Hip-Hop’s (Queer) Poker Face…

(Make sure to listen to the video at the end of the blog)

http://mrsgrapevine.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/kanye_not_gay.png

Recent debates about hip-hop’s misogynist, homophobic, violent, and materialistic nature and lyrics have permeated the airwaves for some time now.  Commentators and politicians often point to your typical suspects—black men—for the demise of our culture, exploitation of women, and indoctrination of children.  Hip-Hop has been the shame of the nation, yet has brought vast amounts of wealth to record label executives and campaign contributors. This on going fight with hip-hop has even emerged within feminist communities. Often reiterating the concerns that have been voiced by politicians and faith based groups.

As I lay curled up in my bed my, waiting for my morning alarm to go off, I get a rather interesting surprise. Instead of the typical morning inspirational mix, with all my “you can do it” music, Kid Cudi’s Make Her Say featuring Kanye West, Common, and a sampling of Lady GaGa’s Poker Face as background seeped slowly into my ears like Blackstrap Molasses with pounding beats and incessant  “Pa-Pa-Pa’s.” I had no other choice but to get up. After listening to the song I began to really like it.  Indeed, it made me say, “oh ah oh oh ah ah ah oh oh.” But what I found most interesting, if we divorce ourselves from negative articulations about hip-hop and suspend our disbeliefs was that this song was indeed, if read differently, a atypical discourse about gender and sexuality. Could it be that hip-hop is a conduit for queer desires?

Cudi’s Make Her Say gives that impression. Within the first few lines we hear Cudi’s and GaGa’s voices intertwining (like sex) to make a rhythmic melody, each with a purpose.  As we hear GaGa saying, “Pa-Pa-Pa Poker Her Face” Cudi interrupts and says, “Me First.” Initially, this “me first” makes no sense until one is finished listening to the song. How might one be able to read the “me first” statement? If we are to take all the discourse that is involved in this song, then what is suggested is that we’re working with queer relationships. “Me first” can represent a multiple sex partner encounter. In other words, Cudi may be the first to engage in a sexual encounter with our female character. Cudi’s verse continues to undermine traditional gender norms in regards to sexuality because it is stated, “ She wanna have whatever she like/she can if she bring her friend/ and we can have one hell of a night.” The initial lines highlights female agency. Our female character is able to articulate what she wants, further it can be read that by bringing her friend—be they male of female—Cudi, the female character, and the friend will engage in sexual behavior. They challenge, as was describe by Gayle Rubin, portions of the charmed circle that value heterosexuality and monogamous dyads. The engagement of a threesome subverts that.  Finally, in Cudi’s verse he states, “Now I ain’t got trip bout them niggas who like her/ cuz me and mommy know, who could really make her go.” A few initial thoughts have to do with the idea of a male not being jealous about other men being attracted to a female he is involved with. Victoria Robinson states in her My Baby Just Cares for Me: Feminism, Heterosexuality and Non-Monogamy that “jealousy is considered in terms of how it upholds the institution and ideology of monogamy (Robinson, 1). Further, that non-monogamy can inform and transform heterosexual relationships and other social relations (Robinson). Within this non-monogamous relationship that has formed, jealousy and “control” as perpetuated by the male is not evident. In fact, he could care less what other men might do because both him and her know who turns her on the most, which is revealed at the end of the song.

The hook of the song is a challenge towards non-procreative sex—oral sex. Rubin, again, classifies this outside the “charmed circle”; however, this is amendable particularly if you’re comparing homo/hetero oral sex.  In our case, it is hetero oral sex.

West’s verse of the song, perhaps, is the best in terms of challenging gender and sexual norms. Again, much like Cudi’s initial line, West discusses the agency of this female.  “She say she want whatever she like/ she say she gonna bring her friend/ and we gonna have a hell of a night/ through the day.”  This is a female articulating her desires. Furthermore, she informs Kanye of her plans to bring a friend. Some may assume that her friend is a female, but that is to operate within heteronormative lenses. It its very well possible that she may bring a male friend or a transgender friend. West’s verse continues to discuss the power of this woman and his weakness. “Getting brain (oral sex) in the library cuz I love knowledge/ when you use your medulla oblongata (head)/ and give me scoliosis until I comatoses’.” This represents the vulnerability and weakness of West at that moment. He can become weak, feeble, and unable to move from this woman. Our female character has strength. It is similar to Lynne Segal’s argument that there is a heightened discourse that men are dominant in sex. This narrative has to be upheld because not to would show the vulnerability of men and open various sexual avenues for subversion by women.

