06/07/2007
Mika on Out, Doesn't Come Out
Mika is on this month's cover of OUT magazine, and reportedly sticks to his talking points.
"Anyone can label me, but I'm not willing to label myself...Anybody who says that I don't talk about sexuality or that I don't politically sexualize my music because of taboos, because of being afraid of [not] selling records, is completely wrong. I've made a record that doesn't compromise in any way what I'm allowed or not allowed to say in my lyrics."
A source told Towleroad that OUT originally requested Mika for the cover of their April issue, in order to coincide with the release date of his album in the U.S., but were refused.
According to our source, Mika's "handlers" wanted to do a cover but only if it came out a few months down the road, because they were concerned about breaking into the mainstream market were Mika pigeonholed as a "gay artist" right out of the gate.
You may have missed...
Mika's Gay Fanbase Missing in Action? [tr]
Mika Reports Death Threats for Silence on Sexuality [tr]
Rising Pop Star Mika Talks About Life in Cartoon Motion [tr]
Cracking Mika's Enigma Code [tr]
Pop Phenom Mika Takes Manhattan in Candy-Coated Showcase [tr]
Posted 10:34 AM EST by Andy in I'm Gay, I'm Not Gay, Mika, Music, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Streisand effect much?
Now there's little doubt that he's gay, yet he keeps denying it, which ostracizes the gay fans. His handlers need to be fired.
Posted by: Iko | Jun 7, 2007 10:38:34 AM
Actually what ostracizes me is his "Pretending to be the Scissor Sistors while singing in the shower" voice and music.
Blech.
Posted by: Becks07 | Jun 7, 2007 10:41:00 AM
Gimme a f-in break. He's a fag, he should have the balls to say it, but it doesn't matter because his 15 minutes will be up soon. Oh wait, they haven't even begun. Hmmm.
Posted by: shane | Jun 7, 2007 10:41:13 AM
Is it odd that i have never heard of this kid except on this site?
Posted by: kitkats99 | Jun 7, 2007 10:46:11 AM
how i dread his whiny song during my spinning class and how much better i feel once it's over. the fact that he's such a pathetic, over-handled little ball-less pussy just makes it even worse.
Posted by: rouquinricain | Jun 7, 2007 10:52:44 AM
Mika, straight people don't normally spend a lot of time hiding the fact they're heterosexual, so give it up. You're gay. Who cares? Why appear on the cover of OUT at all if you're worried people will label you?
Ugh. I enjoy his music, but what an insipid little self-loathing twerp he is.
Posted by: Larry | Jun 7, 2007 10:56:43 AM
...most are simply comfortable with a label, that's all. Gay / straight / whatever, we're, as a culture, threatened by the undefinable.
I think Mika's handlers are doin' it the right way; by refusing to discuss his sexuality, they've found a dynamic angle for the talking points.
Posted by: Jason | Jun 7, 2007 11:03:39 AM
Playing coy on the subject is not a bad thing in itself (remember Elton, Bowie, Mick, etc. back in the day), but this kid is doing it all wrong. Instead of playing it up that he could be anything at all, he's denying there's even a thing to be. He doesn't come off as someone trying to be post-label, outside labels, or whatever. He just sounds like a corupt politico trying to spin a cover for himself. I agree - fire the handlers.
Posted by: John | Jun 7, 2007 11:13:51 AM
Still don't have a clue who this dude is, and if I never do, I shall survive. From what has been said about his thin, whiney voice among the commenters here, I hope to never hear him.
Posted by: Bill | Jun 7, 2007 11:19:11 AM
"...dynamic angle for the talking points."
-Jason
Yeah, exactly! Like a unique way of coming out and basically saying "I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT BEING GAY" and then saying everything about it in the meantime.
Mika's "handlers" can suck it. What a bunch of douchebags to perpetuate the same BS that's kept so many people in the closet and miserable. You're either good or you're not. NOBODY CARES,and the whole "don't label me" thing is so friggin' 1988. Don't count on Mika leading any gay pride parades any time soon. Yawn.
Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Jun 7, 2007 11:20:22 AM
Don't know him, don't care about him, want him to just go away. zzzzzz
Posted by: secretagentman | Jun 7, 2007 11:21:12 AM
"Am I? Am I not? I don't wanna label myself!"
