind of struggle is actually going to mess up Adam’s entertainment career just seems silly to me. As an entertainer, he’s going to rise or fall based on how well what he’s doing and who he is connect with the music-buying public. Period.

Stuff like the Out flap *is* going to happen, because history shows that you inevitably have a lot of conflict over identities in communities of struggle when we’re at this stage of a fight for legal rights. If Adam’s hoping that he can get by without being implicated in such flaps, he probably had better read some good books on the history of black civil rights and women’s civil rights, because that will acquaint him with the inevitability of this kind of stuff….It’s inevitable that these things happen and, in the end, I think it’s probably very important for all the different points of view from the gay community to get out there on the table and get debated. Struggles of this kind *need* statements like the one from the Out editor — even if he may be overstating things a bit; I don’t know enough about what happened to know whether he is or not — or, frankly, the struggle won’t move forward, in my opinion.

However, even though I’m sure that flaps like this will continue to happen periodically through Adam’s career, I just don’t believe they’ll hurt him. They’ll happen, and then a couple of weeks later, nobody will remember them. The public at large is way more interested in music videos than they are in identity politics, for one thing. So people who like Adam’s music and performances just won’t care about this political stuff — and if he gets flack from some in the gay community, that might just make some fans, gay and straight, support him *more.* And for the public that is squicked out by his sexuality, I just don’t believe that disagreements among the gay community are going to matter one whit one way or another.

I earlier put this is the headline thread and I hope I will be forgiven for repeating myself….but a lot has been discussed about the alledged conversation between Roger and the interviewer and that conversation seems to be pivotal for OUTs rantings. Also, I think that Aaron encapsulated months of previous negotiations into a time frame that looked as though it was all inclusive to this one incident. And I don’t think that was the case in regards to the “cover” issue. Now for my earlier ramblings.:

I’m going to make one last comment on the OUT controversy and them I am OUT on that subject for time everlasting.

We only have the words of the girl interviewing Adam about what was discussed between her and the PR person and the jist of the conversation was taken from her recollection of the events. I am sure that there were things said, and specifically about any politicizing that was to be verboten during the interview’ ¦.but the rest is her paraphrasing the discussion and relating it to her Editor. Second hand information is not always the best and that is why it is called heresay in a court of law.

She was protecting her job when she reported to the Editor’ ¦and unless he was also in the room (which I don’t know) then her relay of the discussion CAN BE construed to protect her as an interviewer who didn’t get what her editor wanted.

Besides, I think Roger was talking to her as a gay man to someone he thought was inside that bubble. His words COULD have been over the top but they were not said for any kind of public consumption. I think she is as much at fault as anybody and I don’t think she should get off scott free for telling tales (no matter how truthfully) out of school.

End of my rant’ ¦.and end of the discussion for me.

Kirsten no matter what he would have said I don’t think it would have satisfied you and that’s fine he can’t please everybody. It’s impossible.

That’s not true. I’ve praised things that Adam has done. I don’t praise everything.

Please don’t post assumptions about me.

I meant in this situation. And in this situation aren’t you posting assumptions as well?

I’m going to repeat a comment left on a popular LGBT blog for perspective from an LGBT civil rights point of view:

“Listen, Adam, if you don’t want to talk about issues and politics that’s fine – don’t. But don’t come to me asking me to buy your next fucking CD so you can profit just enough off of the gay audience without actually having to stick your neck out and stand for something.

Just stand for something, anything for that matter. I would have more respect for you if you just had an opinion rather than “I asked my handler to ask the interviewer to (not make me uncomfortable).” I’m over that! We are fucking getting MURDERED MUR-DERED! That kid in PR just got dismembered, had his head chopped off, and was set on fire for being gay and you want to be on gay magazine covers (or any covers for that matter) and yet not have to express an opinion? Fuck that! Take a look down from your throne of privilege for a second and see what your audience is enduring while you are getting your make-up done.

You want to have interviews where all you talk about is your hair and relationships fine, but don’t expect any respect from me man.

And for all of you who thought the editor of Out was out of line, that’s fine, maybe he was, but he stood up for something he believed in! More than I can say for Adam and his whole “why can’t we all just get along, I don’t want to have to stand for anything” shtick. You know why we can’t all just get along? Because there are people who believe we are better of dead – cut into pieces and laying in the ditch – that’s why. That’s why it takes opinions and expressing them and discussing the sad state of affairs that this country is in so that some day, some day maybe we can “all just get along”.”

I meant in this situation. And in this situation aren’t you posting assumptions as well?

I’m posting assumptions about an Idol which is the topic of this thread.

I’m not posting assumptions about my fellow posters.

If we cannot draw conclusions about Idols and what they do, there is little purpose to having a comments section.

Just to be clear, I don’t think that the editor was in the right about all things. I just don’t think Adam’s response posted here responds to all of the editor’s complaints

I think he answered everything and honestly too. it shld have ended with his tweet which i approved of 100% but this response is much clearer for those that needed to understand his point of view more.

my only annoyance is that every freaking interviewer here on out for his album promo will ask him this same question instead of tour details and song choices and the stories behind them. last night Extra, ET, eNEWS all asked him abt it. so i’m sure if people are still not satisfied with his answers by the end of the New york press tour then they will never be. maybe a smart reporter will tabulate each point raised by Aaron Hicklin and have Adam answer them one by one. that shld help.

whatever!

Adam stop lurking and post something.

LOL. Won’t work.

Jim C and Slezak post here and we are still allowed to make assumptions about them. Ditto for Idols that have posted here in the past (for instance, Chris Sligh who we recently ripped apart for his blog post).

my only annoyance is that every freaking interviewer here on out for his album promo will ask him this same question instead of tour details and song choices and the stories behind them. last night Extra, ET, eNEWS all asked him abt it. so i’m sure if people are still not satisfied with his answers by the end of the New york press tour then they will never be.

Yeah, that is kind of annoying. But think of it this way — If they weren’t asking him about this, they’d still be asking him for details about his crush on Kris!

(Oh, and speaking as one of those nerdy reporters who actually does ask people to respond point by point to their opponents’ statements and then publishes their responses in full — because my publication is as nerdy as I am — … Well, suffice it to say that the other reporters don’t read our stories …. Seems that it’s easier to just glom onto the controversy-question of the day, and ask it over and over. Imagine that!)

I’m going to repeat a comment left on a popular LGBT blog for perspective from an LGBT civil rights point of view:

SFNative-did you post that beause you agreed with it? Fair enough. But if people read the OUT interview on line, Adam is pretty open. I think the gist is that Adam didn’t want to be USED by Out for an agenda the editor had.

From what I have read, I don’t think Adam has ever specifically asked the gay community to buy his album because he is gay. He only wants people to buy his album if they like it.

We are fucking getting MURDERED MUR-DERED! That kid in PR just got dismembered, had his head chopped off, and was set on fire for being gay and you want to be on gay magazine covers (or any covers for that matter) and yet not have to express an opinion?

I lied I’ll make one more comment…..the above quote is exactly what I hate about issue extremists. They take everything out of context and twist and turn it for total sensationalism without regards to who they are ranting at. They have their agenda…they have no intention of working within the system, they just seem to want to point out all of the injustices without working for a solution. If this person is so irritated at the present state of affairs they should be taking their issues up with those who make the “rules” and the “laws” and not attack an “openly” gay male who is just trying to live his life.

I absolutely hate fucking people like this individual. That rant may have ’caused a sensible human being to just walk away from the issue and not be as open-minded towards gays. If gays are blasting their own for being gay and not taking on the political issues…what does that say about their ability to work things through calm and rationally. Ugh just ugh.

‘Listen, Adam, if you don’t want to talk about issues and politics that’s fine ‘“ don’t. But don’t come to me asking me to buy your next fucking CD so you can profit just enough off of the gay audience without actually having to stick your neck out and stand for something.

OMG!! .

This almost sounds like blackmail/ bullying/ intimidation all rolled into one.. if u want me to buy your CD you must stand up right now for gay rights. wow. i didn’t know a miserable $9.99 had so much power. think of all we cld accomplish by threatening these stars to do our bidding. Gay audience???. That’s the problem right there. he is singing for everyone.

Kirsten no matter what he would have said I don’t think it would have satisfied you and that’s fine he can’t please everybody. It’s impossible.

I actually deleted this, I mean c’mon people, dial back the defensiveness. Don’t make assumptions or put words in people’s mouths please.

I’m posting assumptions about an Idol which is the topic of this thread.

I’m not posting assumptions about my fellow posters.

If we cannot draw conclusions about Idols and what they do, there is little purpose to having a comments section.

Exactly.

Kirsten
11/20/2009 at 9:24 am

How did he choose to dodge the subject? He clearly said that the use of the phrase ‘gay-gay’  was taken out of context.

And then neatly dodged out of telling us what the context was. For all we know, the context was even worse than implied by the editor. I’m afraid I don’t see too many contexts where ‘gay-gay’  or ‘too gay’  is acceptable. People often say ‘that was taken out of context’  like that explains everything. It explains very little. It’s just smoke and lights like the Great Oz uses so you won’t pay any attention to the man behind the curtain. If you don’t give us the context, you haven’t justified your use of an offensive phrase. And frankly, it makes me a tad suspicious. People usually provide information if it exonerates them

Dear Kirsten,

I like you, I really like you….(Oh forget it that has been done to death)

Actually we don’t know if he did or didn’t address the Gay Gay comment. Possibly EW did not choose to expose the whole response in its posting. Remember this is 3 part interview. I could get into that since the publicist is Gay himself, this could be a tongue and cheek expression from someone who is gay to a gay mag journalist. Also being that Adam expressed in his answer that what happens in behind the scene discussions is not for public consumption, he would be hypocritical to explain in detail what transpired. (Even Slezak brought this issue up in his editorial on the subject). I personally look at your microscopic critique of his response as wanting to help Adam. To address issues that would steer the subject away from the album and his singing. Unfortunately Adam is human and so can not be all things to all people.

