Did Adam Lambert just kill his career before it even started?

[NotUrsula]

I didn't see it. I don't want to see it.

I'm a very liberal person, but I don't as a rule enjoy seeing other people have sex. I really have never understood why there is any reason at all for a SINGER to be simulating sex on stage unless it is in a burlesque act, which I'm not going to choose to watch. I don't have an issue when sex scenes happen in a dramatic context as germaine to the plot, but IMO there just isn't any valid reason for it when simply performing a song. My personal opinion is that any singer who will do so can automatically be assumed to be compensating for having a less-than-excellent voice. It's a cheap distraction tactic, and I lose respect for any musical act that indulges in it.

I agree that what public outrage there is over this incident comes from the fact that the simulated sex was gay sex. ANY kind of sex simulation that you'll see on network TV is normally aimed squarely at a male audience. Lambert can complain all he wants about how women have been allowed to push the envelope, but the fact is that they were allowed to do so because it pleased mainstream male audiences.

What men don't like does not fly on network TV, and as a general rule, now matter how otherwise liberal they are, straight men do not like watching gay male sex scenes, either real or imagined. (I have yet to meet a straight male who had the stomach to sit all the way through Brokeback Mountain without looking away during the love scenes.) They object not because they find it prurient, but because they find it embarassing.

The performance won't hurt his career, but I suspect that the sponsors will decline to have him back on this particular show unless he's nominated.

 

[S. C.]

Yup he's cryin......all the way to the bank!
Anyone who thinks that his career is dead better think again. As Robinrs pointed out the "shock shows" of other music celebs. Adam Lambert and the people who advise him know exactly what they've done! Better to be talked about than forgot about!
I love that he is provocative and no one knows what that boy is gonna do! Can't wait for the CD!!

I don't think his career is dead. Too many people are accepting of that kind of behavior on regular TV.

I just know that MY MONEY will not be buying any of his CD's.

I found his video on youtube yesterday, 2012. DH (in other room) asked me who that was singing and we both agreed we liked it and was planning on buying it. After his performance on REGULAR TV we will not be buying any Adam Lambert CDs, ever.

Will it make any difference to his career that we don't ever buy his music? NO it won't. But we know we are not supporting it with our money.

 

[LiLIrishChick63]

I didn't see it. I don't want to see it.

I'm a very liberal person, but I don't as a rule enjoy seeing other people have sex. I really have never understood why there is any reason at all for a SINGER to be simulating sex on stage unless it is in a burlesque act, which I'm not going to choose to watch. I don't have an issue when sex scenes happen in a dramatic context as germaine to the plot, but IMO there just isn't any valid reason for it when simply performing a song. My personal opinion is that any singer who will do so can automatically be assumed to be compensating for having a less-than-excellent voice. It's a cheap distraction tactic, and I lose respect for any musical act that indulges in it.

I agree that what public outrage there is over this incident comes from the fact that the simulated sex was gay sex. ANY kind of sex simulation that you'll see on network TV is normally aimed squarely at a male audience. Lambert can complain all he wants about how women have been allowed to push the envelope, but the fact is that they were allowed to do so because it pleased mainstream male audiences.

What men don't like does not fly on network TV, and as a general rule, now matter how otherwise liberal they are, straight men do not like watching gay male sex scenes, either real or imagined. (I have yet to meet a straight male who had the stomach to sit all the way through Brokeback Mountain without looking away during the love scenes.) They object not because they find it prurient, but because they find it embarassing.

The performance won't hurt his career, but I suspect that the sponsors will decline to have him back on this particular show unless he's nominated.

my husband actually watched Brokeback Mountain(and not because i told him to or anything, he just wanted to see what all the "fuss" was about) and he didn't squirm or anything. he just went "that was it? that's what everyone was making a big deal about? really?" lol

idk in my experience, the men who are comfortable with their sexuality don't care about stuff like that. they don't go out seeking it, but if they see it, it doesn't freak them out. the ones who AREN'T comfortable with their sexuality are the ones going "omg i can't watch this!! it might make ME gay!" or something along the lines of that.

