She Pop: Adam Lambert Has A New Naked Friend--On Sexuality, Objectification, and Subversion

Dear Adam Lambert,

We need to talk. 

I'm going to come out and say something right now, Adam Lambert: I don't get you. I know a lot of people were really excited about you when you were on American Idol. Just the fact that you existed, and were doing well on the show, seemed to be making them happy. And those people usually seemed to be coming from a very sweet, genuine place. I mean, I don't want to reduce you to your sexuality, but: you made a lot of people feel good, apparently, just by accepting your sexuality and not ever really steering away from it and doing a good job on a show that relies on winning over the American public. I'm happy that you made people feel that good. It's a worthwhile pursuit. Good job.


As for your overall deal, musically, well: as previously mentioned, I do not get it. I get that you're doing "glam rock," or the American Idol version thereof - "sleazy," but not scary, "hard," but not raw, "subversive," but mainly in the sense that you have Pete Wentz hair and eyeliner. Also, you have a voice that can hit very high notes, and sustain them, and I guess that is pretty impressive. It's when people start talking about you as if you are Diamanda Galas or something that I kind of roll my eyes. Because, I mean, when someone is like "finally, a musically innovative contestant on American Idol," I am like, "don't you mean a contestant who is musically innovative for American Idol? And does this not basically equate to: not as innovative as any one of the kerjillion acts you can find outside of that show?" Nothing against you, Adam Lambert! Nothing against American Idol, even! I just think you are a standard pop star whose music is weirder than that of most pop stars, but not actually as weird as your marketing team would have us believe. Then again, I went through that unfortunate slightly-too-fascinated-with-Lady-Gaga phase of my development, and she is sort of the lady version of you, I think. So who am I to judge? 

Anyway, Adam Lambert. That's not what we need to talk about. I don't get you; maybe the kids do. Who knows? Kids these days, with their Adam Lamberts and their sexting and their baggy pants. What we need to talk about is that, even if I did get you, I suspect I would still have some trouble parsing this: 


This is in Details! It accompanies an article entitled "For the Love of Adam Lambert: Why Does Every Woman In America Want To Sleep With The American Idol?" And there are other pictures included, NSFW pictures of you with your new naked friend, in various compromising positions. And the article is all about how you get panties thrown at you, and sometimes you make out with ladies though you're not straight, and etc. What is going on here, Adam Lambert? I mean: I am seriously asking you! I seriously do not know WHAT IS GOING ON! I have read all sorts of reactions on it, from all sorts of different angles, and I'm still not sure what is up. 

Here are some reactions, Adam: 

1) THE "ADAM LAMBERT IS ASSERTING HIS DUDELY PRIVILEGE" REACTION: Via Melissa McEwan at Shakesville, who describes the pictures as you "being sexual with a naked woman who's little more than a prop. You know, just like a straight boy would. I may be queer, but I can objectify women as good as any other dude can!" I must confess: I get this reaction. She is naked, you are not naked, she is nobody, you are somebody, you get to look at the camera directly and engage the viewer, she is typically turned away from the camera with her eyes closed - though not in the above picture! In that picture, her face is just pushed so far away from the focal point of the photo (your face) that we don't even notice it - and is to be looked at by the viewer*, etc. There are a lot of familiar power dynamics going on, at first glance. And I'm not fond of those! But, somehow, this doesn't seem like an all-encompassing analysis of what is happening in the photos. So, here is another reaction I read, which is: 

2) THE "ADAM LAMBERT IS TRYING TO SCORE HETEROSEXUALITY POINTS" REACTION:  Via Gawker, which has a few questions, including, "Isn't this just the problem with closeted Details in the first place?" And, "Adam, why are you going along with this? Say it loud, you're queer and you're proud. And now is not the time to be ashamed." It's true, Adam Lambert; when you show up with a naked lady festooned about yourself, the overwhelming impression we get is not that you and Details share a mutual comfort with and acceptance of your sexuality. Oh, but also:

3) THE "ADAM LAMBERT AND/OR DETAILS ARE TRYING TO BE SUBVERSIVE, SORT OF" REACTION: Via me. I think that what the Details shoot is trying to do - trying, mind you - is either one very interesting thing, or one very boring thing. One, they might have assumed that none of their readers wants to see pictures of you, and might therefore have added some boobs to sweeten the deal. (Or: they wanted to make readers feel less guilty for wanting to see pictures of you by adding boobs to sweeten the deal? That is also possible.) That is the boring thing. Here is the interesting thing: while bisexuality is viewed as a fun party trick for women, it freaks people the hell out when guys express even a little of it. Because sexing it with women is a means to attain dudely privilege; because gayness has been constructed as essentially non-masculine whereas having sex with girls will put hair on your chest; because whatever. The possibility of a dude finding ladies and dudes sexy is scary to people, to the point that many will insist male bisexuality specifically does not exist (whereas all ladies, we're constantly being told, are a leeetle bit bi) because it collapses so many ideas about gender and sex at once. A girl objectifying another girl is cute, because it means she's on the dudes' side, and she isn't powerful enough to be a problem anyway; a guy being attracted to guys and girls is a gender traitor, all the more threatening because straight men can't simply declare him categorically different from themselves. So maybe they are trying to confront people with that, make you a little more dangerous, a little more subversive, a little more like a rock star rather than the American Idol version of one. But here's the thing: they failed. Because these photos, Adam Lambert: zzzzzzz. Because I think you do not want to sleep with women! And it's really messed-up that they felt they had to imply that you would, or set up a little fantasy world in which you would, in order to make you more "interesting!" Because it trivializes and commodifies your sexuality, and demands that you perform sexualities which are not yours in order to entertain the public, and as a lady, I'm familiar with that feeling and it cheeses me off! But maybe they could do this with an openly bisexual male pop star? You know. If there are any. 

Wait. Are there any? 

So, there you go, Adam Lambert: I don't get you. I don't get this. I can't seem to make any of the theories fit entirely. Though, for the record, I think the ones that are not by me are probably the better ones! And, you know, you are busy and all. But I just thought I'd check in. 