I happen to agree with Kirsten btw.

The first thing that struck me when I read Hicklin’s letter…I thought “They said WHAT to WHO???”

And I would imagine, that Adam isn’t going to address exactly what went down at this point–as he embarks on the promotion of his debut album–an extremely crucial point in his career.

But I, for one, would love to know the context in which telling the interviewers and editors at Out not to make Adam “Too gay” and “gay-gay” is cool.

But like I said in an earlier post, if we ever learn what really went on behind the scenes, it won’t be until much later.

But I, for one, would love to know the context in which telling the interviewers and editors at Out not to make Adam ‘Too gay’  and ‘gay-gay’  is cool.

Amen. But that does seem to be a minority opinion, lol.

A lot has been said, and I guess it is at least a positive thing that this can be discussed so openly, even in the context of american idol. The one thing though that I just can’t wrap my head around is what the big deal would be if Adam talked about DADT, Gay Marriage, or The March on Washington. Adam seems to pride himself on his openness, and I know he has to have opinions on these because he seems halfway intelligent, so why the censorship on anything political? No one is asking him to lead a march, just simply to talk about his feelings on the march or dadt. I can’t fathom how he would lose fans doing so. If you were bothered enough to not buy his music if he said he hoped Maine would vote no on 1, I can’t imagine you cared for him much to begin with.

Wow, that really angry post from the LGBT person was pretty intense. So does this mean I should no longer listen to Miles Davis because he beat his wife? Or that Liberace, Elton John, Neil Patrick Harris, Melissa Etheridge, the Indigo Girls and countless other gay and lesbian performers should no longer receive the support of the LGBT public because they are not marching on Washington for gay rights? I’m going to repeat what I posted at two in the morning because I think it is relevant to the morning crowd:

Yes there is still a hell of a lot to fight for when it comes to gay rights. I should know. I’m living it. But I do not find Adam’s desire to remove himself publicly from the active fight problematic. If anything, his desire to simply be able to live as he is, to be an entertainer and excel at what he does best while still never denying his identity refreshing. Most of my gay and lesbian friends long for this and when someone like Adam comes along and just does it, with flair, pizzazz and glitter, it helps those who are in the fight with the political skills. Because there he is in all his gay glory, having gained much respect for his musical ability and much love from his many fans and a clearly captured media, showing those who are fighting for gay rights that the fight is working! This alone is pretty damn good.”

So that being said, who knows what Adam will do or be 10 years from now, as an established artist? Adam has a long career ahead of him and the LGBT community has no right to shove its political agenda on any performer, much less a newbie whose just trying to work it out. I think a couple of his songs answers these questions pretty well. Listen to the words of WWFM and Master Plan. I think he’s making himself very clear.

So does this mean I should no longer listen to Miles Davis because he beat his wife?

Well, you know, more than a few people would say that you shouldn’t. … I know quite a lot of people who won’t watch a Woody Allen movie because they believe the Soon Yi stuff proves he’s morally bankrupt. That point of view is out there in many ways. And I don’t know that one can say that it’s totally wrong.

And, of course, it’s *way* more acute in the time of a bitter rights struggle.

By the way I would like to go on record to say that a small percentage of my thoughts on this whole brouhaha is that this is a huge publicity stunt and was orchestrated by both parties. Though I may not agree with the delivery of response from both sides it has brought up the topic of gay rights and issues and making people discuss it. Why I think both sides are involved is Adam could have easily ignored the matter from the beginning when the letter was first written. He he never addressed it I personally think it would have died down. He choose to keep it alive and in the consciousness of the media. I predict there will be resolution on this from both Adam and Aaron and all will be right in the gay world…(well not really but between these two anyway)

Wow, that really angry post from the LGBT person was pretty intense. So does this mean I should no longer listen to Miles Davis because he beat his wife?

Yes. Or at least I think so. If you have a problem with a man beating a woman, I don’t understand why you want to listen to that abuser sing. Miles Davis made great music, but there is a lot of great music out there. I prefer to listen to music by individuals who don’t savagely pulverize women. Everybody has flaws, but that is one I won’t tolerate.

By the way I would like to go on record to say that a small percentage of my thoughts on this whole brouhaha is that this is a huge publicity stunt and was orchestrated by both parties.

Now *there’s* an interesting take! Wouldn’t surprise me a bit. And if it was — well, then, good on them for being pr geniuses.

I’m going to repeat a comment left on a popular LGBT blog for perspective from an LGBT civil rights point of view:

Some people ask constantly why singers and actors stay closeted, and i think reaction to Adam like that is quite the explanation.

By the way I would like to go on record to say that a small percentage of my thoughts on this whole brouhaha is that this is a huge publicity stunt and was orchestrated by both parties.

I seriously hope not. I would boycott Adam and Out magazine on Chris Brown levels if that was true. I know Adam was calculating on Idol, but that would be downright insidious.

But I, for one, would love to know the context in which telling the interviewers and editors at Out not to make Adam ‘Too gay’  and ‘gay-gay’  is cool.

Amen. But that does seem to be a minority opinion, lol.

The impression I got was that Adam didn’t want to be drawn into a political discussion as he certainly doesn’t have any issue with discussing being gay. Who knows what was really said? We have a gay publicist, a gay celebrity and a gay magazine. The editor had an agenda, Adam and his publcist (who is gay) didn’t want to participate in that agenda.

OT, but not really. Remember that backlash Eminen got for being homophobic. And then Elton John ended up performing a duet with him and the two hugged after the peformance? I think Elton reached out to Eminen? Perhaps because he thought things were being blown out of proportion. I think we have a situation where the OUT issue is being blown out of proportion.

ETA-I would love a duet with Adam and Eminem.

I’ve already waxed poetic on this particular topic, but I’d like to quote from my original post:

he is a musician that happens to be gay, rather than a gay that happens to be a musician,

I know that statement is unpopular with the gay community and with some supporters of Gay Rights. I am a long-time and vocal supporter of Gay Rights, and I have no issue at all with how Adam is handling himself in this situation.

As for a point by point rebuttal of Hicklin’s letter? That only turns the kerfuffle (awesome word, MJ!) into a pissing contest. Adam has made statements, both on Twitter and now in a public interview. Going any further would only prolong the situation – and of course, then open him up for even more criticism. Some people felt he needn’t have responded at all. So which is it? Ignore it, make a statement, or get into a wrestling match. Again – he’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.

Or perhaps, since he retweeted the Planet Fierce Response to Hicklin as his first response to the whole controversy, maybe he felt those sentiments addressed the original letter enough that his follow-up statements were the only additional clarification required?

http://www.popnography.com/2009/11/adam-lambert-responds.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Popnography+%28Popnography%29&utm_content=Twitter

Out response to Adam’s EW interview.

gangreen29
11/20/2009 at 10:27 am
Wow, that really angry post from the LGBT person was pretty intense. So does this mean I should no longer listen to Miles Davis because he beat his wife?

Yes. Or at least I think so. If you have a problem with a man beating a woman, I don’t understand why you want to listen to that abuser sing. Miles Davis made great music, but there is a lot of great music out there. I prefer to listen to music by individuals who don’t savagely pulverize women. Everybody has flaws, but that is one I won’t tolerate.”

When it came out that Miles Davis was indeed a wife beater, I stopped purchasing his music, but it was years after certain classics had already been made and I already owned quite a bit of his music. The dilemma was discussed ad nauseum in the feminist community and I will confess that I certainly don’t listen to Miles the way I used to. Does that mean that others take this stand? Not necessarily. I still hear him on certain radio shows and the occasional journalist brings him up referring to his brilliance as a jazz performer, carefully leaving out the nasty bits.

At least with Adam, we know exactly where he stands on who he is, now at the beginning of his career. He honest to a fault about himself, as much as anybody can be. He’s an open book, go on a take look. He has no reservations and he doesn’t care about anyone’s cold calculations. Welcome to the Master Plan. He does not care if you understand.

So if people in the LGBT community don’t buy his music because he isn’t fighting hard enough for gay rights, they’re missing out. And as Adam would say, “go buy that other’s guy’s music”.

Beautiful post, austinmidwife!

Back atcha Rowe!

rockvixen
11/20/2009 at 10:37 am

Out response to Adam’s EW interview

Actually, the first comment to Out’s response is far more interesting. In his rush to publish, Mr. Hicklin mentions gay, lesbian and trans men. Forgot trans women…and actually also failed to mention bisexual. GL and half T? Lovely. What a hypocrite.

SFNative-did you post that beause you agreed with it? Fair enough. But if people read the OUT interview on line, Adam is pretty open.

the above quote is exactly what I hate about issue extremists. They take everything out of context and twist and turn it for total sensationalism without regards to who they are ranting at.

This almost sounds like blackmail/ bullying/ intimidation all rolled into one..

This person scares me. (Not the poster, but whoever this rant is from.) This is what I worry about. Not the accusation that Adam’s openly gay PR guy had some requests with a gay magazine who was interviewing his openly gay client.
I wish we wouldn’t bring hate-filled comments over from other places. I’m sure we could drag all sorts of comments over from all kinds of places. I’m just not sure what the purpose is.

rockvixen – thanks for posting Out’s response.

Dialogue is indeed what we’ve got going here about this issue. I think Adam is doing a fine job bringing gay rights to the forefront of anyone’s consciousness who is paying attention. He is living unapologetically as an out gay man, not hiding. He is willing to bring himself, his views, into the harsh light of judgment from the American public and willing to live with the consequences of his decisions and actions. This is progress, people.

