 by Dennis Ayers
Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
 Who's onlineThere are currently 47 members and 1786 guests online.
|
Poll: Your Take on Adam Lambert's Hetero Photo Spread
Yesterday afternoon we posted about the salacious photo spread of Adam Lambert that appears in this month's edition of DETAILS magazine. In it, the rocker poses rather suggestively with a woman. In fact, if someone wasn't already familiar with Lambert (admittedly unlikely) then the photos might lead to the conclusion that the guy was heterosexual. There was heated debate among AfterElton.com readers about this photo spread. Some were irked that Adam wasn't posing with a man, some were surprised that others were irked, while yet others pointed out the photo spread was in DETAILS magazine — so wasn't that gay enough? Since not all of our readers make themselves heard in the comments, we thought it would be illuminating to take a poll on the subject. Let us know what you think.... Submitted by on Wed, 2009-10-21 07:22. |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
Hate it!
I am very disappointed with our boy Adam. It is not just that Adam has been heteroed, but the shoot itself is very sexist. This is not a series of photos of two people acting out love or passion, it is a guy (who happens to be gay) objectifying a completely nude woman.
I guess Gene "Shut up about being gay" Simmons got to Adam. He wants to make money and will do whatever he can to convince hetero America not to be afraid of him.
P.S. I always assumed gay men could not be misogynistic, but judging by not only Adam's behavior but also the reaction of AfterElton readers misogyny is possible from any gender and any sexual orientation.
Objectification
I agree with your concerns about the objectification of the woman. But only because she's naked and he isn't. Were they both naked or both clothed there would be an equality negating the objectification. That's the one thing about the photo shoot that bothers me. But no matter how many different angles from which I look at this, it remains totally bizarre to me that you or anyone could refer to this as Adam being "heteroed". That just makes no sense whatever.
It also strikes me as a bit of an unfair overreaction to refer to AE readers as misogynistic because they raise objections to the anti-Adam readers.
Clothes
Exactly! If she were wearing clothes, or he wasn't, it wouldn't have raised my hackles. I would be disgusted by a photo shoot like this with any man in such a place of power over any woman-- it is the very definition of objectification that they made that model into a prop. It's disgusting. However, if she and Adam were shown on an equal footing, I think it would actually be pretty hot.
"Go, or go ahead and surprise me." -- Rufus Wainwright
That is ...
... straight up sexy. Hell, I'd love to do pics like that w/ an attractive female.
Screw it if it's suppose to be gay or straight. It's HOT.
You're Kind of Biasing the Options
Why did you have to put "Eww" in front of the "Hetero-make-over" option?
The image of Adam Lambert with a naked woman IS NOT "Eww"-inducing. In fact, the photos are hot (both adam and the woman)
The problem is that Details would NEVER do a similar photo-shoot with two men, one of whom is naked. That's the problem.
I agree...
I don't see a lot of
I don't see a lot of heterosexual celebrities doing homoerotic photo-shoots.
So, I can safely assume the boys in homoerotic photo shoots are gay and not just doing it for the job?
I agree with you. I can see no artistic value, nor any value for that matter, in posing him with a woman. Except, of course, that they want to sell the mag to mainstream america.
Artistic
In the end I think it doesn't matter either way, love or hate it...it's just a photo spread and there are way more important things going on in the world.
I only wish Details had the balls to do a spread like this with Adam and a male model. Just imagine the reaction that would have received from the press and his fans. His face that close to the crotch of a naked man...him sucking the tongue of a hot guy.
It's clear that Adam is going to take every opportunity he can to get his name out there, as he should.
If he has to do something to appeal to the straight audience, fine. It's his life.
I only hope he can keep his handlers in check.
*-----------*
It really doesn't get any more adorkable than this: Video
Do Dykes Get a Say?
His fanbase is mostly het women and gay men, so I don't know how everyone else's opinions fit in.