Trouble is, I don't even give a shit in the first place.
Posted by: nuflux | Jun 7, 2007 11:25:04 AM
Could someone please explain to me what the term "Post gay" means?
Posted by: mark m | Jun 7, 2007 11:27:54 AM
Everyone needs to relax.
Not every queer's sexuality is their central focus. Sure it might inform many aspects of their lives, but so could where they were born, what religion they practice, a book they read last night.
Labeling someone as self-loathing is a low blow. Is a person of color self-loathing for dating someone outside their race? Is a white person a phile for converting to Islam?
Why should someone be reviled by people in a community with which they may share some affinity simply for not caring to fully participate in that community all of the time, or exclusively?
Buy his record or don't. Simple. Shocking that someone would ask you to actually listen to the music & figure out for yourself whether or not he is a worth-while artist based on skill rather than which flag he flies.
Posted by: bizasizzalizzyizzo | Jun 7, 2007 11:28:40 AM
Biza, dear, *HE'S* the one making a focal point of the issue by playing coy. Those who have it integrated normally into thier lives do not prance around saying "Don't label me!" He's exactly like the politician trying to court gay votes and 'phobe votes simulaneously, and half of what he says about gayness is insulting to the core.
Posted by: adamblast | Jun 7, 2007 11:38:28 AM
I haven't heard his music, and I don't plan to. Every review I have read indicates he's a no-talent, flash in the pan nobody who won't be remembered even two years from now.
That being said, I agree with those who criticize Mika for not being open about his sexuality. By denying his homosexuality he's sending the message that there's something wrong with being gay. It is a very simple question to answer: if you prefer to sleep with men than women, you're gay Mika!
"Post gay" is nonsense. One day it won't matter much what one's sexual orientation is, but today it does. Until we win our full human and civil rights we won't be "post" anything.
Puhleeze.
Posted by: Jonathon | Jun 7, 2007 11:45:10 AM
Why does everything have to be gay all the time? Mika is so much more than his perceived sexuality. He's an artiste! Justin Timberlake doesn't run around screaming he's straight all the time, why should Mika have to say he's gay? Perhaps Mika found freedom from homosexuality through Jesus Christ and is now ex-gay?
Whats up with the labels anyway? Its not as if gays are persecuted and are second-class citizens. If Mika doesn't want to be accused of homosexuality, then so be it. Personally, I look forward to living in a post-gay world with Mika on the radio 24/7. What heaven that will be!
*sigh* Look for this turd to be performing at the next Republican National Convention.
Posted by: JOHN IN MANHATTAN | Jun 7, 2007 11:47:25 AM
Is he being coy about it, though?
Everything about him is flamingly, flagrantly gay. It's not like Anderson Cooper or (sort of) Ricky Martin where a phobe/naif could conceivably consider that they're NOT gay. Dude's pretty much in Rufus Wainwright territory.
So I can't really find it insulting that he doesn't care to talk about it. Though I don't listen to his music, either.
Posted by: karashi | Jun 7, 2007 11:49:42 AM
I know this has been mentioned many times in the past, but, once again, how ridiculous that a magazine called "Out" continually puts people on the cover who are either straight or, as in this case, closeted. And in the case of Mika (who I wouldn't know from a hole in the wall) there can't even be an argument that his face on the cover sells more magazines. So why put him there at all?
I remember a few years ago when renewing my subscription I was given a choice to have the magazine mailed with or without a plain-paper wrapping. Irony of ironies.
Maybe they should rename it "In".
Needless to say, the last time the subscription was up for renewal, I didn't bother.
Posted by: Tom | Jun 7, 2007 11:52:20 AM
You have my sarcasm detector fooled there for a moment, John. :)
Posted by: adamblast | Jun 7, 2007 11:54:00 AM
He's not Marilyn Monroe, either. Get those beads out of your mouth, queen!!!
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jun 7, 2007 11:55:09 AM
This whole schtick is blowing up in his face. People have to know who you are before they can become the least bit interested in your press issued mindgames. Im not buying his album or listening to his music because he has annoyed me and I dont care if he's gay, not gay, or the next Elton John.