Common’s verse offers least to my queer reading of this song, except for, again, the notion of female agency. Our female character demands what she wants and then requests that Common brings one of his friends!
Finally, the part that offers the most potential is GaGa’s last verse: “can’t read my, can’t read my/ no he can’t read on my poker face/ she got me like nobody.” The joke essentially is on us, perhaps excluding Cudi (after all he did write it). However, the only one who can really please her is a woman. During sex these men can’t read her poker face, they can’t see where she ultimately finds the most pleasure (“she’s got me like nobody”).

To me this suggests that hip-hop, like all other things can be queered. This narrative that is offered can challenge the Second Wave discussions of how hip-hop oppresses women and maintains power dynamics among men and women. This one song does not speak to the entirety of hip-hop, nor does my reading reflect how most will analyze the work. However, what Cudi’s song can make us say is that hip-hop might and probably does have a pa-pa-pa poker face pa- pa Poker Face!

I Kissed A Boy and I Liked It? (Or, Can You Handle It?)

I’ve been holding my breath, well really my tongue for some time now, due to the recent events on the American Music Awards. It has very little to do with the fact the Whitney Houston is back in the game, or that J-Lo fell on her ass, or that our, now deceased, “King of Pop,” Michael Jackson was the winner of numerous awards. This has more to do with our American Idols (read: ideals).  You know, those things or people that get us all warm and tingly on the inside.  As of late, much discourse has been circulating about our 2009 American Idol Runner Up, yours truly, Adam Lambert and his infamous kiss with a guy. But not only did we see Adam Lambert but also “guest” appearances by our good old friendenemies—heteronormativity and patriarchy—all dolled up as morals, values, and American ideals.  Right.
As I spent my day of thanks with family and friends around the turkey and stuffing, the conversation could not help but to morph into political and social “issues.” This was not a new phenomenon for my family and me. We typically have passionate, sometimes acrimonious discussions between mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, nieces and nephews, husbands and wives, kith and kin, cousins, visitors, and all the others with whom, on that day of thanks, there is motive to clinch or to expel from our “charmed circle.” Though we discussed the health care bills and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the intensity as well as the amount of conversation about the American Music Awards and specifically “the kiss” were caused by more than the sexual content of Lambert’s performance.  As my aunt remarked, “ Baby, I see what you’re saying. And you know I’m liberal. But that was just too much.”

Lambert’s performance with its male on male kissing, sadomasochism throughout, allusions to threesomes, and simulated fellatio was just not sexy; it was obscene. And this is what made most of America cringe.

But was is it just that simple? Was it just patently offensive? Were we able to mumble like former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, “ I know it when I see it?”  I think not. This issue is, again, grounded in our double standards and heteronormative sensibilities.
The fact that Lambert queered the stage was very much uncomfortable for some. Think about it.  He wasn’t just gay; he was queer. All of his buffoonery with kissing guys, fellatio from girls, s&m, poly relationships was just too much. Lambert purposely removed himself from the charmed circle. As Gayle Rubin in her Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality notes,  the charmed circle is composed of “good, normal, natural, blessed sexuality” (Rubin, 281) such as heterosexual, married, monogamous, procreative, non-commercial, in pairs, in a relationship, same generation, in private, bodies only, vanilla sex. (Rubin).  Lambert’s performance did not fall within that purview of the charmed circle. It was everything but. What is just as troubling in regards to this is the notion of performativity. Even though Lambert may not have fully engaged in all of the aforementioned activities, it mattered not. In other words, just the thought of Lambert actually doing anything remotely close to what was suggested on stage was enough to have our simple little lives turned upside down.  It was not intelligible to us that such things could, might, or should happen. It disturbed our heteronormative, monogamous lenses. Things became all too blurry, frightening. For Lambert’s actions were a threat to our purity; his performance was dangerous and menacing to our children, communities, and national image. The sexual hierarchy is maintained, permitted, perpetuated, and masked by our fears.  “All these hierarchies of sexual value,” as Rubin notes, “function in much the same ways as do ideological systems of racism, ethnocentrism, and religious chauvinism. They rationalize the well-being of the sexually privileged and the adversity of the sexual rabble” (Rubin, 280).

