DISCUSSION OF "OUT" n MIKA

[KiteKat]

that's a strange one...still some food for thought

 

 

 

Being ‘Out’ More Than Just ‘Gay’?June 8th, 2007

» Post A Comment

Mika’s certainly garnered more than his fair share of gay press in recent months. Most of the ink revolves around the pop-star’s secretive sexuality. As we all know, the crooner won’t confirm rumors he’s a queer.

 

At first glance, it would appear Out’s July issue follows the same old story. Take a peek inside, however, and it soon becomes clear that their Mika-related coverage ain’t just a guessing game. The issue serves as a rumination on the state of the gay nation. And with potentially liberating results.

 

No doubt homos have come a long way over the past four decades or so. While we’ve certainly got a way to go, Out wonders what’s become of the screaming queen. As EIC Aaron Hicklin write in his editor’s letter:

 

 

It may be disingenuous of Mika to claim that who he sleeps with is immaterial, but for an increasing number young gay men, identifying as gay is becoming anachronistic, if not completely irrelevant.

 

Have militant gays gone the way of the dodo? Find out, after the jump…

 

Mika may hog the spotlight, but there’s another queer “queer” British entertainer who deserves a second look: Patrick Wolf. The young entertainer’s genre-defying sound and yen for eyeliner have raised more than a few eyebrows. Like coverboy Mika, Wolf refuses to classify himself as gay. While he’s identified publicly as “bisexual,” it’s clear this “queer” would rather not identify at all. He tells assistant editor Jason Lamphier: “I don’t like to belong to any genre… Sexually and romantically, I want to be free always.”

 

Gay songster Ari Gold disagrees. He tells Out’s Matthew Breen, “I personally find artists who aren’t afraid to say they are gay and are willing to risk a little popularity in the hopes of social change far more interesting.” Not surprisingly, Mika disagrees: “As far as I’m concerned, the most important thing is what is in my songs and the music itself, much more so tan what I talk about in front of the press.” Mika’s reticence comes less from a penchant for privacy and more, it seems, from an urge to establish a viable (and bankable) career:

 

 

I admit that I’m young and the biggest part of my job now is finding my feet with this new performance-celebrity aspect to what I do, and that goes right down to talking about sex and talking about labels and people wanting to label you… Will it change me? Possibly. I’ll probably change the way I respond to things; I’ll probably change the way I talk or don’t talk about certain things.

 

A precarious response, yes, but perhaps the most timely…

 

Not only does Mika teeter on the edge of full-fledged stardom, but he’s coming of age at time when coming out doesn’t mean the same thing. As Hicklin notes in the aforementioned editor’s letter, the once edgy gay ghettos have become bastions for the bourgeoisie:

 

 

[in these places] gay has become blandly inoffensive, white and middle class. What young, dynamic person would want to identify with that? It would be a horrible irony if the communities and beach resorts that once subverted society’s mores and pieties ended up feeling as privileged and alienating as the culture they were reacting against.

 

Consider the prophecy fulfilled, Hicklin.

 

Speaking as young queers, there’s no doubt in our collective, virtual mind these queer enclaves cater to a specific social class - a sad reality made clear in the magazine’s Province Town pictorial. John Waters, Nan Goldin, Jack Pierson and a slew of other queer creatives contributed their personal snap shots from the historically homo resort. On one page the reader will see a 2005 picture of Waters - a man who has no doubt raked in the dough - sitting at his desk with a stack of books, looking quite tame. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Directly next to Waters, however, one sees a Goldin print of David Armstrong. Armstrong may be lounging by a placid pool, but the artist looks anything but tame. He’s got an undeniably revolutionary attitude, a confrontational essence rarely seen in Province Town these days.

 

So, what does this all mean? Possibly nothing. Or, everything. Out may mined the gay pride of the future: a rejection of the movement’s gentrified existence - marriage, tax cuts, adoption - and move in a decidedly (and refreshingly) queer direction.

 

Gone are the high kicking drag queens and mustached clones hellbent on dismantling mainstream masculinity. 21 century gay pride may be less about the glitz and the glitter and more about staying true to oneself, eschewing constricting labels and charting your own course.

 

“Gay” may not be the war cry it once was; in fact, there may be no war cry. The sexual evolution may not be televised. It may be sung, written, drawn, painted and acted by men and women who manipulate social labels without saying a word…

[CazGirl]

They've done so many for and against arguments I don't even know what their own fookin response is lmao!

