The Gay Question
Ever since the Crush video leaked, there have been numerous threads throughput the web veering in all kinds of directions based on a suggestion in various blogs and forums that there was perhaps some ambiguity in the video, in a couple of shots, about who the main character (please note the use of the phrase main character, we’ll be seeing this again) was crushing on. I have commented on this on several occasions; there was long discussion about it here on notingDavid in a previous post; even David’s father made a remark about such comments. I felt it was time to go on the official record with some perspective. I think it’s important.
What I want to make clear about this question–and not just about the video–will already be familiar to most of notingDavid’s regular commentators and readers, because what I feel needs to be addressed are some persistent misunderstandings and unfortunate assumptions of the type that tend to emerge more often on other sites with broader memberships and more varied commentators. For better or worse, discussions here at notingDavid tend to be of a, shall we say, more theoretical nature. We try to keep the drama at a minimum (although gushing is tolerated!) and the respect at a premium. Still, I hope it will helpful for all to review some basics about this topic.
David is Separate From His Work
I explored this notion in a previous post, so please investigate that for more detail, but the point is very relevant here. The original questions about the video for Crush had nothing whatsoever to do with David’s own sexuality. They posed a question about a certain ambiguity that quite a few people saw in the video, which is a work of film fiction in which David is playing a character. Inevitably, some comments that followed this perfectly legitimate and interesting question sought to blur the line between the work and the person in irrelevant and disrespectful ways. It is important for those who feel compelled to defend David that they steer the discussion back to the premise–not to engage so-called haters, who usually want nothing other than to wreak havoc by getting people to react angrily.
David’s Personal Life is Not for Discussion
Attempts to “defend” David by insisting he is straight are no different than attempts to say he is gay. They are equally invasive. It’s one of the reasons that his most thoughtful and caring fans cringe when clueless, vulgar reporters ask him about kissing or about girlfriends or about crushes. That crosses a line from discussions about David the artist to discussions about David the private person in precisely the same manner as if a reporter were to ask if he had a boyfriend. It’s no different. It involves assumptions about things that David has not chosen to put into the public discourse, and it is disrespectful to engage him or anyone else about it in discussion. Even more problematic is that well-intentioned fans who vociferously try to “defend David’s honor” by insisting he is straight are inadvertently supporting a persistent cultural prejudice that being gay is inherently wrong.
It Is Wise to Cultivate An Ambiguous Appeal
Let’s say for the sake of argument that there was some intentional ambiguity as to who the character in the video has a crush on. It’s David’s work, and so he might be reaching out to his gay fans to say, ‘hey, you guys have crushes, too.’ (Incidentally, on the gay blogs where this topic was brought up, the overwhelming conclusion in the comments was that there was no intentional gay subtext at all.) If David’s work now or in the future contains indications of ambiguous sexuality, then it means that he is being very smart about the diversity of his fan base, about what his cultural position and responsibilities are, and about conveying a broad and compassionate world view. There are many artists who do this with a great deal of conscious intention. And if the line between the artist and the person gets blurred (as it will inevitably be by less sophisticated minds), so what? If anything, it makes the person more interesting and more appealing to a larger and more diverse audience.
Finally, I think it is very interesting to consider that precisely because David chooses to avoid explicit expressions of romance or sensuality in his work–in stark contrast to most of his artistic peers–that the question of orientation (in the work) is likely to be more open than it would otherwise be. In other words, David’s commitment to reserve in this matter may, in and of itself, leave the door open wider for different interpretations by his diverse audience. Personally, I think that’s a pretty cool consequence of a preference for wholesomeness.
ABOUT THIS AUTHOR
Rascal: I think it is very important, as you so wisely suggest, to separate the person from the character. It puts everything into perspective. And that is the same with many different areas in our life. If somebody is a lousy teacher, that does not mean she is a lousy person. If any of my children chooses to follow different standards than mine, that doesn’t mean I won´t love them. It is the person we love, I may not agree with their decision, but I love them. I respect David, the person, the kid, the singer, the performer.
Thank you, rascal. I myself have been trying to hammer some of these same points in different discussions, but have not done so as articulately or as balanced as you. Furthermore, you are in a position to be able to frame the discussion and I’m glad you have decided to do so. This is a posting that I feel has been sorely needed.
Thanks again, Rascal, for everyone’s (and especially David’s) sake.
I tried to refrain last time but I cannot any longer – anyone with 2 eyeballs in their head can see that the main character is crushing on the blond girl. Just because there may be others (males) in the scenes, it is clear that he is not looking at them in any “interested” way. I agree that defending David’s sexuality is really not our place to do, but as passionate fans, we do tend to get defensive, whether we want him to be straight or gay. But, the video, in my opinion, is clearly not ambiguous in the slightest. In the picture above, he’s not “looking” at the guy other than to show disdain that they aren’t helping the girl out of the water.
We all want the best for David. It is easy to get defensive.
I’m sorry, but as far as I’m concerned, there is no gay issue with the video at all.
FunnyGirl — Yours was the same conclusion arrived at even on the gay blogs, as I mentioned.
Rascal, you have described the sophisticated boundaries in viewing this topic clearly and non-judgmentally (a feat in and of itself.)
Astute words, as it is not intuitive to separate a person from his work, or in this case, his art. And, it makes so much sense as we see actors
portray roles so exquisitely yet they are not those characters.
I am constantly impressed with the depth and breadth of David’s wisdom and the choices he makes. I love the phrase “that’s a pretty cool consequence of a preference for wholesomeness.”
This journey as a fan of David this past year has been a journey of self-discovery and re-discovery. It is as if I have been given a precious book, unfinished, and each day I awake to a newly penned and illustrated page with new music, photos, videos and descriptions about David’s art. How did I get so lucky?
Rascal – would you consider changing the thread title – I’m afraid that “The Gay Question” title is terribly misleading, and not reflective of the comments in your post. And, since the gay blogs felt that there is no ambiguity in the video, why did you decide to make it a thread here?
Funnygirl I completely agree. The title is misleading…
I have watched and re watched the video and I am thinking some are seeing what they want to see. I think it is fair to say that we interpret things to meet our needs even if there is not any real support of these desires . I for one would love there to be confusion whether David likes the girl or her mom ( being that this would meet my needs) BUT that is not happening in the video..David’s Crush in my opinion is the blonde girl.
Please think about changing the title of this thread…it just doesn’t feel o.k to me.
FunnyGirl — I didn’t say the gay blogs thought there was no ambiguity, I said the conclusion of the majority of the comments on those blogs felt there was not. Some people did. I thought I was clear about the reason for posting this: That a lot of the fan base remains confused or misled about what was being discussed, how to respond to it, and what it means. As for the title, I think it is perfectly descriptive of the content of the article: The question of whether the video is portraying a gay crush. If you assumed something different from it before reading, well, just remember that I’m in the ad business and catchy headlines are our stock in trade
Oh boy. Since I’m one of the main commenters on this blog who introduced the “gay question” here (before I even discovered that it was being discussed elsewhere) I just want to explain something about “subtext.”
Subtext, by its nature, is supposed to function beneath the surface. It may be there. It may not be there. We may think that the fin that we see in the water belongs to a shark underneath, but we might find out that it was just part of an elaborate costume of a diver who’s snorkeling.
We may think we saw out of the corner of our eye a ghost floating by in the hallway. But the moment was so fleeting, we decide, no, that certainly wasn’t a ghost. Ghosts don’t exist, right? Until you find one or two more people discussing the same thing, and it’s like, who knows? Maybe we saw a ghost, maybe we didn’t.
Subtext.
So, yes, Funny Girl, it’s obvious that “anyone with 2 eyeballs in their head can see that the main character is crushing on the blond girl.” But that happens to be the TEXT of the music video. The subtext might offer something different, and some people could interpret a different story, because the ambiguity and vagueness of how certain scenes were filmed could suggest a different kind of “crush.”
But, you can’t pinpoint a ghostly storyline and say it’s the real thing. You can only hint at it or suggest that it might be there. There’s no proof one way or the other.
I just wanted to clarify that position because I thought the “gay window-dressing” critique offered a different reading, and that was in the spirit in which I offered it. You can accept the premise or dismiss it altogether. That’s fine. The subtext wasn’t the text anyway.
However, I’m glad rascal thought to address it, because we shouldn’t be afraid to. And, this of course in no way says anything about David the person.
In fact, I was actually thinking, reading through different responses to how Jordin Sparks came to defend purity rings at this year’s MTV VMA show this week, how David – whom I assume adheres to a similar philosophy about faith and sexual ethics as Jordin and the Jonus Brothers et al – would never have been caught in a similar controversy. He just wouldn’t go there – both in casting aspersions on those who don’t wear purity rings and in not broadcasting his own personal choices (he doesn’t wear a purity ring nor would I expect him to, whatever he chose to do in his personal life).
He strikes me as someone humble enough not to “preach” to anyone about a certain lifestyle but also self-aware enough to be true to himself. I don’t think he’ll ever broadcast his Mormon faith, but he will adhere to its principles and produce the kind of music and present himself in ways that don’t compromise his values. His being who he is and witnessing through his music is the most he’ll ever do for this “mission.”
David is also open enough to the artistic process and receptive enough to appeal to his broad fanbase, so in this way, I do see David being able to accept an ambiguous representation of his sex appeal. Besides, David, to some extent, is invested in being commercially successful to establish some longevity in his career. He’d be wise to appeal to different fan bases as he gains new ground with his first album.
I understand the sentiment behind changing the topic of this post, but I respectfully disagree. Sure, there’s some discomfort with the topic, and I believe the goal of this post is precisely to “air it out” and set some rules of respect for the discussion, which includes the fact that *David’s private life is not for public discussion.*
There is simply no avoiding the topic – the winds of controversy don’t cease to blow because we refrain from using certain words that acknowledge the topic exists. Better to call it what it is so that it can be dealt with appropriately.
None of the people pointing out there is a gay subtext to the video is claiming there must be one conclusion to the video. They are simply acknowledging that there is a little snippet in the video – probably unintentional – about which gay viewers can ruminate in their fantasies, just as the video provides straight viewers with material for theirs.
#9 hello gorgeous, thank you for giving us the idea of text and sub-text. I think that this will very much help to keep things in perspective in the ensuing discussions.
They will allow for discussion to proceed on different levels about what is mostly obvious (not everyone will agree) and “undisputable?” and what may be not so obvious – more of the speculative nature of people’s perceptions.
#10 ronaldsf I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph.
Rascal, you last paragraph really strikes home with me especially the sentence: “In other words, David’s commitment to reserve in this matter may, in and of itself, leave the door open wider for interpretation by his diverse audience.” Because of this, people may be inclined to believe that David is non-judgmental, and, in my opinion, will definitely endear him to a wider fan base.
Someone once wrote that genius is like a house of cards. The structure is supported by many different elements; you change one element and you have a radically different structure. David is what he is, and fans will accept what that entails the way they accept any other loved one.
What complicates things here is that the vast majority of us don’t really know David. We know his public persona, and consequently project some of our needs, desires, and yes, prejudices on this young man, and in doing so construct a fantasy being that doesn’t exist now, and never did.