*UPDATE AND CORRECTION: At the request of many a commenter, I have looked at the pictures again, and have noted that - weirdly, although I looked at the pictures several times while writing this and did not notice it - she does have her eyes open and is looking into the camera in some shots, and Lambert has his eyes closed. So why wasn't this the impression I got? Why was I able to look at the pictures multiple times without noticing her face? Simple: her face isn't the point. The photos are always arranged so that we're looking at her naked body and Lambert's reaction to it. And this is done by means both obvious (naked bodies are pretty darn distracting, and Lambert's face is often posed right next to a breast or a crotch, so that our eyes zoom right in on that and consequently land on Lambert) and less-obvious (her face is typically shoved off into a corner, whereas his is more centered in the frame). One thing that's not in question is that her body is on display in ways that his is not: the sheer expanse of flesh, and the way it's arranged for the camera, makes sure that her body, though not her face, will always be looked at. Lambert is wearing clothes, and his face is more central in the shots, so we personalize him more. This does, as one sage commenter pointed out, make it "prime self-insert material" - the lady is depersonalized enough that you can easily imagine that she is you. And it also makes it an example of classic objectification - the lady is depersonalized enough that who she is doesn't matter, and her effect on You, the Viewer is paramount.

And as for the question of whether or not I READ THE ARTICLE OMG: I sure did! I thought the writer of the article, Nancy Jo Sales, did a better job than the people responsible for the photo shoot! And the article and the photo shoot have very different points. The article is about the fact that straight ladies are crushing on Adam Lambert, and it did a fairly OK job of talking about that. I can definitely agree with the point (raised by Lambert himself) that it's fine for people to have crushes on celebrities, whether those celebrities are gay or straight, because the vast majority of people never get to sleep with their celebrity crushes ANYWAY. I mean, that is common sense. But what is going on in the photo shoot is an entirely different matter: a gay celebrity playing up straight desire for an (assumed to be) straight audience, and doing so in a boring, fairly sexist way. I don't have the inclination to rag on a writer simply because her article ran with some really stupid photos. So I didn't really mention the article. Hope this resolves your many burning questions! 

by Sady Doyle
View profile »

Sady Doyle is a writer living in Brooklyn, New York. She is the founder of the blog Tiger Beatdown and the author of Trainwreck: The Women We Love to Hate, Mock and Fear, and Why. Her writing has appeared in The GuardianThe Atlantic, The Awl, Buzzfeed, and all across the internet.  ​

Get Bitch Media's top 9 reads of the week delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning! Sign up for the Weekly Reader:

71 Comments Have Been Posted

So . . . . you didn't read

So . . . . you didn't read the article, huh?

I guess pictorial analysis gets hip feminist blogger points, but reading comprehension - not so much. Don't you think context should matter a little more if you're going to analyze something to that extent?

Get a grip!

It's not that f*****g deep. Just enjoy! He has oddles of female fans! Let them fantasize about it! We get it! He IS gay---but....... it really doesn't matter- why are u trying to read so much into it? He's hot, we think he's hot, what else is there? so tired of the "exploiting women" thing! The model was paid, alot of hetero women find him very attractive- let THEM fantasize! His Voice is awesome, he is awesome, he is going to be THE hottest thing ever!~

Adam Lambert

What is an oddle?

I 2nd Get a Grip

It really isn't that deep or that difficult to understand. You seem to have a good grasp of the English language so I find it surprising that you need to find so much dept and understanding in a few pics. I'm a happily married woman. I find him sexy. Do I want to sleep with him... no I'm a married woman. My husband thinks he's hot. Does he want to sleep with him. No. He's a married man. The chick in the photos is smokin hot. Can't say I didn't notice all the details. They are both hot and the pics were hot and sexy. That's all there is to it.


This comment has been deleted by the administrators because it contained personal attacks. Please refrain from being unnecessarily mean in this space. Thank you.

~Team Bitch

Still waiting for the article quotes

Okay. I get that the gay-man-with-naked-woman thing is confusing. Pictures are difficult to interpret out of context.

So why didn't you read the article? Adam does a great job speaking about his fan base and their expectations.

"I don't see how all this is any different than—let's take a modern sex symbol like Brad Pitt. How many of these women who fantasize about him actually get to sleep with him? It's all fantasy—that's what entertainment is. I'm here to entertain you, and if my sexuality is apparent and you respond to it, and you're attracted to it, then great, I'm doing my job."

You really missed an opportunity to comment on the female gaze and its emerging role in modern media. Feminist response to pop culture? More like a knee-jerk reaction.

not feeling the sexy

These pics are clearly not intended for the female gaze. <i>Details</i> as a publication isn't even intended for the female gaze. while I get finding gay men sexually appealing and having happy thoughts about them, seeing a male rock star of any orientation use a woman as a prop does not excite my hetero female sexual imagination. It just makes me feel marginalized and bored and think everyone involved in the photo shoot was a humongous tool and here we go capitulating to the hetero male boner again. *yawn* Like that hasn't been done to death. I don't imagine these pics do much for lesbians or gay guys either.
Anyway, is Lambert even talking about these photos in that quote? Because it looks more like he's referring to the public's reaction to and acceptance of his sexuality in general.

I do not feel objectified. I

I do not feel objectified. I think these pics are for whoevers gaze that want to look at them. I think that Details has a lot of women viewers now - I even ordered a subscription to the mag. Seeing Adam in this magazine brought Details to a whole new audience - women. When I look at these pics I see nothing but hotness. Adam is hot and sexy. The model is hot also, but she is not who I went to this mag for - even tho I had never heard of the mag before - but I had heard of Adam, am an ardent follower of him and all things Adam, so seeing this just made me lust for Adam even more. I know that I will never sleep with him, it is just fantasy, but what a fantasy it is. I just love Adam Lambert and bring on the hotness, Baby!!!!

not holding my breath

Super! I'll be over here waiting for <i>Details</i> to start publishing articles on women's fashion and birth control and ovarian cancer.

also, your description is simply innaccurate

By the way, your analysis in #1 is simply inaccurate. The shot you used is an outtake. In every single photo of Adam and the model published in Details, Adam's eyes are closed. In one of the photos, the model is looking at him. In the other two photos, his eyes are closed and SHE is looking directly into the camera. The article itself is actually about how straight women have objectified this gay man, which is an interesting cultural phenomenon, to say the least. Obviously, Details is also trying to appeal to their (entirely theoretical) heterosexual readers, but you get zero points for not reading the article. The photos actually compliment the article very well.

For a far more thoughtful and insightful analysis of this photoshoot, read AfterElton's Michael Jensen's thoughts on it:

wait, what?

<i>Adam Lambert: I don't get you.</i>

Um. Yeah. This statement right here? Kinda invalidates the rest of your ~argument.

Seriously, though: Bitch magazine, I expected better from you than this. I really did.

re: wait, what?

<i>Sady:</i> Adam Lambert: I don't get you.

<i>Giuliana:</i> Um. Yeah. This statement right here? Kinda invalidates the rest of your ~argument.

<i>My question to Giuliana:</i> How?

