Mike on Mick...Jealous? Because I sing better? Get more chicks?”

[Gohi]

Mike Love genuinely acted gay throughout much of his performing career, particularly in 1976. Kind of uncomfortable to watch him go limp-wristed, hand-on-hip in his ass-huggingly tight pants. Not sure what he was thinking. Mick never gave off gay vibes, despite his mincing stage presence.

So it's a bad thing to give off gay vibes? It makes you "uncomfortable"? Mick is better because he has never given off gay vibes? Is this in any way an appropriate comment?

Not anything wrong with giving off gay vibes at all. Mike's stage presence is/was cringe-worthy because he's always spouting off how he's been with so many chicks, and (from what I've read about him before transcendental meditation) was a violent guy always trying to prove how tough he is. It comes off as awkward and not very self-aware. Mick seemed confident in his stage presence. Please don't read things into my comment that aren't there, thank you. 

I admit I phrased myself poorly. I should have just said Mike looked creepy as hell. How's that?

Now you're equating "gayness" with creepiness. Wanna give it one more go?

Nope. You're inferring. I love plenty of performers who other people make fun of for "acting gay." I just feel creeped out by Mike's stage presence for reasons I already mentioned. I am not creeped out by gay men, I am weirded out by Mike's stage presence and his lack of awareness. Judging by how he acts when he sees pictures from those times, I'm willing to assume he agrees. I feel just as weirded out when Rivers Cuomo says "yo dawg" and tries to rap. It doesn't work coming from him. Now people will say I think all white people can't rap. I give up.

[Micha]

As long as no ones rights are violated, people should have a right to feel as they choose.

Can you feel as you choose? I can't, I just feel, sometimes I choose to feel different from how I do, but then I still feel the way I do, not the way I choose.

Meaning, not being told or forced to think or feel like someone else wants you too. Seriously, you couldn't figure that out?

Of course I got that, that's not my point, it just seemed strange to me one was supposed to be able to feel as he chooses himself, without implying any other person was involved who tells him what he should feel.

[Mike's Beard]

Some people it seems can't get their head around the notion that you can be tolerant of gay people and not consider them abominations of god and still not wish to see or hear them act in an overtly homosexual manner, esp when it comes to their choice of entertainment.

[Gohi]

I feel like I'm on trial here based on some of the responses and PMs I'm getting. Do I really have to say that I voted against proposition 8, something that would ban gay marriage in MN? That I have plenty of gay friends? That some of my cousins are gay and I love them very much? I mean, I love Prince, The Beach Boys and doo-wop and I spent high school being called gay because of those interests and it didn't bother me at all because there's nothing wrong with being gay. I'm tired of getting attacked for saying that Mike "Mr. Positivity" Love acting like a flaming homosexual made me feel uncomfortable, whereas I never felt cringe-inducing embarrassment for Mick Jagger. Could I have phrased myself better? Sure.

Some people are very sensitive about this and I can understand that. I don't appreciate having my words twisted to imply that I am a bigot or a homophobe.

[drbeachboy]

As long as no ones rights are violated, people should have a right to feel as they choose.

Can you feel as you choose? I can't, I just feel, sometimes I choose to feel different from how I do, but then I still feel the way I do, not the way I choose.

Meaning, not being told or forced to think or feel like someone else wants you too. Seriously, you couldn't figure that out?

Of course I got that, that's not my point, it just seemed strange to me one was supposed to be able to feel as he chooses himself, without implying any other person was involved who tells him what he should feel.

If you followed what was being said, you would have figured it out. The point was, was that people need to come around on their own, in their own time, after thinking a certain way all of their life.

[clack]

So-called gay mannerisms are affected -- you don't automatically get limp wrists and flounce about because you're homosexual, and in fact most homosexuals choose not to affect those mannerisms. Mannerisms you freely choose can of course be criticized or mocked, without the critic being accused of bigotry.