Rascal, I doubt that David is consciously cultivating an ambiguous appeal. But am I projecting, and/or are you? I don’t know. Maybe we saw a ghost, maybe we didn’t.
I think it is evident that the video is about David and the blonde girl. If there is ambiguity, it is a result of bad camera angles, or bad acting, or whatever. I believe the gay question? comes from the fact that David is not open about his private life. But honestly, who cares? I would like to believe that us fan care more about his music rather than his private life. Non-fans will spread rumors perhaps because they have nothing better to do and have no respect for others (perhaps jealousy that so many of us love David). Regardless, I hope this controversy will settle down (I really doubt this will happen – crazy media – unless David suddenly starts dating or gets married, PLEASE DONT). David will not engage in sexual conversations, simply because who he is, his faith, and his values. I believe one day, David will find a really nice and cute girl with similar values. AND even when he finds the right girl, I believe he will keep things to himself.
David please remain the nice guy you are!!!
Keeping things private should not be interpreted as being gay (damn media).
Scout1971 — Great comment. No, I don’t think David is consciously cultivating an ambiguous appeal (I’m not sure the same can be said for the director, intentionally or otherwise). I think what we have here is happenstance that may be viewed as opportunity.
Rascal, I agree with you 100 percent.
“I would like to believe that us fans care more about his music rather than his private life.”
langasbe#13, if that were the case, then we wouldn’t have such a thing as a “fanbase.” Every fanbase that I’ve ever known has always been interested in the private life of the artist they idolize. This is what causes magazines like People and Seventeen to sell.
There’s a difference between confusing a certain image or storyline with the actual person and being curious to know more of the person behind an image or public persona.
I’m only saying this because, now that rascal has raised the “gay question,” we’re now having anxieties about what is and what is not appropriate to talk about David.
I hardly hear much criticism and requests to be quiet when fangirls wax poetic about their various fantasies about David. In the same vein, I don’t hear much criticism when the more conservative of his fans gush about his faith and place halos on him or imagine that he’s an angel walking on earth.
The minute we acknowledge that he has a gay fanbase and that they just might entertain fantasies involving David (which might include imagining that they saw a gay subtext in his first music video), then all of sudden, we think it’s inappropriate to have such discussions?
Who has decided that certain groups in his fanbase are entitled to broadcast their fantasies of him, while other groups in his fanbase must remain silent?
Freo — Your thoughts on this topic were very helpful to me and you deserve some of the credit for this analysis. Thank you.
Although your headline, rascal, might be alarming to some, I love the way this dialogue has developed. I’m agreeing that it’s a matter of perception. I see a straight story because that’s what I want to see. I support my gay friends who see something different. Open-mindedness and open-endedness are beautiful.
hello gorgeous makes the point about why maintaining something of an ambiguous stance in one’s work (and perhaps even in one’s personal life) can be beneficial in the marketplace. That said, the knowledge that an actor or a musician is decidedly straight doesn’t keep gay people from fantasizing about them, and of course the reverse is also true. Does anyone believe young women don’t find Neil Patrick Harris believable as a hetero hound dog on his show or attractive as an actor because he has chosen to be public about his orientation? Discussing David’s appeal as a good-looking human is orientation-agnostic. It works for all. The line is drawn at discussion about whom David finds attractive. That’s none of our business until he makes it so.
Hello Gorgeous,
Love your commentary! It’s so balanced and fair, and always thought provoking. I’m glad Rascal has devoted this post to the subject, but it worries me some that people don’t read the content carefully, jumping to conclusions before running off to report their discomfort with the discussion on other sites. I guess it goes with the territory…it’s one of those lessons that’s been reinforced during this DA journey I’ve embarked upon… a lot of people see (and read) what they want to see, and they aren’t objective in the conclusions they reach. It’s made me question every news article I read, no matter what the publication…I’m much more analytical now, looking for the opportunities for the author to be biased or to lie!
I can understand people of all kinds crushing on David because he is so endearing, incredibly talented and gorgeous. I’m older than his mom, but like a fan my age said, “If I was his age, I would probably think I was in love with him. Since I’m not, I’ll just say that he’s ADORABLE!” People crush on celebrities all the time with not a snowballs chance in heck that they’ll ever meet the person, much less become involved with them. It’s just human nature.
I don’t think any subtexts, if there are any, are a result of David’s input. That would be on the shoulders of the director. It’s blatently obvious that he has a crush on the blonde girl. If it matters, the consistent and unwavering input from people who actually know David well is that he is straight. I wonder if the controversy will die down when he’s happily married with six kids? Actually, the controversy may well have subsided by then but the crushes probably won’t have. David is just that appealing and engaging. And really, what does it hurt?
Hello Gorgeous – You always get inside a discussion and look at it from all perspectives. You make a great point about who can broadcast their fantasies and who can’t. It is all societal value driven.
Bookaholic — You know that I always appreciate your comments, but because this is both an important and a potentially controversial subject, and because I want to be very clear on this, I am duty-bound to slap your wrist.
You did precisely what I am recommending that those who truly honor David do not do, which is to speculate about his orientation. It doesn’t matter what anyone has said, close to him or otherwise. It is no one’s business but David’s. I am admonishing you in precisely the same way that I would admonish someone who gave all kinds of allegedly insightful analysis as to why they think someone might be gay. Furthermore, by saying what you said, you may give the impression to some people that you believe it is better to be straight — in other words, I can say this about what people close to David say because the end result is the right one, or the better one, or the more accepted one.
Let me put this as clearly as I possibly can:
There should be no comments, references, or discussion about David’s personal romantic inclinations on this blog, until such time as David discloses a romantic relationship to the public.
Is that clear to everyone?
“That said, the knowledge that an actor or a musician is decidedly straight doesn’t keep gay people from fantasizing about them, and of course the reverse is also true.”
Exactly. And not just fantasizing. Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, and a multitude of others have been unable to shake rumors about being gay despite their public relationships with the opposite sex. I suspect it will be the same for David even after he marries and has 5 children. Everyone sees what they want to see, whether it be an ambiguous subtext or a more blatant ‘text.’ (ojs759, I definitely saw an older woman in that video, didn’t you?! She was behind the scenes baking cookies, but I know she was there. She was also making sure David didn’t fall of the pier while playing that piano in such a dangerous place and was definitely in the house, otherwise why would they be playing that silly post-it game instead of watching a movie in the dark or playing “Truth or Dare?” Couldn’t be more obvious. David was very deferential to her wishes
)
There is one difference to be noted, and that is that unless I am unaware of it there is not a lot of public speculation that Neil Patrick Harris or other openly gay celebrities are ‘really’ heterosexual. It doesn’t go both ways. Being gay is still considered gossip-worthy and open to ridicule to a large part of our society.
Now rascal has said that we’re not supposed to insist that David is straight or be protective of him. But let’s be honest. You cannot tell me there is one straight 17 year old guy on the planet, David Archuleta included, who just lets a ‘gay’ rumor slide off his back with no harm done. In the public eye or not, it just isn’t a part of a teenage boy’s mentality to be unaffected by that, however secure they are in their own sexuality. It isn’t even a part of most grown men. While I know that the online blogging community is small compared to the masses who will soon be seeing this video, I hate to think that David’s thrill in his first video is marred by anything that makes him uncomfortable.
Too late, slap my wrist, too. Bookaholic and I had the same thoughts. So I shall add, IF David is straight, I would hate to think blah blah blah.
I realize that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but I honestly don’t see where this is any of our business. I could care less if David is gay or not. I love him for who he is as a musician, as a person, and for the person he has inspired me to be. End of story!
archu_adorable — I appreciate your concern, but as you yourself said, any particularly attractive male celebrity has to deal with such speculation. There’s no way to protect David from it. All we can do is have it not happen here. Which it has not. All I am trying to emphasize by avoiding a defense that includes a pronouncement of him as straight is that once we establish orientation as a topic, we cannot avoid discussion of it, now, can we?
The only time when it will be fair to David to discuss it is when he has made a relationship public. Period.
LadyVette826 — With all due respect, it appears that you are not understanding the topic and the point of the discussion, which is that what is being discussed is David’s work, not David himself. I am trying to make the point very, very clear that it is most decidedly not our business to discuss David’s personal life.
This isn’t a discussion about David.
It is a discussion about our perceptions. When one defends sexual orientation, it makes a statement about their own comfort level.
If we are uncomfortable with the discussion, then we have values that are being challenged.
LadyVette826 (#26), you are totally right that our love for Archie should be unconditional. (He deserves it!) At the same time, this discussion is important because it’s laying down a set of rules of what should be and should not be appropriate for his fans to discuss. Some fans insist on “defending” Archie by saying he’s straight, but this carries with it the implication that he would be somewhat less deserving of our love should it turn out not to be true. Not only does this *possibly* have an effect on David, but it also sets up rules and restrictions for other public figures and artists. David’s fans should act more responsibly and not be insistent about it, just as David has not been.
Rascal – I am sorry for not making my comment more clear, because I fully understand and agree with your topic. When I mentioned I loved David because of who he is as a muscian…that was based on his work..not his personal life. I wasn’t telling you that it was none of our business…because you clearly get that. I was merely stating that everyone else should follow suit.
It always saddens me when a conversation starts leading into the sexual orientation area. Whenever I run across it, it seems to be used in a derogatory context. An opportunity to lessen a person and to catagorize.
To paraphrase the Great Martin Luther King Jr. I wish that we would not be judged by the color of our skin, religion, age or sex, but to be judged by the content of our character.
I am so glad I have never discovered that here. Everyone has always acted in a sincere and caring fashion. And, I would like to say the only catagory that I would place David in, is in the catagory with the likes of Caruso, Elvis and The Beatles, The gretest singer, songwriters the world has ever seen.
Yep, all the defenses about David being straight and how the rumors will go the wayside when he’s married only reinforce the idea that being gay is somehow wrong, and that he will do the right thing by being straight. I suspect that it will be quite some time before he discloses a romantic relationship. I just hope that with all the pressures from the industry and elsewhere, that he has the strength to remain true to himself and what he wants.
great post Scout..
My one discomfort with the title of this thread is like momsofteens stated…people not taking the time to read thru the discussions and running off with a small snippet of information. Allowing misrepresentation of the comments to fly around the fansites.
With all this reading between the lines, as thought and discussion provoking as it might be , makes me wonder if it is just causing undo hoopla. Really I think David might of just been trying to make a music video plain and simple.
Crush is a great, fun, lighthearted first video for David … I look forward to many more.
ojs759 — First of all, hoopla (even controversy) is very, very good for entertainment product. David should be delighted that there was some inadvertent speculation around this–he got a lot more blog pick-up about it because of this little flap.
Second, the risk of people not reading things fully or properly is always there, and if I were to use that as a criteria for what I post, I suspect I’d never post a thing.
Cutter 12 – I love that quote “judge by the content of our character” but probably not in my lifetime.