This is a bad kiss 😦

Take for instance, the double standard that Adam Lambert so successfully pointed out. Britany Spears and Madonna made out on stage before on national television.  Hmm. Yes, people were angry; however, the amount of discourse and public outcry is second to Lambert’s heat. According to Rubin, we might want to think about privilege at this time. The reason why Britany Spears and Madonna’s performances don’t get shunned or blocked off of the airways has much to do with whom is running the airways—men, often straight, often white, often rich.  Britany and Madonna’s tongue on tongue action was titillating, sexy, and hot for the privileged group, whereas Lambert’s performance was anything but.  If the straight guys like it, so must society.

This is a good kiss 🙂

Some got up in arms, not because Lambert is gay, but because he’s flaunting it everywhere!  And “everywhere” is reserved for heterosexuals. Phil Hubbard in the piece, Sex Zones: Intimacy, Citizenship and Public Space, articulates that double standards exist between queer and heterosexual individuals. Hubbard states that, “recent studies…have demonstrated that public spaces are constructed around particular notions of appropriate sexual comportment which exclude those whose lives do not centre on monogamous, heterosexual, procreative sex” (Hubbard, 51). Ding! Ding! Ding! What made Lambert’s performance so alarming, so upsetting was that it not only penetrated the public space, but also our private spaces, our homes.  And that is a big NO NO.

Adam Lambert’s attempt to queer a space successfully is noteworthy. It is actually really hot. But what is disturbing about all of this is that heteronormativity is still so pervasive in our society. Straight America’s disavowal of queer masculinities and sexualities and the apparent double standard for women and queer men is nauseating, to say the least.  When can Queer move pass being the kiss of death?

Another Awards Controversy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am not a big fan of watching award shows, so typically I find out about the big controversies through second hand sources. After the whole Kanye/Taylor Swift debacle finally simmered, the media seemed to be begging for some new “controversy”. Reading the Times Picayune on my way home for Thanksgiving, I found out what this new controversy was: Adam Lambert’s performance on the American Music Awards. Now, I’ll admit from the get go, I have no idea what these particular awards are, and only a vague knowledge of who Adam Lambert is (he was on American idol). However, when I read this article, the message was pretty clear, and it prompted me to search the internet for more of the scoop. So apparently, while performing at the AMA’s, Lambert made some sexual gestures involving his genitalia (at some point simulating a BJ) and kissed…. A MAN. Now, every article I have read concerning Lambert indicates that he is openly gay and has been since his days on American Idol. So this is why it surprises me that everyone is so shocked he could partake in something as “deviant” as kissing someone of the same gender- when he has already made it public that this is his sexual orientation.

While looking at people’s responses to this performance, what surprises me most is how often people bring up Madonna’s kiss with Britney a few years back. While controversial, the consensus seems to be that it is much less so than Lambert’s kiss. So why is this? Because it’s between two males? Or because Lambert admits he is gay? Why is it that sexual attraction between two males is perceived as so wrong by the American public?

In backlash for this performance, Lambert was cancelled from an appearance he was supposed to make on Good Morning America. This seems to be a huge step back in America’s progress to be accepting of non-hetero sexualities. As Lambert said, “We’ve seen female pop and rock performers do that for the last 10 years. You just don’t see men doing it very often. And I’m hoping to breakdown that double standard with this number.” Well, apparently America was not ready for this double standard to be broken, as is evidenced by his cancelled appearance and the backlash in cyberspace.

