Adam Lambert: One Week Later

A change in appearance post-AMA.

It's been a week since Adam Lambert made much of the world collectively clutch its pearls and gasp in shock. Nearly everybody and their brother has managed an opinion on the subject, including me. Now that we've all said something, have we, as a society, reached a consensus on what happened, and what it means?

The short answer is no. We're all still clueless about the broader societal meanings of The Great Crotch Snorkel of 2009. It would probably have been over by now if not for CBS blurring out the kiss, which really wasn't at issue, at least not until their lame excuse for doing so. (Their silly explanation was destroyed by the man who had the first gay kiss on a morning show.)

So as things stand, we're still talking.

The anti-gay Liberty Counsel has filed an official complaint with the Federal Communications Commission about the performance. It reads somewhat scattershot as they attempt to make something stick under either obscenity or indecency laws. Their success hinges on the fact that the broadcast aired in the Central Time Zone at 9:54 P.M. as opposed to 10:54 P.M. in the Eastern Time Zone (and was edited for the west coast). Ten o'clock marks the cut-off point after which more adult-themed programming can air without risking penalties from the FCC.

These arbitrary lines may decided if what happened was "indecent"

So if by the community standards of, say Dallas/Ft. Worth in the Central Time Zone, the east coast broadcast could be considered indecent and the Liberty Counsel may actually have a legal leg to stand on by about a minute. If this was the Bush administration, I might be concerned, but the FCC tends to reflect the administration it serves.

So how's the mainstream media handling what happened? Believe it or not, fairly well. The New York Times had a marvelous piece which managed to sum up the entire network television policy on gay men into a single sentence: "Do tell, just don't show." The Los Angeles Times suggests that Adam is likely to laugh all the way to the bank, selling 225,000 copies of For Your Entertainment in the first week, compared to squeaky-clean Kris Allen's 80,000 copies.

There are nearly 50 slots between their albums.

One could debate whether Entertainment Weekly's Michael Sleazak is the mainstream press or the gay press, especially since part of his video interview with Adam started with "One gay man to another gay man" but he writes for EW, which is mainstream. And more than anything, he let Adam talk about what happened. In the additional EW videos released late Wednesday we get to see Adam trying to resolve his statements about "not being a politician" with his performance, which is being labeled political.

What about the gay press, you ask? That's where we find a mixed bag on our rock star. Our last post grabbed nearly 70 comments over the long weekend, and ranged from highly supportive to accusations of onstage "rape." Over at The Advocate, the article was supportive of at least Adam's right to perform as he saw fit, but reader comments were not so positive. Meanwhile, fab Magazine had a long audio interview that discussed the divide in the gay community and tried to paint it as generational.

Our own sister site, 365gay.com was picked up in a Reuters article, with editor-in-chief Jennifer Vanasco being quoted as saying:

... his performance hurt the cause of gay marriage in the eyes of mainstream Americans "who think gay life is exactly what (he) portrayed on the American Music Awards."

Anyone who's read my work before knows that I personally chafe a bit at that statement, because I think it presumes too much on a few fronts:

1. That all people behind gay rights are all about marriage;
2. That people who want the white picket fence have any right to censor a culture whose main fight was started by a bunch of angry drag queens 40 years ago;
3. That it seems to be based on a popular fallacy that assimilation = equality. If drag queens have to put on polos and and chinos to be accepted, is the price too high?

Psychology Today actually tackles a lot of that on their blog. They attempt to draw a line between the gay representation that already exists on ABC, with the gay parents on Modern Family being essentially inside a box -- partnered, raising a baby -- with which most viewers are comfortable. Sure, they're technically homosexual, but there's really nothing sexual about them. 

Topping off the outrage, we have the fact that ABC's 20/20 is going to air a Robin Roberts interview with Chris Brown, who pled guilty to assaulting Rhianna earlier this year. Portions of the already-taped interview will also air on Good Morning America, which canceled Adam's interview and performance last week. The possibility of a song from Chris Brown's new album being performed on the show was being discussed, though that was scrapped this morning.

Part of the reason for the Chris Brown interview is "equal time" since Rhianna was interviewed.

The Lambert/Brown brouhaha highlights the complicated relationship America has with both sex and violence, which is pretty much opposite most of Europe. For the most part, Europeans are fine with nudity, and sexuality. Take the French soaps Clara Sheller and Les Bleus for example. On Clara Sheller, the French are fine showing Gilles and J.P. having fairly explicit sex. But the gay bashing on Les Bleus happens in shadows and from a distance. In the U.S., we'd have seen every single punch and kick of the beating in slow motion and blood flying, but we'd be lucky to see J.P. and Gilles in the afterglow much less actually doing it.

Regardless of where you stand on the subject of Public Displays of Affection (PDA), one thing has happened here - we're talking about a double (triple?) standard between straight sexuality, girl-girl sexuality, and gay sexuality. And that can't help but be good for the cause because discussing an issue desensitizes it and helpf people see inequalities previously accepted.

On The View this morning, even Sherri Shepard managed to grasp that if not for Adam Lambert's performance last week, Chris Brown would have likely performed without comment. So didn't several constituencies win there? I'd argue that as long as we keep talking, we all win.