Does thinking that Elton John's look during his 70's performances was preposterous, cheesy, and cheapened his music make you a homophobe? Likewise, Mike's frontman limp-wristed antics during his 70's Jagger phase could be -- and imo should be -- mocked, just as we are free to mock Mike's awkward attempt at doing the Monkey during a 1964 TV performance.

[Bicyclerider]

Another major 60s rock artist who "affected" gay mannerisms - Ray Davies.  He did it purposely to provoke the audience and maybe amuse himself on stage.

Mick has always been in touch with his "feminine" side and has unapologetically strutted about the stage and stolen dance moves from Tina Turner, even wearing a dress at the Brian Jones tribute concert at Hyde Park, and played around with gender roles in Performance.  And didn't he dabble in bisexuality as well with Bowie?

So Mike is in good company. 

[Gohi]

So-called gay mannerisms are affected -- you don't automatically get limp wrists and flounce about because you're homosexual, and in fact most homosexuals choose not to affect those mannerisms. Mannerisms you freely choose can of course be criticized or mocked, without the critic being accused of bigotry.

Does thinking that Elton John's look during his 70's performances was preposterous, cheesy, and cheapened his music make you a homophobe? Likewise, Mike's frontman limp-wristed antics during his 70's Jagger phase could be -- and imo should be -- mocked, just as we are free to mock Mike's awkward attempt at doing the Monkey during a 1964 TV performance.

You said it much better than I could. I apologize for derailing the thread.

[Mike's Beard]

Another major 60s rock artist who "affected" gay mannerisms - Ray Davies.  He did it purposely to provoke the audience and maybe amuse himself on stage.

Ray was clearly doing it as satire, as his music took a music hall type quality about it. Off stage he is of the 'bloody poofs' type.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Another major 60s rock artist who "affected" gay mannerisms - Ray Davies.  He did it purposely to provoke the audience and maybe amuse himself on stage.

Ray was clearly doing it as satire, as his music took a music hall type quality about it. Off stage he is of the 'bloody poofs' type.

Really? If true, how sad.

[Wirestone]

So-called gay mannerisms are affected -- you don't automatically get limp wrists and flounce about because you're homosexual, and in fact most homosexuals choose not to affect those mannerisms. Mannerisms you freely choose can of course be criticized or mocked, without the critic being accused of bigotry.

Does thinking that Elton John's look during his 70's performances was preposterous, cheesy, and cheapened his music make you a homophobe? Likewise, Mike's frontman limp-wristed antics during his 70's Jagger phase could be -- and imo should be -- mocked, just as we are free to mock Mike's awkward attempt at doing the Monkey during a 1964 TV performance.

In other words, if those gay people don't act so damned gay, they won't be discriminated against. It's their choice! So bash away!

I would recommend asking some of your out gay friends if they believe their "freely chosen" behavior in public means they should be criticized or mocked. If you don't have any openly gay friends, then perhaps you shouldn't be posting on this subject.

While I understand you don't believe it, and perhaps don't understand it, this post is the very definition of bigotry. It is most unwelcome.

[Gohi]

N/a

[Wirestone]

Some people it seems can't get their head around the notion that you can be tolerant of gay people and not consider them abominations of god and still not wish to see or hear them act in an overtly homosexual manner, esp when it comes to their choice of entertainment.

Then you are most certainly not tolerant. It really is that simple.

[drbeachboy]

So-called gay mannerisms are affected -- you don't automatically get limp wrists and flounce about because you're homosexual, and in fact most homosexuals choose not to affect those mannerisms. Mannerisms you freely choose can of course be criticized or mocked, without the critic being accused of bigotry.

Does thinking that Elton John's look during his 70's performances was preposterous, cheesy, and cheapened his music make you a homophobe? Likewise, Mike's frontman limp-wristed antics during his 70's Jagger phase could be -- and imo should be -- mocked, just as we are free to mock Mike's awkward attempt at doing the Monkey during a 1964 TV performance.

