Boy - Is A Gay Album

[Irvine511]

This may very well be one of the most intelligent posts I've ever read on Interference. Fuck you if you're ripping on Irvine for being not "pseudointellectual," but intellectually inquisitive and insightful, and fuck whoever's doing it for the thinly veiled, backwards gay-bashing which suddenly sprung up in the thread.

Irvine, I've grown VERY interested in notions of sexuality and "otherness" in U2's catalogue and, specifically, in their visual self-representations; the '90s, in particular, are rife for such a discussion. I'm glad that somebody else had the guts to articulate him/herself so wonderfully and to say what I just assumed (correctly, it seems) most people would take the wrong way and get all defensive about before, finally, resorting to prejudicial stereotypes.

The band dressed up like the fucking Village People in '97, folks. There is a CLEAR queer subtext to the identity which U2 has created for itself whether you like it or not. And, as Irvine pointed out, authorial intentionality ultimately doesn't figure into the equation, although as the years go by, I'm pretty sure intentions became quite clear.

Whatever. Try to have open minds, people. It could do you a world of good, even if you're not convinced.

thank you.

i was just about to turn around and walk away from this thread, thinking this was more of an FYM subject, but you've brought up some really interesting points.

the techno angle is very interesting. like it or not, disco and it's 90s counterpart techno has always, always been associated with homosexuality. talk to any DJ, gay or straight, and they will tell you that the best music is always found in the gay clubs. "techno" as we have come to know it started in the african-american gay clubs of Detroit in the very early 1980s (where, not surprisingly, Madonna was hanging out).

heck, MacPhisto was nearly a drag show, and Bono himself admitted it was supposed to be cabaret.

but i suppose it is funnier to make gay jokes.

 

[If you shout...]

heck, MacPhisto was nearly a drag show, and Bono himself admitted it was supposed to be cabaret.

The images of MacPhisto are perhaps what I find the most intriguing. Of course, the fact that the Achtung Baby was born in Berlin is of more than a little importance. At least as far as I read the texts created by the band during this period. Additionally, I'm about 900% sure that Corbijn is gay (perhaps bi-sexual...? either way, I guess I'm engaging in an offensive discourse by even assuming rather than just asking), and the still photographs of the band during the period are often expressly homoerotic. The picture of Bono in the bathtub, for instance; and, again, the decadent photos of Bono making himself up as MacPhisto.

Still, the thread is supposed to be about Boy. How somebody could overlook the cover (and what it's being banned in the US has to say about gender politics), the lyrical references which Irvine has already made clear, and a host of other things (ie, the re-appropriation of the archetypally FEMININE OCEAN for "The Ocean" in order to deal with the motif of the aging/growing BOY) make this issue impossible to overlook if one is willing to open his/her eyes.

"No one, no one is blinder
than he who will not see."

Try to remember that, everybody.

Own up. Stop the hate. I am absolutely certain that the album is not meant to be "homosexual" in any intentional way, but the text makes legitimate this reading. I cannot tell you what this queer undercurrent means or definitively tells us about the band, ourselves, Bono, or whatever else...but it can and should tell us something, whatever it might be.

Bono's not gay. But the gendering of the album is very intriguing. Frankly, I'm amazed that he isn't a more well-respected pillar in the LGBT community.

And Irvine, you should read something I posted in "Dream Out Loud." The thread is titled "La couquille et la clergyman" and deals with gender representation. Maybe it's your cup of tea, maybe not...but it was very interesting for me to write.

Self-plug over, peace out, and please try to remember, everybody, that gay people are neither all child molesters nor perverts. There are black and white criminals, male and female rapists, and both straight and gay molesters. Fucking live with it. Even if it's "just a joke," try to think about what sort of attitude informs such a joke. Why is that funny? And what does that say about us as a supposedly "modern" culture? All of these issues, ironically enough, are relevant to the way this Boy issue is being discussed in this very thread. Have at it.

 

[Muggsy]

This may very well be one of the most intelligent posts I've ever read on Interference. Fuck you if you're ripping on Irvine for being not "pseudointellectual," but intellectually inquisitive and insightful, and fuck whoever's doing it for the thinly veiled, backwards gay-bashing which suddenly sprung up in the thread.

yeah, is intelligent. but as i said before is just a point of view... I see things completely different, cuz i'm different, that's all.