 

[NHdisneylover]

.. (I have yet to meet a straight male who had the stomach to sit all the way through Brokeback Mountain without looking away during the love scenes.)

I think you have a fairly valid point as to WHY people freak out over this and not two women (sad but true), but do you honestly not know men who can watch something as mild as Brokback Mountain? Maybe I should introduce you to my husband. He did not particularly react to those scenes and his reaction to the entire movie was along the lines of:
good movie. not great, no idea what the fuss is all about

 

[FireDancer]

What ever happened to turning the channel if there is something on you don't like? I didn't watch the show and don't know anything about Adam Lambert. If I am watching something I find visually or audibly offensive (which is almost impossible) I will change the channel. If I don't like it I will change the channel (most TV falls into this category for me). I won't sit there and watch it and then be upset after the fact. I was the one who choose to watch it and choose not to change the channel. If you like it watch, if you don't like it don't. Simple enough.

The news coverage of events like this and the Janet Jackson incident expose it to way more people than the original performance. If the media continues to give publicity to these cries for attention then performers will continue to do them.

 

[luvwinnie]

I've been a huge fan...I'm not easily offended, but I would prefer singers just stick to SINGING rather than all the drama and shock value stuff.

 

[brittsmum1998]

What ever happened to turning the channel if there is something on you don't like? I didn't watch the show and don't know anything about Adam Lambert. If I am watching something I find visually or audibly offensive (which is almost impossible) I will change the channel. If I don't like it I will change the channel (most TV falls into this category for me). I won't sit there and watch it and then be upset after the fact. I was the one who choose to watch it and choose not to change the channel. If you like it watch, if you don't like it don't. Simple enough.

The news coverage of events like this and the Janet Jackson incident expose it to way more people than the original performance. If the media continues to give publicity to these cries for attention then performers will continue to do them.

For me it was a trainwreck I couldn't look away from. While I didn't find it entertaining, I agree w/ the original post that it will kill his career. Heck, if I didn't have something to complain about and dislike, there would go alot of my conversations lol.

 

[NotUrsula]

idk in my experience, the men who are comfortable with their sexuality don't care about stuff like that. they don't go out seeking it, but if they see it, it doesn't freak them out. the ones who AREN'T comfortable with their sexuality are the ones going "omg i can't watch this!! it might make ME gay!" or something along the lines of that.

I didn't mean freaking out, or reacting with revulsion, I just meant glancing away and not caring much for it. Your DH said that the movie was no big deal, but obviously, it was -- four years later it has become a pop culture catchword because it was so good, yet made so many people profoundly uncomfortable. (And Brokeback wasn't really about gay men; it was about a compulsive clandestine love affair between two people who happened to be men. It shattered conventional stereotypes.)

The middle-aged white guys who run the companies that buy ad time on shows like these are worried about the reaction of Average America. They don't like taking this particular kind of risk, and they won't knowingly do it.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I didn't mean freaking out, or reacting with revulsion, I just meant looking away and not caring much for it. Your DH said that the movie was no big deal, but obviously, it was -- four years later it has become a pop culture catchword because it was so good, yet made so many people profoundly uncomfortable. (And Brokeback wasn't really about gay men; it was about a compulsive clandestine love affair between two people who happened to be men. It shattered conventional stereotypes.)

The middle-aged white guys who run the companies that buy ad time on shows like these are worried about the reaction of Average America. They don't like taking this particular kind of risk, and they won't knowingly do it.

Many people yes, but earlier you pretty much said all (or nearly all) straight men would be uncomfortable. I think that might be taking things a little far. Two of us with husbands who were note made profoundly uncomfortable by the movie saw your post in seconds--so it seems men who could handle it (or more to the point saw nothing to handle) are not so rare.

 

[XTinabell]

I didn't see it. I don't want to see it.