As a flaming lesbo, I think the photos are hot. Adam's giving us a little James Dean, a little greaser, and a little glam.
Even I find it titillating.
(Incidentally: Yes, the images objectify the female model. And while objectification itself is not necessarily a bad thing, that these sorts of images are the standard is. She's a puppet; he's pulling the strings. One could make the case that the shots are misogynistic. But of course, that's symptomatic of the misogny that's endemic to the entire entertainment industry. And that's all the feministing I'm prepared to do this morning.)
Umm...
LOL!
See, I don't see the
Bias and balance
The poll questions at AE are always hopelessly biased because they always have to be 'chirpy' and 'fun'. Simple statements would be more representative, but I suppose these aren't meant to be journalistic.
I have to admit, I was very disappointed with this photo shoot. They are great photos, but it's such a cowardly statement. If a magazine could get a straight artist to pose with a naked male body, that would be groundbreaking. Bearding a gay man doesn't have the same courage. It looks distinctly shame-faced.
Well said, Wheeler...
If a magazine could get a straight artist to pose with a naked male body, that would be groundbreaking. Bearding a gay man doesn't have the same courage. It looks distinctly shame-faced.
Well said.
I think I would be grossed
I think I would be grossed out too if he was grabbing a guy's ass or sticking out his tongue to an equally gorgeous male model. I'm no prude, I like my porn explicit ;D
Anyway it's interesting to wonder about the chances of seeing that photo spread. I'm not familiar with Details. Any ideas?
You mean like this?
You mean like this?
http://www.blueblood.net/gallery/adam-lambert/
I am indeed grossed out :D
I think that by being
I think that by being against this photo spread, many are being hypocritical. I'm always seeing comments about how gay actors can play straight and it shouldn't be a big deal. But, then Adam does this photo spread and people are all up in arms?
It's not as if he has hidden being gay. He actually came out publicly much sooner than I would expect. How many of us have walked into a new job and announced we were gay? Nope. Most wait to feel out the climate.
I just think it's hypocritical that we will praise NPH for playing a womanizer (and I LOVE his role), but then criticize Adam for doing this photo shoot. It's NOT him personally... it's an artistic photo spread.
I just don't get the criticism.
Adam Lambert is not an actor
... at least not in his current career, and this photo shoot is not a role, so I don't see how your remarks are relevant. Photography like this is about making a statement, not playing a part. These are photos of Adam Lambert, not Adam-as-Barney.
Actually....
Thank you for that. I hate
Roles
I take your point, but I think dressing up for a photo shoot and playing a character in a film or play are starkly different ideas. I don't see any hypocrisy in expressing disappointment at the message communicated by this photo shoot on the one hand, and celebrating gay actors in straight acting roles on the other hand.
In fact I think they're inverse ideas. An actor is supposed to be buried in his role; the part takes precedence. In a photo shoot like this, it's not about the role or character; the character or costume is a filter through which we see new or different perspectives on the person. In this instance, the filter seems intended to tell us that Adam Lambert is 'safe' for your consumption. He is not merely sexually neutralised; he is repackaged as 'just straight enough'.
I'm not one of these people who thinks Adam isn't out, or somehow isn't gay enough, but I do think this shoot is an attempt to subvert his otherness and bring him back to the palatable lad's mag mainstream, and I think that's a sad message to send in one of Lambert's first major magazine shoots.
You're wrong
First of all, you can not compare being an actor to being an artist.
Secondly, he did come out. But as he done ANYTHING remotely gay since then? Has he supported gay causes? Has he done gay photoshoots? Has he talked with the gay press? NO. It's like it's OK being successful as long as you're not "too gay" in the public eye, even though you're living openly gay in your private life. What kind of message does this send to gay youth? That you can't be openly gay and successful, you always have to pretend to be straight. It's awful.