Posted by: Gregoire | Jun 7, 2007 12:03:20 PM
He makes me ashamed to have brown, curly hair. Hair dye anyone?
Posted by: Alec | Jun 7, 2007 12:14:30 PM
This whole "post gay" thing is idiotic to the core. I see frequently in younger guys who may not have had time to come to grips with their sexuality yet. It's an easy way to avoid accepting one's self while sounding avant-garde to your friends. As long as people are still denied their civil and human rights, and as long as people are still being killed for being gay (or perceived as being gay), then staying holed up in some coy little closet is silly at best, and at worst repugnantly disrespectful to the men and women who fought for equality before he was born.
Show me a post-gay, and I'll show you someone with their head in the sand.
Posted by: Brian | Jun 7, 2007 12:20:29 PM
Here is what I don't understand about this whole issue. Haven't we been fighting NOT to be judged on the basis of our sexuality? Isn't the issue that serving in the military has NOTHING to do with who we have sex with? Then why do we REQUIRE a celebrity to tell us where he puts his penis; and if he doesn't then it reflects on his work? Yes...I understand the whole out gay role model for youth issue; but do kids want a reluctant role model? Can't someone like Mika be a role model in that he shows kids that who you love has nothing to do with the work you do?
Posted by: bostonbear | Jun 7, 2007 12:21:04 PM
I agree with the folks here saying that his handlers are going about it the wrong way. He comes across as asexual, not pan-sexual. All this coyness is de-sexualizing him, which can only be a bad thing for a pop star.
If Mika needs an example of someone who played up the pan-sexual thing well (for a while at least) see Alan Cumming. (Though now I just think of Mr. Cumming as a bit sleazy...)
Posted by: Gregg | Jun 7, 2007 12:21:27 PM
"Haven't we been fighting NOT to be judged on the basis of our sexuality?"
No we ahven't.
NEXT!!!!!
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jun 7, 2007 12:32:01 PM
I agree with Tom. Out magazine (also Genre, Out Traveler, The Advocate, Tetu, attitude, DNA) don't give a sh!t about gay people.
Posted by: Jack! | Jun 7, 2007 12:32:04 PM
The sad thing is, very few people honestly care whether he's gay or not. HE'S the one who keeps bringing the pink elephant in the room. HE laments a lack of gay fandom, HE talks about death threats because of his reluctance to proclaim his sexual proclivities, HE raises the issue everywhere he goes. So while I respect his right to have whatever relationship to the closet he chooses, if he brings it up he can't complain about being asked the question.
Posted by: Larry | Jun 7, 2007 12:32:32 PM
Post Gay == Redecorating Your Closet
I doubt Mika has much control over his career at this point. The record companies are paying full freight until he can sell enough albums. What he really thinks is hard to know, though it's very annoying to listen to his constant coyness.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Jun 7, 2007 12:33:55 PM
Part of me wants to be angry with him for not having the balls to say what is up, but I realize that is based in part on all the suffering I did as a child growing up in the deep South, where gay kids were outed whether they liked it or not - no questions asked. Of course that background makes me who I am, and my willingness to wear my assigned labels proudly may have given courage to others to be themselves and not live a life of denial, but I am going to have to stop short of saying he has to come out of the closet, too. It's his life or lack thereof.
Posted by: Bryant | Jun 7, 2007 12:35:03 PM
BostonBear, your equating being gay with "where you put your penis" is the problem. You can be gay and celibate, gay and married, gay and whorish, whatever. It tells you nothing about one's private life. It is not a deep personal secret about your dick. Who you like is a normal part of your life, unless you're hiding it.
Posted by: adamblast | Jun 7, 2007 12:38:15 PM
His voice sucks. His falsetto grates. His lyrics are insipid. There's nothing particularly clever, unique or groundbreaking about his music. In short, his talent is mediocre at best (I'm being kind). Given that, I don't particularly want him to come out as someone who plays on our team.
Now, Ed O'Brien on the other hand....
Posted by: peterparker | Jun 7, 2007 12:40:46 PM
Sounds to me like he's asexual, doesn't like sex, doesn't have sex, isn't proud or cares about sex.....just a little, limp-wristed airy-fairy.
Posted by: woodroad34 | Jun 7, 2007 12:42:31 PM
And what's with the little necklace between his teeth?