I'm not Giuliana, though

I'm not Giuliana, though she's awesome, but she's right. The Details article is about understanding the appeal of a gay man to non-gay man audiences. The pictures are about looking good. The writer of this article doesn't attempt to pursue this, she simply says "I don't get it" and then writes about how she doesn't get it instead of actually trying to get it. Quite frankly, if you can't at least comprehend how and why Adam is attractive, you probably need to seek help on pulling your head out of your rear.

Also, it's a joke. You wouldn't understand.

Thank you.

Thank you, Not Giuliana.

I Don't Get These Commenters

I read SadyDoyle's analysis of the photo spread. I read the <i>Details article</i>. I read the comments. I followed the link to AfterElton.

Your point?

What was so knee-jerk about this blog post? How was it sooooooo not mindful of the article? How was Michael Jenson's analysis better than this one?

I get the feeling sometimes that some of those who leave comments here don't necessarily understand what this website is about, and that's okay. Let me break it down for you:

1. Bitch is a <b>feminist</b> magazine devoted to <b>deconstructing</b> American <b>pop culture</b> through a feminist lens
2. The She Pop blog on this website is devoted to <b>deconstructing</b> specifically <b><i>pop music</i></b> through a pop fan's feminist lens
3. The photo spread is problematic, independent of what was written in the article. I say this as a fashion model, artist and photographer. It's pretty much my career to both make and analyze images and make sure that the images that I participate in aren't problematic myself. I've become well versed.

In this post, I think Sady does a good job of stating where she's coming from as someone who's familiar with this artist and explains WHY she finds these images problematic. If you're here commenting and you're unfamiliar with what feminism truly is, and what <i><b>informed analysis</i></b> is, please, stop, and:

1. Go look up the word <b>subversion</b>
2. Go look up the word <b>objectification</b>
3. Go read a copy of John Berger's <b>Ways of Seeing</b> (don't worry, I'll wait)
4. Look at the photos again
5. Re-read the post

<i>Then</i> comment.

Geez Louise...


...for pointing out what I've been noticing for so long. It irks me so much when people get on here and say things like, "You're reading too deep into it, it doesn't need to be analyzed! It's just a picture/blog/song/ad/commercial/movie/TV show/rape joke! Just enjoy it! It's not meant to be serious!" See, that's the point. No (see aforementioned list items) is JUST an (aforementioned list item). All these things are informed by our culture and reality, and, perhaps more importantly, inform our culture and reality themselves because they all send messages, whether you want to think they're "just for fun" or not. And if you do, then you're swallowing the media's (often inaccurate and harmful) messages blindly and indiscriminately...and the media is doing its job.

So apparently this issue is

So apparently this issue is troubling to you, and you have examined it from "all sorts of different angles," but actually reading the article and looking at which pictures were included alongside it never occurred to you. This bodes well for you as a writer, I'd say.

I'm going to go bottom to top, because I'm trying to be subversive, sort of.

Your thoughts on bisexuality are vaguely interesting. However, they are just your thoughts, and they really have nothing to do with this particular article (and yes, it is an article, not just pictures), as Adam Lambert has never claimed to be bisexual. You don't think Adam Lambert wants to sleep with women? That is awesome, because Adam Lambert also does not think he wants to sleep with women. In fact, he says so, right in the article (which once again, exists. In fact, here is a link to it: Perhaps you are just as terrified by the idea of someone who might occasionally enjoy kissing a woman but does not consider himself bisexual and doesn't want to have sex with a woman just because kissing her is fun. I do appreciate your acknowledgment of bisexuality, but locking people into three strict conceptions of sexuality is not all that much more forward-thinking than locking them into two or one.

The second point is just silly. He's out; he kisses his boyfriend in public; he talks about being gay all throughout the article. If he's trying to go into the closet, he's doing a pretty terrible job. Also, considering how disturbingly excited the general media got about his sexuality back in May and June, there are a lot of Americans who sadly know only one thing about Adam Lambert, which is that he is a big old queer. I'm pretty sure no one thinks him trying to play it straight is even a viable option, much less a desirable one.

Your first reaction is the closest to being interesting. Although I, as a queer woman and a feminist, do not find the photo shoot to be misogynistic (in fact, I find Kim Cloutier, the model, to be the one holding most of the power in these shots), I would be fully willing to read reasoned and informed arguments from the other side. She is, after all, naked, while he is fully clothed, which could be taken as a sign that her body will be the site of all sexual pleasure in this encounter or that her body is being exploited, depending on your perspective. Unfortunately, your argument here is almost laughably incorrect, as all of the pictures published in Details feature Adam with his eyes closed and Kim with her eyes open. In the two steamier pictures, Kim is looking directly at the camera, confronting the viewers with the pleasure she is currently taking from this man.

To sum up, I honestly hope that this isn't your best effort.

Hmmm . . . this article

Hmmm . . . this article seems to have gotten longer since originally posted. Honestly, why was this even written? It's basically a mess. Bitch magazine, WTF?

You are, as I'm sure you

You are, as I'm sure you knew or at least know now, going to get a bunch of comments accusing you of not getting it, making something out of nothing, to just sit back and enjoy it, etc. etc and so on and so forth. As an Adam Lambert fan who isn't crazy about the shoot, I've also had the pleasure of seeing arguments that critiquing the photoshoot is a "double standard" or "heterophobia." But whatever. I think all the critiques raise very interesting points, including yours, which is something I hadn't considered before.

The article itself, as some people have brought up, may give a different interpretation, but it doesn't really solve all the issues -- okay, so it's about how female fans are so sexually attracted to this gay man. Shock! Then we have a couple new questions: if it's about female empowerment, is the way it was shot truly the <I>best</i> representation of that? and do these people REALLY think it's all that new or interesting that straight women are sexually attracted to and/or objectifying gay men? Really?

The pictures sort of make me just roll my eyes and laugh now, but I still don't think they accomplished whatever they were trying to accomplish.

Tired of this argument.

They were meant to be pretty, artistic photos of a guy who is sexy as hell, posing with someone else who is also incredibly sexy. Ideas like this are the reasons the gender divide still exists. How is this shoot any different than a gay man playing straight roles? We complain about how it's hard for gay men to earn the roles of straight characters - this is what Adam's doing in this photo shoot and he's doing it flawlessly. The only way to move into a post-homophobia society is when we stop talking about how gender doesn't matter and start living like it doesn't. It doesn't have to be about heterophobia or straightwashing or any of that other garbage - it's about looking good. Adam Lambert looks good whether he's got his hand on a lady's breast or his tongue in another man's mouth.