Again, it’s not activism or bust. It’s being willing to answer questions without prior censorship of those questions. The bottom line for me is that it is neither courageous nor different to avoid controversial issues.

I understand that the entertainment business is tough and everyone’s using the other guy. Out magazine is trying to puff up the story and fill some coffers at a time when print media is struggling just to survive. And Adam is trying to increase his exposure without endangering his career at a time when fully out gay artists still often find themselves marginalized. To me, there are no victims or heroes here, just business as usual.

Again, for me its just that the fierce and free label doesn’t ring true to me when you have to put conditions on what you’ll talk about or how you’ll appear on the cover of Out magazine. Yes, gay is simply a sexual preference and in no way should require anyone to have to act in any prescribed manner. But it also happens to put you right smack dab in the middle of the most egregious example of legal discrimination practiced in this country. That’s why it is often said that being gay in this country at this point in time is a political act. That is not fair, it should not be the case, but it is a natural consequence of the draconian laws we all live with.

The fact that this discussion is causing all the ‘kerfuffle’ it has, just demonstrates the distance left to go to a time when one’s sexuality or way of expressing that sexuality is no longer controversial or scandalous.

Man…I keep lying to myself…I’m posting again (note to self: there is ALWAYS something more to say…it’s fucking political).

I found the reply from Aaron after the EW article to be pretty much an admission that he somewhat over-stepped his bounds and that any issue he had with Adam’s PR team SHOULD HAVE BEEN handled in private. I’m not saying he is eating crow, but I do think he has taken the time to reflect that his agenda may have hurt him and the magazine much more than he thought. Sometimes it is best to let your “anger” move from boiling to a gentle simmer before you make public statements.

All and all I think that everyone concerned (except some over invested activists) have proven themselves to be adults, have said their forms of apologies. Now, hopefully, it is time to listen to PUU and the fantastic bridge fore the 2 hundred and 81st time….when does he breath? I haven’t figured it out yet!

I just don’t get any of this. The criticism (hell that’s a mild word for it!) from segments of the gay community? It’s been said so many times that I hesitate to repeat it, but it seems to me that he should be embraced by the community for living his life openly as a gay man from the very start of his career. We’ve already discussed how rare that is.

In his short tenure in the public eye, I think Adam has reached many people who may previously have had homophobic feelings and has opened their hearts. I’d be willing to bet that he’s had a more positive influence in that respect than that LGBT ranter. And yet they want to cut him off at the knees. Curiouser and curiouser.

I wonder if Adam suspected that he would have to deal with all this when he took that big step and auditioned for the show. I think he did.

fluffybunny
11/20/2009 at 10:28 am
I’m going to repeat a comment left on a popular LGBT blog for perspective from an LGBT civil rights point of view:

Some people ask constantly why singers and actors stay closeted, and i think reaction to Adam like that is quite the explanation.

Amen to that!

He is a musician that happens to be gay, rather than a gay that happens to be a musician,

I know that statement is unpopular with the gay community and with some supporters of Gay Rights.

And, honestly, isn’t that the only point here?

In the acute and — hopefully — closing phases *any* rights struggle, you are going to have people within a movement who argue that no public figure in the oppressed group has a right to see things this way. *And* you’re going to have people in the movement who say that that’s quite okay and maybe actually good.

Both of those points of view are *always* articulated loudly, when you look at history. Both have points of validity. And, of course, the two views loudly clash.

I honestly can’t imagine why everybody is so surprised that this is true here. Am I actually the only person here who’s aware that this happens in every single rights struggle that ever happens?

And that eventually, slowly, people move past it, as more of the group’s political goals are achieved — but that you never ever ever move past it until this particular clash has been out in the open and yelled about for quite a while?

Adam is caught up in the movement of history here. He’s been cursed with that old one, “May you live in interesting times.” He will not escape this kind of flap. Nobody in his position could. …

But it’s his music and the public’s response to him and his music that will be the sole determinant of how his *career* turns out. The inevitable bitter fights within the gay community will have nothing to do with that.

But those fights aren’t going to go away just because it bothers Adam-the-entertainer and, especially, Adam’s fans. Nor should it.

I love Adam and want him to have a great career. But the political struggle and the inevitable messy crap that’s in it are far more important in the long run. I, for one, don’t want that to go underground for the supposed convenience of one young singer. …. Plus, if it went underground, it wouldn’t help him anyway. I can’t see how it could hurt his career in any way, shape, or form for these flaps to happen. No matter what people involved in the struggle are angry about, and no matter how publicly they are angry, the general, mainstream public’s response to him and his music is what’s going to shape his career as a pop singer.

On a much lighter note and watching a lot of interview vids and some red carpet stuff etc. I am amazed how much people (men and women, alike) feel very comfortable embracing, hugging, touching, standing close to Adam. It’s the very few among us who have reduced their “private” aura around them to the point that people are totally nonhesitant to invade that space. Everyone invades that space with Adam, so obviously he doesn’t have a “do not” invade zone.

That is very, very unusual…and it can’t be faked. So, more hugs to Adam because hugging him makes me feel good even though I’m not doing the hugging.

gemini1
11/20/2009 at 1:42 am
I just think that his response misses some of the issues that were raised and I’m not sure if it addresses any of the issues that were raised by the editor.

The editor has his own agenda. (selling magazines) He outed Anderson Cooper and Jody Foster without their consent. He isn’t exactly the poster boy for moral integrity. He’s a bully.
He made the whole story up about 19 denying ‘Out’  a cover during the season due to ‘wanting to sell records’ . Both Slezak and the editor at Afterelton confirmed the fact that no one is allowed to do individual interviews/covers. The editor is a liar.

^^THIS^^ I find it interesting that all of a sudden its Adam who is held to the standard but not the editor. I guess that’s convenient if you want something to criticize him about…

In his short tenure in the public eye I think Adam has reached many people who may previously have had homophobic feelings and has opened their hearts.

We will never know the true extent of this. But, two examples-Danny and Michael.

Tess: That’s true! And it’s men and women! Adam IS changing people’s perceptions.

I’d be willing to bet that he’s had a more positive influence in that respect than that LGBT ranter.

ITA! I’m sure this could have been handled differently. But that wouldn’t sell magazines or get hits to your site. “Out” magazine burned a bridge. The editor said it was easier to get straight people to be on the cover than gay people. (That very statement should explain why being a gay entertainer is a slippery slope.) Good luck with trying to get gay entertainers on the cover in the future.

But the political struggle and the inevitable messy crap that’s in it are far more important in the long run. I, for one, don’t want that to go underground for the supposed convenience of one young singer.

Lucy, I just don’t see how anyone is asking for the gay rights movement to go underground or become silent. Adam has only asked that at this point his career he not be pointedly asked about his position on the politics of his sexual orientation. That is his prerogative. He isn’t stuffing himself back into the closet nor is he denying who he is.

But I, for one, would love to know the context in which telling the interviewers and editors at Out not to make Adam ‘Too gay’  and ‘gay-gay’  is cool.

The only thing that really mystifies me at this point is the “don’t make him look too gay on the cover” request. I mean, if Adam indeed takes responsibility for THAT, I’d love to hear his explanation.

The “too gay” or “gay-gay” I interpreted simply as meaning they didn’t want the interview to focus exclusively on his homosexuality or on gay issues, which I don’t think is an unreasonable request.

will
11/20/2009 at 11:13 am
The only thing that really mystifies me at this point is the ‘don’t make him look too gay on the cover’  request. I mean, if Adam indeed takes responsibility for THAT, I’d love to hear his explanation.

Maybe 19 didn’t want him in an overtly sexy pose with another man (i.e. kissing or…) on the cover? Sort of the counter to the Details photoshoot?

This is so interesting. When the Out statement first came out (how do you say that w/o pun), I was going to say I wondered if Adam was the one who actually made the requests. Especially the part about political statements. Didn’t he make clear early on that this wasn’t his focus at this point?

I admire that in the wanting ‘no boxes’ issue for Adam it includes:

Not every gay man is the same gay man.

will
11/20/2009 at 11:13 am
The only thing that really mystifies me at this point is the ‘don’t make him look too gay on the cover’  request. I mean, if Adam indeed takes responsibility for THAT, I’d love to hear his explanation.

Maybe 19 didn’t want him in an overtly sexy pose with another man (i.e. kissing or’ ¦) on the cover? Sort of the counter to the Details photoshoot?

It could be something like that. That’s a good point. I’m sure Adam would have been all about that! Would it have been a good idea at this point? Probably not.
(I wish that wasn’t true, though.) Things are different for gay entertainers. Adam knows it, 19 knows it, and the editor knows it. I really think they are using Adam. I have thought that from the start.

I just laugh when I think about the accusations of this editor and then look at the cover and all the pictures inside of the album. They are pretty “gay”. Adam has some support somewhere from 19.

Maybe 19 didn’t want him in an overtly sexy pose with another man (i.e. kissing or’ ¦) on the cover? Sort of the counter to the Details photoshoot?

I know this is unfamiliar territory for these publicists from 19, but c’mon, if they had done just a little bit of research they’d have known that Out never does overtly provocative covers like that, especially not for the “Out 100″ issue. Their covers are designed to be displayed on magazine racks in mainstream chain stores, just like any other large-circulation magazine. And I’m SURE Adam knows that. So I have no earthly idea what he or his team were worried about.

I think that Adam may not have addressed some of the issues (e.g. not making him too gay on the cover) because he did not think it was appropriate to publicly call out his management on those issues. He took responsibility for what he was responsible for, but he might be privately addressing some of the other accusations with his publicist/management–assuming those accusations are true and assuming Adam didn’t agree with what happened.