I didn’t see the subtext when I viewed the video so I went back and looked for it and saw some of the imagery that was referenced. Nope, still couldn’t interpret any other Crush but the one in the text of the video. So for me, there was no subtext. I loved the video and seeing David singing Crush in different scenes and his expressions and his interactions with the cast. I enjoyed seeing his facial expressions while he sang as I had tried to visualize that–I got so use to seeing him sing that it seems an important ingredient to enjoying his artistry.
The conundrum here is that it seems that society has moved in recent years from the position that “gay is evil” to another position: not “gay is good”, but “there’s nothing wrong with being gay, as long as we’re not talking about my child”. You know, the slightly uncomfortable Seinfeldian “not that there’s anything wrong with that”.
Which brings me to archu_dorable’s post # 24. I can’t find a thing in her last paragraph that I can disagree with. Like it or not, among most teen boys, “gay” is as much a pejorative term today as “queer” was when I was that age.
Rascal, is the point of this thread that your forum is not the place to discuss David’s sexuality? If so, it seems like an awfully good idea.
David’s reserve is due to his faith and personal beliefs. It has nothing to due with a marketing strategy. He has made it very clear who he is, and some just wish to see him via their own filtered perspective. That is not fair. There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about the CRUSH video. The last scene on the porch says it all. Jana
Scout1971 — The point of the article (I can’t speak to the point of this or any other thread, they tend to take on lives of their own, even despite my best efforts) was to address a whole range of discussions that were going on in a variety of blogs and forums about some reactions to the video that included these perceptions of “sexual ambiguity.” Many of these discussions veered off into discussions (or defenses) of David’s sexuality, which, as I believe I made quite clear, has nothing to do with the comments about the video. They are two entirely different things. As a part of this clarification, I also wanted to make it clear that this blog is most definitely not (nor has it ever been) the place to discuss David’s sexuality–indeed, my recommendation goes farther than that–if you are a true fan who honors David, you will not engage in such discussions or speculations anywhere. Most important, however, is the understanding that discussions of orientation are either allowed or they are not–in other words, you can’t discuss David being straight and prohibit other speculations. So the entire topic is off-limits.
Rascal, that’s why I love coming to this site so much. You’re not afraid to take what might be controversial get it out there for discussion. And of course, discuss it we will! For me, the journey with David Archuleta, while focused largely on his career, is also about what has happened to me along the way. I feel I’m more aware of the society I live in now, just through my observations of the way he presents himself to his public, and the huge gamut of reactions that he incites.
In response to #38, audiences who might read an alternative interpretation into the video aren’t necessarily being unfair to David, or even intentionally hurtful to David, but rather it is empowering for audiences (gay audiences, especially) to be able to read a queer interpretation of a text.
Queer readings of texts that weren’t intended at all for a gay audience goes way back to a time when gay audiences had no openly gay celebrities or films to follow, so the audiences had to create their own interpretations of what materials were at hand. It’s not surprising that artists whose work invites queer interpretations tend to be more ambiguously sexual, or in David’s case, a guy with some qualities associated with femininity.
The fact that audiences might read a gay subtext into a piece of art does not equate to an interpretation of the artist’s personal life. The text itself invites alternative readings.
I am not sure what website Jeff was reading, but the discussion here has been trying to focus on the text itself.
Rascal #39,
Good. And thanks for you patience.
rascal– I can only say that I respect your opinion even if I don’t always agree with everything said. I am standing by my opinion that some times things are just over examined and that sometimes we are just making more of things than need be…I can understand that you feel it is all good for the entertainment machine I am not sure I agree. But I am just going to enjoy the vid for what it is, that is not to say that others can’t enjoy the on going discussion.
About the title.. point well made …you are probably right.
ojs759 and awestruck, let me add to the “older mom” fantasy that the older woman/chaperon subtext could be there too: hence why they’re playing a post-it game instead of getting drunk. You know, somewhere off screen, she’s hovering in the background! Ha ha!
Great points, Freo#41. These add so much to the discussion.
ha ha ha, if you’re squeamish about over-analysis, ojs759, this might not be the place for you!
And I appreciate your thoughts
archu-adorable & hello goregous love your comments about the “mom” figure…she was there I really saw her !! LOL !
I must be dense, but I still cannot see how the title – “The Gay Question, Yep, I’m going there” followed by the screen cap – is not completely at odds with what rascal is trying to advocate in the post. There is no other possible interpretation to be drawn than that sexual orientation will be discussed, without reading the post.
Actually over-analysis makes my head spin. I’m not sure why I indulge in it. I’m much more comfortable with the obvious – like the older woman in the video.
Archu_adorable, I agree with you. I need a different title to point me in a different direction and it seems most of us posting here today do, too. Rascal darling – help. We’re off track.
I’ll play the Older Mom on the Blog, okay?
I’m not trying to be difficult, rascal, but if you didn’t want a discussion about David’s sexuality to take place, I wonder about the heading you chose and the picture you put up to showcase this thread. As a superlative ad man, surely you could have come up with something else catchy and less controversial to illustrate your point. Just saying…
And that’s my last word about the subject. It’s David’s life. I’m gonna let him live it without any intervention from me.
Sorry to go off topic, but I love stories about wonderful encounters between David &fans (they make me all warm & fuzzy.) I found another story about a DC fan’s encounter from the AI boards and I wanted to share.
“Hey guys. I just wanted to post this over here for you guys because while although you already know it, I wanted to remark on just how amazing and kind David Archuleta really truly is.
You see, I was at the Bridgeport and Providence shows this past weekend. And let’s just say things didn’t go all that well for the Cook fans to meet him. There was some issues with some fans being very, very rude to DC in Bport and he left without getting to the Word Nerds. Archie, who was just coming out saw what happened and how upset we were and he immediately came to us. He offered smiles, laughs, hugs and love beyond measure. He stayed with for over 10 minutes or more that day in Bridgeport and just cracked us up, conversed, and offered so much love and happiness. He made our day so very special. His dad did the same. If it wasn’t for Archie that afternoon, we’d have had more to be depressed about then smile about. He is without doubt, our little ray of sunshine(it was in the middle of hurricane-hence the nickname).
Next day in Providence, Cook had press all day. Archie came to us again, explained right away and went right back into hugs, smiles and laugher mode. His giggle is infectious and there is no way to feel sad when he is standing there in front of you saying off the wall things just because they are funny. We could not rave on him to Jeff enough and made sure that Archie knew that no matter what, the Word Nerds there that weekend, would always be there to support him in his career. I admit I cried as I watched him sing on the Idol stage for the last time. “
People, you’re making my point without even realizing it. It’s a picture of the VIDEO, which is the point of the GAY QUESTION (more specifically, one of moments in the video that some were questioning).
You all might want to examine why this issue is even so loaded for you in the first place.
In any case, move off the title, it ain’t changing.
OH MY!!! #45 rascal….you got that right!!
WOW…I’m gone a couple of days and WHAT…JUST…HAPPENED?! When I left, the discussion was about “spirituality”…now this! hahaha! rascal, you really do like to stir things up…what fun and at the same time serious!
As far as the “older woman” in the Video…I wanted to audition for the part, but they wanted a “mom” type, not a “granny”!
My take on the Video and I DID tell David this, is that the whole video (and the song) is not realistic cause in real life SHE would be the one singing the song ABOUT HIM!!! He found that very funny!! And I don’t think he agreed with me!? Such modesty!
I’m still coming down from the HIGH I was on and it’s not a good feeling. But that’s another story altogether!
So carry on…this is VERY INT-TER-ES-TINg reading!
Welcome back silverfoxe — Very much looking forward to your report. There is another post coming tomorrow (along with a big surprise), that might be more appropriate for your sure-to-be effervescent report. So if it’s possible to wait until then, that might be good. Of course, I will understand if you absolutely cannot wait. I know how you are
Oh rascal…if only you knew!!! I couldn’t write anything about it now if you PAID me!! I am just SPENT!! So, no problema!
Silverfoxe! Welcome back! You were missed, and I’m very much looking forward to your report. From what it sounds, you actually spoke with David, did you now? Do tell!
Don’t pump her, hello gorgeous, she’s exhausted, and I want her to wait ’till tomorrow’s post!!
I have not posted in some time, as my husband has been in the hospital almost a month now.
But I must say, Funnygirl #3 made the most sense to me! I agree wholeheartedly! I don’t know why anyone would think otherwise, as the lyrics of the song itself say: “when we were hanging spending time GIRL” ~ it doesn’t say “BOY” or even nothing at all! So why is there a question? Obviously, it’s a GIRL who is the “crushee” in this song! Right?
Hi Heart! Sorry to hear about your husband, hope he’s okay. The discussion is not really about the interpretation of the song or the video. The discussion is about how the fans respond to other peoples’ interpretations and, more specifically, how we respond to issues of sexuality in general.
Wow, a surprise? Can’t wait!
Subtexts, subliminal messages, etc. (lions and tigers and bears, oh my)!? Sounds like the wizard(s) of ODD. Get real.
Okay, I’ll be patient.
Freo – it’s a little surprise, and not about David, so don’t get TOO excited
I loved cutter’s story of the Cook fans loving David. I also ran across one I loved. (I save most everything about David that touches me.) So, although it’s long, I think I’ll share. I think you’ll enjoy it:
• Funny, relevant, parts of a review from a Cookie fan at MJs:
“On Sunday I earned The Coolest Person award (and a special place in heaven.) I volunteered to take a co-worker’s 11-year old daughter (referred to as The Kid) to the American Idol concert in Minneapolis, MN. She was going to be my Beard (my cover-up for going to the concert.)
Pre-Concert:
David Archuleta – Or most appropriately summed with “Oh My God It Is David Archuleta!” Yup, I was surrounded by Archie’s Angels (save me!) Okay, you are only going to hear this from me this one time… Dude. Was. Amazing. He was so sweet and took his time with everyone. He really connected with fans, chatted with them, asked how people were doing and made eye contact. After meeting five idols, he had to be the most personable one (I will probably get struck by lightening for saying that about anyone besides David Cook – who is my favorite.) When he got to The Kid he signed her paper and asked if she wanted a picture. Then he asked if she was having fun. The Kid, bless her little heart isn’t the biggest Archuleta fan but I think she got caught up in the same phenomenon I did, giggled. He came back after a few moments and checked on her again and made sure she had a good photo and such. As my Grams would say, he’s a nice boy.
The concert:
David Archuleta – And…I am old. The girls behind us were screaming and jumping and squealing that high-pitch scream that only small dogs and long-suffering adults can hear. First things first (before I get to my mocking), he sounded great. Otherwise I was distracted by his coughing (poor thing), the fact he sang doubled-over, and the Aw Shucks factor. Oh, and yes he did giggle.
After-concert pain in the…
The Kid really wanted to get Syesha’s autograph (and who was I to stomp on a little girl’s dream) so we went outside and lined up for another round of autographs. Maybe it was the heat, maybe it was the sugar, maybe it was the cranky adults but it was freaking INSANE. The Kid was shoved up front against a barrier and I would ever-so-often lean over to make sure she was still alive. (Yep, stellar babysitting skills.) After waiting for an hour and a half we only saw Kristy Lee Cook, Brooke White, Jason Castro and yes…David Archuleta.”