I'm a very liberal person, but I don't as a rule enjoy seeing other people have sex. I really have never understood why there is any reason at all for a SINGER to be simulating sex on stage unless it is in a burlesque act, which I'm not going to choose to watch. I don't have an issue when sex scenes happen in a dramatic context as germaine to the plot, but IMO there just isn't any valid reason for it when simply performing a song. My personal opinion is that any singer who will do so can automatically be assumed to be compensating for having a less-than-excellent voice. It's a cheap distraction tactic, and I lose respect for any musical act that indulges in it.

I agree that what public outrage there is over this incident comes from the fact that the simulated sex was gay sex. ANY kind of sex simulation that you'll see on network TV is normally aimed squarely at a male audience. Lambert can complain all he wants about how women have been allowed to push the envelope, but the fact is that they were allowed to do so because it pleased mainstream male audiences.

What men don't like does not fly on network TV, and as a general rule, now matter how otherwise liberal they are, straight men do not like watching gay male sex scenes, either real or imagined. (I have yet to meet a straight male who had the stomach to sit all the way through Brokeback Mountain without looking away during the love scenes.) They object not because they find it prurient, but because they find it embarassing.

The performance won't hurt his career, but I suspect that the sponsors will decline to have him back on this particular show unless he's nominated.

I can't speak for everyone but for me the "outrage" is from the lack of respect he showed while doing those things. I understand that what he was portraying on stage is not supposed to be a respectful thing but I really didn't appreciate the aggression behind his simulated moves and the kiss. I would have been disgusted regardless if he did those things with a man or a woman.

The Britney/Madonna kiss was not disrespectful IMO.

 

[tink_lover]

It was over by 10 here and dd did watch some of it. You know what? Kids see it and hear it, so you might as well talk about it. We took it as a teaching moment to talk about how these girls (rihanna, carrie, etc.) were dressed and that it was for entertainment purposes and people don't typically dress like that in real life. It was really easy to make a switch when Taylor came on - she is a young woman who (what little I've seen of her on TV) seems to come across more, well, covered-up. While we liked Adam on AI, that performance was just too much.

 

[fergibabies]

I don't care for Adam and never did. But to each his own, I agree with the PP who said he's trying too hard. But really I've seen worse...
I kinda just look at this and say BIG DEAL ADAM. He totally missed the boat, if he was trying to be edgy and erotic with a twist of S&M. It all just turned out trashy and cheap.

 

[Free4Life11]

I
I really think he blew it. No pun intended

No he was holding the leash so HE's the dominant one...I think it's the other way around

I think the singing was pretty bad and the performance was incredibly gay! Leather harnesses, leashes, looked like a leather convention

All in all one hot mess!

 

[fergibabies]

I can't speak for everyone but for me the "outrage" is from the lack of respect he showed while doing those things. I understand that what he was portraying on stage is not supposed to be a respectful thing but I really didn't appreciate the aggression behind his simulated moves and the kiss. I would have been disgusted regardless if he did those things with a man or a woman.

The Britney/Madonna kiss was not disrespectful IMO.

To get a little deeper into this, if you understand more about the lifestyle of BMSM, or in this case D/s (dom/sub) the aggression is part of the appeal for those who participate. In real life the situation would be consensual with both parties. IMO his portrayal did show those who are "into" that sort of thing in a bad light. It only enforced stereotypes in the minds of people who don't understand the lifestyle. Like I stated before...totally missed the boat

 

[brittsmum1998]

No he was holding the leash so HE's the dominant one...I think it's the other way around

I think the singing was pretty bad and the performance was incredibly gay! Leather harnesses, leashes, looked like a leather convention

All in all one hot mess!

I'm 45 I've forgotten

I didn't find the leather appealing at all, probably wouldn't even if it was George or Brad in there.

 

[disney1990]

12 isn't a TEENager. You said young teen. And maybe. Depends on the teen.

7th grade? Maybe. 6th? Doubtful.

But I wouldn't have a 12 year old up at 11 pm to watch the AMAs on a school night anyway ... no matter who was nominated. That is what TiVo is for.