If those statements by his publicist did in fact occur, and Adam didn’t like them, it would have been in VERY BAD FORM for Adam to publicly chastise a team member. In the alternative–maybe Adam told his publicist that he didn’t want to look too “gay gay” and the publicist was just using Adam’s own words.

I don’t know the context, or what happened, or how gay men talk to each other about these things. I think Adam might have very easily concluded, you know what, I don’t want to do anything too provocative on the cover of Out right now. Maybe next time (not that there will be a next time now).

Here’s the takeaway message: Adam can take a lot of insults from the homophobes and haters, but if you suggest in any way that he is being puppeted around or is not in control, he is going to fight back!! That’s the ultimate insult. Nobody puts BB in the corner. LOL.

especially not for the ‘Out 100′ ³ issue.

Will: Is the “Out 100″ issue usually a group picture?

Will, is the ‘Out 100′ ³ issue usually a group picture?

Yes I believe it is. I’m not 100% sure though.

But the political struggle and the inevitable messy crap that’s in it are far more important in the long run. I, for one, don’t want that to go underground for the supposed convenience of one young singer.

Lucy, I just don’t see how anyone is asking for the gay rights movement to go underground or become silent. Adam has only asked that at this point his career he not be pointedly asked about his position on the politics of his sexual orientation. That is his prerogative. He isn’t stuffing himself back into the closet nor is he denying who he is.

Well, if you don’t see — after all the explanations that have been given here — that a lot of Adam fans yelling that the Out guy has no right to make the kind of political point that is a staple of *all* political rights struggles, throughout history, *is* a way of saying that the movement should go silent, then you’re never going to see it, I suppose.

No, you’re not telling him to be totally silent. You’re asking for him to go just so far and not farther — You don’t want them to go so far as to voice the political and philosophical opinion that a record company is wrong to try to suppress any of the gayness of a singer because it might hurt their sales.

No, that’s not asking for total silence. But it is attempting to dictate the extent to which somebody’s political speech is allowable. And that’s *always* the tool of the mainstream against the minority — “Oh, yes, dears, we’ll allow you to say all these things!!! But when you say *this* thing — in this case, that Adam’s pr rep had no business telling a gay magazine that they shouldn’t portray someone as too gay — well then, dear little used-to-be-oppressed person, you’ve gone too far, and you must be silent on that point, even though we certainly don’t oppress you any more!”

As in — “Well, I *love* those black boys, but that one over there is getting uppity! He’s going too far with his speech! It makes me uncomfortable!”

Look, as I’ve said repeatedly, I realize that there is also a good measure of validity in individuals like Adam wanting to stay out of the mess of the struggle and arguing with the Out guy about what’s required of someone in the oppressed group at this point in the struggle. I have absolutely no problem with him saying that. That’s his view and his prerogative and he has every right to state it. That’s a valid debate and it occurs in every liberation movement…

But basically a lot of fans seem to me to be saying that the Out guy has no *right* to publicly and forcibly state his view of the situation — which is different (and time honored and *also* with a clear measure of validity). And I very much beg to differ with that fan view. He *does* have a right. Saying that his political speech — because that is what it was; it was not personal, it was political — should be *limited* *is* a form of silencing; it’s just not *total* silencing. But it’s silencing, nonetheless.

And … I say again … *None* of this will affect Adam’s *career,* in the least, in my opinion. If some gay people consider him, rightly or wrongly, a bit of an Uncle Tom, that won’t have the slightest effect on his cd sales — in fact, it might boost them, if you ask me. The *only* thing that is going to shape his career is how the mainstream pop audience responds to him and to his music. So there’s really no reason to hope for a slowing of the free flow of political speech on those grounds.

rowenaaine
11/20/2009 at 11:17 am

will
11/20/2009 at 11:13 am
The only thing that really mystifies me at this point is the ‘don’t make him look too gay on the cover’  request. I mean, if Adam indeed takes responsibility for THAT, I’d love to hear his explanation.

Roweaaine:Maybe 19 didn’t want him in an overtly sexy pose with another man (i.e. kissing or’ ¦) on the cover? Sort of the counter to the Details photoshoot?

This! Exactly what I was thinking Rowe.

About the gay-gay thing: Adam did provide the context. The context was A PRIVATE CONVERSATION. This is why Adam followed up this question by pointing out that these words were spoken behind the scenes and had nothing to do with the interview he gave. These kinds of negotiations happen all the time with the media, and there is an understanding that they are off the record. This is why people feel more free to speak unguardedly in private, and, whilst we can’t know, I can easily imagine a loose conversation going on with the publicist, also a gay man, bandying about language he would never use in public, just as he might ask Out not to queen Adam up too much. Come-on people, its banter, its code language knowingly used to communicate something that’s totally clear to both participants in the conversation. Obviously (see album cover) 19 has no problem with the Gay. Obviously (see Out interview) Adam has no problem with the Gay. Obviously (see hair, facial and otherwise) Adam’s publicist Roger has not problem with the Gay (I keed, I keed). I honestly don’t think Aaron was as much bothered by the language (which I’m sure he hears all the time, used just as knowingly as I bet Roger used it) as by the feeling that Out was being treated differently from mainstream mags. The supposed “apartheid”. Well, I think he kind of has tunnel vision on that one. Ever single magazine comes with the baggage of its image, and it’s the job of publicists to manage that baggage. Like I mentioned yesterday, If I were to put Michael Sarver on the cover of Field and Stream, I would ask that they not “redneck” him up too much, and I would avoid fatigues. Altogether now: it’s not that deep.
Honestly, I think the double standard is Aaron Hicklin’s calling out supposed offensive language from a private, relaxed conversation between two gay men, but having no problem, publicly, and in print, denigrating pretty women as “barbies” and “kittens.” And he’s not even a chick.

Slightly unrelated: I think there is something else going on in this whole kerfluffle–something, that is in the end, hopeful. I really do think there is a massive generational difference that explains Adam’s attitude about this whole thing. It is true that we find ourselves in a country that still massively abuses the rights of gays. But Adam himself was essentially never closeted. His family had no issues with his sexuality. His friends had no issues with his sexuality. I’m sure he’s heard his fair share of slurs over the years, but on the whole he lives in a liberal age, in a liberal city, amongst liberal cohorts, and I really think this just isn’t the big issue in his life that it must have been for, say, Aaron Hicklin, who has talked elsewhere about spending most of his life, until fairly recently, living a semi-closeted existence. The statistics on this generational difference are really striking. If you poll Californians in Adam’s age group, 18-29 year olds, about same-sex marriage, which remains the biggest hurdle for gays (in the sense that it is the one most widely opposed in all age groups) almost 75% are in favor. Even in, say, Texas, more than half of young people favor gay marriage. By contrast, Mr. Hicklin’s age group (I’m guessing his age) is less than 50% in favor of gay marriage in California, and it goes downhill from there. That is a pretty massive difference. Isn’t progress nice? I’m happy for Adam that he never had to feel as defined by his sexuality as Mr. Hicklin did. Perhaps, as the bigots die off, there’s hope for us yet.

lucy
11/20/2009 at 11:42 am
it was not personal, it was political

Your points in the post above are valid in the general issue of freedom of speech, but the editor DID make it personal. He titled his editorial “Dear Adam” and tried to call out Adam. It was a full frontal personal attack. He attacked him for not fully embracing his personal view that Adam had a “responsibility” to be the poster kid for the movement.

Lucy
11/20/2009 at 11:42 am
it was not personal, it was political

Your points in the post above are valid in the general issue of freedom of speech, but the editor DID make it personal. He titled his editorial ‘Dear Adam’  and tried to call out Adam. It was a full frontal personal attack. He attacked him for not fully embracing his personal view that Adam had a ‘responsibility’  to be the poster kid for the movement.

Well, as I’ve also said, had I been the editor, I would have refused the interview and then written a letter to the editor explaining why Adam wasn’t in my issue. Just because I believe that I understand where he’s coming from and think that his views have some validity doesn’t mean I totally agree with him.

However, in my opinion, Adam’s a public figure, not a private figure, and he’s represented by a huge corporation. So, for me, addressing any public figure — and the corporations they’re involved with — in a letter from an editor is perfectly legitimate. Public figures get their power and money from the way the public views them, and those views are shaped by the political and social climate of the times, in my opinion. So — again, for me — on that score any public figure is fair game in the kind of letter the guy wrote.

And I realize that reasonable people can definitely disagree about this! … *and* i realize that it feels rougher to think of Adam as a public figure because he’s young and just beginning his career. … I know that makes it scarier and more difficult for him. But, to me, he’s old enough to run for Congress, so that probably means he’s old enough to take this.

My feeling about Adam here is that, since I know that he feels chancy about going whole hog with gay politics, then he should have declined the Out story and cover in the first place because he should have known that they would probably want more “gay gay” stuff than he and RCA would want in the story.

He didn’t, though. And I guess what baffles me most about the whole thing is that I truly can’t imagine how fans can possibly think this is going to hurt his sales in some way. Political kerfuffles don’t affect music sales much if at all, so far as I can see; plus, the Out guy here gave Adam his golden opportunity to articulate the point of view that’s by far the most mainstream-public-friendly. So that looks like it’s all to the good, saleswise, to me.

@midwifespal, I love your whole post and think you’re dead on.

Well, if you don’t see ‘” after all the explanations that have been given here ‘” that a lot of Adam fans yelling that the Out guy has no right to make the kind of political point that is a staple of *all* political rights struggles, throughout history, *is* a way of saying that the movement should go silent, then you’re never going to see it, I suppose.

No, you’re not telling him to be totally silent. You’re asking for him to go just so far and not farther ‘” You don’t want them to go so far as to voice the political and philosophical opinion that a record company is wrong to try to suppress any of the gayness of a singer because it might hurt their sales.