Posted by: woodroad34 | Jun 7, 2007 12:43:21 PM
And what's with the little necklace between his teeth?
Posted by: woodroad34 | Jun 7, 2007 12:43:26 PM
...and let me add an "Amen, brother!" to the complains about Out, The Advocate, etc. They're worse than useless these days--they're actually callous to our political and cultural fight. Besides being nothing but mainstream press releases anymore...
Posted by: adamblast | Jun 7, 2007 12:47:15 PM
hmmmm. me thinks you all dost protest too much. At the end of the day if this guy were to come out would you like him more? Does that make sense? And if he is gay and says so, would you talk about it? Does it really matter? I know he's putting himself in a bit of a pickle (laugh if you want) but the question is being asked. Why is it being asked? Is it important?
Posted by: JR | Jun 7, 2007 12:51:44 PM
Let the backlash begin!!!
Check out this related article on After Elton:
http://www.afterelton.com/blog/brianjuergens/mika-post-gay-o
r-just-post-interesting
OR
http://tinyurl.com/2npyt2
Posted by: Tiger | Jun 7, 2007 12:53:56 PM
Post-gay is believing that there is life outside of the gay identity.
This is a good article on that topic.
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=oid%3A10951
Posted by: Landis | Jun 7, 2007 1:13:42 PM
Bullshit. Post-gay is deciding you don't give a crap about homophobia because you live a cushy lifestyle yourself.
Posted by: adamblast | Jun 7, 2007 1:20:06 PM
I wish he wouldn't be coy about his sexuality, but I can't deny I love his music. His entire CD is wonderful.
Posted by: phil | Jun 7, 2007 1:23:48 PM
Wow, so much bitterness and venom over somebody who just plays music (pretty good music in my opinion) and wants people to have fun. Does everybody have to have such a strong opinion about everything? Chill out people.
Posted by: phil | Jun 7, 2007 1:27:50 PM
Who the hell is he kidding??
The reason I loved his music in the first place was that it was so blatantly flaming and fun, but his attitude since the official release has really spoiled his album for me. These denials in these interviews are grating and a bit insulting.
Posted by: Steve G. | Jun 7, 2007 1:44:48 PM
There must be a split in the gay world about the definition of "gay". I see it clearly among black gays and now I'm seeing it's a problem for white gays too. The sex part is just homosexuality. To me, the gay part is about love, friends, social identity, sense of style and wit, Broadway show music and old Bette Davis movies. And I'm proud of the latter stuff; the sex part...well, that aint worth shit right now, but I'm still GAY!
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jun 7, 2007 1:52:24 PM
Broke down after reading all of the hype and loaded his LP onto my iPod last weekend. Me and my friends all came to a consensus: thumbs down.
Posted by: Gary | Jun 7, 2007 1:52:55 PM
He's horrid, I guarantee in a year you won't hear a thing from him. His music makes me want to jab my ear drums out with sharp pencils.
Posted by: Jocko | Jun 7, 2007 2:16:31 PM
Adam:
"Bullshit. Post-gay is deciding you don't give a crap about homophobia because you live a cushy lifestyle yourself."
No, it is about making a difference elsewhere, or in different formats. I've been volunteering in the *community* for awhile, and gay-activism is shrill, inefficient, and lots of bitching queens.
Posted by: Landis | Jun 7, 2007 2:22:14 PM
"gay-activism is shrill, inefficient, and lots of bitching queens" who you can thank that you weren't beaten up today.
Posted by: adamblast | Jun 7, 2007 2:28:47 PM
"gay-activism is shrill, inefficient, and lots of bitching queens" who you can thank that you weren't beaten up today.
gratitude to them them has nothing to do with their current relevance.
Posted by: Landis | Jun 7, 2007 2:38:15 PM
Everyone just take a breath for a second.
I agree that he's making a bit too much of a muchness out of something he's trying not to make much of a muchness about. Granted.
However, the simple fact of the matter is: when you're a public figure and you're gay (and even when you're NOT a public figure and you're gay) many people--not all, certainly, but many--tend to filter everything you express and say through your sexuality. Your opinions often are discounted because of some supposed 'gay bias', and, in Mika's case, your work is discounted as being 'gay music.'