It's obvious this is just a publicity stunt, to caiter to female fans. He is trying to be controversial with this, but he's not. What's so new about this? Haven't we seen these kinds of photoshoots before? A photoshoot where he's making out with a guy, that would be controversial and provocative. Not this. But then again, I guess he wouldn't dare doing that, if that could mean he would lose fans and sell less albums. sigh..
Harvey Milk: You gotta give 'em hope.
You're right
Remember Adam has been at the mercy of American Idol since...well since the audition process. Right after the final, all Idol contestants rehearsed for the tour, then toured in over 50 cities--all while Adam was working on his album. It's not like he has any free time right now. Adam has done tons of interviews with all kinds of media: CNN, USATODAY, OUT, MSNBC, The ADVOCATE, JEWISH JOURNAL of LA, ROLLING STONE, 20/20, Ellen, Regis & Kelly...the list goes on. I don't see these as "gay" or "straight" press. It is press everyone reads. And the paparazzi pictures of him out with his boyfriend, including them kissing--is that gay enough for you? I would think that sends the message to gay youth that is is perfectly fine to be out in public, heck even kiss, your partner. You may even end up in a magazine or website next to Britney Spears! Publicity stunt? Hardly--more like genius PR move. All you have to do is take a sexy picture with (what the whole world already knows is) the opposite of what your sexual preference is, and the buzz is deafening. He is not pretending to be anything. This is the first shot an openly gay male artist in the US gets to play the 'sexual preference 180 degree twist' card on America. Madonna, Britney, Katy, Gaga, Christina...they've created silly controversy playing this card. This is the first time(I can think of) a male gets a crack at it. And he hit it out of the park. This "story" is in all the press, "gay" and "straight" press.
Like I said
Like I said, he's openly gay and proud in his PRIVATE life but not in the media/press. He's trying to caiter to his female fans by making out with a girl in this photoshoot. It's stupid and lame, and he does this just to sell more albums..
I still don't like the pics, and never will. He cares waaay too much about what his female fans things he could just say "f*** it, I'll make out with a guy and REALLY be provocative", instead he's wimping out.
I know what he's trying to do with this, he's trying to show that he's gay but isn't afraid of women, and that women can still like him because he's gay, he's caitering to his female fans. But the thing is that it's not working. Does he have to make out with a girl and pretend to be straight to sell albums? I just wish he had more balls (so to speak) and that he wouldn't care so much about what his fans might think. Why pretend to be someone you're not? He's openly gay in his private life, so why isn't he in the media? It's so lame.
Harvey Milk: You gotta give 'em hope.
Like I said
Like I said, he's openly gay and proud in his PRIVATE life but not in the media/press. He's trying to caiter to his female fans by making out with a girl in this photoshoot. It's stupid and lame, and he does this just to sell more albums..
I still don't like the pics, and never will. He cares waaay too much about what his female fans things he could just say "f*** it, I'll make out with a guy and REALLY be provocative", instead he's wimping out.
I know what he's trying to do with this, he's trying to show that he's gay but isn't afraid of women, and that women can still like him because he's gay, he's caitering to his female fans. But the thing is that it's not working. Does he have to make out with a girl and pretend to be straight to sell albums? I just wish he had more balls (so to speak) and that he wouldn't care so much about what his fans might think. Why pretend to be someone you're not? He's openly gay in his private life, so why isn't he in the media? It's so lame.
Harvey Milk: You gotta give 'em hope.
How To Be Out
I think you are projecting way too much of "you" into this situation with Adam Lambert.
You don't have to like the pictures. That's not really the point is it?
It's just pictures in a fashion magazine. A tiny moment in time. It actually not any more scandalous than most photo spreads in these kinds of men's magazines.
The only reason to even care about it is if you are an Adam Lambert fan or you like Details magazine.
It's not a political statement or thesis on the state of sexual politics or the status of sexual orientation, it's a sexy photo shoot between a man and a woman in a men's magazine. The man happens to be gay, the woman (who knows?)