Lucy, I almost always agree with you, but I’m a little lost here (came in late and can’t really take this circular argument that has gone on and on), but here I go anyway …

I have no problem with Aaron Hicklin having his own opinion ‘“  of course everyone has their own opinion, their own experience, their own aspirations, their own causes. The issue I have with the whole thing ‘“ as Adam very articulately stated ‘“ is that Hicklin was projecting his agenda onto Adam with a tone that definitely said, “If you are not with us, you’re against us.” Or, if you don’t dance to our tune, you’re undermining everyone that has gone before you.

No one is devaluing the struggles of those who have gone before, but every individual gets to make their choice about how they support this.

Could you imagine if Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton said to Obama, “Don’t focus on being a good president, use your platform to promote the black agenda. And by the way, don’t mess this up.” Heads would freaking ROLL!! That would be the scandal of the ages.

I’m a professional woman. Have tremendous respect for woman’s struggles and all the feminists that went before me. I’ll donate to NOW a couple times a year and vote with my conscience and mentor younger women in business, but overall, it is not the cause that I devote the majority of my energies to.

Being an activist is very difficult and it takes a tremendous amount of time and energy to do it well. It is not for everyone as politics is not for everyone, especially someone on the edge of eking out a career in a different, but equally difficult, capricious and demanding industry.

Expecting Adam to be a vocal gay activist just by virtue of the fact that he’s gay is totally unfair and smacks of puppetry far more than a publicist doing a publicist’s job.

“My feeling about Adam here is that, since I know that he feels chancy about going whole hog with gay politics, then he should have declined the Out story and cover in the first place because he should have known that they would probably want more ‘gay gay’  stuff than he and RCA would want in the story.”

Yes, and maybe if Adam wants people to focus on his music instead of his sexuality, he should avoid doing things like the Details shoot at this point in his career.

This whole “kerfuffle” reminds me of the situation Tiger Woods finds himself in with regard to Blacks.

I see Adam first as a wonderfully talented vocalist/entertainer and Tiger first as a wonderfully talented golfer/athlete.

The fact that Adam is gay doesn’t make him a better singer and the fact that Tiger is mixed race doesn’t make him a better golfer. They are who they are and, by being successful in their respective fields, provide a meaningful role model, imo. Neither wants to insinuate himself into an essentially political debate and I think it’s unfair to expect with of them to do so.

If we want to change the way society views certain groups, we have to begin with the way we, as parents and legitimately-described rolemodels, teach our children. Racism, homophobia, and mysogeny are basically learned behaviors, which are reinforced by the world around us. Acceptance can also be learned, and reinforced by persons such as Adam, who live their lives being who they truly are. I think Adam’s parents did a wonderful job. And I think Adam would be a terrific father.

Adam has provoked much discussion about sexual identity and homophobia here and elsewhere, and I believe many minds have been opened due to the respect and admiration felt for him. Even minds which are not as open feel compelled to join the discussion. And that will help change things.

But basically a lot of fans seem to me to be saying that the Out guy has no *right* to publicly and forcibly state his view of the situation ‘” which is different (and time honored and *also* with a clear measure of validity). And I very much beg to differ with that fan view. He *does* have a right. Saying that his political speech ‘” because that is what it was; it was not personal, it was political ‘” should be *limited* *is* a form of silencing; it’s just not *total* silencing. But it’s silencing, nonetheless.

I don’t think people aren’t saying the OUT guy didn’t have the right to do what he did. Of course he did, but that what he did was a.) counterproductive b.) unprofessional c.) adddressing not the very valid issue as a whole, but the individual who they know isn’t interested in discussing politics at this time.

I think the issue, besides the perceived damage and stress to Adam a week before his album drops, is one that would naturally cause his fans to not be happy with the source of that. And that Hicklin made it about Adam and not the issue the minute he addressed the letter to Adam (and was condesending while doing so) and not just making the very valid, broad point about the issues he said happened and those issues are troubling and should be discussed.

So I don’t think people are denying that broadly what Hicklin isn’t both valid and problematic, just that Hicklin took broad issues, levelled them specifically and personally at Adam, and in doing so, seeming disregarded Adam’s stated (in his very magazine) not to become directly political at this time. And again, not just as fans of Adam, but I think it’s distressing that Hicklin took this valid issue and muddied it with what I feel yes, was a desire for more publicity for his magazine as part, if not all, of his motivatons for writing that letter.

Lucy, I do not think this issue would hurt Adam’s sales. What I said, and I stand by it but respect your right to differ, is that it is Adam’s choice to decide when and where to discuss the politics of homosexuality. Out magazine is known for forcing people’s hands by outing those that want to stay in the closet. In Adam’s case, he’s out..but not far enough to suit Out. And that’s their problem, not Adam’s.

Rowe: Maybe 19 didn’t want him in an overtly sexy pose with another man (i.e. kissing or’ ¦) on the cover? Sort of the counter to the Details photoshoot?

Gemini:1 It could be something like that. That’s a good point. I’m sure Adam would have been all about that! Would it have been a good idea at this point? Probably not.

Adam has been very open with the press and seemed very willing to go along with the artists/photogs requests at Details mag. I think the reason Adam was not ready to do the gay equivalent of the Details shoot is that it would have put the gay issue up front and it would have instantly made him a poster child for the movement.

Adam has said repeatedly that is not where he wants his focus to be. I think the media would have jumped on it and it would distract from the promo and album coming up next week.

The conversations his management had with the magazine were probably meant to state Adam’s position on the issue upfront but OUT decided to take it personally. They shouldn’t have taken it personally Adam was looking at the big picture, i.e., his career.

But when you are in the trenches fighting for a cause anything that can be taken as a slight can be used as a showcase of discrimination to fuel the movement. Happens all the time in political showdowns.

Another thing that bothers me about the OUT article is that the print version only contains “sound bites” taken out of the context of the interview. The whole interview appears only in the online edition in which Adam expresses himself so well about being an entertainer who is, by the way, gay.

My feeling about Adam here is that, since I know that he feels chancy about going whole hog with gay politics, then he should have declined the Out story and cover in the first place because he should have known that they would probably want more ‘gay gay’  stuff than he and RCA would want in the story.

Why would Adam think it was going to be all about politics? This is what the interviewer herself had to say:
. “I pointed out the difference between the Advocate, Out’s sister newsmagazine, and Out, which is more broadly a men’s fashion and lifestyle book, but obviously made no promises one way or the other.”

And even though the interviewer “made no promises”, 19 still allowed Adam to do an hour long, closed door meeting. Adam answered EVERY QUESTION the interviewer had. She ran out of questions! In the end she asked “is there anything else you would like to say or talk about”.

I seriously don’t know how much more “gay” personal information Adam could have put into this interview. He was BEYOND open and honest.

Lucy:However, in my opinion, Adam’s a public figure, not a private figure, and he’s represented by a huge corporation. So, for me, addressing any public figure ‘” and the corporations they’re involved with ‘” in a letter from an editor is perfectly legitimate. Public figures get their power and money from the way the public views them, and those views are shaped by the political and social climate of the times, in my opinion. So ‘” again, for me ‘” on that score any public figure is fair game in the kind of letter the guy wrote.

You make a good point here so I will defer.

My feeling about Adam here is that, since I know that he feels chancy about going whole hog with gay politics, then he should have declined the Out story and cover in the first place because he should have known that they would probably want more ‘gay gay’  stuff than he and RCA would want in the story.

I think that it would have been another controversy Adam would have to contend with if he had refused an offer from Out, in particular since they apparently had been pursuing an interview for most of the year.
Danged if you do and danged if you don’t.

Just one more post and I will leave this one alone.

The editorial was an opinion and perspective and we all have the right to speak our minds. I still think it was an underhanded attack and as that is my viewpoint I can, if I wish, reply with my own (or collaborative) opinion.

I put a smiley here because I am not angry or upset or feeling defensive. It is an interesting discussion. Just wanted to throw in my dine. My words are often blunt. I appreciate those of you that write such reasoned, detailed, and thoughtful posts even though, or rather especially if I dont’ agree.

Oh and regarding the Tiger Woods comparison. Glad you brought it up. I thought of him as well when the controversy began.

I have no problem with Aaron Hicklin having his own opinion ‘“ of course everyone has their own opinion, their own experience, their own aspirations, their own causes. The issue I have with the whole thing ‘“ as Adam very articulately stated ‘“ is that Hicklin was projecting his agenda onto Adam with a tone that definitely said, ‘If you are not with us, you’re against us.’  Or, if you don’t dance to our tune, you’re undermining everyone that has gone before you.

What I am saying is this: In *every* rights struggle in history, there is a (long) stage in which this argument rages. It appears to be an absolutely inevitable and necessary part of every rights struggle that there has ever been.

Remember “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”? Remember how the term “Uncle Tom” evolved through our history? … That is *exactly* the same thing that’s going on here.

It’s a political and philosophical debate between two points of view.

One group argues that, if you’re in the oppressed group — and, especially, if you’re a public figure who is in the oppressed group — then you plain and simple have a duty to be a totally full participant in the man-the-barricades part of the struggle … and that if, as a public figure, you *don’t* man the barricades, then you have no right to expect support of any kind or recognition of you as a member of the group when the struggle is over.

The other group argues that people are individuals first, and that individuals, even public individuals, don’t owe it to anybody to be fully involved in the man-the-barricades part of the struggle and that individual rights allow one to be as involved as one chooses, and no more involved, and yet still be completely entitled to reap the benefits of the accomplished revolution if and when the struggle ends successfully.

