Hard Times for Clay Achin'

I was catching up with Andretta the other day and mentioned the whole Clay Aiken to-do which she hadn't yet heard about. The story, reported in the New York Post holds that nine of Clay's (former) fans are suing his record label, alleging that they were misled by his "well-crafted public image" which led them to believe that he was "virginal" or "asexual." Turns out former Green Beret John Paulus alleged that he had sex with Aiken and these allegations have apparently caused RCA to put the release of his upcoming album on hold.

Wow. That's a lot to unpack, and I'm not sure where to start. What the hell, I'll take a stab at the "virginal" or "asexual" portion. Point one: temporality. Not to diss anyone's sexual choices but I'm not sure a) how one can be attracted to a "virginal" or "asexual" icon or b) how one could expect this image to last in perpetuity. Remember "Virgin" Britney? Yeah, me neither. Note to abstinence-only bandwagon riders: abstinence ends someday. Unless, that is, you put bars on the wagon (chastitybelt).

Point two: gaydar. My guess is that these fans don't possess it. Then again, these fans may, indeed, have no gay friends whatsoever, which is probably why they filed a lawsuit. I can't imagine that this debacle arose from a particularly virulent strain of cataloging specificity: "Dammit, I can't put Clay Aiken in with Erasure and the Village People! He belongs in the Charlotte Church section." The lawsuit probably started out something like "Omigod! I like a gay person! Does...not...compute. Uhhh...lawsuit!" For future reference: when Cathy Griffin queers up your fave singer's moniker (i.e., "Gaiken"), it's for a reason.

Point three: history. People have been "misled" by actors' and singers' images for years, mostly because most audiences (and I'm talking to the Aike-traitors here) are homophobic. Rock Hudson and Liberace are only the icing on this tall and glorious multi-tiered entertainment layer cake. And, to the best of my knowledge, nobody sued them.

Point four: truth in advertising. In their objection to Aiken's image, these fans noted that "...much of the promotion behind any product is a well-crafted public image. For the recording industry it is not just about the music or the CD, but creating an image around the artist. They accomplish this through music videos and carefully managed media interviews and appearances." Yes, yes, I agree. Performing is about "performance" and relies on the successful realization of a character. Your point? "We are looking to the Federal Trade Commission to see whether these companies that represent and promote their artists in a false and deceptive manner will be held accountable." Wha-ha!?! Following this reasoning, I'd have to insist that my favorite rappers are actually gangsters and that Madonna keeps her ass out on the dance floor instead of at home with the kids. And that can't be healthy.

While I'm no fan of Aiken's music—I consider myself the ACLU of sound—I do sympathize with his place in this situation. By playing it straight, and being called out, he's scared the straights. What they don't know, though, is that much of "straightness" itself is indebted to gay culture (as much as, one might argue, "gayness" is indebted to straight culture). I say let the man be. He wasn't trying to rock your world to begin with; he was just trying to be invisible.