Adam is completely open and out in public with his boyfriend including going to very high profile concerts and dinners and hanging out in public with his boyfriend at clubs in LA and New Orleans and when he was on vacation in Santa Barbara
He's been photographed, drawn, video-taped and interviewed WHILE IN THE COMPANY OF his boyfriend.
He's been seen holding hands with and kissing his boyfriend in both high profile places and not.
He is just as out and proud and visible as any other young gay male celebrity and if Drake was famous for some reason he'd probably be photographed more.
Drake was shown WITH ADAM'S FAMILY during American Idol in the audience hugging Adam's mother (even though we didn't know who he was, the folks at AI knew and there were lots of close-ups of him and you know Adam was made awae of that) and he has since been photographed during the tour in the audience (well after everyone knew Drake was Adam's boyfriend).
So we know Adam is gay and we know is boyfriend is Drake because he WANTS us to know these things.
Drake was photographed with Adam many times during the tour as well (going into or coming out of ) different places and they are practically always holding hands or smiling at each other .
None of that is his private life. This all happened in public. If Adam didn't want anyone to see him with Drake or know who Drake is, he'd have made sure that was so.
Cheyenne Jackson is a very famous and prominent out gay man and performer and actor who is constantly interviewed and applauded for being out and part of the gay community and no one has EVER EVEN SEEN his long term partner (in photographs or video) because his partner chooses to remain anonymous and no one accuses Cheyenne of being gay in his "private life" only.
The very fact that we know Adam is gay and we know that he has a boyfriend and we know who his boyfriend is and we know what his boyfriend looks like completely disproves your "only in his private life" claim.
Not to mention the fact that he has not only talked about his boyfriend in almost every interview since the 20/20 interview where he indicated he was dating someone but Drake's family and friends have been approached as well.
Kris Allen was even interviewed about what he thought of Adam Lambert and Drake Lambry as a couple and he said lovely things.
My point, none of that is private. It's People Magazine and Us Weekly and Rolling Stone, etc.
How exactly is that being out on in his "private" life?
It's not Adam's job to represent for the entire gay male entertainer population. He only has to represent himself and hopefully folks who relate will get something out of that.
He does his thing just like Neil Patrick Harris and Luke McFarlane and TR Knight all do their respective things (distinctly and individually).
There is not a single person anywhere who knows who Adam Lambert is and doesn't also know he's gay AND who hasn't seen pictures of him holding hands with Drake because those photos are ubiquitous (not to mention all the photos of him tonguing down his ex which he gladly, proudly claimed as "Kissing my boy!")
It's fine to be indignant about what the closet does to gay community in general or even about celebrities who refuse to come out and lie about their sexuality but that is not the case with Adam Lambert.
It's not a fair assessment of him at all. As far as I'm concerned, Adam refusing to talk about his sexuality during American Idol (though never claiming to be straight OR denying he was gay and completely owning all the innuendo and evidence) was the same as when pregnant women who are celebrities refuse to discuss their pregnancies until the 1st trimester is over (a very common practice despite the fact that everyone can see their growing bump). It is their right to wait if they choose to.
If you're going to be indignant, at least be indignant about actual homophobia and actual closet cases not just someone who doesn't act exactly the way you want them to or who doesn't fit into what seems to be a vary narrow mold of what you think is appropriate behavior by an out gay man.
Adam is not the ONLY gay male celebrity, he's not the most famous, he's not litmus test for all that is gay and male in music and one freaking photo shoot means diddly squat in the grand scheme of any musician's career.
He shouldn't have to be all things to all people in order to be appreciated for who he is.
Whoa
Best. Post. Ever.
Yes... Best. Post. Ever
I think I love you. Just saying.
Your comment should be published. :)
Totally agree
It's like you're reading my mind.
Word!
Someone mentioned Adam is also gonna be on OUT
Is it confirmed? Looks like Nicholas Hoult is the cover guy for the November issue.
www.out.com
He's on the cover of the Out
Thanks
So he`s probably going to share the cover with several other people...
http://out.com/out100/
The real problem...
blah!!!