My points are that both groups have arguments that have considerable strengths,
that nobody through history has been able to completely shut down one of those arguments logically so they both are live and contain at least some validity,
that bitter arguments between these two points of view are inevitable and necessary in any rights struggle, as proven by history (Uncle Tom, Uncle Tom, Uncle Tom),
and that the only thing that absolutely should *not* happen is that a bunch of pop-music fans should tell a person — the Out editor — who publicly voices one of these two completely normal political opinions that he has no right to voice his political opinion in a politically intended letter from the editor.

Of course he has a right to say it. And he has a right to say it regarding Adam, who is a public, not a private figure who poses for cover pictures on magazines with political agendas.

Similarly, Adam has a right to voice the opposite opinion, as he has done. But he should remember that his is *also* a political opinion, with arguments that can be made for and against it, and not simply a truism, which it kind of seems he does think it is, and as I think a lot of fans seem to think it is.

What I also am sure of, though, is that no liberation struggle in history would ever ever ever have been won — and possibly none would even have been begun — if nobody had the editor’s point of view and everybody had Adam’s point of view!

Adam’s choice to decide when and where to discuss the politics of homosexuality.

I totally agree!

Where we disagree is that I also believe it’s the editor’s right to say that he considers this an invalid position for a public figure who’s a member of an oppressed minority to take!

As I understand it, fans generally are saying that while Adam has a right to his position the editor has no right to his, or at least no right to publicly state it. That’s where we disagree.

I think that it would have been another controversy Adam would have to contend with if he had refused an offer from Out, in particular since they apparently had been pursuing an interview for most of the year.
Danged if you do and danged if you don’t.

Yep, I completely agree that turning it down would have caused another controversy!

But am I the only one here who remembers anything about the black and women’s civil-rights struggles??? This kind of thing went on constantly. Doesn’t anybody remember the term “Uncle Tom”?? Seriously, this is par for the course. Adam is an interesting public figure who lives in interesting times. This kind of thing is going to happen and keep on happening. That’s just the way it is.

The only time this will stop is when there are no longer any oppressed minorities at all. And I’m not holding my breath for that one, human life being what it is. (vile, nasty, brutish, and short, that is)

Okay so he’s taking a political stand by not taking a political stand. I get it.

Oh and regarding the Tiger Woods comparison. Glad you brought it up. I thought of him as well when the controversy began.

Yeah, it’s exactly Tiger Woods. And a lot of people are pretty angry with him over this.

Some people are saying that this is generational, and I agree that it is, but I think there are two sides to that coin. On the one side that’s been mentioned, the new generations don’t have the same levels and kinds of prejudices as in the past. And I think that’s probably true, at least to some extent.

But I also think that the younger generation of public figures like Tiger and Adam may well feel that they can stay out of things because so much of the battle has been won. Whereas many in the older generations know the bitterness and difficulty of the pre-struggle period and the struggle itself, and resent the fact that some younger people can disavow the tough parts of the struggle, the unpopular parts, the parts that the mainstream still is suspicious of, while enjoying the fruits of those difficult labors. The older generation may be a lot more acutely aware of how much of the battle has yet to be won and of how easily progress might stall or even be lost to some extent.

Back when I was a high school teacher, in the 80s, I found that I had many female and black students who dismissed the writings of many older woman writers and black writers as too strident and unnecessarily confrontational and declared that these folks were overblowing the levels of oppression and the necessity of fierce struggle. They hadn’t experienced the depths of the oppression or of the struggle, and because they were on the winning side they actively disavowed most of the classic female and black writers as being too bitchy or big fat whiny complainers. I was pretty shocked by this attitude, I have to tell you, although I do understand why they felt that way.

I think some older people probably see Tiger and Adam as doing this.

Are you a Sociologist Lucy? You’d make a darn good one if you aren’t.

Okay so he’s taking a political stand by not taking a political stand. I get it.

Yep.

If you look at any identity-type, group-liberation type political struggle, people are *always* accused of this…. And I don’t really see how anybody could definitively declare that one side of this argument is totally right and the other totally wrong. They both have a point … And of course when both sides have a point, that’s just where the fights get fiercest….

lucy:

Some people choose to march in freedom parades, some just quietly sit at the front of the bus. Both require courage. Both have power.

I’m sure I’m going to sound schizophrenic here (not to mention long-winded), but I do think it helps to see all sides — and to discuss and debate them intelligently and respectfully as we are all doing.

will
11/20/2009 at 11:13 am
The ‘too gay’  or ‘gay-gay’  I interpreted simply as meaning they didn’t want the interview to focus exclusively on his homosexuality or on gay issues, which I don’t think is an unreasonable request.

OK, Will — now that you’ve gone and done it and actually stated that the publicist’s request might actually be reasonable, I think it’s probably time to bring up what happened to Ellen when she was (apparently) perceived as ‘too gay’  or ‘gay-gay.’  She came out to much fanfare and celebration and logically assumed that she had reached a level of acceptance (ugh, hate that word) to live openly in her life and her career. Wrong! Her show was cancelled within a year and her career pretty much tanked . . . until she was offered the Emmy hosting job — after 9/11 which was probably not considered to be the best gig at the time. Even after that was a big success, it still took two years for to be offered her now successful talk show. When it started she almost had to go back in the closet and deliberately didn’t talk about being gay for the first several years. AFTER she became success, she slowly began to make small insider references — testing the waters as it were — literally increasing the “tolerance” level of her audience to the point where she now freely talks about her lifestyle and her marriage without the risk or fear of alienating her fans or (for the most part) anyone else. I have no doubt that she changed a lot of minds and hearts by this course of action rather than by being perceived as pushing an agenda (i.e being’too gay’  or ‘gay-gay’ ) in the very beginning. Whether this method was right or wrong, or too slow or too calculated or un-PC really doesn’t matter in light of how it worked in achieving the ultimate goal of being a successful entertainer who happens to be gay. She is now able to further the cause, not only by simply being who she is, but has also built up some political clout as well to use when and how she chooses.

(Also see — water, boiling: frog in)

midwifespal
11/20/2009 at 12:07 pm
I’m sure he’s heard his fair share of slurs over the years, but on the whole he lives in a liberal age, in a liberal city, amongst liberal cohorts, and I really think this just isn’t the big issue in his life that it must have been for, say, Aaron Hicklin, who has talked elsewhere about spending most of his life, until fairly recently, living a semi-closeted existence.

Excellent point about Aaron being (semi) closeted as I think it helps explain his actions. Unfortunately, it’s because he now seems to embody a new stereotype — that of the reformed hooker/smoker/drinker (etc.) who becomes aggressively intolerant and judgmental of anyone who has not “seen the light” as they have.

lucy
11/20/2009 at 11:42 am
But it is attempting to dictate the extent to which somebody’s political speech is allowable. And that’s *always* the tool of the mainstream against the minority ‘”

But when the “mainstream” in this particular instance case is OUT and the gay community, it is reverse discrimination. The editor is attempting to dictate the extent to which Adam’s opinions and personal feelings are allowable. And that’s *always* the tool of the mainstream political agenda against the minority of someone like Adam and others of his generation who have a different “take” on how to promote the cause of gay rights. Their method is to live their lives by example rather than use a soapbox which to me, and a lot of others, is not only the best way to get the point across, but is more in keeping with the ultimate goal of having nothing to defend, explain, or be political about.

lucy
11/20/2009 at 1:29 pm

As I understand it, fans generally are saying that while Adam has a right to his position the editor has no right to his, or at least no right to publicly state it. That’s where we disagree.

Actually I don’t think that is what we are saying. The editor has every right to voice hs opinion, but when he does it with a hypocritical, judgmental, unfair, biased, disespectful, passive-aggressive “sucker-punch” to someone he and his publication have chosen to “honor,” he not only hurts his own credibility, but that of his publication and, in what has to be the sorriest irony of all, he hurts and diminishes the very cause he (rightly) embraces and hopes to advance.

Lucy, no you are not the only one who remembers the struggles for black and women’s civil rights. I’m really appreciating your perspectives here. As they say, context is everything. Neither the Out editor nor Adam’s views are anything new under the sun. Understanding how they fit within the struggle for gay rights is invaluable in my view. Thank you for your posts.

Are you a Sociologist Lucy? You’d make a darn good one if you aren’t.

No. I’m one of those evil reporters … But in my job I talk to sociologists all the time — I think it’s rubbed off!

Some people choose to march in freedom parades, some just quietly sit at the front of the bus. Both require courage. Both have power.

I agree.

But I think that the Out editor — correctly or incorrectly — believes that he is calling Adam out for going meekly to the back of the bus on this occasion. I think that if he believed Adam was pulling a Rosa Parks in some way, he wouldn’t have said what he said! (which is not to say that the editor’s correct about that — possibly Adam *is* pulling a Rosa Parks … in this situation, I can see how one might see it just that way, actually.)

Actually I don’t think that is what we are saying. The editor has every right to voice hs opinion, but when he does it with a hypocritical, judgmental, unfair, biased, disespectful, passive-aggressive ‘sucker-punch’  to someone he and his publication have chosen to ‘honor,’  he not only hurts his own credibility, but that of his publication and, in what has to be the sorriest irony of all, he hurts and diminishes the very cause he (rightly) embraces and hopes to advance.

Well, as I’ve said a few times now, I kind of agree with this.

If I’d been the editor — and if my publisher had allowed me to do it this way, which he/she might not have, and then I’d have had to resign on principle, etc. ..! — I would have refused the interview if the kinds of conditions they claim were actually requested. And then written a letter from the editor stating why Adam Lambert — the biggest gay entertainment story of the year, probably — was not in the issue. ….

This is what I would have done … And then after I wasn’t allowed to do it — on monetary grounds — I would have been looking for work, lol.