Adam's Details photo shoot

" Tired if this Argument"Thank you for your sanity.. Has anyone seen Annie Leibovitz's photography.. interesting,arty and controversial.. Art is art "Sexy is sexy" Adam does a great job.. the black and white photos add intensity to a beautiful layout. Writer of this article .. read the article in Details.. go to art galleries and museums and get a life!

Get A Life?

Please see my above comment about what this particular website seeks to do.

No one here is trying suppress "the sexy" in all its forms. I'm all for sexy. Specifically, <i>responsible</i> sexy.

Controversy for the sake of controversy is boring and dull. Sexy that exists solely for the reason of reinforcing existing notions of sexy, and that exists for its own sake is boring and dull. You admonish us to go to art galleries and museums, but I'm not so sure that you understand what they exist for. Some more breakin' it down:

1. True artists do not do what they do just to "make something cool/controversial/ironic/whatever fake-ass hipster ideal is "in" now. Artists make art because they have to, and it's usually a critique on something. Whether it's society, a specific art form, the art world, the possibilities are endless. Anyone making art for any other reason is a hack and deserves to be called out for being such. The same goes for those who fancy themselves as art consumers...

2. Anyone who wants to call themselves an artist is subject to <b>informed</b> criticism. This is how we gauge how successful (or not) a project is - whether we were able to effectively communicate our point. And true artists <i>take responsibility</i> for the art that they've made, controversial or not.

3. If you're going to art galleries and museums and not actually *thinking* about what you're looking at, you've missed the WHOLE point. It's not about, "awww, how pretty! how shocking! i like it!". I swear to <i>Christ</i>, I can't <i>stand</i> it when I show my artwork to people and that's all they have to say about it.

Believe it or not, EVERY image submitted for mass consumption has an underlying message, even this puff piece editorial. And that underlying message is what makes the photo series problematic. Please (and I'm not just saying this to be condescending, I encourage everyone I meet to do this), read John Berger's <i>Ways of Seeing</i>. Everything you need to know about analyzing every single Western image from B.C. to today is in that book. It's short and highly readable...

Yeah, no.

"It's pretty" is not a valid argument for anything more serious than shopping.

<i>How is this shoot any different than a gay man playing straight roles? We complain about how it's hard for gay men to earn the roles of straight characters - this is what Adam's doing in this photo shoot and he's doing it flawlessly.</i>

For one, it's not a fully-shaped role. Putting on a costume for a photoshoot =/= fleshed-out role for tv or movies. People, or at least everyone I've seen talk about it, also <i>see</i> this as Adam Lambert, not a character -- if NPH walked down the street there would be someone who only knew him as Barney; if Adam did the same, I really doubt someone would go "oh hey you're that character from the Details shoot with that one model." It's not the same. Secondly, I <i>don't</i> think he does it flawlessly. But that's another discussion.

<i>The only way to move into a post-homophobia society is when we stop talking about how gender doesn't matter and start living like it doesn't</i>

Except gender and sexuality and related issues <i>do</i> matter to other people. It shouldn't, and in general people should live like it doesn't matter to them personally in personal day-to-day interactions. But that doesn't erase the influence of gender and sexism and everything else from other people, the media, and so on.

It still exists there, it's still a factor there, and I'm not gonna act like it doesn't. Especially not just because people want to be able to look at Adam Lambert kissing girls without being ~bothered about it.

Preach It!

That is all.

God, exactly this. I don't

God, exactly this. I don't think it was straightwashing, exactly, but it's problematic.

Side note

So, I'm not American, I've never seen American Idol, and have come by my knowledge of Adam Lambert through internet osmosis and a friend who sent me a song of his. I have issues with this photo shoot because of the obvious objectification of the woman (but then, what else is new?), but I mainly wanted to answer your question:

<cite>But maybe they could do this with an openly bisexual male pop star? You know. If there are any. Wait. Are there any?</cite>

Yes, there are. Or at least one that I know is for a fact: Mika. I don't know how famous he is in the US, but over here in Europe he's pretty big - and after years of letting people speculate, he recently <a href="">came out as bi</a>. Just fyi.

But maybe they could do this

<i>But maybe they could do this with an openly bisexual male pop star? You know. If there are any. Wait. Are there any?</i>

Perhaps Billie Joe Armstrong from Greenday.

Amstrong admitted his bisexuality in an interview with The Advocate, 24th January 1995: "I think I've always been bisexual. I mean, it's something that I've always been interested in. I think everybody kind of fantasizes about the same sex. I think people are born bisexual, and it's just that our parents and society kind of veer us off into this feeling of Oh, I can't. They say it's taboo. It's ingrained in our heads that it's bad, when it's not bad at all. It's a very beautiful thing." (This was taken from Wikipedia, not the best source, but this quote pops up a lot on the interwebs)


Also David Bowie, Iggy Pop, and Patti Smith. And maybe Mick Jagger.

Yeah, I thought about Bowie,

Yeah, I thought about Bowie, Iggy, and Mick. But I think of those dudes as "rock" rather than "pop." (Well: Bowie is pop, maybe.) And they were openly bisexual men during a moment when that was, for whatever reason, MORE acceptable than it is now. But there aren't any young male pop stars that I know of - people who have come into fame within this decade, say - who are openly bisexual. There's Mika, as a commenter above noted, though I didn't know of him before this very moment. And also maybe Billie Joe Armstrong.

Brandon Boyd

I was about to say Brandon Boyd from Incubus, but so far as I can tell he has never confirmed this. I'm surprised, because I have heard it treated as fact since they entered the scene. (And, are they pop? Debatable.)


It's just superweird to me that there are people being like, "I am a feminist, and that nude woman being groped by a clothed man isn't being objectified at all!" Seeeriously?

Also, women think he's sexy, get over it, blah blah blah, where have I heard this argument before? Oh wait, isn't it men who are supposed to be hardwired to be more visual and that's why they need lots of porn? So, since we're all verbal or something, shouldn't we just be happy jilling off while reading the article?

Also, if it's all for the ladies, why is the lady the naked one and not Adam Lambert? Oh wait, we're all bi, so nevermind. Or we're like, imagining ourselves as this woman. Or women are sex so the naked woman is just there to remind us that Adam Lambert is sexy. Whatever, this is a fart of a photoshoot.

Also, I agree that everyone should read <i>Ways of Seeing</i>. So get on that.


<i>Or we're like, imagining ourselves as this woman. </i>

Oh, you know that's half the reason people are so defensive. Prime self-insert material.

<I>Also, if it's all for the ladies, why is the lady the naked one and not Adam Lambert?</i>

This is an issue I had, too.