 

[Irvine511]

very well said. i will check out your post.

no idea about Corbijn, but it wouldn't surprise me.

there's so much to say about this topic and i haven't the time now, but i will get back to it.

i will say, however, that what i have always loved about u2 and bono is that he isn't mick jagger. they aren't misogyists. they write about psychological sex, mostly, and the pronoun is more often than not "you" as opposed to "her" or "she" -- it allows a gay person a way into the lyrics, whereas even someone as sensitive and compassionate as bruce springsteen is so specific in his lyrics and uses gendered pronouns that, ultimately, create a bit of a barrier between a potential gay listener and himself. this isn't good or bad, and i adore bruce, but i can't appropriate his lyrics into my head and heart as easily as bono's slippery words.

also, the now thuddingly obvious -- in the RS interview Bono basically says that "one" is about a son trying to come out to his father. that's how i've always understood it, and i know that it is something of a gay anthem.

i also think bono is a perfect person for lesbian Drag Kings to dress up as.

 

[Muggsy]

i will say, however, that what i have always loved about u2 and bono is that he isn't mick jagger. they aren't misogyists. they write about psychological sex, mostly, and the pronoun is more often than not "you" as opposed to "her" or "she" -- it allows a gay person a way into the lyrics, whereas even someone as sensitive and compassionate as bruce springsteen is so specific in his lyrics and uses gendered pronouns that, ultimately, create a bit of a barrier between a potential gay listener and himself. this isn't good or bad, and i adore bruce, but i can't appropriate his lyrics into my head and heart as easily as bono's slippery words.

that's true.... One positive thing about U2 is their open lyrics... you can see what you want to see and you can find yourself in them. I think is funny when people try to analize all that stuff and then they try to accomodate all to a narrow point of view. If boy would be a gay album I wouldnt get it cuz i'm not gay.

 

[If you shout...]

even someone as sensitive and compassionate as bruce springsteen is so specific in his lyrics and uses gendered pronouns that, ultimately, create a bit of a barrier between a potential gay listener and himself. this isn't good or bad, and i adore bruce, but i can't appropriate his lyrics into my head and heart as easily as bono's slippery words.

I know that some contemporary scholarship (though I can't quote or even cite any of it, because I don't remember where I read it) has tried to address queer themes by re-reading some of The Boss's earlier works from a non-heterosexist viewpoint. Again, I'm a bit off-topic, but I know that I've seen specifically queer interpretations of "Backstreets" from the (just re-issued!) Born to Run album. There are plenty of other fleeting examples, but they escape me. Sorry for the aside.

 

[Irvine511]

I know that some contemporary scholarship (though I can't quote or even cite any of it, because I don't remember where I read it) has tried to address queer themes by re-reading some of The Boss's earlier works from a non-heterosexist viewpoint. Again, I'm a bit off-topic, but I know that I've seen specifically queer interpretations of "Backstreets" from the (just re-issued!) Born to Run album. There are plenty of other fleeting examples, but they escape me. Sorry for the aside.

ooooooh, good point!

(now, where is joyfulgirl?)

she posted the lyrics to Backstreets to me and, damn, that song makes perfect sense when you read it from a gay point of view. i can't think of any other songs that do that, with the obvious exception of "streets of philadelphia," but check it out:

[q]One soft infested summer
Me and Terry became friends
Trying in vain to breathe
The fire we born in
Catching rides to the outskirts
Tying faith between our teeth
Sleeping in that old abandoned beach house
Getting wasted in the heat
And hiding on the backstreets
Hiding on the backstreets
With a love so hard and filled with defeat
Running for our lives at night on them backstreets

Slow dancing in the dark
On the beach at Stockton's Wing
Where desperate lovers park
We sat with the last of the Duke Street Kings
Huddled in our cars
Waiting for the bells that ring
In the deep heart of the night
We let lose of everything
To go running on the backstreets
Running on the backstreets
Terry you swore we'd live forever
Taking it on them backstreets together

Endless juke joints and Valentino drag
Where famous dancers scraped the tears
Up off the street dressed down in rags
Running into the darkness
Some hurt bad some really dying
At night sometimes it seemed
You could hear the whole damn city crying
Blame it on the lies that killed us
Blame it on the truth that ran us down
You can blame it all on me Terry
It don't matter to me now
When the breakdown hit at midnight
There was nothing left to say
But I hated him
And I hated you when you went away

Laying here in the dark
You're like an angel on my chest
Just another tramp of hearts
Crying tears of faithlessness
Remember all the movies, Terry
We'd go see
Trying to learn to walk like the heroes
We thought we had to be
Well after all this time
To find we're just like all the rest
Stranded in the park
And forced to confess
To hiding on the backstreets
Hiding on the backstreets
Where we swore forever friends
On the backstreets until the end
Hiding on the backstreets
Hiding on the backstreets...[/q]

 

[Joshua_Tree_Hugger]

I like your insights Irvine

By the way, never knew Stories for Boys was meant to be about masturbation. Noiw the line "sometimes a feeling takes me, sometimes I don't let go" makes a whole lot more sense

 

[financeguy]

This may very well be one of the most intelligent posts I've ever read on Interference. Fuck you if you're ripping on Irvine for being not "pseudointellectual," but intellectually inquisitive and insightful, and fuck whoever's doing it for the thinly veiled, backwards gay-bashing which suddenly sprung up in the thread.

