Thanks to Christina for sharing this video via Google Reader —
We spent Tuesday in my class (AAAS 171a: Reggae Representation, Race and Nation) discussing sexuality and homophobia in Jamaica, and I wish that I had stumbled onto this in time to bring it into the conversation. One of the things we talked about was the potential for YouTube-mediated, diasporic expressions of masculinity to (re)animate discussions among Jamaicans about sexuality and community.
In contrast to the ways that Brooklyn-Jamaican hipster kids (sorry to invoke the h-word again — it likely obscures more than it reveals) are challenging more “trad” notions of macho respectability, the YouTube performances by self-proclaimed “gay boys” (or even “bati boys”) like sexysupacat are perhaps inherently more confrontational as putative outsiders attempt to negotiate their love of dancehall (or other genres) against the sometimes extreme anti-gay sentiments located therein.
“Gay Asian Boy Dances Dancehall” is a fascinating text/intervention, obviously enabled by the power of YouTube to project and affirm one’s self & identititity without much danger of face-to-face encounter. Suffice to say, the video has generated a lot of heat in the comments, though, remarkably, there appears to be a preponderance of positive, encouraging words —
As Christina noted, though, what is perhaps most interesting is that way that sexysupacat himself frames what he’s up to —
check the tags!
Though his words may seem a bit hyperbolic in places (“causing AIDS”?), his concerns are not by any means misplaced. Whether this sort of thing serves to change some Jamaicans’ minds about the issue is an entirely ‘nother question of course.
Beyond that, though, what also seems significant here is the way that YouTube’s mirror/stage is facilitating not just inter-group conversations (say, between gays and homophobes) but, importantly, intra-group exchanges as well. The videos from sexysupacat leads to tons of “gay boy dancing” vids, and I can only imagine that certain “gay boys” in isolated parts of the country/world find solace, comfort, and other things in the unprecedented ability to watch and share with other gay boys.
10 years ago, maybe even 5, that would have been a lot more difficult. I’m not sure we can underestimate the importance of these new public/private spheres. One of these days years, the Prop 8s of the world will surely fall (black people aren’t the problem — old people are), and then we can all share videos where we dance in jubilation — to dancehall or not.
i’m not sure if you are meaning to say that it’s hyperbolic to claim that homophobia causes HIV/AIDS, but in that case i have to call you out. approaching HIV/AIDS from a strictly medical perspective obviously you are right – transmission of the HIV virus and lack of treatment is what causes AIDS. however someone as astute as you should be able to make the connection about 1) homophobia as a reason for underfunding and lack of attention to HIV/AIDS 2) transference of stigma of homophobia to HIV/AIDS and vice versa 3) how homophobia is an obstacle to improved prevention methods for gay, bi, same gender loving and other men who have sex with men 4) how the social fabric affects the spread of disease, particularly those spread through taboo activities 5) how the universality of homophobia’s message – “you, gay/lesbian/bi/trans person, are worthless and evil” – undermines science-based efforts at individual behavioral interventions. if people do not feel that their lives are worth anything due to homophobia (and combined with racism, ageism, misogyny etc) then they are not going to work hard to save their lives by protecting themselves from HIV/AIDS. the denial of that reality is full on from gov’t types, the CDC and of course conservatives, but hopefully progressive minded folks like yourself and yr blog readers will realize that stopping HIV is about a hell of a lot more than “use a condom.”
Thanks for your comment. I quite agree. I think the claim of direct causation (i.e., transmission / genesis) is obviously incorrect, but when we consider the greater context/effects, it’s clear that there is something of a direct relationship between homophobia and HIV rates. Which is why, in the very same sentence, I linked to a piece detailing that very relationship in Jamaica.
totally, i guess i just didn’t see why the use of the hyperbolic comment then, but whatevs. i mean causing does not necessarily equal transmission, so obv he may not even have meant it to be interpreted as such. but whatevs, great post regardless. just tired of seeing my ppl die that’s all, and the continued denial of the links between hiv and homophobia. keep up the good work!
It may be worth noting here that there’s a very short article in the New Yorker in which Prince makes some vague disapproving comments about gay marriage (and possibly about homosexuality in general–the author seems more interested in reporting that Prince’s new house in California was originally built by Vanna White’s ex-husband than pressing Prince on his view of homosexuality). You can check out the whole article (such as it is) here: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/11/24/081124ta_talk_hoffman
The quote in question is:
I’ve been seeing that Prince piece all over the place today, and it seems to be fueling a fair amount of disappointed hand-wringing. I have to admit that I don’t see his statements in that piece to be particularly homophobic. He implies that gay marriage is to the left of his own position (which lands him alongside Obama, among others — if, sure, to the right of me — not that I really think the question of “gay marriage” should be a left/right political issue; personally, I don’t think the state should have anything to say about “marriage”). And he explains that in his reading of the Bible “God” had to “clear” things out b/c people were unable to control their hedonistic urges. Yeah, we might read this as putting him in the same kooky kamp that tends to think homosexuality is a slippery slope toward bestiality, which is patently ridiculo. Or maybe it’s just a more metaphorical reading about self-discipline.