If it's about her "possessing" him, why is she naked, and why is the the one grabbing at her half the time? Her eyes may be closed and his may be opened, but that hardly automatically gives her all the power. I don't see her entirely as an object in this, but her sexuality does come off as pretty passive to me. If they wanted to make me believe this photoshoot, they would have tried something like dressing her up in an amazing outfit, and then dressing Adam down in barely anything. Then try giving her some more powerful poses. You know, actually make an effort to get across the message, if that's actually the message.

AMEN, Ladies!

Y'all better preach it!

Correction: Her eyes are opened, that is.


* Her eyes may be <i>open</i> and his may be closed (in the magazine spread). I know that's the case, just typed it wrong!

Sexism and heteronormativity? In a MEN'S MAGAZINE???

Also, "they're just photos," like we think Adam Lambert lives in our computer screens and is perpetually giving the lady the tongue bath, just to piss us off. And everything on earth exists in a vacuum.

I liked your article.

Just thought I'd start out with that, so you know you're not going to be yelled at for being So Unfair to Adam!

Honestly. The Details! article was ridiculous from the title on. Uh, I'm a woman, and I don't want to sleep with Adam Lambert. Or any gay man. Or most straight men. But I guess, according to Details, I'm an anomaly.

Ok, sure, some people are going to like this photo shoot/article. It's sexy! Fun! Whatever! For me, it was <i>disturbing</i>. Part of me even wishes that it wasn't. Part of me wishes I could go through one day without being utterly disturbed/disgusted/infuriated by media portrayals of women as objects created to please/serve/complement men. Same goes for media portrayals or homosexuality as titillating (girl on girl Playboy spreads!), icky (boys kissing?!?! Gross!), or just plain non-existent. And, sadly, this photo shoot is offensive on both of these levels. It's belittling Adam's actually sexuality while objectifying the woman in the spread who appears to be, in some of the photos, Adam's f-ing FASHION ACCESSORY.

For those throwing around the "you didn't read the article!" defense, uh, the article has NOTHING TO DO with the photo shoot. In fact, the fact that Adam goes out of his way to say he doesn't sleep with women makes the photo shoot even more ridiculous. As for the reasons Details might have had for taking these photos, I'm just not buying the "I love Adam/He's posing with a woman/I could be that woman!" defense. Maybe this is just me, but, if I have a huge crush on someone, the LAST thing that's gonna get me going is a photo shoot of him ogling another woman.

If you want my theory, I think you hit the nail on the head with this one: "they wanted to make readers feel less guilty for wanting to see pictures of you by adding boobs to sweeten the deal?" Details is (supposed to be) a magazine for GUYS. So, when the subscribers are whacking off to pictures of their homoerotic fantasy, they can TELL THEMSELVES they're whacking off to the mostly naked chick. Everybody wins.


Adam Lambert "Details" photo shoot

I think you are taking yourself and this photo shoot far too seriously. The whole thing looks "tongue in cheek" to me.

Tongue in Cheek!

That's perfect! Because a gay man's tongue is shoved into a woman's cheek, right? For the purpose of selling magazines. To allegedly straight men.

The purpose of a magazine is to SELL things; oftentimes ideas as much as products. Maybe sometimes, if it wouldn't be too much to ask, you could think about what you're being sold and why. Who does it serve? Who profits from it? Who gets screwed?

And by the way, if I'm going observe things from a feminist lens, I'm going to be told I'm Taking Things Too Seriously. It's in the handbook.

In Defense of Adam!

Btw, for those who are arguing In Defense of Adam, how about defending his right to be a homosexual without being YANKED into the realm of bisexuality just to make homophobic straight men more comfortable?

Can we talk about...

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't Details originally a rag-mag for gay men? That adds another level of weirdness to this effed-up situation.
In any case, it is most definitely a *MEN'S* magazine, so the whole I'm-groping-a-naked-woman-as-a-precious-gift-to-the-straight-girls defense? NEXT!


I've loved Adam from the start, but much he's done since has disappointed me: the treacly 2012 music, the ugly Details photos, etc. He is supposed to be bringing something new and all he's doing is using the star making machinery. His album better ROCK. Or sound great in some way. Or he's gonna lose me.

Wow, you sure do like RANDOM

Wow, you sure do like RANDOM ALLCAPS, don't you? It sure makes your argument look MUCH more well-reasoned and sane!

This is not a fan-off. This person is not saying they are more of a fan of Adam than you are - and even if they were, who gives a good goddamn? I can guarantee that Adam Lambert is not one tiny bit bothered by someone having some issues with some of the things he's done. One can, indeed, be a big fan of the Adam Lambert that was presented on American Idol but not be super-pleased with his behavior outside of that. Being a fan is about having a personal connection to the artistry of the object of fandom; it does not mean you must immediately adore everything that celebrity does and says, and it does not mean that you are not a true fan if you have a problem with something that celebrity did or said.

Also, I am not sure how you can say you love Adam for 'who he is and not for what we want him to be' when there is no possible way you could actually, in fact, know who Adam is, as you do not know him personally, and you are, actually and for truly, loving exactly what you want him to be. Fandom is a one-way connection; it is about projecting your own ideals and thoughts and dreams and feelings onto a celebrity, onto their music or their art. You do know know who Adam Lambert 'really' is, outside of the spotlight. I doubt that, if he is actually completely homosexual, photos of him represent 'who he is' and not who the magazine thought his fans wanted him to be.

tl;dr: your argument is very fail.

I had the same reactions to

I had the same reactions to these pictures as you did (and I did read the article, too). My first reactions were 1) these pictures and the message are stupid; and 2) the woman is objectified. Thank you for having the guts to point this out in a far more amusing and interesting way than I could have. (I also thought her eyes were closed at first but, as you point, out her face is so irrelevant that you don't even notice.)

Aren't women objectified

Aren't women objectified every single day in the media? Why take such offense to these photos in particular? Adam has no desire to use or abuse this woman, in fact he probably has more respect for women than 90% of all heterosexual men.

Often times people look for something to complain about and to me that just seems like a huge waste of time. The pictures are artistic. There is nothing perverse or disturbing about them, unless you think that a gay man shouldn't be touching a woman simply because he's not sexually attracted to her.

It is disappointing that the author couldn't take the time to actually read the accompanying article and instead just said "I don't get it" Well of course you don't get it if you didn't even attempt to understand what the point of the pictures and article were.