It's ridiculous and unfair, and I don't blame him one bit for wanting his work to stand on its own--not as 'gay music' but simply as 'music.'
Is he trying too hard? Absolutely. But I think the bigger point here is: IT SHOULDN'T MATTER whether he likes dick, pussy, both, neither whatever. It shouldn't be an issue, and he is asserting as such by refusing to dignify the rabid speculation with a response. And, personally, I applaud that. Who the fuck cares? Why is this still interesting?
And to those of you who assert that he has some sort of 'duty' or 'moral obligation' to come out: says who? Why should he be forced to come publicly forward and state something on the record that everyone already knows anyway? Is he doing a DETRIMENT to us gays, is he subverting our freedom and holding back our progress and pouring gas on the flames of our 'struggle' by not saying on the record that he's gay? Come the fuck on. This is not the 50's. Or even the 60's or 70's. It's NOT THAT BIG A DEAL. We don't NEED him for anything and he doesn't OWE US anything. He's a musician who makes music. Not the Gay Messiah.
Relax. Take it easy.
Posted by: John | Jun 7, 2007 2:44:44 PM
How about being pigeonholed as the bad artist he is?
Posted by: Mike Haddad | Jun 7, 2007 2:51:41 PM
Landis, your assertion that gay activism is irrelevant today simply confirms that you live in a safe and self-satisfied bubble.
And John, you're coming perilously close to saying that stigma makes the closet OK.
No one owes anyone else anything, regarding "coming out." But don't tell me that being gay is a shallow label--nor that I'm obsessing on a celebrity (who I don't give two figs about) because I object to his have-it-both-ways glass closet whining.
Posted by: adamblast | Jun 7, 2007 3:00:32 PM
This is not the 50s?!? "supposed" gay bias? You could have fooled me: http://gop.vox.com/library/post/holsinger.html
But you're right, my being gay is all about my liking (and licking) dick and it shouldn't matter. Why should Mika dignify such a question? When you ask someone if they're gay, you're asking where they put their penis and thats a very private matter! I mean, "come the fuck on"!
Relax. Take it easy. And watch your step as your loaded onto the train. Your destiny awaits.
Posted by: JOHN IN MANHATTAN | Jun 7, 2007 3:08:43 PM
AdamBlast, dear, you seem to have quite a bit to say. & dear? Why speak down to people? What's with the condescending tone?
"You have my sarcasm detector fooled there for a moment, John. :)"
I didn't realize we were all looking for your approval on our comments.
Stop cutting people down, it's lame & ugly. If you don't agree with someone, speak your piece (civilly) & let it go.
I'm sure many people don't particullary like much of what you've posted, but we're also not checking back every 5 minutes to virtually slap you on the wrist for your opinions.
Posted by: bizasizzalizzyizzo | Jun 7, 2007 3:35:35 PM
Adam:
"Landis, your assertion that gay activism is irrelevant today simply confirms that you live in a safe and self-satisfied bubble."
It is not being self-satisfied, its about efficacy. I mean, have you been to a pride organizational meeting lately? Seattle, Sydney, and Toronto have their near deaths, and it is not hard to see why. People bitching about tiny things, status, and positions - it is absolutely horrendous. Aids organizations are the same. so are community help groups.
I just think the gay activism, as defined by you, is outdated. Instead of focusing on larger, ambitious goals, it broke down to just bickering.
I think I am not opposed to gay activism, but just the type of people running it these days.
Posted by: Landis | Jun 7, 2007 3:38:11 PM
Mika does seem straight alright...straight to the nearest man that is...!
Posted by: yeahisaidit | Jun 7, 2007 3:41:10 PM
I've been riled up about this one, Biza, that's for sure. As for my manner of posting, I could certainly cut down on the "dears"--just as you and others could cut down on telling everyone else that they should or shouldn't post or feel.
Posted by: adamblast | Jun 7, 2007 3:44:21 PM
I just find his wording ridiculous and insulting to my intelligence.
If you want to stay in the closet, fine. If you want to go the glass closet route and say "I'm not going to talk about my personal life," that's also fine.
...but this guy is trying to do something completely different. He's refusing to say anything his sexuality, while insisting that he's not in the closet and he's not afraid to talk about his sexuality.