If the rest of the Idols had much sense, they would parrot David and get out there and make friends with the fans. (I have noticed that the ones that come out most regularly are the ones who are his closer friends–Kristy Lee, Jason, Brooke, and to a lesser degree, Cook.) David is converting tons of people into fans just by being nice and engaging with them. His behavior opens their hearts up and then when they really listen to him, they notice how incredibly well he sings. This woman gets him now…although she obviously isn’t familiar with our much-loved hunkerdowns. haha Pretty cute story, though. Huh? Does my heart good to read it.
The first time I watched the Crush video I never ever got the sense the main character David is playing had any interest in the guys at all. After watching it again and paying more attention to the scene where the still picture is derived from, it’s obvious the main character is NOT interested in the guys at all. He looks at both of the guys in a puzzled manner and the next scene he turns his attention to the female still in the water (where the two guys having so much fun they forgot about her, had left her) and even makes a hand gesture showing his disapproval and/or amazement at how she is treated. He certainly wouldn’t have done that and would have helped her out of the water. Nowhere in the video in any of the main characters’s actions or looks can anyone unbiased come away that the main character is infatuated with anyone else than the young woman.
Bookaholic- I loved that story. Even though it was rather snarky (is that correct?) You can definitely tell that she too was bitten by the ODD bug. So no matter the controversies, David is converting people to his side by just being David.
good Lord! I can’t keep up. I was going to comment, but there is more to read! The older woman baking cookies comment is hilarious. Text, subtext, is all fascinating conversation. Over analyzing? Maybe. Isn’t that part of ODD symptons?
Hey Rascal, the “picture” you captured from the video at the top of this post gives me a different perspective than watching the very short time this “captured moment” has in the video. It is easier to imagine a subtext with gay influences looking at the “picture”.
I am not the first here to comment that examining this issue is “loaded” for some people may be because the are uncomfortable in the idea of gay in the first place.
My good friend’s 23-year-old son is openly gay, and I’m cool with it.
You go rascal #58 well said!
#57 Good point heart. I think this belongs to the TEXT component of the video. Most comments here have been about the SUB-TEXT component, in my opinion anyway. See hellogorgeous’ #9 post and my earlier post #11.
Thanks cutter12 and bookaholic for sharing these stories, I love hearing about them.
awestruck — thanks for your very encouraging comments on this. Broadening aspects of self-awareness are inherently spiritual. Please understand that I only seek to further your self-awareness when I point out that saying one is “cool with someone being gay” is like saying one is “cool with someone having green eyes.” It’s a human attribute, nothing more, and quite apart from any realm of ethics or morality. It is decidedly NOT my intention to start a discussion about this, but I am so enthused about your sharing that I wanted to possibly expand your horizons a bit further.
OH MY!!! #45 rascal….you got that right!!
–silverfox
In regards to post #45—-I am hoping that comment was tongue in cheek and that I am welcome here..I was just merely giving my opinion, even though it might be some what different than others I am hoping even if I am a tad squeamish… that I am able to still participate.
ojs759 — Of course it was meant in fun. We do like to deconstruct every little thing here; it is, as someone said, what ODD tends to be all about. I like to think that the difference here is that we like to obsess over slightly more theoretical or cultural topics rather than over the latest OMG HE’S GORGEOUS fan photo (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
Thanks rascal!
Seinfeld……. LOL !
# 41- “a guy with some qualities associated with femininity”. hmmm???
If we all want to hear David’s music for a long time to come we probably should hope he is straight. Regardless what our personal views or orientations are, the general public majority would not deal kindly with him otherwise. “I am soooh over him”, was a teen fans reaction on hearing that David had not yet had his first kiss. My seventeen year old cousin thinks it is very “weird” also. Imagine if they thought he was gay. He needs the teens and the public buying his records to be a success, not just us, his devoted fans. I am a little afraid of posting this, since Rascal has admonished every one of my posts, but here it goes.
Does being a fan mean you have to fantasize about someone. I honestly don’t believe I do. I don’t fantasize about my children or my friends and yet I love them. That is how I feel toward David–a closeness that comes from his being able to communicate to me (and millions of other people). I just want to experience the sound. I DO enjoy the genuineness he projects. It doesn’t appear to be an act. He pretty much says what comes to mind most of the time. At other times he is pretty good at deflecting loaded questions. That fascinates me and educates me at the same time. I don’t feel that I know very many facts about David. My family would laugh at that. But I don’t feel that way. The facts I know are things I stumbled across in pursuit of the sound and feeling that comes from his work. Would really love to have more of that and less insights into others dreams and fantasies.
That should read “fewer” insights ….sorry
Rascal- you will probably just delete this, but I actually wrote it for antoher site, before reading your article. I guess anything is worth a try. This is an open ended, adult discussion, right?
elise said…
I guess there are opposing views regarding what is or in not an appropriate topic of discussion when it comes to David. This is obviously a personal choice. As Steve points out, one of the qualities that makes us human is our ability to choose. What we choose to do or not to do in the course of our lives shapes who we are as individuals. Our personal characters are works in progress, being shaped by each decision we make. We are responsible for whatever it is that we think, say, or do, in this life. Everything. Therefore, it is rather important that we imagine how any thought or action we may take will affect others. One of my favorite teachers, Pema Chodron, puts it
this way:
‘Every act counts. Every thought and emotion counts too. This is all the path we have. This is where we apply the teachings.’
Our very lives are the stage upon which we show the world who we are, and what is important to us. It is through our interactions with others, the words we choose to type on the page, the ethical code of conduct we hold ourselves to, what we teach our children…it is the nuts and bolts of our mundane, everyday lives that defines us to ourselves and to others.
The fact that David persists in his adherance to his faith, and the values and actions it demands from him, is quite a statement about his character. Simon told him that continuing to sing songs with messages wasn’t wise, but David chose to sing songs with messages throughout the competition. He didn’t care if he won, he wanted to stay true to himself. He has been goaded by the press again and again, in hopes of their hearing a negative comment from him regarding another. They are still waiting. He has been pressed to speak about how it feels to be considered a ‘hotty’, and he shrinks in embarassment. He’d rather talk about the qualities he would look for in a girlfriend. Respect is the word he chooses to use, over and over again when describing those qualities… ‘I hope she would have the same kind of respect for herself that she has for others.’ Wow. That speaks volumes about David’s character. Respect is obviously something he deems very valuable.
Every person values different things. It is not a one size fits all world. In our interactions with others, whether face to face or through the screen of our laptop, respect is an element that we should require of ourselves. We should hold the essence of another human being more dearly than we hold our own. There are things I would openly say to some that I would never give voice to in the presence of another. This is having respect for what I see, having compassion for those that may be affected by me. We are not separate. We are deeply connected. The actions of one affect the whole. Being a human being is a an incredible gift that bears a huge responsibility. We are not innocent.
September 12, 2008 7:12 PM
Rascal – here’s the deal. You can keep your title and your picture, of course, it’s your blog. But that title and that picture are inviting comments that you have said clearly you don’t want to entertain. Somewhere in the not so distant past you wrote something about how you were uncomfortable writing “David” and “sexual orientation” in the same sentence. So it seems incongruous to use a title that seems to point the focus exactly there. That is where my discomfort lies – in the dissonance. I’ve read the whole long string of comments a couple of times over and still remain confused about the fine point you are hoping to put on this discussion. Or are you hoping to draw those who disagree with you (of whom I am not one) out of the woodwork so that you can do some education? Its a reasonable goal, I guess.
Also – just a little note to hello gorgeous – David wouldn’t wear a purity ring because that just isn’t a Mormon thing. And be careful about presuming to know whether he is “preachy” or not – we don’t know him in his personal life – he may just be! Careful, careful about putting your spin on him. Let’s let him show us who he is as he grows into being a very public person.
My concern for David in this area as in any other is what it was when I fell hook , line and sinker for him last spring (I think it was Smoky Mountain Memories that snagged me permanently) I want him happy, loved and at peace. Oh – and I want to hear him sing every single day of my life for the rest of forever.
In response to poster#9:
Why does there need to be a subtext to this video? I guess if you want to know for sure email Declan and ask, otherwise let’s just go with the video as is. David is sitting watching his friends frolic in the lake, so of course the subtext is he’s watching them wantoningly. He smiles at the girl six feet away and before he completely looks away he still wears the smils so he’s smiling at the guy across the car. He helps the girl out of the lake so he’s putting on a show for the real object of his affection, the guys. Nevermind that he just gave them a look of disgust for leaving her in the lake while they seemed to revel in some kind of male bonding. Oh and of course while the girl is on the proch receiving that most seductive smile, there is a guy looking at David and wishing he was on the receiving wend of that smile. Of course again, the guy couldn’t possibly have been watching the girl because he himself has a crush on her.
Not everything in life has a subtext. Some things are exactly what we see. I see some thing I felt could have been changed in the video, but the theme was not one of them.
As for David and his mlae audience, I’m sure he is always aware of all his fans. I’m sure he is also aware of the word controversy. I am equally sure he is so into singing and he’s aware that cntroversy could easily derail it, that he is steering clear of such undertones, at least for now.
I’m sure David will fight for many things through his music, but I don’t think he is starting right away with his first song or video. Just enjoy that the video is about firends having a day at the lake. The only subtext is the main text.
There wasn’t even a rainbow in the sky during the video. If Declan wanted to make subtle suggestions, it seems he may have place a rainbow or two in the video.
How do you spell check this site?
Gracefield, you make a lot of sense to me in #75. I just got home, logged on, and I’m still not any clearer as to what this discussion is about ~ one thing I don’t think it’s about is David and his music ~ which is really what I love discussing.
So before someone admonishes me to go elsewhere, I’ll just wait until we’re back on my favorite topic ~ not heterosexuals or homosexuals or why I don’t like talking about either group. All I really want to talk about is David. I love him, I love his music, and I’m very excited about his future. I love his video too, and I definitely don’t see what the questions are about ~ though I know that’s not what this thread is about ~ I do understand that part. So I’ll bow out here and return when I see a more interesting topic.
By the way, Rascal, thanks for asking about my husband. I do appreciate your noticing. He’s doing very well tonight, thank you.
A timely, well-considered article, brilliant as usual. Great contributions from the commentators. Love you!
smanda – Neither the headline nor the photo have anything to do with David’s sexual orientation. That IS the point. It’s all about the video, which is a work of artistic fiction.
I can’t put it any clearer than that. If you are making other interpretations, then they are YOUR interpretations.
To me this is all a deeper issue. It has nothing to do with David or the boy actor. When a good looking young man is in the arts whether it is music, art, dance, theater or literature, questions are always raised. The problem in America is we stereotype. We are paying attention to things that are just none of our business.