If it were no school, I might make an allowance but then I wouldn't be concerned about the content.

You can't have it both ways.

Do you know how many teen girls are actually performing oral sex? A lot. The CDC lists the statistic at nearly 50% by 15. More than 70% by 19. The realities are far more concerning to me than Adam Lambert doing some stupid simulated dance move for 5 seconds.

Sorry, not everybodyhas TiVo or a DVR to record programs.

I don't know about children in other locations, but it is not uncommon for my 9 & 11 year old granddaughters to still be up doing school work at 10:00 pm.

 

[Free4Life11]

I'm 45 I've forgotten

I didn't find the leather appealing at all, probably wouldn't even if it was George or Brad in there.

LOL!

Adam apparently thought he was performed at the GayMA's not the AMA's. I guess leather daddies are his new demographic.

 

[LiLIrishChick63]

I didn't mean freaking out, or reacting with revulsion, I just meant glancing away and not caring much for it. Your DH said that the movie was no big deal, but obviously, it was -- four years later it has become a pop culture catchword because it was so good, yet made so many people profoundly uncomfortable. (And Brokeback wasn't really about gay men; it was about a compulsive clandestine love affair between two people who happened to be men. It shattered conventional stereotypes.)

The middle-aged white guys who run the companies that buy ad time on shows like these are worried about the reaction of Average America. They don't like taking this particular kind of risk, and they won't knowingly do it.

my husband didn't "glace away" either. he just didn't care either way. it's the same as if i saw two girls kissing. i don't particularly enjoy it, but i don't have to "look away" when it happens.

i don't think it's so "popular" because it was this "epic love story" tbh it wasn't anything that AMAZING. it was cute and sad but nothing out of the ordinary. i think it was just that popular because it was two well-known straight male actors who played gay men in a movie that was widely released.

i'm pretty sure they knew what they were getting into with Adam. the performers have to run everything by all the execs before they even perform so they knew all about his performance beforehand.

Many people yes, but earlier you pretty much said all (or nearly all) straight men would be uncomfortable. I think that might be taking things a little far. Two of us with husbands who were note made profoundly uncomfortable by the movie saw your post in seconds--so it seems men who could handle it (or more to the point saw nothing to handle) are not so rare.

yeah it was the "all straight men" not "white middle aged men" until after we responded. and i'm glad someone else had a similar experience with their husband. my husband didn't "glance away" at any point, his honest reaction was "that was it? that's what all the fuss was about??" because honestly it wasn't that big of a deal in that movie.

 

[LiLIrishChick63]

No he was holding the leash so HE's the dominant one...I think it's the other way around

I think the singing was pretty bad and the performance was incredibly gay! Leather harnesses, leashes, looked like a leather convention

All in all one hot mess!

Madonna did the same stuff in one of her tours and she's not gay....so idk what the "incredibly gay" comment was all about....

 

[NotUrsula]

Many people yes, but earlier you pretty much said all (or nearly all) straight men would be uncomfortable. I think that might be taking things a little far. Two of us with husbands who were not made profoundly uncomfortable by the movie saw your post in seconds--so it seems men who could handle it (or more to the point saw nothing to handle) are not so rare.

Well, I didn't exactly say that most straight men would be profoundly uncomfortable, just that they would rather not watch other men have sex. (I said that the film made a lot of people profoundly uncomfortable, but by no means everyone who was made uncomfortable by it even saw it.)

I find it interesting that both of the husbands who were posted about apparently said exactly the same thing, "no big deal", when the film itself WAS a big deal, and would have been even if the protagonists had been women. Critics almost universally agree that it was beautifully directed and shot, and contained some of the best acting performances of a generation ... yet it was no big deal? You don't think that perhaps there was the merest hint of distaste in that dismissal?

My DH, who is very much a film buff, and who happened to watch it again last night, considers it is a VERY good film, but during those scenes I could see his eyes flickering down as I sat next to him. It's like a person who doesn't like violence wincing at the rougher parts of There Will Be Blood. It's a mild expression of distaste, but it's there.