The point is, straight women find Adam attractive. They aren't the least bit turned off by the fact that he's openly gay and this is a huge deal in the entertainment industry; which has always believed that women, their core demographic, would be turned off by a gay man and wouldn't believe him to be sexy or attractive. That is why the majority of gay men in the entertainment industry remain in the closet, even in 2009. Adam is busting down walls and hopefully paving the way for more openness both by gay men and yes, dare I say straight women who still feel the need to pretend they aren't sexual creatures who want and need sex as much as men do.

The whole point of this

The whole point of this article is women are objectified far too often in the media. Adam Lambert was also objectified. This makes me sad because I thought Adam was smarter than this. Now I realize he just wants to be famous and does not care about integrity.

'Scuse Me...

Did you even bother to read any of the previous comments before posting yours? We're having a conversation here, and you brought it all around to the beginning with nothing new to add. Let's keep it goin' folks! What you just commented on has ALREADY been addressed by others in this thread! ábrase los ojos!

Women and Gay Men

Gay men in the Industry stay in the closet because they fear women won't find them attractive?

I think that assumption pretty much says it all. This is especially interesting, considering the article on the "feminizaton" of Sci-Fi where Whiskey says all women want to press a button to turn all men gay. Polar opposite statements, and both said with such surety.

Where are people getting this information about women's views on gay men!?!?! Why wasn't I polled?

You're right. Women are

You're right. Women are objectified every single day in the media so the obvious solution is to...ignore instances of objectification? Hmmm. Also, why do you say that Adam probably has more respect for women than 90% of men? I may be missing crucial evidence, but I'm willing to bet your logic stems mostly from the fact that he's gay, therefore he must identify with and care for women because, duh, that's how all gay guys are, right? It's okay, though...homophobes appear all the time in the media. So I guess I won't be offended by this instance "in particular."

It's her fantasy not Adam's.

It's her fantasy not Adam's. She's looking at the camera....she's in the moment. He's not. The pictures definitely portray what the article is all about -- Straight women fantasizing about Adam.

obvious grasping

These photos were published in a men's magazine. No one involved gave a flying fig about female fantasy - lesbian or straight.

It's not that deep!

Take it easy, it's not that deep! Just have fun with it. Adam's sexy, women love him. He did it for his female fans... his bf was even there with him at the first part of the shoot.

watch his videos with Laura Saltman of Access Hollywood.

straighted up!

<i>his bf was even there with him at the first part of the shoot</i>

Yeah, until he had to go vomit in the bathroom as a result of seeing his bf straighted up for the benefit on mainstream america.

FYI, Adam has said that he

FYI, Adam has said that he loves women. So I wouldn't say that he was "straighted up." Is it when you enjoy it?

gay men have no discretion

That comment was a bit tongue in cheek, and in response to someone telling Sady to "take it easy." I personally feel sick and angry every time my eyes catch a glimpse of the photo for this article. It's just how it makes me feel, and I think it's relevant to explore why it makes me feel that way. Obviously, you look at it and see something different. And that's ok. People are always going to react differently to different things, even those who hold very similar world views. However, I do think it's relevant for me to explore why the photos were pleasing to you, just as I think it could be relevant for you to explore why they were disturbing for me. (If you want!)

I do think Adam was "straighted up," here, though I used the phrase a bit cheekily. I think the Details! crew took his admission of finding women beautiful and ran with it (assuming the photo shoot followed the interview, which, really, we have no reason to assume. And that's another thing to consider: did the mag plan to pose him with a naked chick <i>before</i> he said anything about finding women attractive?) Also, I find the leap from "women are beautiful" to "I want to be all up in any random, naked chick's business" is a huge one, and possibly based on discriminatory stereotypes of gay men. How long has the stereotype existed that, because gay men are, well, men (and we all know men will screw anything! right?), <i>and</i> gay, they literally have no discretion? I think there has been a long-standing belief, throughout the hetero community, that gay men are all promiscuous horndogs. Because of that, people assume they all just screw each other. And therefore, when Adam admits he finds women beautiful, and might make out with a woman (possibly a woman he knows, is friends with, already has love for), we <i>must</i> assume that he'll enjoy making out with any and all women, and that pawing the woman in the shoot was a pleasurable experience for him. Frankly, I find those assumptions ridiculous. Just because a gay man, or straight man, enjoys kissing women of his choice doesn't automatically mean he enjoys licking the faces of strangers. And try to imagine this photo shoot in reverse: a gay woman, who admits to finding some men aesthetically pleasing, is placed in a photo shoot with a naked male model. Maybe Portia De Rossi? If this happened, you can bet your ass people would be saying the magazine was trying to "straight her up". So why is it different for Adam? Because he's a guy, and naturally, all guys will make out with anyone, because they're horny, and non-discriminating, and they can't help it.

Sorry. I'm not buying it.

Also, I don't think finding a woman attractive is a valid argument against her being objectified. How many guys <i>freaked out</i> upon seeing Princess Leia in a bikini? Suddenly she was HOT. Oh yeah, she was also a SLAVE. So . . . hot doesn't equal not-objectified. Oftentimes the two go hand in hand. I think that's part of the point of these blogs: that women's degradation has been made synonymous with sexiness. And that makes me feel sick.

So now all gay men are

So now all gay men are supposed to act and behave in a certain way?

Adam has said he finds women attractive and that he likes to kiss them in clubs MONTHS ago, and I believe it was in the Rolling Stone article. So yes, Details! and the his whole fan base knew it already, which is why I know it's one of the reasons why women are so attracted to him, not only is he just gorgeous and a talented singer, but it's the idea that we have a chance with him. Even if it's just the possibility of a fantasy.

"Just because a gay man, or straight man, enjoys kissing women of his choice doesn't automatically mean he enjoys licking the faces of strangers"

But maybe ADAM does. Which is why he agreed to the photo shoot. He wasn't forced against his will to participate in it.

"And try to imagine this photo shoot in reverse: a gay woman, who admits to finding some men aesthetically pleasing, is placed in a photo shoot with a naked male model. Maybe Portia De Rossi? If this happened, you can bet your ass people would be saying the magazine was trying to "straight her up"."

I guess I still don't know or understand what this concept of "straighting" someone up is. So because they say that they aren't 100% gay and enjoy the opposite sex, and are portrayed as such in a magazine, as enjoying the opposite sex, they're being "straighted up"? I don't get it.

"Also, I don't think finding a woman attractive is a valid argument against her being objectified. How many guys freaked out upon seeing Princess Leia in a bikini? Suddenly she was HOT. Oh yeah, she was also a SLAVE. So . . . hot doesn't equal not-objectified. Oftentimes the two go hand in hand. I think that's part of the point of these blogs: that women's degradation has been made synonymous with sexiness. And that makes me feel sick."