I guess that you get one
They're fashion portraits
It's his appeal to mainstream America
Beautiful!
I think the photo is artistic and beautifully done. Just because he's posing with a woman, doesn't mean he's trying to say he's not gay. Not everything we do has to be to advance the gay movement.
Sometimes we are our own worse critics/enemies. We should support him and lift him up. He's a young, talented, out gay man working hard and doing well. I say more power to him.
Sad
I couldn't have said it better
The only thing I'll add is to summarize an exchange I had on another thread about this. Another poster made the comment that the photos are upsetting because they remind gay people of the pain and shame they historically have felt when gay people are coy about their sexuality or hide it entirely until they are dragged into the open. These photos hit gay folks in that vulnerable spot. I think that is indeed the cause of a lot of the opposition. It certainly can't be a legitimate concern that Adam is trying to fool people into thinking he's not really gay. That literally makes no sense. Understanding the real source of the opposition makes it understandable, but it doesn't make it valid. Millions of gay people have moved beyond that sort of baggage and hurt, and we can't be asking celebrities or magazines to restrict their artistic or journalistic impulses because not everyone has yet reached that point. We live in a new world where there are celebrities totally in touch with their true selves, to the point that photo shoots like this are simply a confounding of expectations. Coy celebrities are still out there, but Adam Lambert certainly isn't one of them.
thanks nate!!!
i am soo disappointed at people (even gay men) up in arms with this. for one - ever since after american idol where adam can be allowed to express his orientation, he has been vocal about being who he is. he even explained to readers that if women find him very attractive - great! - but those are just fantasies that will never happen. this is not as if he was in the closet or still being coy about his sexuality. CAN'T A GAY MAN HAVE SEXY PICTURES WITH WOMEN?!?!?
secondly - THIS IS DETAILS! good luck with having two men doing sexy racy stuff there!
and lastly - adam does not owe the community anything by not choosing to be in gay magazine first before doing rolling stone and etc... (although i have to admit - DETAILS?!?!? bad bad decision!). he's gay - he came out, he's kissing his boyfriend in public - he doesn't even have an album out yet and we want him to carry the rainbow flag for us on every pride parade? can we give him time to build up his career first before we ask him to lead the whole gay community and be political?
and i don't even like adam - i admire his talent - but so far his new song sucked big time. but he still has lots to prove. sure he was in the highest rated tv in america... but you're nothing without a good and critically acclaimed album to back up the talent that we all know he has. (taylor hicks anyone?)... give him a break!
straight =/= gross
I have no problem with het pics; in fact i would be scandalized if a bunch of straights were grossed out by a gay-ish picture of a heterostar. (and the woman is beautiful.)
but that tongue kiss pic is gross, because people should not kiss like cocker spaniels. lead with the lips, not with the tips.
Adam Lambert in Details
If the sight of a gay man in a sexy photo shoot with a woman is offensive on general principle to some folks then sure, you'll be offended regardless of how it's shot or for what purpose (which seems to be what's bothering most of the posters here).
But you don't get to just ignore the context of the photo shoot in question in order to turn it into something it isn't.
I don't believe that anyone here actually thinks Adam Lambert wants the world to think he is straight or bisexual and I don't believe any sane person is going to look at these photos and come to that conclusion.
The issue here isn't whether or not Adam Lambert is a professional actor (though he has acted and sang in Wicked and The Ten Commandments). He is acting in this shoot as someone who would seduce this woman. He's playing a fantasy version of himself, not his real self and not his fantasy.
The issue is that any photo shoot has a story and the people agreeing to participate in a photo shoot like this one are "acting" in that story.
Lance Bass isn't really a boxer yet he just did a series of stills where he "plays" a boxer (having nothing to do with his real life). I don't think he nor the photographer was trying to convince the world that he really is a boxer or wants to be a boxer or is going to be a boxer. It was a fantasy. Plain and simple.