 

thanks for it though...even though i'm confused...well they've clearly labeled Mika on what they think he is but I well got confused after reading it all the way through rofl

[curly]

.......

[Sara]

Mmmmm....interesting........

 

I know i should say 'I don't care' like all the MFCers (most anyway) but i suppose you do wonder......

 

It doesn't really matter, and i suppose i don't care, but there is always that 'hope' that he isn't because he's so gorgeous and so many of us fancy him! LOL!!

 

Thanks for posting.

[KiteKat]

they just dont know that he's a WOMAN:biggrin2:

then everything falls to places:wink2:

[Suzy]

I don't care (either way).

 

But it sounds like there's an assumption has already been made.

[lollipop_monkey]

The increasingly-frequent musings that Mika is being "coy" about his sexuality in order to increase his fanbase/album sales/airplay is getting ridiculous. Not the idea of it, per se - he might very well be staying mum in order to broaden his appeal - but the whole idea that someone's success in their career is affected by their sexuality seems so outdated.

 

For example, I'm in the corporate communications field. For an recording artist to be judged based on his/her sexuality, to me, is no different than for my abilities as a communications professional to be judged because, for example, my dad is of Scandinavian heritage. Or because I'm only 5'1". Those things don't affect my skills and how I do my job, so why should sexuality affect Mika's (or Elton John's or anyone else's) ability to do theirs?

 

I can't imagine being a celebrity and having every minute detail of my life up for public scrutiny. No wonder Britney Spears shaved her head

[Guest Sofia]

The increasingly-frequent musings that Mika is being "coy" about his sexuality in order to increase his fanbase/album sales/airplay is getting ridiculous. Not the idea of it, per se - he might very well be staying mum in order to broaden his appeal - but the whole idea that someone's success in their career is affected by their sexuality seems so outdated.

 

For example, I'm in the corporate communications field. For an recording artist to be judged based on his/her sexuality, to me, is no different than for my abilities as a communications professional to be judged because, for example, my dad is of Scandinavian heritage. Or because I'm only 5'1". Those things don't affect my skills and how I do my job, so why should sexuality affect Mika's (or Elton John's or anyone else's) ability to do theirs?

 

I can't imagine being a celebrity and having every minute detail of my life up for public scrutiny. No wonder Britney Spears shaved her head

 

Lolol...

[1kiwiabroad]

why cant they just leave the poor guy alone!? it's his business, not ours... why should we care?

[GraceKelly76]

I disagree....thats the path Britney picked,now she has to deal with it...

[paula.pop]

of course,yet another pointless article-this one has a totally stupid theory-that being gay is not cool anymore therefore someone who is an artist needs to cover it up.

I think they are forgetting here how Mika was raised up and that he holds himself with great dignity not because he wants to get more publicity but because family and privacy are most important to him.

[Kata]

Oh how I love when people have to say things in the most complicated way possible

 

I'm post-interested

[KiteKat]

Oh how I love when people have to say things in the most complicated way possible

 

I'm post-interested

 

 

 

or we r witnessing a birth of the new term (post-gay that is)? and everyone will consider "cool" using it in the nearest few....something:boxed:

 

wonder who invented METROSEXUAL (the word)

 

[1kiwiabroad]

it's how to make life more interesting!

[mel_tinydancer]

hmm that was a little confusing but i really just wish everyone would just leave the poor guy alone! it's not any of their business!

[1kiwiabroad]

i completely agree..... we ddon't care, you should'nt either!

[JackViolet]

Ok, look kids, I think that article is quite good at avoiding labeling Mika... but for all of you talking about "assuming" things, the point is, Mika is rather obviously queer.

 

Now what you have to understand is that the way articles like this and gay scholarship in general talk of "queerness" is not the same way you probably do. When I say that Mika is "queer" I don't necessarily mean he's gay. Heck, as this article says, "gay" isn't even really "queer" anymore. "Queer" has come to mean basically anything that does not fit the heteronormative social standards, and it's all about eschewing any sorts of labels or being pinned down, and is the new radical thing to be. "Queer" is gay, bi, transgender, sometimes even just kinky. A man who generally has sex with women, but not in a way that would usually be considered "normal" for a man can be considered queer. Any transgender person is queer, even if they are not gay. Polyamorous people, of whatever sexual bent, can be called queer. And Mika is queer, because even if he were sexually straight, his refusal to explain that he's straight and end the speculation, and the fact that he's happy to pose for any number of gay magazines and allow people to continue wondering--that's queer.