As far as the video goes, I saw some very disrespectful remarks that were made about David and this video and my immediate reaction was to refute. But why give them any credence? I was so touched the first time I saw this video. I can remembers moments just like those even down to the game. We never had cable TV for our children growing up because I disliked MTV. The way women were depicted I found appalling and just didn’t want them to have those visuals. I have never regretted it and I am thankful to say neither have they although this video is just too romantic to miss. I will have to send them one as soon as it is available.
Oh My Gosh, what a lot of hoopla! Such spirited discussion!
# 75 gracefield… you hit the nail on the head for me. I just want the voice, but have been intrigued by his character during a most stressful Idol season (for him) and his interactions with his fans. He fascinates me as well with his seeming wise answers to ignorant, probing questions and the way he deflects them. I perceive an aura of goodness about him (my perception) and I am attracted to that as well as his vocal ability.
#78maxie2go…HAHAHA, a rainbow in the sky, hilarious. And the spellcheck, (wish there was one). I agree, I don’t think David would want to have any more controversy than possible because “HE JUST WANTS TO SING” I wish we could concentrate on that guys. Jeez.
Silverfoxe…I wish I could see your report. But will have to wait till Sunday as I AM GOING TO TULSA TOMORROW!!. Hope the weather holds for the bus lines.
gracefield — You feel, I believe, the way many of us often do. But like or not, David’s artistic choices have cultural significance. He is an entertainer, a pop icon, a performance artist. Sitting alone in a room and listening to David’s music is a valid choice, just as getting involved in discussions about his social and cultural influence is a valid choice. Neither should be questioned or condemned.
As a public forum for discussion, this blog seeks to explore all aspects of David’s artistry. That extends very definitely to the ways in which his work resonates in the culture.
Rascal, I so appreciate your articles and your insights. But this discussion I just truly don’t get the importance of as it relates to David’s music. Maybe I am dense as well.
Okay, Well, I commented at the same time you did Rascal. I see what you are saying, but is the whole purpose of these discussions a reaction to comments you read elsewhere?
A couple of things.
smanda#9, I don’t presume to know if David is “preachy” in his private life. What I said in my post is that he doesn’t strike me as one who is. I’m just basing my opinion on what I’ve gleaned about him in his interviews, in various videos, in various fan reports, etc.
We’re talking about impressions and perspectives here. That is the impression I get from David. And, yes, I really would be surprised if he made a political or religious statement at an awards show in the manner that Jordin Sparks did.
maxie2go#79, again we’re talking about impressions and perspectives here. I could email the video director and have things “clarified,” as you suggest. But we’re not talking about the director and what he intended or didn’t intend. We’re talking about audiences and what they might be seeing (or not seeing). I write stuff all the time, and my readers interpret all kinds of things I certainly didn’t “intend”, but I’m always open to their interpretations because they are offering a different perspective.
And I think, from some of the comments here, that this is really what’s at issue here. If I named the pink elephant in the room, then we’d have to call it homophobia – the fear of anything having to do with homosexuality.
The perceived “problem” is not so much whether or not there is a “gay question” to be asked but that it’s being asked at all. Some perspectives are still resisted, rejected, and not welcomed.
#79 – go,go,go maxie@go
- you put into words my thoughts. Controversy of this sort would certainly hurt his singing future.
If this article is not about David’s sexual orientation, then I don’t understand the photo chosen to illustrate this post.
I also can’t help conjecturing that this video will be altered before it is officially released, and maybe that scene will bite the dust.
rena, you are either not reading the thoughts here, or you have a strange way of interpreting things in a way that is precisely the opposite of what is intended.
debra 5354 – #87 – basically, yes.
Dear me, was away for 4 days and a MISSED A FESTIVAL here! Dang it!
The discussions are engrossing and truly substantial. So thank you rascal and everyone for all the inputs which make this THE place to come if you want to bring back some semblance of sanity into your ODD’ed life
But let me share this, even belatedly: I saw the ambiguity in the video and the pix above is definitely one of those that raised the flag.
And I had a good laugh at it! Director’s one smart guy! If this premise is allowed, I think that the crucial factor at work is the role that ambiguity plays on the imagination. We know that at times, basic human drives are murky and ambiguous. And the best way to satisfy those drives is with ambiguous stimuli. And by doing so, you serve all interests, all occasions, all gender.
So am bewildered why what is shown in the music video is being related to David’s personal life or preference. After all, he is just a character in the video. It is the director’s approach, his eyes behind the camera and his scene choices that’s up on that video. So the issue on ambiguity, if deliberate, should be on him, not on David.
Cos, isn’t this akin to our issue against AI’s editing & manipulation? How the show pictured David as stuttering, insecure, not-ready-for-the-big-time balladeer?
I think that the mode by which David came into the industry explains a lot with how fans relate to him – as if we “know” him. And because of technology, never before in the history of entertainment is this more pervasive to that point that a lot of fans sometimes forget or fail to realize that the on-screen David that we enjoy is simply a slice or a glimpse of who he really is. We feel closer, easier and faster to examine nuances but then again, even at 3D encounters, they are still limited encounters. But that doesn’t stop us from being caught up with the adoration, protectiveness over David. Hence, the ODD
I find that any defense put forth about his about gender or preferences – though well intentioned am sure – is futile and unfair for everyone concerned. And hope that we continue to go ga-ga over David the artist and respect – in every sense of the word – David as a person.
Freo, hello gorgeous, Scout, Kizzi- love your posts! Silverfoxe – can’t wait for your report hon! Rascal, thank you for being patient and for being there for us & for David. Kudos!
My first post here. Thanks Rascal for maintaining a highly stimulating and mature site for fans of David who palpably think before they speak or write. I have been following this site for quite a while but have chosen not to enter into the discussions because almost everything I felt was being expressed one or another of posters. But because today’s topic is so important I have decided to add my two cents to the discussion while respecting the limits that you have established. By way of introduction I am an older guy on the slippery side of 60, a gay/bi male who knew what my primary sexual orientation was before I turned ten.
I was amazed and mesmerized by the kid from the very first time I heard him sing on Idol back when he sang ‘Imagine’. To be able to convey so much feeling and meaning in his own unique way through an iconic song that more than any other epitomizes the ideals of the 60’s generation won my heart completely. Since then I have been rooting for him to become the mega success that only comes along once every generation or two; a Sinatra type of stardom. And I have continued to pull for him despite knowing his Mormon background, despite my negative feelings toward that religion. Lest any Mormons take offense, I am an agnostic and don’t care for most religions, considering that they only exist because of the ignorance, superstitions and fears of humankind.
I have thought a lot as to why I find David so special. Yes, there is that element of physical attractiveness that even an old fart can appreciate. The exterior is pleasing, yes, but so much more than that are the sounds that emanate from the youngster‘s soul. Those incredible waves of aural beauty that thrills and soothes the ear of this listener in ways that no other singer has in thirty or more years. I am constantly amazed at his gift, and if I were not an agnostic I would swear that it was coming straight out of the gossamer gardens of heaven above. I out and out cried when I first heard and saw him sing ‘Noel’ on Youtube. I suppose by writing this makes me sound all fangirly, but so be it. There is no other way for me to describe it.
Regarding the video and its possible sexual ambiguities, and the reason for this posting: David is, as we all are, a creature of the times. We are all living in a time of newly emerging ideas about what it is to be a human being, and questions about how this new understanding will affect our human society. If the director, and I emphasize, the Director, meant to convey a certain ambiguity with this video, he is only responding to the ambiguities of our age. David would not be a creature of his time if anything else was presented. To be relevant is to in tune with the times. I believe that David, straight A student that he is, realizes this, and agreed with this presentation.
But the glory of David is that while being a creature of his time, he is also a creature out of time, someone whose talent has given him the ability to connect with a visceral human need for meaning and connectedness with the metaphysical. It is this amazing gift that attracts all the posters here, to partake in a living miracle of flesh and bone and spirit. Because each of us yearns for the eternal and ethereal, we find in David’s gift something as close to it as may be possible to achieve in this transitory world. Possessing a gift of such stupendous power makes his orientation almost irrelevant. For those who would not be able to transcend whatever his orientation may be, and thusly deny themselves the joy of receiving his gift, they will be the lesser for it.
Am I the only thinking that “OMG he’s NOT gay” has been replaced by “OMG the VIDEO’s not gay”? From what I have gathered, no one in this blog who saw a gay subtext in the video was *insisting* that David/the video was one thing or the other.
Why are we jumping at the gun to defend the hetero honor of a video? I really don’t intend to be mean here — I love all of you and I think we all share a bond in our love for Archie. I guess that what I’m trying to say is *relax*.
I think that those who find a gay subtext are very aware that it’s something they are “creating” and “reading” into the video. HG in her “window dressing” post was having some analytical fun. And so were many of her readers. Heck, I didn’t see any subtext until I read HG’s post, and even I know that “Crush” is a *straight* video, but I figure why not have some fun reading things into it? Enjoy thinking about the possibilities that it creates in our minds?
Why do some of us *seek out* gay subtexts? Um… because there are no gay texts? How many music videos are out there that are about the romantic attraction to the same sex? (crickets) Well, that’s why then. In a world where many people prefer not to even *think* about us, we must “find” gay where we can.
There’s some unease about the “gay question” on this forum, and I accept that. I’m just saying “relax”: no amount of analyzing and fantasizing on anyone’s part will change the video clips running in front of me or make the video any gayer, or the male lead who stars in it.
realmusiclover – Thank you, thank you, thank you for your amazing words. I am undone.
My feeling was to ignore this post but I can’t let it go by without expressing my feeelings. David has had his privacy invaded by people who profess to love him and his music just on the brink of his first album, a huge moment in his young life. And the irony of all this is he would probably forgive all of you. I think it is selfish to discuss his private life when few people really know much about him in his own words.
I am sad at all this nonsense.
realmusiclover…am sitting with goosebumps on my legs reading your post as you have described my hearlfelt innermost thoughts about David.
Thank you
Ginger — And we are sad that you have not understood this discussion.
I am also a lurker here and have never posted, that being said. I would like to share my thought about this discussion. I have been following David since the beginning of AI and have always loved hearing his voice. I am a huge fan of his and wish him all the best. I know that it can become very easy to get caught up in all of these rumors. But I hope everyone here realizes that this is really hurting Davids career. Since the leak of the crush video and all this talk about the possible gay rumor, there have been several DJ’s that I have personally heard on the radio stations that put David down for this. Some will not even play his music. There are a lot of people who do not even know who David is, but who are going to presume things about him and turn away from him and his music because of this. Like it or not this is a cruel world and people can be small minded and judge people not by who they truly are but by what they hear and see. I hope David is not affected by all of thiis because he is a wonderful human being. Love ya David!
realmusiclover #93 – thank you for referring to what *unites* us and Archie’s transcendent, *universal* appeal.
It’s like a bright, shiny light right above my post lol. I just want to clarify that with my post I wanted to address those who insisted on not talking about the topic of this thread at all, which – whether intended or not – has the counter-intuitive effect of dividing the fanbase. David has gay fans as well, who love David for pretty much the same reasons everyone else does. Thank you, realmusiclover, for articulating that.
And on that note, I will say goodnite all. The morrow brings a chance encounter with our chosen one in Tulsa if the weather holds.