In other words, if those gay people don't act so damned gay, they won't be discriminated against. It's their choice! So bash away!

While I understand you don't believe it, and perhaps don't understand it, this post is the very definition of bigotry. It is not welcome.

Please do me a big favor, and please re-write what has been said in a non-bigotry type of way, so that some of us who don't mean to offend, won't offend. It is really tough trying to word things in this thread that someone doesn't get offended by.

Or better yet, let's have the whole thread taken down. Jason, Billy, Smile-Holland!

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

I should apologize for the thread derailment. At first, the comment seemed to be in extremely poor taste. Words have consequences... So choose carefully!

Maybe this discussion warrants a thread in the Sandbox, so this thread can get back to Mick/Mike bashing?

My biggest problem with Mike's mid 70s stage personae is that it already belonged to Jagger. Just be yourself, Mr. Love. You're plenty interesting as it is.

[drbeachboy]

I should apologize for the thread derailment. At first, the comment seemed to be in extremely poor taste. Words have consequences... So choose carefully!

Maybe this discussion warrants a thread in the Sandbox, so this thread can get back to Mick/Mike bashing?

My biggest problem with Mike's mid 70s stage personae is that it already belonged to Jagger. Just be yourself, Mr. Love. You're plenty interesting as it is.

Thing is, Mr. Love can't do a damn thing about it now, 37 years later. I guess he is himself, he hasn't done anything like it in years.

[Mike's Beard]

Some people it seems can't get their head around the notion that you can be tolerant of gay people and not consider them abominations of god and still not wish to see or hear them act in an overtly homosexual manner, esp when it comes to their choice of entertainment.

Then you are most certainly not tolerant. It really is that simple.

Not at all. Tolerance to me means you accept a person's right to be gay, it doesn't mean you have to like it - that is also a person's right.

And as pointed out this has nothing to do with The Beach Boys. If you feel that strongly start a gay thread in the Sandbox.

[ontor pertawst]

Why am I imagining Basil saying that to the Major? Damn avatars.

God, move this to the sandbox already so I can stop being unspeakably disappointed in you guys. Geez, it's like seeing your friend steal a tip off a restaurant table or something. Grandma is talking about "the blacks" again!

[Wirestone]

So-called gay mannerisms are affected -- you don't automatically get limp wrists and flounce about because you're homosexual, and in fact most homosexuals choose not to affect those mannerisms. Mannerisms you freely choose can of course be criticized or mocked, without the critic being accused of bigotry.

Does thinking that Elton John's look during his 70's performances was preposterous, cheesy, and cheapened his music make you a homophobe? Likewise, Mike's frontman limp-wristed antics during his 70's Jagger phase could be -- and imo should be -- mocked, just as we are free to mock Mike's awkward attempt at doing the Monkey during a 1964 TV performance.

In other words, if those gay people don't act so damned gay, they won't be discriminated against. It's their choice! So bash away!

While I understand you don't believe it, and perhaps don't understand it, this post is the very definition of bigotry. It is not welcome.

Please do me a big favor, and please re-write what has been said in a non-bigotry type of way, so that some of us who don't mean to offend, won't offend. It is really tough trying to word things in this thread that someone doesn't get offended by.

Or better yet, let's have the whole thread taken down. Jason, Billy, Smile-Holland!

drbeachboy, I regret in retrospect criticizing your post several pages back. I read your explanation and it made a great deal of sense.

These other two posts I just objected to are of a different type, though.

My simple point is this -- both of the recent posts, from clack and Mike's Beard, suggest that discrimination against gay people is the fault of the gay people. And what is this "overtly gay behavior" they're talking about? Is it having sex in public? I doubt it. Is it two men or two women holding hands or kissing? If that's offensive to them, then they should really ask yourself why. Why would they tell gay people that they can't do what straight people do in public every day? Is it to make the straight people feel more comfortable? And if so, why is that gay people's responsibility?

