Carlos and I had a most interesting discussion over dinner last night [sidenote: dinner was blackened pork chops over lime infused rice with black beans, peppers, onions and tomatoes in a mole sauce....que delicioso].
We were talking about Adam Lambert's AMA performance and all the uproar over it. The discussion of him pulling the guy's face into his crotch....his fondling a female dancer....his big old tongue groping kiss on the guy in the band. All of it; and how people were calling it pornographic.
So, what is pornography, and who gets to be the judge. I mean, the Carrie Prejean tapes are called pornography, but Lambert kept his clothes on and, with the exception of maybe a few hundred Innocent teen boys and girls caught unawares about that tingling...down there....no one got off. So, which is pornography?
Is a photograph of a nude woman pornographic? What if she's lying there spread eagle? How about if her hands, or as Joe,My.God. calls them, her Ladyfingers are visiting her nether region? Which one is pornographic? Not into nude women? Yeah, I get what you're saying. Same thing applies to nude men. Pretty pose? Spread eagle showing the goods? A little bit of chicken choking? Who's to say what's pornographic.
So, then Carlos wanted to talk obscenity, and I noted that the same rules apply. Everyone has a differing view as to what is obscene. I don't find nudity obscene. I don't find pictures of men and women, in any combination, performing sex acts, particularly obscene. That doesn't mean I want to see them on my TV or computer, but, you know, to each his own. For me, war is obscene; violence is pornographic. Murder is immoral.
And yet we see that every night of the week from old Sopranos reruns to any number of CSI or NCIS or Law & Order type shows. And no one raises a fuss. so, why all the hubbub about Adam Lambert's performance?
He's a man, that's why. Oh, and his being openly gay probably added fuel to the fire. See, if it was two women kissing [or three, Madonna, Britney and Christina, I'm talking to you] there would have been little or no uproar. Straight women are not particularly bothered by two women kissing; lord knows the Lesbians don't have a problem with it. Gay men, too, don't care. Madonna's various same-sex liplocks never raised a, um, flag, if you will, in me. And straight men, well, they get downright erect at the thought of girl-on-girl action.
No, it's because Lambert's a guy and gay. It was in-your-face-gay-man-kissing, and it made some crazy. Not straight women, I say; they probably didn't care, unless you count the perpetually uptight types a la Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Gay women weren't bothered either, because it isn't their cup of tea. Gay men, well, we thought Cool. No, it was the straight guys, because they're too macho to admit there's nothing wrong with mano'a'mano spit swapping. See, the straight guys think that if they didn't bitch and moan, we might think they like it and they can't have that.
So, it's mostly straight men who got their boxer briefs in a snit over Adam Lambert's overt sexual, and some say pitchy, performance. And, since it is straight men, for the most part, who control the media and the news in this country, that's why there was such a fuss.
Was it pornographic? Not in my house. Obscene? Nope. Immoral? Hardly. But then, I'm a gay guy, and, to me, who you love, who you kiss, who dives into your crotch, is entirely your business.