I don’t think I can express how I feel about this site and all the wonderful people on it. Just…be well.
Realmusiclover#93, what a great post! Thanks for sharing!
Okay, I know I’m getting real tired as my eyes are starting to blur. I was looking for a specific quote but can’t seem to find it in this sea of comments. However, I do remember reading somewhere above about how we must be careful to even address the “gay question” concerning David since there are teens his age who have turned off of him because he hasn’t had his first kiss. I think that’s what I read.
Well, all I have to say to that is: David is better off without such a shallow person as a fan. For every “I’m soooo over him! He’s never been kissed!” story, there are other stories of people find him and his music appealing (I read one story on another site about a fan who encountered an inner-city teen, who listens to every hip-hop act from Lil Wayne to T-Pain to Akon, but who also included on his ipod David’s “Crush” because he liked the hook after hearing it on Z100!). David’s music is what’s important and what will propel him to success. Image is part of it, but it’s not the only thing (unless you’re a no-talent hack whose image is everything because it’s the only thing one is riding on).
In other words, I don’t see how this particular conversation on a blog that honors David as an artist is going to hurt David’s image. We should be very grateful, actually, that we’re able to discuss this issue openly, honestly, and respectfully precisely because there are other sites that are far more disrespectful and which still raise the “gay question” as if being gay were a problem.
I wouldn’t presume to guess at or make pronouncements of David’s sexuality (straight or gay) since no one knows what’s in his heart (we have an impression of how that heart operates, because we get a glimpse of it in his music), but I do know that sexual orientation has never corrupted the beauty and soul of a great music artist.
Handel. Tchaikovsky. Liberace. Elton John. Just to name a few.
I’m not suggesting David should be categorized on this list in the same way (in my straight fantasies, I’d rather he stay off this list, but musically speaking is a different matter!) but I’m just making the point that sexual orientation should not be viewed as somehow diminishing the power and appeal of a music artist.
Rascal #69
…”cool with someone being gay” is like saying one is “cool with someone having green eyes”…
Interesting. I smell a subtext coming.
To illustrate how self-indulgent and foolhardy it is playing the subtext game (borderline psychobabble) which has infested some of these topics, thanks in part to your encouragement/enthusiasm – how would you feel if someone read between the lines of the above extraxt and drew a totally incorrect and absurd conclusion about you and a certain artist, and then thoughtlessly shared it with the readers of your blog?
Your writings are often on point and awesome, but sometimes their plain awful. We all hit a sour note on occasion, even David. Your wordsmithing is admirable, you psychology – not so much (along with some other frequent commenters).
Discretion and restraint are two admirable human attributes that come to mind.
I sit and wait. Does Rascal comtemplate my fate. And does he know the places where his readers will go (with the subject matter), whether young or old.
I’ll curb my enthusiasm. Until next time, peace. I love you.
Ronaldsf#94, thank you for recognizing that, yes, I was having some “analytical fun” with my window-dressing critique.
Pensive#103 – “borderline psychobabble”?
Wow, that’s harsh.
pensive — #103 (and #60, while we’re at it) — Well, unless you expect your readers to have a much better grasp on subtext than you seem to give them credit for, I’m afraid your own psychobabble will continue to spin off into the ether without even a wink or a nod. Obfuscation is not the same as intelligence, and threats are the refuge of a savage. Your spelling also leaves something to be desired.
Rascal – it’s not just me – it’s many people, it’s the road this thread has travelled. But anyway, I am looking forward to tomorrow’s surprise, big or small.
Hello Gorgeous – I just squirm whenever it seems like someone is putting a halo on David’s head – of whatever size or color. I want him to be who he is without the pressure of being everyone’s idea of perfect, whatever that maybe.
Realmusiclover – soooo beautifully said. You made me cry.
may be – not maybe. oops
Rascal, did I fail to mention that I love you? I’ve been a lurker here at NotingDavid since April, resigned only to reading your posts and not the comments. Now I’m reading the comments like a maniac. I had no idea that the analytical swords you wielded in your posts were also employed for combat! lol. You own.
realmusiclover – I bow to your wisdom re David. Thank you for coming out of lurkdom.
Interesting notes by you Rascal. I totally disagree with some of what you say. I don’t think David had any part at all in the filming of this video. I think any inferences you are making that David made in this video are not even up for discussion for the mere fact that this was a video produced by a company who makes up their own decisions about the film. I really believe by the comments David has made that he did not make any of the major choices of location, scenes, or actions. So why any discussion at all? This seems to be completely going against the topic that David’s personal life is off limits.
I think you are making more out of this than there really is. And that is…this is the first video made by a young, starting out music artist. It is simple, clean, and not meant to have multiple implications. It was made to focus on teenage feelings of first time crushes, and teenage fun. Why are we adults reading into this more deeply than needs to be. I really am disappointed that any of his fans are even discussing this. I hope this topic of what are the hidden messages in this video stops here. I know that David absolutely would hate any discussions about these private teenage feelings and what they mean as far as he is concerned.
I do remember him mentioning that this song really was meant to relate to his age group and what his friends and age group relate to. Please, just leave this topic alone and let’s move on to discussing his music abilities which is what this site was designed on. I do not want to upset any Archuleta family member here, and I know I would be upset with discussions by any media about David’s sexuality…which is not what “Crush” was all about anyways.
Well, if we’re going to get all bent out of shape over semantics, here’s my own reading of the “subtext” in pensive’s post:
Me thinks thou doth protest too much.
lynnslocum #110 – First off, my guess (and probably Rascal’s guess too) is that David “signed-off” on the ambiguous shot in the video. It was quickly and hastily made, and one can easily imagine it being an inadvertent act of the editor.
And most viewers will *not* know that and think that David had some say in the “artistic” direction of the video. Rascal is saying that, IF it’s true that he did, David may have had a *different* motive for it (i.e. cultivating a broad appeal, promoting a compassionate worldview) than what most would actually assume. Rascal is actually countering the effort to intrude upon David’s private life.
In response to your last paragraph, no – no one is speculating about David’s sexuality here. Whether or not Rascal made this post, the speculating was going to take place – Rascal is trying to *de-escalate* all the speculation and set boundaries for the fanbase. And the only way he can do that is to call things what they are.
Agh! posted without proofreading! My first paragraph meant to say “David *DID NOT* sign-off…”. Argh!
#77 elanbo & #93 realmusiclover- Wow, I love what both of you wrote! There was so much in both of those posts that made me think, speculate and wish upon. Mostly, wishing I could be so eloquent with my writing. (lol) I hope to read more of your views in future posts. And #78 smanda, my wish echoes your own. It’s so funny that I have so much love for a person I don’t really know, but I pray for him to be happy, loved and at peace and, always, being able to share his wonderful gift of music with us all.
Pax everyone.
rascal #105
No threat intended. I apologize for the confusion.
hello gorgeous #104
Perhaps.
lynnslocum — thanks for your thoughts, but I’m afraid you are confusing what others have said with what I have said. In fact, I don’t believe I have ever stated my own personal opinion on the interpretations of the video at all (for the record, I happen to agree that it is pretty simplistic), other than in a very short comment on another thread. And I CERTAINLY have said nothing whatsoever about David’s personal life in any public forum at any time. What I have written about in the post here (I can’t believe I’m explaining this again, I must be a much worse writer than I thought) is what OTHERS have said about it, and my opinions on how we, the fans, should interpret those comments, deal with them, and process them. That’s it.
And I thoroughly disagree with your assertion that the ensuing discussions violated the moratorium on discussions of David’s personal life. No such discussions have taken place, and when comments have been made that went in that direction, I pointed them out and admonished the commentators who made them. Discussing David’s work (e.g. his video) is not the same as discussing David the person (shall I put that on a digital loop so that everyone can play it over and over again?). Finally, I happen to agree with you that David probably had very little to do with the concept or the execution of the video. But that’s irrelevant because we’re not talking about David. We’re talking about the work.
Thanks, ronaldsf, I thought you might appreciate that (Z formation and all). I confess I don’t like to be brought to that point because it does in fact violate to an extent my own rules for discussion (no personal attacks), but sometimes it can’t be helped.
I too liked the “3 snaps in Z formation,” rascal!
Too much entertainment for one night. Signing off until tomorrow!
lynnslocum #110
A voice of reason. Thank you.
Rascal re:#98
I fully understand this discussion – that is what is so sad.
Well, so we can agree on something, Rascal, and that is that David had little to do with the executing of the video, and that David’s personal life is off limits. I broke right in sounding like I was cutting down every bit of your commentary, and that I did not mean to do. But, to me, it seems odd to have a topic titled ” David is wise to cultivate an ambiguous appeal” even if for the sake of argument. That section just hit me wrong. So, I’m happy it’s now a new day, and this topic really should be bridled. I just can’t think anything positive can come from it. It’s just a topic that will never capture exactly what David thinks, because none of us know what David thinks, and like you have posted, we really have no right to know what he thinks. That is his personal life…and it is off limits. I like your advice…avoid engaging “haters” and always feeling compelled to defend David. Oops! It’s hard not to sometimes.
Okay, Ginger, what part of this thread is discussing David’s private life? In exactly what way has his privacy been invaded? The video is not his private life. And any comments about sexuality in the video are not about him (and, incidentally, were not made here).
So, what are you talking about?
I want to post my 2 cents worth of view in my limited vocab. I view the CRUSH video as a straightforward boy crush on a girl. However, when Rascal posted this thread, I thought I understood his purpose. If i comprehened it correctly. He simply said there are many perceptions being discussed in other forums on the ambiquity in the video. He also anticpation some misunderstanding and he said lets separate David as a person from his work. He took pain to explain and detailed the boundaries for discussion.
IMHO, plain English is not so hard to understand but the trouble lies in some who wish David to fall within the code of conduct set by themselves and let this warp their comments to this thread. I admire Rascal’s patience in trying to further explain the purpose and intent of this thread. And some, I sense it, did not bothered to read (from the way they argue) and just wanted to throw spanner. It would be easier reasoning with a 4 year old.
To some folks, please go back and read the thread and Rascal’s subsequent clarifications, if these can’t calm your nerves, I don’t know what will.
Realmusiclover, thanks for sharing your thoughts, you are very sincere and courageous.
Oooop, first para, 5th line… anticpated not anticpation.
Rascal,
what does it say about this blog discussion that I have one hour before I get in my car and drive four hours through the soggy midwest to get to the Tulsa concert, and yet here I sit, reading and weeping?
Realmusiclover, thank you for your post. You are to blame for getting my tears rolling. Love what you said.
I read this discussion yesterday and posted my thoughts, yet my emotions were mixed. I love this debate. I believe that we (society) need to talk about ‘the gay question.’ We need more and more people to come to a better understanding of where we are on this issue, and to catch a glimpse of where we could be. If more people understand and act accordingly in their personal lives, we’ll move further in the right direction. My biggest qualm is that the main character in the video is young, and I wonder how his real-life mother feels.