 

And yes, being queer has to do with the modern gay movement, which has generally become a queer movement among the young set. That is why we are mostly post-gay. Not only do we not identify with the "gay" label anymore in terms of culture, but even in terms of sexuality, what the older folks think of as "gay" is outdated for us. Note how older folk are insistent on Mika coming out as either gay or straight--at most they'll say he may be bisexual, but there are so many other intermediary things to be! Note how this article refers to Patrick Wolf's bisexuality as if it were seen as a cop-out of some kind by established gay men: the gay activism of older days had a lot more trouble with anything that clearly wasn't us-or-them.

 

The thing is, most people I know aren't gay bi or anything like that in the traditional sense anymore. I know guys who'll call themselves gay, and they are--they like men, they are part of gay culture, if you see them, you'll immediately know they're gay--BUT they also quite enjoy sleeping with women on occasion. The lesbians I know sometimes sleep with men, and most of my staright friends wouldn't rule out sleeping with a man or a woman if it was the right one, while not needing to question their sexuality. And then of course there are my transgender friends, and all the issues with labeling that entails. One of my gay best friends had a relationship with a transman who was biologically a woman, and had not had any surgeries or anything--so where did that put them? Their relationship was a homosexual relationship, but there was a male and female body involved, even though their lovemaking was very different from heterosexual couplings. See? Post-gay.

 

Anyway, sorry for this rant. It was just my little attempt to explain some of what's going on.

 

As for Mika? Whether or not he wants people to discuss his sexuality, by agreeing to pose for their cover, he is obviously making it their business. So asking the magazine for whom he is posing to "leave him alone" is quite silly. I think they are doing a good job of dicussing his place in the fileld of modern sexual identity in general, without labeling him in any specific way.

 

--Jack

[Kata]

 

or we r witnessing a birth of the new term (post-gay that is)? and everyone will consider "cool" using it in the nearest few....something:boxed:

 

wonder who invented METROSEXUAL (the word)

 

 

We don't want a label, so we invent a word to label ourselves

 

[JackViolet]

It's not a new term. But yeah, it's coming out more in the mainstream now...

 

-Jack

[KiteKat]

We don't want a label, so we invent a word to label ourselves

 

 

 

 

next one- why dont we have a metro-label for females:biggrin2: or do we?

[KiteKat]

As for Mika? Whether or not he wants people to discuss his sexuality, by agreeing to pose for their cover, he is obviously making it their business. So asking the magazine for whom he is posing to "leave him alone" is quite silly. I think they are doing a good job of dicussing his place in the fileld of modern sexual identity in general, without labeling him in any specific way.

 

--Jack

 

HER sexuality that is:mf_rosetinted:

everyone agreed on that + we got proof:mf_rosetinted:

[Kata]

Okay Jack I get the point, but I eh...just don't get the point

 

 

 

To me it's a bit like the "we don't care ( )" thing you know, if you don't care then just don't and if you don't want to be labeled then just be whatever the f you are instead of making a point of not wanting to be labeled

[my_rainbow_radio]

Why does it seem like the less I care about his sex life, the more journalists do? It's seriously pissing me off.

[KiteKat]

Okay Jack I get the point, but I eh...just don't get the point

 

 

 

To me it's a bit like the "we don't care ( )" thing you know, if you don't care then just don't and if you don't want to be labeled then just be whatever the f you are instead of making a point of not wanting to be labeled

 

 

 

ok, now seriously speaking- I think he has a very distinct boundary between what he really is and what he is for those mags...

out has asked him to pose-and dont think they'd expect him to do that hugging a playboy bunny

[JackViolet]

Okay Jack I get the point, but I eh...just don't get the point

 

To me it's a bit like the "we don't care ( )" thing you know, if you don't care then just don't and if you don't want to be labeled then just be whatever the f you are instead of making a point of not wanting to be labeled

 

Well, because it comes from queer scholarship, and you need some kind of word to talk about it! It IS a little bit like the "we don't care" thing, but when everyone else seems to care very much, even that has a point... Plus it's about not caring to conform to older definitions--nothing wrong with talking about it. Especially since, well, in activism you have to talk about it or nothing gets done! And people do do whatever, but sometimes talking about it is the only way to let other people who may be struggling with these issues know that there is a community for them!

 

--Jack