Is this behavior a man acting in a feminine manner? Is it a woman acting in a masculine manner? Not all such men or women are gay. But why should a person's gender expression open them to ridicule, anyway? Would you mock a person's accent or haircut or weight because you thought it was weird? I would hope, that if your parents raised you right, that you wouldn't.

You see, this is the pernicious thing about privilege. (And everyone really should read up on the topic, even if you disagree with the conclusions drawn.) It makes anyone who is not a white, straight male, responsible for the things that make white, straight guys uncomfortable. And at every step of the way, those who hold power will argue until their last breath that it's not them that's being unreasonable or discriminatory -- it's the people who are disturbing them, who are asking them to think and behave differently.

But -- this is the secret -- it's not that hard. Really. You simply ask, how would another person feel? Maybe the other person reading this isn't another white guy who digs chicks. Maybe this other person is a black lesbian woman. Maybe this other person is a woman, full stop. Maybe this other person is transgendered. Or disabled. And maybe all of these kinds of people like the Beach Boys and Brian Wilson, too. Maybe they would like to feel included and welcomed in the discussion. And maybe they would be discouraged by reading that someone finds them off-putting.

[Wirestone]

Why am I imagining Basil saying that to the Major? Damn avatars.

God, move this to the sandbox already so I can stop being unspeakably disappointed in you guys. Geez, it's like seeing your friend steal a tip off a restaurant table or something. Grandma is talking about "the blacks" again!

Thank you.

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

I should apologize for the thread derailment. At first, the comment seemed to be in extremely poor taste. Words have consequences... So choose carefully!

Maybe this discussion warrants a thread in the Sandbox, so this thread can get back to Mick/Mike bashing?

My biggest problem with Mike's mid 70s stage personae is that it already belonged to Jagger. Just be yourself, Mr. Love. You're plenty interesting as it is.

Thing is, Mr. Love can't do a damn thing about it now, 37 years later. I guess he is himself, he hasn't done anything like it in years.

Thanks, Dr. I thought it was actually still the mid 70s  

Yes, Mike has certainly grown into his skin. Now I wish he would try harder to not be himself.

[Wirestone]

Some people it seems can't get their head around the notion that you can be tolerant of gay people and not consider them abominations of god and still not wish to see or hear them act in an overtly homosexual manner, esp when it comes to their choice of entertainment.

Then you are most certainly not tolerant. It really is that simple.

Not at all. Tolerance to me means you accept a person's right to be gay, it doesn't mean you have to like it - that is also a person's right.

And as pointed out this has nothing to do with The Beach Boys. If you feel that strongly start a gay thread in the Sandbox.

Edit.

This makes me way too emotional to post rationally on. All of my basic points are in my earlier post.

[TimmyC]

Mike Love genuinely acted gay throughout much of his performing career, particularly in 1976. Kind of uncomfortable to watch him go limp-wristed, hand-on-hip in his ass-huggingly tight pants. Not sure what he was thinking. Mick never gave off gay vibes, despite his mincing stage presence.

So it's a bad thing to give off gay vibes? It makes you "uncomfortable"? Mick is better because he has never given off gay vibes? Is this in any way an appropriate comment?

Oh my god. Get off your high horse. Please. The guy was making an observation. Get over it.

[drbeachboy]

I should apologize for the thread derailment. At first, the comment seemed to be in extremely poor taste. Words have consequences... So choose carefully!

Maybe this discussion warrants a thread in the Sandbox, so this thread can get back to Mick/Mike bashing?

My biggest problem with Mike's mid 70s stage personae is that it already belonged to Jagger. Just be yourself, Mr. Love. You're plenty interesting as it is.

Thing is, Mr. Love can't do a damn thing about it now, 37 years later. I guess he is himself, he hasn't done anything like it in years.

Thanks, Dr. I thought it was actually still the mid 70s 

Yes, Mike has certainly grown into his skin. Now I wish he would try harder to not be himself.

You write like this all happened yesterday. Why even bother saying the "...be yourself" part? My point was that he hasn't done this for 30 plus years. Nothing more needs to be said about it. I swear this place is nuts, really, really nuts.