And if one happens to enjoy it, are they still being objectified? How is the woman in the shoot being degraded if she's into it?That's the problem I've run into about a lot of the posts here.... a woman is photographed nude, is clearly into it, but because she's nude, she's being objectified and degraded because people, specifically men, enjoy it as well?

Into it.

If you assume every woman photographed nude (or while she's being fucked or while she's being pile-driven or is in a bestiality porno or victim of stockholm syndrome or one of the thousands of victims of sexual abuse who goes on to be in male-directed male-created pornography) is <i>into</i> it because she smiles for the camera, I seriously do not know where to go from here. That is too, too, too far back for me to even know where to begin. All I will say for now is this: if we lived in a society where women were paid as much to keep on their clothes as they were to take them off, I think you'd get a much better idea of who was really <i>into it</i> and who was actually <i>trying to make a living</i>.

Are you the same Whitney who said this in the Taylor Swift post:
"She dresses appropriately, and yes, she is a virgin . . . She isn't up there on stage with her boobs and ass hanging out and grinding on a pole. And I think that's a fantastic role model for teenage girls, that you can be sexy and pretty and successful without dressing like a prostitute."

No need to bring up porn.

No need to bring up porn. We're talking about THIS photo shoot, porn is a whole other ball game in a whole other ballpark.

Yes, I am the same commenter, but I don't see what that has to do with this post. Different arenas.

I'm sorry, I just feel that women aren't that weak-minded as they can't make decisions for themselves. She's playing a character, and I doubt if she wanted to do the photo shoot, she would have consented to it. I don't view women or any other person as that weak-minded. It brings me back to that whole "Adam Lambert, because he is gay, was forced or coerced into doing this photo shoot by Details! because he's a gay man and can't POSSIBLY wanted to have posed with a nude woman" idea.

Why assume she's not into it? Why automatically jump to the negative? You don't know who she is, and I would rather assume that she's a strong woman who is able to make decisions on her own, rather than how you perceive her, as some idiot model who is just trying to make ends meet so she agrees to do a shoot she really doesn't want to.

I just REALLY hate the whole "OMG it's a naked woman on film! she's sooooo being objectified and she was forced to do it!" Women are able to make decisions on their own, and yes, believe it or not, some women enjoy being nude on film, and no, it's not always objectifying. Why is it that every time feminists see a nude woman on film, she's automatically objectified?

And OBVIOUSLY women DO get paid just as much to keep their clothes on as they are to take them off... case in point, Taylor Swift. Kelly Clarkson. Lauren Conrad. Oprah. Tyra Banks. Martha Stewart. Maybe you need to reconcile with the fact that women enjoy taking their clothes off and that they have all the power.

Teenagers have no sexuality!

Lauren Conrad. Seriously? Ya just about lost me there.

First of all, the woman in the photo shoot isn't actually nude. She's wearing a bathing suit. So your mentioning of Tyra Banks doesn't really apply. Second of all, see how long the clothed women you mentioned stay in the limelight.

Third of all, I brought up pornography to make a point. You made the statement (paraphrasing here), She's nude, she's smiling, therefore she's obviously into it. I simply applied that argument to other arenas to see if it made sense. If a principle only makes sense in one isolated circumstance, it's not a valid principle. That's all.

Lastly (seriously lastly, because you're never going to attempt to see things from my perspective; and get defensive when I simply make an opposing point, even though I do understand things from your side and have seen them that way in the past; which makes this a complete waste of time and breath), my argument was <i>never</i> that the woman was objectified simply because she was naked. Such a statement would be ridiculous as, if placed in another arena (see how I like to do that?), we see that all women are naked at some time or another. Some of them, like myself, very much like to be. And don't feel the least bit objectified in doing so. The arguments people were making about the woman's implied nudity (again, not my statements. I tended to argue in terms of Adam being pulled into the realm of bisexuality to make straighty more comfortable, and <i>obviously</i> that is my opinion, and based on interpretation not fact, since I was neither at the photo shoot nor in Adam's head. Then again neither were you. Wait - were you?) were in terms of <i>why</i> the woman was naked and Adam wasn't, how the people were posed in the photo, how these tactics have been used in the past to imply male subjectivity and female objectivity, and how we might interpret those photos today based on those things we have learned and analyzed in the past. You, on the other hand, appear to interpret these photos in terms of one specific circumstance, outside of space and time, outside of a heterocentric, phallocentric culture, in a vacuum. Well gee Whitney, not everything thinks that way.

Based on your comments regarding Taylor Swift and the inappropriateness of (female) teenage sexuality, it would appear you believe teenage girls should be sheltered from sexual encounters until they reach adulthood, where they are handed their sexuality on a platter; then, if they really want to be powerful, they will proceed to strip naked in front of a camera and act out their sexuality for the world. I get it. I totally get it. When you're a teenager, sexuality is anything BUT liberation. When you're a grown up, sexuality is only liberation and never degradation. Glad we cleared that up.


I didn't go back and look at the photos again before posting. When I did, I realized she was nude in some of the photos. What I was referencing was that in some of the photos she looks nude but is actually wearing a bathing suit. Correction!

Yes, I am serious. She made

Yes, I am serious. She made a TON of money, has a book on the NYT best sellers list, a fashion line, etc.

And did you bother looking at the rest of the photos? I guess not, because if you did, you'd see that she is nude in more than one shot. So why does Tyra Banks not apply? Because she was at one point, a lingere model?

You're really asking me how long Oprah will be in the limelight? Um, she's the first black female billionaire EVER. She's been in the limelight for the past 20 years.

So you're going to argue that only women who use their sexuality and take their clothes off stay in the limelight?

If she's not being objectified simply because she is nude, then why is she being objectified? All I'm hearing from everyone is that "she's being objectified!" and no explanation, and I can only assume that it's because she's posing nude with a gay man.

"Based on your comments regarding Taylor Swift and the inappropriateness of (female) teenage sexuality"

I never said that, unless you consider teenage female sexuality dancing around half-naked on stage.

"it would appear you believe teenage girls should be sheltered from sexual encounters until they reach adulthood"

Considering in some states it's illegal, yes. And considering that I lost my virginity at 17 and immensely regret it and it set me up for a path of self-destruction and self-mutilation, depression, sexual assault, etc, yes, I will absolutely be telling my future daughter(s) to wait until they are older.

"where they are handed their sexuality on a platter; then, if they really want to be powerful, they will proceed to strip naked in front of a camera and act out their sexuality for the world."