I agree with you.

 

[If you shout...]

I agree with you.

I'm glad to hear it, my good man. I welcome you with open arms and an open mind.

The few, the proud, the reasonable.

 

[joyfulgirl]

ooooooh, good point!

(now, where is joyfulgirl?)

When Boy came out (ok, my age is showing now) I was hanging out in Richmond in the gay subculture which was a very new experience for me. I already had gay friends in college but this was different--it was an older crowd with a different lifestyle, not the regular gay college crowd. A man in my boyfriend's apt. building was an older gay man who lusted after young men but whose partner was another older man in the throes of a sex change operation (that was really eye-opening for me). My boyfriend was the DJ at the local predominately (but not exclusively) gay danceclub. This was all big happenings in a southern city in 1980--just before AIDS (although there were rumors in Richmond of a disease that was killing gays--statistics would argue with me on this but I remember vividly hearing about it). It was a wild time, that summer.

Anyway, so when my boyfriend brought home "Boy" from the record store he was working in later that fall, we listened and read the lyrics and both heard it through the lens of the environment we were in. I heard "boy meets man in the shadows" with both a gay subtext because I was becoming very familiar with that imagery, but also as a coming of age story as well. I really didn't know what Bono meant but I loved that it could be interpreted both ways. It was actually the hook that got me into them. I thought U2 were the musical equivalence of my boyfriend--straight men comfortable with gay men or ambiguous sexuality--which at that time was a rare thing. Mostly I was just blown away that this young Irish band was addressing sexuality so sensitively in their music, regardless of the exact meaning.

 

[joyfulgirl]

And re-reading the lyrics to "Backstreets" today just blows me away.

 

[BVS]

I'm glad this thread took a turn away from gay jokes and equating pedophillia with homosexuality. Sometimes this forum amazes me, but thanks to those who have turned it around.

 

[forty]

Very interesting thread - this and the reinvention thread in the "Upcoming Album" folder have been absolutely fascinating.

<-- I wish I were intelligent enough to add something insightful to the discussion... LOL!

 

[Niceman]

People look around them and only see mirrors.....

 

[Clawgrabber]

Very interesting thread - this and the reinvention thread in the "Upcoming Album" folder have been absolutely fascinating.

<-- I wish I were intelligent enough to add something insightful to the discussion... LOL!

where is the "upcoming album" thread???

i can't find it.

 

[AtomicBono]

The images of MacPhisto are perhaps what I find the most intriguing. Of course, the fact that the Achtung Baby was born in Berlin is of more than a little importance. At least as far as I read the texts created by the band during this period. Additionally, I'm about 900% sure that Corbijn is gay (perhaps bi-sexual...? either way, I guess I'm engaging in an offensive discourse by even assuming rather than just asking), and the still photographs of the band during the period are often expressly homoerotic. The picture of Bono in the bathtub, for instance; and, again, the decadent photos of Bono making himself up as MacPhisto.

Still, the thread is supposed to be about Boy. How somebody could overlook the cover (and what it's being banned in the US has to say about gender politics), the lyrical references which Irvine has already made clear, and a host of other things (ie, the re-appropriation of the archetypally FEMININE OCEAN for "The Ocean" in order to deal with the motif of the aging/growing BOY) make this issue impossible to overlook if one is willing to open his/her eyes.

"No one, no one is blinder
than he who will not see."

Try to remember that, everybody.

Own up. Stop the hate. I am absolutely certain that the album is not meant to be "homosexual" in any intentional way, but the text makes legitimate this reading. I cannot tell you what this queer undercurrent means or definitively tells us about the band, ourselves, Bono, or whatever else...but it can and should tell us something, whatever it might be.

Bono's not gay. But the gendering of the album is very intriguing. Frankly, I'm amazed that he isn't a more well-respected pillar in the LGBT community.

And Irvine, you should read something I posted in "Dream Out Loud." The thread is titled "La couquille et la clergyman" and deals with gender representation. Maybe it's your cup of tea, maybe not...but it was very interesting for me to write.