One last thought: any deejay who boycotts ANY singer because they think s/he might be gay is a fool. Many greats in the music world are gay. Who cares? My response to a jerky deejays is to turn the dial. I know David needs airplay, but radio station advertisers need an audience. Rascal, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.
#123, I agreed with you. This thread is not about David, but the video, the clarification is clear enough. Even I am not a native English speaker, and I need a dictionary to check some words, I get it.
For some comments, my interpretation are, they are not trying to “wish David to fall within the code of conduct set by themselves”, but also the video, and all fans.
I personally didn’t pick up any ambiguity watching the Crush video. It seemed clear that his focus was firmly on the blonde girl. It doesn’t really matter though as David’s sexual preference is irrelevant and quite frankly nobody’s business.
OK
this is my first post
even though I have followed mr rascal alot
boy do I agree with him about the entertainment intelligencia
And I totally agree with his hard handed approach to comments about
Davids personal life
Stop it
We dont know anything about davids crushes or loves of the moments
DO WE
I met David for like 2 miniutes in Dalllas
Short and skinney with a big smile even though he looked sick
We only talked about Imagine and how I liked it and I told him
he reminded me of a young John Mayer
and he gushed as David would and said thank you
So enjoy this video of Crush
Its totally cool and so David and he is blessed to have good people around him
David is a love person
He sings it my friends
Maybe shocking to the Entertainment Intelligencia and their followers
but who cares about them really
A 17 year old young man
a boy
who wants love
giving it and getting it
I remember him saying in some interview
that he just wanted a girl to be herself
And I was struck by that
Not the girl part but what David was saying about himself
And I can be myself too
Super star artist with real dreams
AND the boy from Murruy who needs his family and friends
AND the whatever
Since I dont know
David so reminds me of Daniel Rancliffe
I hope his family and friends love him forever
Im waiting for his Album so he can sing to me
Kait#125, have a safe trip, and I so look forward to your report about the last concert!
Great post! Completely agree!
good morning! has anybody seen this??
toire.bmi.com/writer.asp?page=1&blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&fromrow=1&torow=25&affiliation=BMI&cae=244894242&keyID=518728&keyname=ARCHULETA DAVID&querytype=WriterID
Well, go ahead…check it out!!!
Sorry!
Look at BMI.com under Writers & Composers.
What are we looking for, silverfoxe? The link doesn’t work.
I’m sooo sorry, I don’t know what the heck I’m doing this morning!! So what’s new, right?
Go to FOD to get the scoop about BMI and David.
There. Now I’ll just continue reading all the rest of the scoop on David.
hey rascal.
first, i wanna say that i havent posted here in a while because, frankly, i’ve been annoyed by many of the posters, and i dont really wanna waste my time telling them why theyre wrong. besides, u do a good job of that.
anyway, i actually saw ur post at the gay men’s blog- i dont remember the name of it, but i saw that u wrote, and i was very happy with what u said.
ok, well, i already told u that i’m 17, and i just finished high school in maryland in may. well, when i was in the 10th grade, one of my good friends who i had known was gay for a while came out to his parents and to people in the school (even tho everyone pretty much knew). about two months later, he hung himself in his closet. to say i was upset is an understatement.
pretty much, ever since then, i have been EXTREMELY passionate about gay rights and everything of that sense. i spent hours researching the history, i went to my school’s gay gay club meetings “lets gabb” (a bunch of my friends were NOT liking that). i was pretty much obsessed for the rest of my sophomore year. it wasnt really because i felt guilty. it was because i was angry at myself, and basically everyone around me.
now, i know i’m not gay. i mean, i’ve only been w/ boys. i mean, i appreciate the beauty of a woman, but well, i’m not into that. so basically, i guess its my friend that made me so passionate. i mean, i dont take any shit from ppl when it comes to that. when ppl say stuff about gay ppl, i’m ready to cuss them out in a heart beat, and i will debate them until they know how idiotic and moronic they are. i even wrote an essay about gay rights that all english teachers in my school now use as the sample persuasive essay. funny anough, i also enjoy talking about it, so ppl can see how closed mided they really are. i guess i just dont want a repeat episode.
fast forward to senior year- david archuleta. well, u know alot of ppl say hes gay. and NOT JUST PPL WHO HATE HIM! i wish some fans would get that thru their heads. yes, some of his haters use it as an insult. but there are also some who just think he is. they rooted for him and voted for him. just because they think hes gay doesnt mean they hate him. so when i said to them how much i loved david, they said “u know hes gay, right?” and i said “whats ur point? i can still love him.” i know they didnt expect that. and to my dumb brother who said it in a accusatory and spiteful manner, i answered, “why do u care? u wanna date him?”
i think thats the attitude that his fans need to take. first of all, its nobody’s business, and 2nd of all, it doesnt matter. and i think its hypocritical for fans to yap on and on about his faith bring such a great thing, and about him being sent from heaven. 1st of all, not everyone here is a christian, and 2ndly, david doesnt even talk about his religion so its funny how his fans think they should. and then they INSIST that he isnt gay. none of us know that as a fact- not even jeff, really. thats david’s business.
i know a fan of david’s that said that she hoped he wasnt gay because then she wouldnt listen to his music. she said that her church told her not to associate w/ gay ppl. i got pretty upset. unfortunately, shes not the only one. i also have an uncle who stopped being a fan of luther vandross because he found out he was gay. so basically, no matter how much me, rascal, or anybody preaches, david will always have homophobic fans- whether they admit it or not. and well, that bugs me. a lot.
and about the video- i dont see it. i wish i could, but i just cant. i guess i’ll watch it again to try and see.
sorry that was so long rascal- i’ve been wanting to get that off my chest for a while. i wanna know what u think.
Rascal, I am not acusing you of calling him gay but some people are. None of us know David’s inner feelings, but if he is straight, like I suspect he is, it must be about as frustrating to be called gay as it if for someone who is Christian to be told he is not.
If people don’t realize by now that I’ve never said one word about David’s orientation — other than not to talk about it — then there’s nothing else I can do to persuade them otherwise.
Rascal,
I am so disappointed about what you wrote regarding DA on the “gay question” – you are just feeding people ideas.
I thought your web site was nice and fair, not any more.
I personally didn’t see any ambiguity watching the Crush video. It is very clear that his focus was on the blonde girl. Anyway, It doesn’t really matter though as David’s sexual preference is irrelevant and nobody’s business. Can we all focus on his talent and what he has taught us all ? to be nice, polite, humble, fair, good son, good friend, good student, etc….. How come you do not discus all of these good qualities?
patymt – Once again, and for the hundredth time, discussions about the video are not discussions about David’s personal life. They are discussions about his work.
This blog is about David the artist. Talking about him as a “good son, good student, good friend” — that is talking about his personal life, which I discourage.
Good morning!
Spiffy new layout, Rascal! I’m pleasantly surprised!
Though it seems like we can’t refer to #s anymore to reply to previous comments? I guess we’ll refer to the time stamps from now on!
I just want to reply to scottnsanfran (7:38am and a good friend of mine!) and djasgirl (10:14am) and thank them for their heartfelt comments. I just want to point out that David’s unique spirit, his connection to his emotional self, and his respect of women trigger so much speculation that he is gay. That says something about our *society* and *culture*. Especially in the U.S. it seems to me, gender stereotypes operate in our society that restrict *all* of us and pressure us to conform into what society thinks we should be. That is another reason why what the people who use this as a way to attack David is so reprehensible.
Also, I personally don’t find much to fault in djasgirl’s gay friends who find it important to talk to her about thinking David is gay. So long as it is in private and not in a public forum such as this. There is a cultural and political significance to the question for gay people who are looking everywhere, left and right for prominent figures to be like themselves, who would like to see that a person like David — a charismatic, generous, talented person, deeply loved by so many people in America — might be gay and also *accepted* by those same people. America, in a sense, has “adopted” him. And if someday he were to decide to go public about this aspect of his personal life and he turns out to be gay, that would be of tremendous cultural significance for gay people and very important.
But leave the speculating out of public forums. Not only for David’s privacy, but also because asserting that David is *either* straight or *not* straight reinforces the restrictions that society places on ALL of us. We should feel *free* to be as creative, musical, emotional, respectful of women, loving people of the opposite gender, or of one’s own gender as much as we want to be. Let’s leave the boy alone and just enjoy what he brings us.
In loving music, we feel that freedom of expression, emotion, and LOVE that reminds us who we are deep down as the fragile, needy, and beautiful human beings we are. David reminds us of that and that is why he has such an impact on all of us. That is universal, my friends. Part of David’s power is that he transcends boundaries, and that is only to praised.
hmm, good point, ron, I hadn’t considered that. I’ll see if I can revise.
rascal- were u reffering to me when u said “i never said he was gay.” i know u never said he was gay. u were saying that some could take the video as having a gay subtext.
what i was yapping about was that david’s fans need to stop taking offense when ppl call him gay (i know u didnt), and that they dont know if hes gay or straight, and that its nobody’s business. and as i can see, certain ppl are still bitching about the article.
i wasnt trying to say “hurray for rascal calling gay!” is that what u think i was trying to say? i was just saying that its been months of speculation, and i was just trying to put my take on THAT, not really on what u wrote about. as u noticed, i never said david was gay. i just said that its ok if he was, or if the video had subtexts that implied that he was, and that there was nothing wrong with that. and the 1st part was just to show u why i was so passionate and annoyed by the way david’s fans have been behaving (to u, and about u writing the article).
i hope u understand me better now. sorry if i gave u a headache.
WOW! rascal! I thought I hit a wrong key (again!).
WHAT JUST HAPPENED!! ( I just love to say that! haha)
And SPELL CHECK>>>for me????
I love what you’ve done to the place! You “redecorated”!
NICE…
And as for “this” article….I thought the “HURRICANE” was in the gulf! I buh-lieve I said this before…Some people just have to see the word “gay” and they get itchy and head-achy..it’s just the homophobic in them. They won’t even
bother to read any further if they see “gay” or “homosexual” or
“queer” or “lesbian” in the title of anything. Oh my gosh, no…It’s like they are so afraid they’ll be infected with something so there’s really no use in trying to explain what you are saying. Sounds to me like your ‘attackers” really didn’t read the article…just the title and that was enough to get them started thinking they are defending David’s honor by attacking you! It would be kinda funny, if it weren’t so ridiculous.