Thank you for putting words into my mouth. It's so much easier to discredit me when you explain something to me that I NEVER SAID.

"When you're a teenager, sexuality is anything BUT liberation. When you're a grown up, sexuality is only liberation and never degradation. Glad we cleared that up."

Once again, I never said that. But thanks for putting words into my mouth. I really appreciate it.

I will always believe that sex should be reserved for adult relationships. Teenagers are still children, despite them having hormones. It took years to undo the damage that was done when I was having sex at that age.

"All I'm hearing from

"All I'm hearing from everyone is that "she's being objectified!" and no explanation, and I can only assume that it's because she's posing nude with a gay man."

Almost every single commenter in favor of the blog entry has pointed out how the features and juxtaposition of the pictures objectifies the model and sends messages about Adam's sexuality, as well as sexuality and gender roles in general. That you have not cared enough to read the conversation before posting your ceaseless questions and claims that nobody is explaining their position is tribute to the fact that you are not ready for such conversations and do not belong on this website. do belong on this website. So that a few drops of the writers' brilliance will find its way into your completely closed mind. Correction: you don't belong on the commenting section.

Nobody is saying that these

Nobody is saying that these women didn't CHOOSE to be in photo shoots, or pornography, or to become prostitutes for that matter. Sure, they chose it. What we're trying to do here is examine the circumstances of our society that make it necessary or desirable or even okay for women to make such choices, and I think that you personally, Whitney, are not ready for such sophisticated discussions about pop culture through a feminist lens because you seem to be contrary to every assertion the author has ever made in this blog and dismiss almost every topic of discussion as meaningless or without a message. We'll wait while you get yourself a bit more informed and open-minded, I just can't stomach any more of your ill-informed, half-baked opinions.

Personally, I think it's

Personally, I think it's hot.

And I also think it's normal for gay men to be attracted to women. Women are beautiful. he says himself that he enjoys kissing women every now and then. I just don't see what's there NOT to get. I just think you're reading too much into it. I just am not sure what you're confused or upset over... the fact that he's gay and posing with a nude woman and that gay men aren't supposed to do that because gay men are supposed to be feminists and not into naked women? That i don't get.

The thing is, people can't be pigeonholed into a category of sexuality, something I think you're trying to do to him. He might be gay, but that doesn't mean he can't be attracted to women. He just doesn't want to fuck them or be in relationships with them. I'm attracted to women, but that doesn't mean I want to have sex with another woman or be in a relationship with one. Does that mean I'm bisexual? I don't consider myself to be. People are simply sexual beings, and people are attracted to other people.

This photo shoot also questions sexuality and sexual orientation. It's like how Neil Patrick Harris plays a womanizer on How I Met Your Mother. Just because he's gay, doesn't mean he can't be portrayed as enjoying a woman. Incidentally enough, my gay male friends have been mostly attracted to women also, but every single one of my lesbian friends haven't been attracted to men. I think it's just because women are beautiful beings. And there's nothing objectifying about that.

Forced or coerced?

"In the other, a man is being forced (or coerced) to play a part that isn't an honest depiction of his sexuality, because it's more comfortable for people. Why didn't they put him with a hot naked man? Don't tell me his female fans wouldn't have eaten that up."

Are you fucking kidding me? You're saying that he was FORCED or coerced by Details! to do this photo shoot? Honestly? Listen, the man has enough star power now to refuse things like that if he didn't want to do it. I just think that really stinks that you would put him down like that, as if he's so weak and is unable to say no to a magazine photo shoot.

And it isn't a honest depiction of his sexuality? I'll ask again, since when is it OK to force gay men to act and behave in a certain way? You don't like it because you expect gay men to not be attracted to women. Adam says that he is. I've known so many gay men that were also attracted to women, hell, one of my gay friends I made out with at a party just because.

They didn't put him with a naked man because it's about how FEMALES are insanely attracted to him and how he's a fantasy for them (me included). The model he's with is CLEARLY into it, he is her fantasy. That's the point of the shoot.


You know Whitney, I went out of my way to be very friendly and respectful of you, and to attempt to nicely suggest alternate ways of viewing things. But you jump right to the swearing and exclamations. I'm happy that you've never, in your life, been coerced into doing something because it was easier than making a huge stink and coming off as a bitch (Hey, that's the name of the magazine!) or asshole. Not everyone is so wonderfully blessed.

<i>I'll ask again, since when is it OK to force gay men to act and behave in a certain way?</i>

Exactly. That's <i>exactly</i> my point. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

I never said that women are

I never said that women are more attractive than men. All I said is that women are beautiful, and that it's normal for gay men (and straight women) to be attracted to other women. I also think that it's easier and more socially acceptable for straight women to be attracted to other women than it is for straight men to be attracted to other men. Of course, there are exceptions, like Lambert, Brad Pitt, and Gerard Butler to name a couple.

Wow! Where did you learn to

Wow! Where did you learn to write? Or more specifically, where did you pick up your punctuation idiosyncrasies? I have never seen such horrific things done to a colon (:) in all my years of teaching writing!! You have attacked the world of words and punctuation so viciously that it's nearly impossible to follow your thoughts.

Before you express your opinion on ANYTHING, I suggest you get yourself a really good grammar and mechanics book and study it. Or get an editor... and I'm not volunteering.

Get off this blog NOW if you

Get off this blog NOW if you really find the author's punctuation to be the only feature of this article worth commenting on. OMG, I just ended a sentence with a preposition! I must know nothing about feminism!


Perhaps the problem lies with your perception? You think that since Adam has expressed that he's had the occasional drunken kiss with a woman and keeps the fantasy alive for his fans he is somehow trying to say he is bisexual? Is that what qualifies as bisexual for you? Not someone like myself who can see herself ending up with a man or a woman for the rest of her life? But just someone who kisses someone of the same sex (or in Adam's case, he's a gay man trying to seem bi by admitting to kissing women). Well, then, anyone who experimented in college is bisexual by those standards.

Maybe the pictures didn't capture the meaning of the article well enough, there's certainly room for argument there. But to say that because he did those pictures, because he has kissed women in the past that he is suddenly not gay enough? That they're trying to straighten him up in the same article he talked about his (now ex) boyfriend? That is something that I truly do not get as you do not get Adam.

I am unashamed in my love

I am unashamed in my love for Adam Lambert. He made my father, a musician who thinks highly of few other musicians, say he wasn't fit to carry that boy's microphone and my mother, a crazy Elvis fan, say she finally understands how all those gay men felt back when Elvis was alive and blatantly heterosexual. They love him, I love him, and I hope he does great things.

Add new comment