Neither the Out editor nor Adam’s views are anything new under the sun. Understanding how they fit within the struggle for gay rights is invaluable in my view. Thank you for your posts.

Thanks, movin2thabeat

Lucy, it’s ‘beet’ not ‘beat’ and I move to both!

The fact that Adam is gay but is not interested in pushing it as a political agenda is actually one of the traits that is endearing to me. Don’t get me wrong, I strongly support those on the frontlines giving a voice to the disenfranchised. Maybe I’m in the middle generation. I enthusiastically await Adam’s success because of his talent and personality but what has been an important trait to me is that he is so openly gay. He may not want to have his personal demonstrations splashed across the front pages yet and I don’t blame him because I can see that the strongest role model he can be is by just living his life as he would normally.

Gay rights is an important issue to me as is any ‘rights’  issue. I don’t think I am alone here and I think this is may be why some of his fans will get defensive. I very much want to see him accepted on his own terms first. I feel that the rest will naturally come later. It will be a slow burn into society’s consciousness. The timing seems right for a person like him because I have been amazed at how many public figures have come out just within the last year.

I didn’t realize how important this was to me until few months ago when I was discussing it with my family and I could feel the emotion welling up in me. Something told me this was an important step forward for us as a society and I look forward to his acceptance as an openly gay public figure.

I wonder if there is a slight difference in acceptance toward openly gay women vs. men? It wasn’t long ago that a friend’s husband would not go through the check-out line with her at the store because she put the Brokeback Mountain dvd in her cart.

Lucy, it’s ‘beet’ not ‘beat’ and I move to both!

Yeah, you know, I subliminally knew this! … I just have kind of an aversion to root vegetables, I think, lol … Well, parsnips, mainly. I actually like beets….

I wonder if there is a slight difference in acceptance toward openly gay women vs. men? It wasn’t long ago that a friend’s husband would not go through the check-out line with her at the store because she put the Brokeback Mountain dvd in her cart.

Yeah, I wonder this, too. … Maybe it’s because women’s genitalia are more recessed, or something. Not so “out there,” as it were…..

As an Ellen fan who quit watching her show after she “came out” I can say that the reason was not because she was gay. I mean that was in the same era as Seinfeld’s “What’s wrong with that?” and most viewers were not in the dark about her probable sexuality. And as a watch who quit before it was canceled I’ve resented Ellen’s and others continued insistence that it was because she was gay that we stopped watching.

Wrongo!

The show started sucking, big big time. From a fun, witty, what mess can she get into now show with a bit of Lucille Ball wackiness thrown in it went into a painfully boring, dragging waste of time to watch. If she wanted to blame “gay haters” for it’s demise then she shouldn’t have changed the format at the same time as her announcement.

We tried, really to stay with it. We didn’t quit watching at the time of her announcement, we quit when we couldn’t take the show any more and there were so many better ways to use our time. It was really sad because the show had been on our weekly must watch lists (like House is now lol)

And to bring it back to Adam I think this is the same reason he’s said he can only take LOGO in small doses, why mixed bars are more fun than gay bars, why a gay men’s magazine doesn’t have the sense to know that maybe, just maybe, mainstream magazines were asked to not make Adam into a gay political icon either.

lucy:

Similarly, Adam has a right to voice the opposite opinion, as he has done. But he should remember that his is *also* a political opinion, with arguments that can be made for and against it, and not simply a truism, which it kind of seems he does think it is, and as I think a lot of fans seem to think it is.

What I also am sure of, though, is that no liberation struggle in history would ever ever ever have been won ‘” and possibly none would even have been begun ‘” if nobody had the editor’s point of view and everybody had Adam’s point of view!

I appreciate much of what you’re saying here, and the historical perspective you are providing, but I don’t think it is fair to say that Adam is making a political argument as much as Hicklin is. Adam is making a personal argument, he is speaking entirely about himself, and his own experiences, and I think it is important to be able to hold on to that personal identity. It is crucial, in a civilized society, that not every single thing we do be a political act. If it were, none of us would be private citizens, only public tools. Adam’s statements were “truisms,” to use your word, because they were simply about himself, what he was comfortable with, what he wasn’t comfortable with, what he took responsibility for. His interview with Out, similarly, focused on his personal experiences. There is, quite simply, a difference between public and private speech. This is one of the things that makes language such a supremely useful and pliable tool. I can see why you want to describe his choices as political, but I really think his statements are qualitatively different from Hicklin’s, who was using his magazine as a bully pulpit (which is fine–that’s his job as well as his right–I just wish he had done so more professionally, less underhandedly with regards to Adam, and with better writing skills).

As to your comment above, that feels a little like a cheap shot to me, and it’s missing the point. As you yourself have said, the whole reason Adam can avoid being a political actor is that others have acted before him to give him that choice. Adam’s luxurious individualism is very much a spoil of the hard-fought victories of previous generations, but that doesn’t negate its value. Adam simply lives according to the needs of his own time–no one should hold that against him, and I, for one, am incredibly happy he has the option to feel so free of political pressures. But who are we to say what role he would have played had he lived in another time, where in order to live as expressively and individualistically as he does now, he would have been forced to act politically. I see no reason to believe that he would have been an “uncle tom.” I understand and rather admire a reluctance to fight a political battle that does not feel like your own (Adam apparently, is rather happy with his lot). Adam doesn’t want to don a cloak of outrage that he does not feel. But in a less fortunate time, he may have felt it, and worn it proudly.

Jablea

11/20/2009 at 3:01 pm
As an Ellen fan who quit watching her show after she ‘came out’  I can say that the reason was not because she was gay. I mean that was in the same era as Seinfeld’s ‘What’s wrong with that?’  and most viewers were not in the dark about her probable sexuality. And as a watch who quit before it was canceled I’ve resented Ellen’s and others continued insistence that it was because she was gay that we stopped watching. Wrongo! The show started sucking, big big time.

I think we are kind sorta saying the same thing? After she came out, Ellen’s show focused so much on being gay (as opposed to being funny) that she wound up not being either. (As in “too soon” and at the expense of being entertaining.) When she got the talk show, she honed her craft first, then when she became popular with the mainstream and had a solid fan base, she was able to be freer about her sexual orientation and reach a lot more people.

I think it will work the same way for Adam: 1) Put the oxygen mask on yourself first, then on the the political cause in the seat next to you, 2) Take baby steps (Entertainer first, gay entertainer second, then gay activist entertainer. 3) Timing is everything — in Show Biz and in Life!

P.S. I LOVE Hugh Laurie, too — did you ever see Jeeves and Wooster? Brilliant!

tootheatrical–
you just scored major, major points:

1)”Put the oxygen mask on yourself first, then on the the political cause in the seat next to you.” HA. I mean, really Ha. Ha Ha HA!

2) “did you ever see Jeeves and Wooster? Brilliant!” I LOVE Jeeves and Wooster soo so much. Did you ever see ‘A Bit of Fry and Laurie’? Value for money. I love the fact that all of America thinks of Hugh Laurie as a serious actor/prickly hard head, when really he is the worlds absolute biggest goofball.

Some people choose to march in freedom parades, some just quietly sit at the front of the bus. Both require courage. Both have power.

I agree.

But I think that the Out editor ‘” correctly or incorrectly ‘” believes that he is calling Adam out for going meekly to the back of the bus on this occasion. I think that if he believed Adam was pulling a Rosa Parks in some way, he wouldn’t have said what he said! (which is not to say that the editor’s correct about that ‘” possibly Adam *is* pulling a Rosa Parks ‘ ¦ in this situation, I can see how one might see it just that way, actually.)

I think that’s EXACTLY how those of us who have a problem with Hicklin’s letter see it. Adam has repeatedly shown, in both words and actions, that he is living his life the way he chooses to live it, not in a box that anyone else is trying to shove him in. He and his publisher expressing what they wished to have emphasized or de-emphasized in the interview was still him living his life – sitting wherever he damn pleased on the bus. As has been stated, the interviewer still had the freedom to ignore the expressed wishes and get as political as she wanted with her questioins – she chose not to do so. For me, that makes Hicklin’s subsequent letter self serving and business related, NOT a valid and reasoned expression of a concern that stemmed from the actual results of the interview. He knew that his words were incendiary, and he likely wrote them with an eye to stirring the controversy in the interest of his own bottom line. In those 2 sides of the argument, I have a lot more respect for Adam and his publicist seeking to forge the way forward in his fledgling career by focusing on what is important to them, than I do for a political agenda that was raised, not on the interview itself or any actions the magazine was prevented from taking, but on a desire to stir the pot.

midwifespal
11/20/2009 at 4:06 pm
tootheatrical’“
you just scored major, major points:

1)’ Put the oxygen mask on yourself first, then on the the political cause in the seat next to you.’  HA. I mean, really Ha. Ha Ha HA!

2) ‘did you ever see Jeeves and Wooster? Brilliant!’  I LOVE Jeeves and Wooster soo so much. Did you ever see ‘A Bit of Fry and Laurie’? Value for money. I love the fact that all of America thinks of Hugh Laurie as a serious actor/prickly hard head, when really he is the worlds absolute biggest goofball.

Thanks “pal!” And of course I’ve seen Fry and Laurie!!! I’ve even read a couple of Stephen’s books . . . and Hugh “singing” and playing the piano? (in the Band from TV or on Actor’s Studio) Snarky pessimism with musical accompaniment FTW!

Let’s face it – the term ‘political’ carries alot of baggage. It’s a sure fire way to get folks in this country to change the channel or move to a different, lighter thread. It seems to me that one of the most persistent arguments of our time is regarding individual versus collective thinking. That is, actions based on self interest versus acting for the collective good.