What bullshit. He's not even trying to have it both ways - he's trying to have it a third way that doesn't even exist in a logical universe. It sounds like something I'd expect Tony Snow to say, not a pop star.
PS: Anyone who thinks they haven't heard this guy's music is mistaken. You can't watch TV or a see a movie today without hearing his music in every third show, scene, or commercial. You've heard it, you just didn't know it was him.
Posted by: Rich | Jun 7, 2007 3:47:08 PM
bizasizzalizzyizzo:
""You have my sarcasm detector fooled there for a moment, John. :)"
I didn't realize we were all looking for your approval on our comments."
Biz - You might want to look into your personal issues on this one. Nothing about Adam's post insinuated that everyone is looking for his approval. I found his post funny as I too was thrown by John's dry sarcasm. You might want to take his emoticon :) to heart and lighten up.
Posted by: Gregg | Jun 7, 2007 3:54:02 PM
This guy is totally overpromoted. I heard his new cd at a party and except for the first song (which was a total knock off of freddy mercury) the rest was awful. His promoters are trying to make him the next big thing without anything to back it up.
Posted by: tony the tiger | Jun 7, 2007 3:56:50 PM
I love Mika's music but this stuff doesn't do him any favours. What I really hate is the way the gay press collude with all this.
When he was on the cover of Attitude the interview accepted the whole "I'm pan sexual, mysterious, don't want to define myself" thing with almost reverence.
This is a mag that throws the are you gay question at everyone else. It just really stuck in my craw.
He is only 21, and I'm not sure at that age I was totally comfortable with being publically out, maybe like me at the time he just needs the love of a good man to give him confidence.
And his handlers should be shot
Posted by: Dave | Jun 7, 2007 3:58:44 PM
John in Manhattan--you misread my comment.
#1: This ISN'T the 50's. We have visibility and we have plenty of public figures to act as 'role models'. Those are not the issues we face currently. The issues we face here and NOW are how to move forward and utilize that visibility to achieve our goals of equality, protection under the law, marriage, etc. in the face of a government that recognizes neither our needs and desires, NOR those of the general population (who mostly support our goals in polls, even if not in heavily-spun ballot initiatives). Mika not blabbing about his sexual preference has little or no effect on any of this. The people who hate us--the ones we're trying to win our rights from--don't even know who he is.
#2: When I said 'supposed gay bias' I was speaking of a gay bias that is SUPPOSED by our, shall we say, 'opponents', to exist on the part of gay people ourselves. Meaning: our opinions, beliefs, thoughts as individuals are often not held on their own individual merit but are instead filtered through our being gay. It is supposed that we don't believe and think what we believe and think because it's what we believe and think--it's because we're GAY and live in some sort of gay-biased alternative reality. Much in the way that, say, a woman's views might elicit eyerolls because she's just "a bitch" or being "histrionic" or a "man-hater." Which is why I don't blame, for instance, Anderson Cooper for not publicly stating his sexuality. If he wants to present the truth as he sees and experiences it, that probably wouldn't be well-served by a public acknowledgement that he's gay, because, sadly enough, there goes a lot of his credibility. Because of a supposed gay bias on his part.
#3: I'm not saying that being gay is about liking dick and doesn't matter. I'm simply saying: why is it such a big deal whether or not Mika 'confirms' what we all know to be true anyway. To my knowledge (though, admittedly, I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the whys and wherefores of Mika) he has never DENIED being gay. He just simply elects not to talk about it, becuase why should he have to? What difference does it make? He's a musician who makes music. Him coming out has no bearing one way or the other on the sorts of things that he's being accused of denigrating (e.g., our 'struggle') in my opinion. I agree he's pretty much making an ass of himself, bending over backwards to evade the topic but never really evading the topic because he never shuts up about wanting to evade the topic. But that's beside the point.
And Adamblast: I am not saying that stigma legitimizes the closet. There are plenty of Hollywood figures who are gay and out in every aspect of their lives except one: publicly, in the national media. And personally, I don't feel that they 'owe it to us' to be out publicly as well as in their day-to-day. And I'm not saying that 'gay' is a shallow label. But I *AM* saying that 'gay' is, by many, many (even most, I'd go so far as to say) people, *regarded* as a shallow label, and that has a lot of repercussions that some public figures could be effected by in ways that 'civilians' like us will never have to deal with.