Similarly, these photos shouldn't be taken out of the context of the photo shoot (regardless of what some random internet bloggers or crazed fans may or may not want to make of them at some point in the future).Anyone who has ever heard of Adam Lambert at this point knows he's gay, gay, gay. 1,500 photo shoots of him with naked women couldn't change that. Let's be real.
When he performed in the Zodiac Show he (like many of the other gay male performers there) was covered in barely clad dancer girls kissing and fondling him all the time and it didn't make him any less gay, gay, gay.
In the context of the story being told by this particular photo shoot, both the model and Adam Lambert are "acting" out someone else's fantasy. I don't know the model but she could be a lesbian for all we know. If she were more famous (like Heidi Klum) should she be raked over the coals as well for "cheating" on her husband (or some other such nonsense)?
Adam and the model are performing the vision of the photographer and depicting what some women think about Adam Lambert. It's very tongue in cheek and ironic.
I don't think this photoshoot is meant to convey Adam's personal desires any more than Annie Liebovitz (or Whoopi Goldberg herself) wanted people to think that Whoopi actually bathes in a tub full of milk everyday.
I just saw a photo shoot from Out 100 for 2008 that had out lesbians posing in sexy shoots with out gay men (most of them not actors) recreating famous movie scenes. Does that mean they were also trying to convince the public that they are actually straight?
When someone does a photo shoot (regardless of their personal proclivities) it is their job is to realize the vision of the photographer and sometimes they get to do things outside of their personal experience (often, in fact).
I don't see why a photo shoot for a story that EXPLICITLY states that it's meant to convey the fantasies of some straight women fans regarding Adam Lambert somehow means Adam Lambert is going back in the closet or is trying to convince people that he's bisexual.
In the article he talks about being in love with his boyfriend (and there are hundreds of photos of him and said boyfriend all over the internet). Therefore, I see no evidence that Adam Lambert wants people to think he's bisexual or anything other than gay.
This is one photo shoot (and not even close to being his first) in what will be a long list of photo shoots over the course of his career.
I don't get why this particular on is such a touchy issue for people.
If OUT or The Advocate or Instinct or some other prominent gay magazine wants to do a sexy photo shoot of Adam Lambert with cute naked boys, then they need to step up to the plate and get it done! Details is not a gay magazine.
The photos are gorgeous (in my opinion) and I'm sure it was fun for him to do (or so it seems from his interview).
Sometimes it feels like so many of us gay folks have no whimsy or sense of proportion or perspective.
Here is this super talented very out young gay man with cross-generational appeal who's just having a ball getting his career started and taking the music world by storm and doing all kinds of fun things and some of us just project so much anger and negativity and outrage and bitterness all over everything he does and I really don't get all the "How Dare He!!!" about this.
I just don't.
If you don't like him or his music then why would you care what he does or doesn't do or to whom? If you love him and his music then you probably know by know how much he likes to play and make waves and do scandalous things and dress up, etc so it shouldn't even be a surprise and you'd certainly know how very NOT closeted or shy he is about being gay.
Anyone who looks at these photos and thinks they are an actual attempt by Adam Lambert to use Details Magazine to convince the public that he's straight or bisexual is either being disingenuous or willfully ignorant.
...
I love this comment! I'll
I love this comment! I'll admit that I was upset by the idea of the shoot when I heard he was posing with a naked woman. I thought "straightwashing." And it sounded like objectification of the woman. But then I read the article and saw the pictures. Adam is her fantasy. I believe that's why she's naked and he's clothed. She's offering herself to him but it isn't his fantasy. The shoot makes sense when you read the article. I wonder if the people who are still upset have read the article?
Adam's one of the most out performers around right now. He's hiding NOTHING. His boyfriend was even at this photoshoot!
And next up is the cover of Out.
Great post
In awe.
And again - I concur 100%.
Look, the article is titled