Thanks, djasgirl, for the clarification. And to clarify even further…
>>u were saying that some could take the video as having a gay subtext.<<
I actually didn’t say that. Others were saying that, here and elsewhere. I wanted to address not so much that question, but the question of how, as fans, we should react and discuss such views. People were getting bent out of shape (as some did again here) because they assumed people were talking about David, when in fact people were talking about his work. David is not the same as his work. If he plays a pirate in a video, it doesn’t mean he really robs people on the high seas.
silverfoxe — as others have already said (in a manner of speaking), you are a wise woman inside a hilarious chicky-freak. My affection and admiration for you has grown steadily over the course of your time here. Don’t ever leave.
ya, i totally get u rascal- i think i even said something about it in my post about the video (VFTW was having a field day). and about that gay blog u are on, those ppl are pretty tough. i saw some other stuff that ppl had written about david in previous articles, and man are they tough! but i know u can handle them, and i’m glad ur on there, because some ppl really, seem to hate david. i dont get it. anyway, i was just trying to say that i’m one of ur biggest supporters (other than silverfoxe) and i love petty much every article u write.
and as for the other posters, is there anyway u can create a filtering system of some kind to weed them out? because seriously, its like mentioning “david archuleta” and the word “gay” is the beginning of the apocalypse. as u know, those ppl annoy me- probably more than they annoy u. i know they can get very frustrating. but bravo to u, because u handle them with so much class that others (like me and them) dont seem to have.
oh man, this topic is such a waste of time. the first article in noting david that drove me nuts. don’t you guys know that the more you give it attention, it somehow gets across as relevant or even worth anyone’s time.?? lol! chill out arch angels. the best treatment for this gossip, labeling and coloring is to totally ignore it. geeezh, we arch angels should know better.
djasgirl — Thank you for your kindness. Believe me, I appreciate your sentiments. But filtering prejudice, ignorance, or anger does not make it go away. In fact, it only makes it fester. To me, the most insidious question is, “why talk about it at all?” As if the topic is somehow shameful, or that sweeping it under the rug means it doesn’t exist. It needs to be brought out into the cold light of day for all to see. That’s the only way to demystify it and educate everyone.
I realized when I posted this that I would have to monitor the commentary much more closely than I have ever done, and it was a task, I’ll tell you. But I hope it will serve to enlighten people, especially over time.
o, u have no idea how happy u made me by saying that. u probably read my post in some other article about how upset i was that ppl were saying offensive things to u on ur own blog! i mean, i’m pretty sure they know ur preference, and then they make remarks about homosexuality. theyve got nerve, thats for sure. sometimes, i find myself thinking “david is too good for his fans.” hes so sweet, and some of his fans can be so hateful and hypocritical. its a shame. but of course, i know thats wrong, because david needs as many fans as he can get.
the fact that ADULTS with children can make such remarks really, really disturbs me. and the fact that they are trying to “protect david” annoys me. they call him “a goof christian boy.” ugh!
i just wish this site was what it used to be. i guess i’m a strange fan. for one, i think we can work it out was HORRIBLE, i do NOT think its a good thing that david isnt a good public speaker, and i think he was very much overpraised by the judges on AI on several occasions.! also think david has a ways to go- he is NOT the perfect performer. i know u feel the same way, which is why i admire u. ur honest, and real. that being said, i still love david very much. hes an amazing singer, and person.
i just wish we could discuss david, as in criticize or praise him as we please, without being chastised by other fans. i wish we could discuss things about where we think his career should go, what we think about the choices he has made, and things like that. i wish we could discuss things about what songs he would sound great covering, or a beautiful note he hit the other day. or we could talk about how sweet he was to this girl who hugged him. u know what i mean?
its just that the comments all just make me roll my eyes these days. i mean, i think ppl saying crush is THE BEST SONG EVERRRRR are ridiculous. i just wish we would be more realistic. i mean, gushing is cool, but as i said- we already know david is cute and sweet and has a beautiful voice. i just wish we would discuss his career, and not talk about “why rascal shouldnt have posted this article.” i know its not ur fault, but its still irritating. some comments are just wack.
i hope u got what i’m trying to say- i really wanna know what u think.
Dear Rascal,
I will really appreciate it if you remove that non-sense write up you did on “the gay question”. The fact that you are talking about it is very upsetting. Would you like to have millions of people discussing your life choices? Can you think for a second that you are hurting people with this comments? (David, David’s Mom and Dad, his siblings, his fans, etc.?)
Thank you!
Patymt
djasgirl — your comments are like a breath of fresh air. Two things:
1. People are very passionate about David. That’s a good thing. But sometimes people channel that passion in… unusual ways. We need to practice what I think may be a guiding principle for David: forgiveness (and I don’t think this comment falls into the realm of the moratorium on talking about his personal life because it’s easy to see how forgiveness plays a part in how he endures all manner of invasive fan interaction). His grace is based, in my opinion, on this.
2. Drama generates heat but not a lot of light and it flames out quickly. In the midst of bad feelings and anger and acting-out, it is hard to imagine that anything will be sunny and cheery and sane again. But it always is. Calm returns, the storm clouds part, and everyone returns to the picnic. Perhaps, just perhaps, with a bit more understanding than before.
patymt — Please try — just try — to understand that no one is talking about David’s life choices. We are talking about the video. The only thing I have ever said about David’s life choices is to NOT talk about them.
Djasgirl, I would love to give you a hug for bringing back some sanity into this discussion! I’m so sorry to hear how your friend took his life.
It’s for these kinds of permanent silences that I refuse to be quiet and will join others and shedding light on these issues.
Rascal, loving the new look here!
Rascal – Great commentary. Family events kept me away until now.
Love the new look.
Many commentaries representing a contiuum of perspectives. Love djasgirls insights and realmusiclover’s comments were awesome. Silverfoxe’s last post’s observations were dead on.
After reading through all the comments, it is indeed a reflection of our world. I think this will have expanded or at a minimum challenged our thoughts on the topic.
It was interesting to see how many did not read nor understand the meaning of your article.
Thank you, Rascal, for taking this on. Bravissimo!
I was disappointed that this was even posted. To waste time trying to explain or defend a person in this manner is not necessary. This subtext stuff is b.s. How many groups of teens gather at a pool or lake each summer. Do all guys glance away from guys without a shirt, come on!!
To feed into people that have nothing better to do but invent their own images and fantasies is something fanblast should stay away from.
David is a extraordinary talent and by all that I have followed has vales and morals that most people will not come close to. Let’s stick to positive articles and not feed into the negativity society sometimes drags us into.
Take the article right off the site!!
Dear Johnjon, I agree with you,
Patymt
Kizzi #152:
“It was interesting to see how many did not read nor understand the meaning of your article”
I agreed that many fall into this category, but there are also many whose mind are so twisted they just want to keep on bitching and harping on accusing Rascal for things that he did not said. Or many be they have a score to settle with Rascal.
There is one who just asks Rascal to stick to “positive” articles. If she is the same creature who go round instigating and wrecking havoc for Rascal I don’t know how she got the cheek to come in here after all the venomous remarks she had made on Rascal. And who she think she is to ask Rascal to take the aricle right off the site! Talking about hypocrisy.
Now, on more positve comments. Honestly, I don’t see the ambiquity in the Video, but I also have no problem with the article being discussed. I enjoy reading the different perceptions, it reflects how human minds work in a strange way.
Rascal has explained for the umpteenth time to the people who misunderstand or people who have their private agenda, ever so patiently and politely. I say, Rascal, it is futile, don’t waste time, continue with your good work.
I forgot, I like new layout!
The first thing I want to ask rascal is why did you remove the phrase “yes I’m going there” after the title of this post?
I think I am reading a “subtext” into your posting on this topic. The subtext I’m seeing is that you are a gay man and if there is any chance David is, it would make you really happy. So let’s put it out there and talk about it. Good Lord.
This post does David no good. I am a liberal with a gay brother and I am very supportive of him and every other person who is gay. But I am also very realistic. There is no “gay question” in the video, yet you titled the post as such. CONNECTING THE “WORK IN THE VIDEO” WITH THE “GAY QUESTION” MOST ASSUREDLY CONNECTS DAVID, THE PERSON, TO THIS TOPIC. Can anyone disagree with that? This is common sense right? And because of the homophobic world we live in, this will cast negativity upon David. There isn’t a thing wrong with being gay, but let me just remind you that the majority of the world does not agree. That is just reality.
So why be so self serving in posting this? The vast majority in this world consider “the gay question” negatively. Ugly but true. Look around your world everyone. How many people do you know that are not homophobic ? The vast majority of people are. Young, old, it’s all very upsetting to me but that is the way it is.
So connecting David’s video to this topic hurts David. That’s a no brainer. And posting this was so not necessary. Yet because of the subtext I am reading into your post, you went ahead and did it anyway. The text that you removed from the title really says it all, “yes I am going there”. You must have thought twice about it after you posted and removed that part of the title.
This is your site and you certainly will post whatever the heck you want. But connecting David’s video, with this topic is not going to help David one bit. That goes without saying. I feel sad for David here because he didn’t deserve this from someone who claims to be one of his biggest fan.
Shame on you rascal. I love reading this site, but this one really turned me off. I wish you would delete the entire thread.
manitobaskyline,
Thank you for your comment!!! I am also upset about this article and hope Rascal deletes it ASAP.
Thank you
patymt
manitobaskyline — Your tone is angry, you make condemnations out of assumptions, and you engage in offensive personal attacks. Aside from the fact that these tactics undermine your credibility to any rational and thoughtful reader, I don’t allow such mudslinging on this blog. But I am going to let your comment stand because I think it represents an excellent example of exactly the kind of ignorance and hypocrisy that discussing these topics can often highlight.
Despite your paying politically-correct lip-service to the the notion that “gay is okay,” in fact the entire underlying premise of your criticism is that being gay is shameful and bad and that any association with it — personal or professional or otherwise — is to be avoided. You reference homophobia as some kind of fact that we’re supposed to just live with. That, my friend, is what is truly shameful. You are either lying about your views on homosexuality, or you have no principles.
And as for the sub-title, if you had simply asked me why I deleted it I would have gladly explained it. As it is, I will not justify your rant by addressing it.
patymt I think you’ve made your point at least three or four times. You’re against the post, we get it. If you have nothing new to say, please resist the compulsion to repeat yourself again.
Dear Rascal,
You do not listen do you? I am very sorry you have messed up your blog which was nice up until your nonsense comment on the gay question. I support manitobaskyline and johnjon comments.
This will be my last time visiting your blog.
patymt
rascal, it is not my premise, it’s the vast majority of the world’s premise. And yes, that is shameful and wrong, but it is what it is. I’m not responsible for the world’s view on this. I’m just stating the obvious. I’m also not saying you have to live with the fact. But denying that it exists give YOU no credibility. There is ugliness in this world in this regard and realistically, I don’t see that changing any time soon. You don’t seem to like when someone reads subtext into your words. Maybe that is how David will feel when he sees your post.
manitobaskyline – I never said I denied the existence of homophobia, that would be silly. My point is that prohibiting or limiting expression or discussion about gay issues because of homophobia is simply wrong. It only serves to perpetuate it. When people stood up for civil rights for African Americans would you have stayed seated because “prejudice is just reality” ?
And please, for the 967th time, I am not the one who read subtext into the video (I’ve said several times that I don’t even believe there IS any subtext in the darn video). Other people, in many places, were doing that. I was attempting to talk about what we, the fans, should think and do about such comments and perspectives, and how we should and should not respond to them. THAT is the definition of “The Gay Question.” The question, posed by many blogs and forums around the web, of whether the video contained such elements.
I’m closing the comments now because I think we’ve gone back and forth on this one numerous times already, and there’s no sense repeating the same positions ad infinitum. Thanks everyone for your passionate participation.