Posted by: John | Jun 7, 2007 4:01:25 PM
I think perhaps this is a generational issue - if you talk to any intelligent gay kid under 25 they will know exactly what you mean when you say "post gay" and are less likely to have any sort of issue with it.
Posted by: Giovanni | Jun 7, 2007 4:18:07 PM
DOES ANYONE EVEN READ OUT MAGAZINE ANYMORE? Each issue is thinner and thinner because it can't get any advertisers and the articles have about as much depth as an issue of Tiger Beat. I heard Planet Out is close to going bankrupt. Which is terrible only because it also owns the Advocate which is still an amazing magazine. The Advocate would never have put this twerp on the cover.
Posted by: tony the tiger | Jun 7, 2007 4:21:04 PM
"When you ask someone if they're gay, you're asking where they put their penis and thats a very private matter! I mean, "come the fuck on"!"
...said the closet.
As Derrick from Philly already said, being gay is NOT sex.
If you're not relationship-oriented, only seeking sexual partners and would prefer that no one know this, then yes, I can see why you would equate being gay with what you do with your dick.
However, "I'm not gay, I just have sex with men" has become the Down Low copout of the 21st Century.
I was homosexual long before I ever had sex with a man. Homosexuality/gay is being attracted sexually to your own gender. And all pairing begins with attraction.
To limit the definition of the word "gay" to a private sexual act is demeaning and feeds into the homophobic stereotype that all gays are about is sodomy.
Posted by: mark m | Jun 7, 2007 4:23:58 PM
Adam, I in no way said don't post, in fact I encouraged you to post, though civilly.
& I most certainly didn't say that you shouldn't feel the way you do, just perhaps to not so actively try to make people feel shitty about how they feel.
I said my piece & you told me to fuck off, fair enough. I'm more than willing to let you have the last word.
Gregg, when someone aggressively calls bullshit on some people's posts & lauds others, for whatever reason, that seems, to me anyway, like they have claimed themselves an authority & should perhaps "look into their issues" as well.
Giovanni, I agree with you, maybe that's my issue, being in the 25 & under crowd & not understanding why people are so caught up in the lives of others.
I bought the album (we're still talking about Mika's music right?) & thought it was worth the $4.99, not much more than that. If nothing else I don't have to buy his next album, but it will be on the merit of his musicianship, not whether or not he chooses to align himself with my personal politcal views or vision of sexuality.
Posted by: bizasizzalizzyizzo | Jun 7, 2007 4:25:53 PM
Biza, I've never been talking about Mika. I've been talking about the nature of the closet and the nature of cultural and social (moreso than political) gay activism. Your calling me out for agreeing with some posts and disagreeing with others by name is identical to your own style, and indeed, there's no other way to hold threaded conversations without the ability to imbed quotes. Your own beef with me seems to be that I snarked on your initial post, which egged me because of its "Everybody calm just down" presumption.
Posted by: adamblast | Jun 7, 2007 4:57:07 PM
MARK M: I was making a ridiculous statement in reference to JOHN's previous post. My apologies if it didn't translate for you.
JOHN: I didn't misread your comment. And I haven't misread your follow-up. I simply don't agree with those that go to varying lengths to justify defending the closet, whether its Mika, Anderson, or yourself.
Posted by: JOHN IN MANHATTAN | Jun 7, 2007 5:20:40 PM
John in Manhattan: Fair enough that we don't agree. But when a person interprets something I said something incorrectly, as you did in your response to my original comment, I tend to assume my comment was misread. I usually don't feel much need to clarify simple fundamental differences in opinion.
Posted by: John | Jun 7, 2007 5:54:25 PM
the handler's notion that appearing on the cover of OUT might somehow affect his debut with the public at large is as ridiculous as Mika's posturing... because straight folk are never going to notice OUT magazine in the first place.
at this point, i sincerely hope the li'l twerp ain't gay anyway.
Posted by: A.J. | Jun 7, 2007 6:23:04 PM
Who cares? Who the hell is he? Never heard of him.
