DISCUSSION OF "OUT" n MIKA

[KiteKat]

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

 

 

 

so he is shouting out about no-labelling to struggle his way to privacy?

 

 

[Kata]

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

 

Yupp you are right and it is important to talk about it, guess I just had a bit of an overdose of over-intellectual things today

 

EDIT: but I still think it's ridiculous to use a label for people who don't want to be labelled

[1kiwiabroad]

good fro mika

[lollipop_monkey]

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.

 

So the gist of it is that the term "queer" is beginning to be less associated with your stereotypical, blatantly homosexual male, and is moving back towards its previously accepted meaning of "beyond or deviating from the usual or expected," but particularly in regard to, as you put it, "anything that does not fit the heteronormative social standards"...?

 

*scratches head* This is interesting. There should be a three credit university course in this. Jack, care to be the professor?

[JackViolet]

So the gist of it is that the term "queer" is beginning to be less associated with your stereotypical, blatantly homosexual male, and is moving back towards its previously accepted meaning of "beyond or deviating from the usual or expected," but particularly in regard to, as you put it, "anything that does not fit the heteronormative social standards"...?

 

*scratches head* This is interesting. There should be a three credit university course in this.

 

Exactly! Except it's honestly been going on for a while now... since the mid-nineties at least.

 

Jack, care to be the professor?

 

That's a little ironic actually... that kind of is what my job will be, once I'm done with my studies...

 

--Jack

[Queenie]

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

 

I agree...

[KiteKat]

the more I watch (=observe... maybe....) Mika...dunno...think he shlould be the subject of the course on Indigo kids

[Diana]

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

 

It's obvious most of the people here don't care (although I do admit I'm interested) but the fact that journalists do isn't suprising. The speculations won't stop until Mika finally speaks up. It's sort of ironic that the thing he finds the least important is the very thing that's getting the most attention.

 

I'm curious to see how this story developes!

[so_rococo]

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

 

Bravo Jack well said:mf_rosetinted:

[JackViolet]

I should also add that my initial interest in Mika was sparked partially by his music, but partially by all the speculation and discussion of his sexuality in the media. I don't care about his sexual orientation, but I find the way it's addressed in current journalism absolutely fascinating from a cultural studies perspective... To me, the way it's talked about it is much more interesting than what it actually may be!

 

I mean, you must understand, this is where I'm coming from:

 

 

So it's so interesting to me the way that some issues get re-played over and over again, and what changes and what stays the same... And I'm grateful to Mika for making queerness in pop music potentially queer again in the 70s way.

 

 

--Jack

[KiteKat]

I should also add that my initial interest in Mika was sparked partially by his music, but partially by all the speculation and discussion of his sexuality in the media. I don't care about his sexual orientation, but I find the way it's addressed in current journalism absolutely fascinating from a cultural studies perspective... To me, the way it's talked about it often much more interesting than what it actually may be!

 

I mean, you must understand, this is where I'm coming from really:

 

 

So it's so interesting to me the way that some issues get re-played over and over again, and what changes and what stays the same... And I'm grateful to Mika for making queerness in pop music potentially queer again in the 70s way.

 

 

--Jack

 

 

 

 

agree, there are some parallels.....or the usual thing-history repeats....

 

so Mika few yrs after ????

 

 

 

 

[JackViolet]

Hahah, goodness I hope not!

 

I love Lou, but...

 

Though who was is that wanted Mika to wear florals? I saw Lou perform a few months ago, and he was wearing this hideous floral-print Hawaiian shirt... I hope that's not in Mika's future!

 

--Jack

[KiteKat]

Hahah, goodness I hope not!

 

I love Lou, but...

 

Though who was is that wanted Mika to wear florals? I saw Lou perform a few months ago, and he was wearing this hideous floral-print Hawaiian shirt... I hope that's not in Mika's future!

 

--Jack

 

 

still floral shirts are better than M Jaggers club jackets...

and i DO hope Mika wears one (Hawaii shirt)...and pareo...and WELLIES....to Glastonbury:mf_rosetinted:

 

[KiteKat]

off to bed, sweet dreams whoever goes as well:bleh:

[lilmot]

I'm sure glad that Britney Spears was brought into this thread by someone else. Because I would like to say that I don't really care about labelling Mika's sexual orientation or anyone else's for that matter, although it is fun to see the hype that results when there is no label to grasp onto. AND I don't really care too much that Britney shaved her head, Bully for her, I say. But, somehow, I guess I would have to admit that I would care, yes I would, I would really care if Mika shaved his head. Oh, so sad. NO more dreams of losing inanimate or even animate objects in that glossy mane of curls. Wow, a shaved Mika, lets hope it doesn't come to that! (tongue in cheek). But, even if he did, his music would still bring the stars down from the sky and put the stardust under my feet. Thanks MFC for so many evenings of tantilizing conversations and voyuerisms. All of you ROCK! (Now, on to sleep, perchance to dream of wild locks of curly hair!)

Good-night and sweet dreams to all of you!

[IngievV]

Damn, this article made me even more confused than I already was. Why can't they just stick to one thing instead of all this he must be/He isn't arguments. I bet they were drunk when they wrote this...

[violet_sky]

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

 

 

May I suggest to label Mika as Mika-sexual? Can everybody cope with that?

 

What an interesting and rather sophisticated thread! (my head is spinning)

Jack, you should start something like the 'applied social studies auditorium' thread!

[mariposa]

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

 

Thank you Jack for this long statement...interesting to read!

[so_rococo]

May I suggest to label Mika as Mika-sexual? Can everybody cope with that?

 

What an interesting and rather sophisticated thread! (my head is spinning)

Jack, you should start something like the 'applied social studies auditorium' thread!

 

Mika-sexual mmmmm I like it

I think that most mfc'ers are mika-sexual (as in attracted to mika's )