[clack]

So-called gay mannerisms are affected -- you don't automatically get limp wrists and flounce about because you're homosexual, and in fact most homosexuals choose not to affect those mannerisms. Mannerisms you freely choose can of course be criticized or mocked, without the critic being accused of bigotry.

Does thinking that Elton John's look during his 70's performances was preposterous, cheesy, and cheapened his music make you a homophobe? Likewise, Mike's frontman limp-wristed antics during his 70's Jagger phase could be -- and imo should be -- mocked, just as we are free to mock Mike's awkward attempt at doing the Monkey during a 1964 TV performance.

In other words, if those gay people don't act so damned gay, they won't be discriminated against. It's their choice! So bash away!

While I understand you don't believe it, and perhaps don't understand it, this post is the very definition of bigotry. It is not welcome.

Please do me a big favor, and please re-write what has been said in a non-bigotry type of way, so that some of us who don't mean to offend, won't offend. It is really tough trying to word things in this thread that someone doesn't get offended by.

Or better yet, let's have the whole thread taken down. Jason, Billy, Smile-Holland!

drbeachboy, I regret in retrospect criticizing your post several pages back. I read your explanation and it made a great deal of sense.

These other two posts I just objected to are of a different type, though.

My simple point is this -- both of the recent posts, from clack and Mike's Beard, suggest that discrimination against gay people is the fault of the gay people. And what is this "overtly gay behavior" they're talking about? Is it having sex in public? I doubt it. Is it two men or two women holding hands or kissing? If that's offensive to them, then they should really ask yourself why. Why would they tell gay people that they can't do what straight people do in public every day? Is it to make the straight people feel more comfortable? And if so, why is that gay people's responsibility?

Is this behavior a man acting in a feminine manner? Is it a woman acting in a masculine manner? Not all such men or women are gay. But why should a person's gender expression open them to ridicule, anyway? Would you mock a person's accent or haircut or weight because you thought it was weird? I would hope, that if your parents raised you right, that you wouldn't.

You see, this is the pernicious thing about privilege. (And everyone really should read up on the topic, even if you disagree with the conclusions drawn.) It makes anyone who is not a white, straight male, responsible for the things that make white, straight guys uncomfortable. And at every step of the way, those who hold power will argue until their last breath that it's not them that's being unreasonable or discriminatory -- it's the people who are disturbing them, who are asking them to think and behave differently.

But -- this is the secret -- it's not that hard. Really. You simply ask, how would another person feel? Maybe the other person reading this isn't another white guy who digs chicks. Maybe this other person is a black lesbian woman. Maybe this other person is a woman, full stop. Maybe this other person is transgendered. Or disabled. And maybe all of these kinds of people like the Beach Boys and Brian Wilson, too. Maybe they would like to feel included and welcomed in the discussion. And maybe they would be discouraged by reading that someone finds them off-putting.

Jesus.

"Would you mock a person's accent or haircut  or weight because you thought it was weird?" So it's come to this? Mocking someone's bad haircut is now a hate crime? How about Bruce's shorts? No longer allowed?

Yeah, I dared to mock Mike's mannerisms that he affected for a time 40 years ago. Actually, I didn't even mock them -- I said it's not necessarily an act of bigotry to mock them. And the white straight privileged reasons for my opinion?

1) Mike is not gay, so criticizing his mannerisms -- that he freely chose to adopt --  is not mocking homosexuals. It's criticizing a decision he made.
2) There are no such thing as inherent "gay mannerisms" in the first place.  It's a style choice, and we should not be called bigots for questioning  someone's style choice.

And to be clear -- I happen to like Jagger's onstage persona. I also liked David Bowie's, and Roxy Music's, and that of some of the era's other glam rockers. Does that mean no one should ever be allowed in polite company to laugh at their makeup, costumes, mannerisms, etc. for fear of being labelled a bigot?