Posted by: juliana | Jun 7, 2007 9:24:11 PM
mika sucks.
Posted by: FanGirlHater | Jun 7, 2007 10:00:29 PM
yiu all care wayyy too much.
Posted by: FanGirlHater | Jun 7, 2007 11:20:28 PM
DOES ANYONE KNOW WHEN THE NEXT CLAY AIKEN CD IS FINALLY COMING OUT??? I CAN'T WAIT!!!
Maybe Clay and Mika can do a duet on Clay's next album. That should help Mika's career to really take off!!!
Posted by: tony the tiger | Jun 8, 2007 12:12:58 AM
I never heard of Mika either.
Posted by: MJ | Jun 8, 2007 4:45:55 AM
I like Mika's music, just wished he would stop being such an ass about him being gay.
Post-gay= the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Gay is gay, why try to hide it, while having this air of superiority over us regular gays, who, ironically, don't make our sexualities such an issue.
Posted by: Seann | Jun 8, 2007 4:47:51 AM
Seann: Most of the the younger generation is post-gay, unfortunately. I am 28 and don't feel necessarily connected with the older generation. I think it is a valid phenomenon. It kind of contributes to the decline in gay village in all parts of North America.
Posted by: Landis | Jun 8, 2007 9:50:29 AM
"Most of the younger generation is post-gay, unfortunately."
Thats a sweeping generalization and not my experience at all. Post-gay is just another term for the closet. If anything, the younger generation identifies as "queer", not "gay". And there's nothing "post-gay" about that.
My final word... Mika + art = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpJy46o_7b0
Posted by: JOHN IN MANHATTAN | Jun 8, 2007 11:50:54 AM
"Most of the the younger generation is (sic) post-gay, unfortunately."
What???
I'm 27, and I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
Posted by: RP | Jun 8, 2007 11:56:11 AM
It's funny to read all these comments by Americans going on about how he should come out when if it wasn't for the way the American music industry is set up, he would. Most of the local radio stations there will not play a record by a gay man, no matter how mainstream it is and without that, there can be no success in America. Look at the Scissor Sisters: huge everywhere but there even though they've never sung a gay lyric in their lives. I don't applaud Mika for not coming out, but you can't blame him for it.
Posted by: eric | Jun 8, 2007 12:03:47 PM
ok you know. i'm going to just leave a comment. i got halfway through reading it and decided to just say what i have to say
so- let's say we have an "ebony" or whatnot magazine- a magazine for a certain racial minority. the subject on the cover is halle berry.
she refuses to say she is black. she will nto discuss it. she does not want to say anything about it and continually denies her african american roots but doesn't understand why black people and minorities don't like her?
isn't that just the same? if you deny yourself, how are others to be supported? if you are part of a minority, a part of a group that so obviously would benefit from the positive exposure, wouldn't be ideal for you to speak on it and create a positive example of other homosexuals? this makes no sense to me.
everyone wants a change but no one wants to be the change. and it's really disturbing.
but on second thought, i've listened to mika's music and...maybe it's best he not say he's gay.
that pretentious shit is elton john and scissor sisters lite. i say nay.
peaceout.
-leo.
-leo.
Posted by: leo. | Jun 8, 2007 3:47:26 PM
Eric, what about Bloc Party, The Feeling, The Gossip, Elton John, Rufus Wainwright and the countless other gay artists who are regularly played on the radio in the US?
No one cares if a musician is gay or not. There are plenty of out and successful gay singers/musicians.
I think the only reason people are upset that he essentially denies being gay is because he is so obviously flaming. I mean for Christ's sake, he wrote a song comparing himself to Grace Kelly. That is G A Y!
Posted by: RP | Jun 8, 2007 4:06:12 PM
Mika does not want to be identified in terms of his sexual preference...he is not being coy, he prefers NOT to answer the question "Are you Gay?" It's HIS private business. Forcing someone to come out/declare their preference is quite frankly bordering on abuse. It has nothing to do with him being an artist- (whether you think he has talent or not based on whether you've heard his music or not). If you listen to his music you'll realise that there is NO secret to his sexual identity- he only chooses not to discuss which gender he wants to have sex with...
Posted by: Kay | Jun 20, 2007 6:25:02 AM