This topic has made me think about the concept of the closet as presented by Sedwick, Seidman, and Hubbard. While the American public seems to be okay with Lambert being out of the closet, they definitely do not want it in their faces. Hubbard discusses the idea of “Sex Zones”, where it is not okay for homosexuals to display affection in a public forum, despite it being okay for heterosexuals. The amount of backlash to his performance showed that America felt that this was not the appropriate arena for homosexual narratives. Despite the fact that this aired at 11 at night, there seemed to be concern about the harmful effects of this image on the children. This plea for the safety of the children has been woven through the articles of this class, starting with Rubin, and its effect on the censorship of homosexuality and other non-heterosexual identities.

Additionally, this article reminded me of the research done by Johnson that we read earlier this semester. While people may say they are accepting of same sex desire, they usually mean that it is okay to love someone of the same sex, they are less willing to be accepting of same sex SEX. Therefore, when Lambert gave his suggestive performance, people were forced to remember the reality of his gay identity: he likes to have sex with men (gasp!). As Johnson shows in his study, most men, despite saying they are accepting of homosexuality, say the concept of sex with another man is “repulsive”.

This performance (which I unfortunately was unable to find a copy of anywhere on the internet) seems to highlight American mainstream society’s struggles with its acceptance of homosexuality. While Adam Lambert may still be a popular performer despite being out, America would still prefer he downplay his sexual preference. In response to it being displayed publically, he received a negative backlash, which shows that despite claiming progress, this country has a long way to go in truly being accepting of non-heterosexuality.

One site where the readers comments were especially interesting:

http://mashable.com/2009/11/23/adam-lamberts-ama-performance/

“I hate men, but I’m not a Lesbian!”

The same thing always seems to happen as finals approach. Anything and everything seems more interesting than learning about acetylcholine, action potentials, muscarinic receptors or axon hillocks. Thus the “study breaks” begin. Lately, I have been watching a friend’s Seinfeld discs. This show seems to constantly be making statements relevant to the discourse of our class. Pretty surprising for a show about nothing! Anyways, I was watching an episode this weekend during a layover at an airport that had a scene that really stuck out to me. The episode is called “The Subway” and in this episode, Elaine is on her way to the wedding of two of her friends, who happen to be lesbians.

This in itself is not what stood out to me. What caught my attention was a scene where a random, older woman on the subway strikes up a conversation with Elaine. The woman is asking Elaine where she is going with the gift and Elaine replies that she is on her way to a wedding. The woman then asks what the man does for a living. Elaine is unable to respond for obvious reasons and eventually divulges that she is on her way to a lesbian wedding, so there is no man. The woman is obviously distressed by this idea and leaves, with Elaine screaming after her “I hate men, but I’m not a lesbian!”.

This two minute clip is interesting for many reasons. First of all, because of the obvious heteronormativity present in the institution of marriage based on the woman’s assumption. As we have seen from many of our readings, including Ingram, our society socializes us to assume someone is heterosexual unless we have reason to believe otherwise. Therefore, when someone tells you two of their friends are getting married, society dictates the assumption that this is a heterosexual union. The institute of marriage is paraded in many forums to reach and socialize this country’s children. These forums include Disney films which exalt the importance of finding “the one” you will be with for the rest of your life. This type of influence is ever present and leads to the assumption of heterosexuality in societal interactions. So, when this woman’s assumption is shown to be incorrect, you see the woman’s reaction to having her standards challenged: which is to be appalled at this aberration from the norm.

This clip was also interesting because of the woman’s insistence on knowing what the man does for a living. This seems to feed into the antiquated notion that men should be the breadwinners and women need to be cared for. I find it incredibly interesting that she does not inquire into the profession of the woman, but only cares about the man. Furthermore, the context suggests that the man’s occupation is integral to his identity. Seidman relates that women are intended to be passive in the relationship between men and women, and this seems to reinforce this idea. A good career is taught to men to be important to the maintenance of their masculinity. This idea was also present in the movie we watched in class, Revolutionary Road, where Leonardo DiCaprio’s character’s ego was boosted immensely once he began to gain respect at work. In contrast, women are expected to be good mothers and homemakers, which is why this woman seems to have no interest in her profession.