Often, the term ‘political’ is used to denigrate those who advocate on behalf of the oppressed. It gets re-framed as those people who just want to be left alone to do their own thing, versus those who are ‘political’, framing the individualist as the ‘good guy’.

I’ve never bought that frame – it’s just another political maneuver. In reality, we all have different strategies for dealing with challenges. Some choose to walk around the obstacle, or maybe ignore it’s existence, others confront or negotiate or work to change the obstacle. They’re all strategies of coping. Example: There’s a picket line. You’ll either cross the picket line or you won’t. Both are political acts.

Right now, Adam is choosing to step around the hot buttons. We can project on him his reasons, his intentions, etc. But really we don’t know. My opinion is that he is a savvy strategist who’s primary interest right now is furthering his career.

I do feel it necessary to respond to midwifespal above. The tone suggests that the struggle for gay rights has been mostly won. This is hardly the case. The subject is finally getting more attention and we now have a president who regularly meets with LGBT leaders and just signed a long overdue hate crimes law. But still, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ persists as does the inequality around gay marriage and families, as well as continued job discrimination and hate crimes. In fact, in some arenas there have been more losses than gains. So that’s the climate I put Adam in. I’d love to live in a world where gays were treated equitably but that world remains way off in the distance.

I do think that generational differences go a long way toward explaining Adam’s perspective. That and understanding how young people often don’t take the issues that effect middle-aged and older folks very seriously. Maybe marriage and family doesn’t yet show up on his radar screen. Of course, if you’re straight, you take it for granted that it will be there for you when you’re ready. For gays, not so much. The same goes for adoption laws, partner health care, end of life laws, etc. This is not to justify Adam’s position as the most effective change agents are often youth. But hey, maybe Adam does have intentions of furthering change in his own unique way. We’ll all have to just wait and see.

So I don’t assume that Adam ‘doesn’t want to don a cloak of outrage that he does not feel’. Since he has clearly chosen not to discuss political matters, we have no idea how he feels. All we can do is decide if we will wear our own cloak of outrage and wish Adam all the best.

I appreciate much of what you’re saying here, and the historical perspective you are providing, but I don’t think it is fair to say that Adam is making a political argument as much as Hicklin is.

Exactly. Hicklin is saying that the personal is and must be political.

Adam is saying, nope, the personal can just be the personal, even in this time and this place of ongoing political struggle.

That’s the entire fight. It’s a fight that’s been fought a thousand times. And I dare anybody to prove definitively that one side or the other is entirely right or entirely wrong. Can’t be done, as far as I can see. However, it *is* a political and philosophical fight. And Adam’s side of that philosophical and political debate is therefore not just some throwaway personal opinion with no meaning or importance for the larger world. Just something that one is free to think and that has no larger consequences — such as if he really really liked violets and hated snapdragons. His opinion, like Hicklin’s, has consequences in the political world, especially when he is in a group that is in the middle of an intense, ongoing political struggle. *Every* opinion regarding how one behaves in such a circumstance has consequences that *are* larger than oneself. It can’t be otherwise.

As far as my making any “cheap shots” toward Adam. … I wouldn’t characterize it that way, although you are certainly free to.

I certainly didn’t mean it that way. All I meant was that, in my opinion, doing it Adam’s way never does win revolutions, or even start them. In my opinion, based on the way I read history, entrenched power literally *never* opens up society to give equal rights to a non-powerful group until that group comes out and fights for it bitterly, angrily, unrelentingly, and with tooth and nail….

On a personal level, I’m like Adam — “Hey, I figure that I will just show you who I am, and, gradually, you’ll get to see that I’m a person to whom you’d like to give totally equal rights!” …. That’s Mr. nice-guy, soft-touch, like-politics-some-but-not-that-much, I-mainly-love-to-entertain Adam. And it’s me, too. But it’s my considered conclusion — and, of course, I may be wrong about this! — that if all women were like me and if all gay people were like Adam in this way, women would not have the vote and gay people would still all have to be in the closet. …

For the record, I hope that I *am* wrong about this. I hope that, despite my suspicions, humankind is capable of a state in which those in power just spontaneously open up their hearts and share position, money, and power with formerly oppressed groups, once an oppressed group shows the mainstream-group-in-power that they are nice, smart people too. I would love it if that were humanity’s future. But history — and the present — suggest quite the opposite, to me. So … did not mean it as a cheap shot. But I still think that women and gay people are lucky that some folks are like Hicklin and not like me and Adam.

two things:

1) Lucy–I shouldn’t have used the phrase “cheap shot.” It’s not at all what I meant and it came out wrong–there’s nothing at all cheap shotty about your tone here. Sorry. I agree that we those of us, like me, who are of a less “activist” personal bent (which is more a question of personality than of politics, I think, though also, clearly, one of bravery) have a tremendous amount to thank the “activists” for-even those who express themselves as poorly as Hicklin! What I meant was that it seemed to me to be unfair to judge Adam by the demands of an age which is not his own. And on that note…

2)Movin2thabeet–I very much realize that even with the recent progress, the struggle for gay rights is very much NOT OVER, and I think our country’s policies towards gays are an outright embarrassment. Having grown up in Texas (even in the “People’s Republic of Austin,” as it is occasionally referred to), I am well aware of the disgusting homophobia that is still widely prevalent, and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is a terrible policy. I totally agree with you. However, and maybe I’m an naive optimist, I DO think that we’re at a total sea-change moment here. I think all the recent narrow elective defeats for gay marriage are an older generation’s last gasp at staying afloat amidst a social wave that’s totally rushing past them. The statistics totally don’t lie here. Young people (and by young I mean those under 35 or so) have a completely different attitude towards gay issues. If only people under 40 had voted in the recent gay marriage referendums, gay marriage would pass in a landslide. A huge landslide. It wouldn’t even be close. It is really only a matter of time until these people represent a significant national majority as well. And by “time” I don’t mean decades–I mean years. I think Adam lives very much in this brave new world. He said, in the Out interview, that when he was on Idol and those pictures came out it was the first time he had to think twice about being gay since he came out. I truly think that in the liberated world in which he moves, this really isn’t a major issue for him. It’s just one more way in which he expresses himself. Hopefully, soon, that will be true everywhere. But perhaps I am an incorrigible optimist. This country is always capable of surprising me with its thick-headedness.

I don’t think that society “requires” revolution or confrontation to do the right thing. Let’s look at how the North and South differed on the issue of slavery or the western states that started with women voting. I’m a product of the generational gap as it relates to Title 9. I was an early beneficiary and my mom was one of the fighters. I agree entrenched power is more difficult to move but it’s not impossible. It’s howver highly possible for many of us to resent movements that continue the blame game too long. It usually is up to someone inside the oppressed group to say we have to stop being dependent on the powerful for all that’s good and all that’s bad, it’s a shared road. And those people, Bill Cosby for example, get hammered.

But I believe in Star Trek and humanism. And dang, now to talk about House I’ve got to pay attention to episode names?

I don’t think that society ‘requires’  revolution or confrontation to do the right thing. Let’s look at how the North and South differed on the issue of slavery

Well, there was that little matter of the Civil War, lol!

On a personal level, I’m like Adam ‘” ‘Hey, I figure that I will just show you who I am, and, gradually, you’ll get to see that I’m a person to whom you’d like to give totally equal rights!’  ‘ ¦. That’s Mr. nice-guy, soft-touch, like-politics-some-but-not-that-much, I-mainly-love-to-entertain Adam. And it’s me, too. But it’s my considered conclusion ‘” and, of course, I may be wrong about this! ‘” that if all women were like me and if all gay people were like Adam in this way, women would not have the vote and gay people would still all have to be in the closet. ‘ ¦

There are still women’s rights issues to be fought for. Especially in other countries. How would you feel if you were EXPECTED to become a political activist for women’s rights. Or if you were called upon and ridiculed if you didn’t do what other women decided would be your mission.

You have the freedom of choosing how politically active you want to be in the women’s movement.
Why should Adam have less freedom than you have?

I lurk here a lot and have only posted once since I registered for mjs’ blog. I have read through all the hubub this caused and wanted to say something as the mother of a gay son. My son, unlike Adam speaking to his mother, came out to me when he was only twelve.

For a long time, all my son was, identified himself as or could discuss was being gay. I listened, my family listened, we were there for him after the initial shock wore off. I tried to counsel him and tell him the very truths that Adam is living. Being gay means you are sexually attracted to members of the same gender and want to be in relationships with them rather than those of the opposite gender.

The biggest problem I have seen in young gay people, (versus those adults fighting for civil rights), is that they have no role models. When they finish the struggle of figuring out why and how they are different from everyone else, they are left with few public figures that live their lives openly. They do not know HOW to live their lives as young gay people. I know as my son’s mother, I certainly had little advice that made any sense to offer.

Adam is not just preaching about being a gay man. He is showing the world, and especially young gay people, how he lives as a gay man. He defines himself not by who he is attracted to, has relationships with, or walks hand in hand with, but by what he wants to achieve in life. His actions are defining him (in my opinion) as role model for younger gay teens to look to.

Adam states, time and again, that he wants to be known for his music. He does not want to wave a banner for a cause because he is who he is. There is nothing for him to prove, except that he can “sing his face off” and do things like help to raise money for impoverished students. Is he perfect? No one is. Do I wish I could have pointed out an openly gay, young, public figure in the past and said, “See that guy? He seems to be going in the right direction” yes, yes and yes.

I hope he does not change and remains what we should all be, true to ourselves.

The fact that Adam is gay but is not interested in pushing it as a political agenda is actually one of the traits that is endearing to me.

I find this to be true, also. Adam is establishing his career. His focus should be on his career. His life experience shows as much as he wants to be known. Once he’s established and ‘respected’ by the music industry, then he may decide to do things differently. Certain people should just stop with the criticism.