A more generous reading simply sees Prince as being a slightly conservative dude when it comes to sex/uality, which, yeah, is still pretty strange given his oeuvre and all. And the attn in that piece to his home — and his soup! — is pretty odd too. It struck me as a way of exoticizing him (and his views) and it seems to have been read as such.
Right. Count me among the disappointed hand-wringers, I guess, but I’m mainly disappointed that the article itself was so short and lacking in anything resembling a follow-up to Prince’s statement. I agree that Prince’s views on sexuality remain ambiguous (which is why I said originally that he made “some vague disapproving comments about gay marriage (and possibly about homosexuality in general).” I’m not really sure how the phrase “sticking it wherever” would be much evidence of tolerance of homosexuality, but possbily that could be a phrase more against promiscuity in general than against homosexuality in particular. So my problem, mainly, is that Prince comes out of seclusion and does an interview how many times a year? Not very many. (He’s certainly not answering my phone calls.) And he says something pretty controversial to Claire Hoffman (the writer of this piece), and she just skims over it without following up or acting as if it’s anything out of the ordinary? I’m not sure if I should be mad at Hoffman, her editor, or the arch, understated style of the New Yorker. But I feel like we missed on opportunity to engage Prince on an important and controversial topic. So on the level of being a fan of Prince, I don’t really care that much what his views are about homosexuality. Oh, I care a little–we all want the people we admire artistically to share our political and social views–but it’s not really going to effect my relationship with his music, which I’m going to groove to, regardless. But on an intellectual level, I am very interested in what his views about homosexuality are, so I’m disappointed that Hoffman didn’t pursue this topic with him.
True, opportunity squandered. I too would have liked to hear him articulate a more “purple” take on things than he is given a chance to do here.
The question of whether we can still groove along is not such an easy one, I think. One (gay) friend who passed along this story implied that he didn’t want to believe this about Prince precisely because it would sully his experience of the man’s music, which he has cherished. That’s a loss, no doubt. It’s not unlike the conundrum presented by reggae DJs who occasionally brandish homophobic rhetoric in their performances but might otherwise offer uplifting, soothing, sensuous songs. Reminds me as well of a story I was told about the reception of Khia’s “My Neck, My Back” in Jamaica: crowds would boo at the lyrics concerning taboo sexual practices but would otherwise sing along.
It’s a tough one, and perhaps the difficulty of separating the “intellectual” levels from the musical / expressive ones might be underscored by taking intellectuals as examples — say, someone like Foucault who, for all his theoretical / methodological dazzle, also did some pretty questionable things (concerning power/knowledge) in his “private” life. Or the way Carl Jung has suffered in reputation around the question of his Nazi sympathies, etc. Tricky, sticky stuff.
Indeed, very tricky. And perhaps to clarify what I wrote earlier, all I mean to say is that we CAN still enjoy his music, if we want to. If it so happens that Prince is a raging homophobe, though I find such beliefs offensive, I can still make use of his music, the same way that you mentioned people can sing along to the parts of “My Neck, My Back” that they like and boo the parts that they don’t. But you’re right, I suspect that there are quite a few people for whom the revelation that Prince is not 100% tolerant of homosexuality would fundamentally interfere with their enjoyment of the music. And both are perfectly valid responses. (And it would also be foolish not to acknowledge that–as a straight, white, middle class, American male–it is no doubt easier for me to overlook it when people I otherwise admire express intolerant beliefs, since people of my sexual orientation, race, class, nationality, and gender are rarely the target, and my privileged position is rarely under attack or questioned.)
i dunno wayne, its sorta ambiguous exactly as to where he stands but it does seem a pretty clear saddam & gomorrah reference, with its own violent connotations that definitely part with Barack’s ideas of homosexuality. And its clear hes not making a general statement about not believing in marriage..
“indeed, very tricky” – INDEED! Its always confusing when this happens. Do we boo the hate and dance along anyway, or do we boo the whole artist? If you believe strongly enough, can you even rationally respond, as music is this weird emotional/vibe/connection thing anyway? Like i posted about once, sometimes I feel like I have this litmus test, and as much as i see it as being unhelpful, its unavoidable in that it ruins the enjoyment whether I want it to or not.
That said, im not fan of the ‘lets boycott / hate on’ __ artists w/o trying to engage or create a conversation, (or even getting the chance to explain themselves) which usually leads to the sort of culture where publicists release dumb statements, people stay mad, and discourse ends. I feel like there has to be a better way to get people to answer to their beliefs. &&&& Esp when dealing w/ someone as otherwise dope as Prince!
So Prince has changed. Isn’t it general knowledge? He’s been a seventh-day adventist since the mid-nineties, which would explain his views. You can safely bet he didn’t hold those same views in his sexualised heyday…
Yes, it’s general knowledge, and indeed, more specifically, the article in question describes him as a Jehovah’s Witness. I suppose that explains his views, yes. Perhaps there’s something interesting going on here, though: people really want him to reconcile his previous views (expressed in songs) with his present ones. Probably not gonna happen. Still, the fact that he leaves things fairly ambiguous (to my mind) in this interview suggests that he is still hoping to walk a middle/purple ground.
Also, for the record, Prince is apparently claiming he was misquoted in that NYer piece.