| Why a Kiss is a Threat — And We're Not |
 |
 |
| Written by Brian Patrick Thornton |
| Friday, 27 November 2009 00:47 |
|
Adam Lambert, out, gay, recent runner-up on American Idol — and even more recent troublemaker on the American Music Awards — is a threat. And apparently to CBS, which blurred the boy-on-boy kiss as an anchor questioned the singer about it on The Early Show. So why does an editor in Cleveland, Ohio, care about a Hollywood gay kiss and the ridiculous ensuing discussion? Well, as I’ve written about before, I know a thing or two, first-hand, about queer kissing on live — and morning — television. And this latest reaction is a clear sign that while the American public continues down the path toward greater acceptance, those in positions of power — aka TV executives and politicians — are at a jittery juncture. Let me be clear: Would Adam Lambert be better served by skipping the shoving of dancers’ faces in his (covered) boy parts? Probably; the action makes it easy for his sexuality to be attacked in a manner that plenty of Americans can get behind, even when they generally are accepting of LGBT folks. But the face-crotch grind is not exactly a novel move; rather something we’ve seen — most often — by female performers. And they get away with it: double-standard evidence No. 1, your honor. But what really chaps my gay ass is the even bigger double standard of CBS’s actions during Lambert’s later interview on The Early Show. When questioning him about the AMA appearance, producers blurred out his kiss — and moments later, showed an unaltered version of the Madonna-Britney Spears lezzie-lite kiss from the MTV Video Music Awards. Lambert told Entertainment Weekly that’s because he’s a gay male. He’s right. Two women kissing is sooo hot. Isn’t that right, straight guys? But two men? Yuck. And CBS’s response? The network told the Los Angeles Times: "The Madonna image is very familiar and has appeared countless times, including many times on morning television. The Adam Lambert image is a subject of great current controversy, has not been nearly as widely disseminated and, for all we know, may still lead to legal consequences." Bull. Shit.  In 1999, my then-boyfriend and I surprised the Today show (and lil’ Al Roker) with the first boy-on-boy network make-out (that was just as sloppy as Lambert’s). Three hours later, producers chose NOT to edit the moment out — or blur it — for West Coast viewers.And, as executives told a reporter, NOT ONE complaint was registered about the moment. And there were no “legal consequences.” Heck, we didn’t even sue when Will and Grace stole our story. Since then, conservatives have found ways to use the Internet — and founded their own “news” network — that have turned up the volume on their anti-queer voices. So in 2009, apparently a kiss is too hot to handle for Mary Jane Plotnick and her family from Everytown, Indiana. At least in the eye of CBS. The notion that there could be “legal consequences” for airing two men kissing on network TV in 2009 is stunning. After all, ABC regularly broadcasts kisses between Kevin and his husband, Scotty, on Brothers and Sisters. And that kiss between two male soldiers on Grey’s Anatomy was scorching. But this is the political and cultural climate we’re experiencing in the wake of multiple losses by queer issues at the ballot box. It’s not too hair-brained an extension to say that the passage of Proposition 8 in California and Issue 1 in Maine are making politicians wary of sticking their necks out for LGBT rights. After all, the most recent Quinnipiac University poll out of liberal New Jersey shows same-sex marriage losing among voters. And New York, land of homos, has basically abandoned movement on marriage equality, despite overwhelming support of residents. This lack of enthusiasm for queer folk starts at the top, in the form of President Obama’s middling — and decidedly not “fierce” — advocacy for LGBT issues. Sure, we got hate-crimes legislation. But Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and Defense of Marriage remain nonstarters. The problem for us — when it comes to TV executives and politicians — is we’re a losing proposition. Democrats know we’re not about to switch parties. We’re also such a small population, we don’t inflict enough pain when we sit out an election, or boycott a product. And the potential for gaining votes (among progressives) by supporting an LGBT issue just hasn’t been demonstrated as outweighing the potential for hate-filled rallies (among right-wingers) and lost votes (among independents). And mainstream media won’t cover us because they know they invite a real fight from those on the right who would prefer we abominations just vanish, or die. Our own media are so small and marginalized, they can’t stir the pot as well as, say, Fox News. That’s why we get bones such as hate-crimes bills and Pride proclamations thrown at us. Why we need to wait for the “right moment” — whenever that is — for substantial work on queer rights. Why TV — at most — presents only desexualized gay-male characters, usually in comedic roles. You can almost hear the meetings, whether among White House administrators or TV suits: “So, what’s the minimum we can give these queers just to get them to shut up?” And unfortunately, too often we take the minimum, and shut our traps. By next week, GLAAD’s nominal anger will be pushed aside, and we’ll have forgotten about Adam Lambert and the AMAs. We’ll be excited for a newly named gay ambassador, or a lesbian couple being invited to the White House holiday party. We’ll move on to gushing about the next Lady Gaga track or the latest shots of Taylor Lautner’s abs. Because while TV- and politico-types consider Adam Lambert’s open sexuality a threat, the simple fact that our attention span is so short and we’re so easily placated by the tiniest of gestures makes that threat manageable. And until we become a threat that actually has power, be prepared for more of this ridiculousness.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 4604 Comments (4)
  written by David Caldwell , November 27, 2009 When we met with a Cleveland councilperson regarding the transgender rights legislation, the elected official actually used the word "threat" to describe what we were doing -- as in, "is that a threat?" The context was that we had told the official that we had hundreds of names, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of residents of the person's ward who support our position. We weren't talking about elections -- but this elected official's mind immediately went to elections: the official realized that the number of people we had identified as pro-LGBT was a large enough number to affect future elections. I think we can build the power you point out we need if we are willing to do the grunt work over the long haul. I must say personally it's a shocking feeling to have elected officials worried about what we might do. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
 written by Matthew Chojnacki , November 28, 2009 From Matthew Rettenmund's blog (author of Boy Culture): http://boyculture.typepad.com/boy_culture/2009/11/right-in-the-kisser.html report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
 written by SteveDenver , November 29, 2009 Is a kiss really a kiss? All this blather about Madam Lamefart's "kiss" is baloney. He's a threat to his own career and anyone who thinks he's a threat to gay perception in general only wants to deny that his immature display of weenie-waving represents club culture in general. That kiss on the AMA's was a tooth-chipping claw of desperation, nothing sexy or affectionate about it. He's trying to out-Britney Britney in an effort to pull the spotlight in his direction, but as an "artist" lacks any element of surprise. It's all full-throttle and boring. The entire performance lacked flirtation, nuance or art. As for the two guys kissing, they were sweet and it was cheerful. Some people know both kinds of queers, some know neither. It's the ones who think they don't know any gay people who are the threat. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
 written by Dawn Harkins , November 30, 2009 ...I have to wonder: There are tons of folks like me out there, liberal straights who feel very strongly about LGBT rights, so don't we help to pump up the numbers when it comes to legislation? It's not really about gays standing alone--you have a LOT of supporters like me. (Corn alert: You Are Not Alone!) So, your relatively low numbers--that is, the actual headcount of LGBT persons--can't be, and is not, the end of the subject. Liberals like me feel strongly about human rights, plus we dig your flaming asses. Don't give up, just get louder, I beg you. (Eg, your point about needing bigger/better LGBT press/power is wayyyy valid. I'm in!) report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