Finally, I found it interesting that Elaine so adamantly tries to defend her own heterosexuality at the end of the scene. This goes back to the idea presented in Sedwick’s article about how you can’t “tell” if someone is gay, therefore people who are heterosexual feel the need to assert their position as part of the mainstream whenever the idea is questioned. So even though Elaine has lesbian pals that she is close with, she still feels it is important that she be identified as straight. I found this to be very interesting and telling of our society as a whole. Despite the fact that we try to prove how “open-minded” and “liberal” we are, there are many times that society still pressures you to be “normal”. It is one thing to have gay friends, but quite another to be gay yourself, that is crossing another line, eliminating you from the charmed circle as described by Rubin. This is all very interesting in the analysis of how our culture approaches the idea of homosexuality and how it is viewed by different people. The woman on the subway may be the obvious “bigot”, however Elaine also maintains certain ideals to stay part of the inner circle, despite being portrayed as more open-minded.

Let’s Give Them Something to Talk About

MORE Deets On Josh’s Stripperlicious Affair!

Kim And Reggie Moving In Together?!

Did R-Patz and K-Stew Spend The Night Together?

Did Chris Martin Cheat On Gwyneth With Kate Bosworth?!

Lindsay And Gerard Butler’s Hot Hookup?

Recently I was skimming PerezHilton.com (yes, it’s a guilty pleasure of mine…you can judge me for it) and I realized that a large portion of the entries deal with the romance, hook-ups, marriages, and divorces of celebrities.  Above are a few examples of entries on the website dealing with these things (all of them are links, in case you’re curious).  It made me think- why is it that we care so much about what celebrities are doing in their relationships?  I can name a few friends of mine who have moved in together or have cheated/ been cheated on in the recent months, but yet it still is a major source of entertainment in our society when the same things happen to a celebrity couple.  What is particularly interesting about this phenomenon is how widespread it has become in the media.  News on the sexual trysts and relationship happenings of celebs is not just available on gossip sites- it’s everywhere!  From magazines like People, OK, and US Weekly, to major news stations, such as CNN and FOX, to entire television programs dedicated to discussing what’s new in the world of the rich and famous, such as E! News, The Daily 10, The Soup, and Inside Edition.

Invisible Man

***Queen***

Invisibility is a tricky thing to ponder and even harder to manage. At times we see the power of invisibility as a coveted power, and at others people find it oppressive and stifling. In pop culture, we have the Lord of the Rings in which the hotly sought after ring of power renders the wearer invisible to the world. Harry Potter’s powerful cloak of invisibility allows him to roam about freely gathering information to fight evil. In many periods of oppression, such as the Franco dictatorship in Spain, many writers employed the technique of the invisible narrator (omitting a character’s gender) to get novels with homosexual themes past the censors.

Gleeful about Sex

Recently on an episode of Glee, a new comedy that satirically follows a motley teenage glee club in an Ohio high school, there was a particularly revealing focus: sex and the teenage obsession with it. The episode was about the perceived nerdy glee club’s hope to climb the social hierarchy of high school by utilizing sexualization, a path that apparently draws in all curious teens. This is a direct materialization of Gayle Rubin’s misplaced scale. In this rural, “conservative” high school, the topic of sexuality is both unusually hushed and disproportionately intriguing. Rubin says that there is a cultural assumption that sexual things are more important, and this glee club sees bringing sexuality to their school as the only way to be “cool”.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that…

Recently, I acquired several seasons of Seinfeld on DVD and have been watching a few episodes a week in my free time.  Although I have seen all of these episodes several times, I found new insights into two episodes in light of our recent class discussions and readings.  The first episode involves Jerry Seinfeld being interviewed by a reporter for NYU’s student newspaper.  Misunderstandings occur (of course) and the interviewer receives the mistaken impression that Jerry and George are a gay couple.  Jerry and George become increasingly upset about their