Self-plug over, peace out, and please try to remember, everybody, that gay people are neither all child molesters nor perverts. There are black and white criminals, male and female rapists, and both straight and gay molesters. Fucking live with it. Even if it's "just a joke," try to think about what sort of attitude informs such a joke. Why is that funny? And what does that say about us as a supposedly "modern" culture? All of these issues, ironically enough, are relevant to the way this Boy issue is being discussed in this very thread. Have at it.

to this post and irvine's as well. Nice to see some intellectual discussion on what is a perfectly valid subject. I don't know if anything Bono wrote on the Boy album had anything to do with being gay, but he's said himself that he has many gay friends, so even if he wasn't writing from his own experiences, he could have been writing from the experiences of those around him. And even if he wasn't writing about homosexuality at all, it's still perfectly okay to interpret some of the lyrics to mean such. Someone in this thread said (and this is me paraphrasing here, I'm too lazy to quote) that it's annoying how people try to assert that they know the right or real meaning of a song when really a song should be open to anyone's interpretation to mean whatever you think it means, regardless of the author's original inspiration. I love knowing what Bono, or any lyricist for that matter, was writing about in whatever song, but that doesn't stop me from looking at the lyrics in different ways. Take a song like One - about a gay son coming out to his father - obviously the song has taken on a more universal meaning of, well, "we're one but we're not the same, we get to carry each other." I personally have always viewed the song as one of a relationship that is falling apart - divorce, basically, though I've always thought it could be interpreted as a couple fighting but staying together anyway (one life with each other) or a breakup. Now, none of that was what Bono was really writing about (though Edge's divorce could have been a factor in One, as well as the band's near-breakup), but does that make my interpretations less valid?

I like this thread, it's very thought-provoking, and I'm glad it's moved beyond close-minded dismissal and bad jokes.

 

[If you shout...]

People look around them and only see mirrors.....

I'm sorry, but I honestly don't know what this means....?

 

[yolland]

they write about psychological sex, mostly, and the pronoun is more often than not "you" as opposed to "her" or "she" -- it allows a gay person a way into the lyrics, whereas even someone as sensitive and compassionate as bruce springsteen is so specific in his lyrics and uses gendered pronouns that, ultimately, create a bit of a barrier between a potential gay listener and himself. this isn't good or bad, and i adore bruce, but i can't appropriate his lyrics into my head and heart as easily as bono's slippery words.

also, the now thuddingly obvious -- in the RS interview Bono basically says that "one" is about a son trying to come out to his father. that's how i've always understood it, and i know that it is something of a gay anthem.

That's a great point about the pronouns, I'd never thought about that specifically before. I think of Bono's lyrics as being "slippery" and wide open in that he tends to dive directly into the messy emotional heart of a situation, rather than standing outside and delivering a conventional narrative description of it. And it's the "deepest," most irreducible levels of these emotions he usually addresses, not their contextualized, situation-specific forms. So a song that may very well have been occasioned by, e.g., an argument between father and son transcends that particular situation to become a broader and deeper--yet all the more searingly personal and intimate--meditation on betrayal, rejection, abandonment, and reconciliation.

I must admit to being bemused when I read that comment in the new RS, though--this is about the fifth "original" intent Bono himself has ascribed to "One" since AB's release. But whatever--the bittersweet emotions its power comes from articulating so eloquently are, for better or for worse, universal.

Queer readings of U2 aside, though, I do think there's something to be said for cheekily direct appropriation of the dominant cultural discourse, with a nudge and a wink, from time to time. I enjoy queer theory and its pomo/lit-crit/deconstructionist relatives , but sometimes I can't help wishing all these well-meaning intellectuals would put down their pens, take their own paeans to "irony" and "playfulness" to heart, and revel in a nice, cathartic, old fashioned

every now and then. But, perhaps that's just the eternal teenager in me.

 

[forty]

where is the "upcoming album" thread???

i can't find it.

http://forum.interference.com/t144905.html

Sorry about that! The folder's technically called "Where the Album Has No Name".

 

[Clawgrabber]

thanks!

 

[For Honor]

I'm glad this thread took a turn away from gay jokes and equating pedophillia with homosexuality. Sometimes this forum amazes me, but thanks to those who have turned it around.

This has been quite the phoenix of a thread. One of the better I've seen in a while. I see it as being another testament to U2's awesomeness, essentially. I also see it as a huge reason for me to get the BOY album, as it is one of the last ones that I do not have in my own collection, though I've heard most of the songs.

Lastly, I see this thread/U2's works as an excellent representation (for me, at least), of a connection between artistic expression, interpretation, intelligence, practical logic, and most of all, a huge bridge between the intangibleness of a thought or emotion or other similarly artistic item, and a tangible, practical, solid, substantial and meaningful thing that can be applied to the world around us.

I know that is a rather elaborate description, but I am describing something that I find rarely, or at least, have found so easily. Essentially, there is an essence of "bridging the gap between dream and reality", and things that do that are very intriguing to me.



I've nothing substantial to contribute to the thread, just a personal observation. Thanks, everyone, you've allowed me to see something that I look for and seldom find. And such things are very inspiring.

 

[Niceman]

I'm sorry, but I honestly don't know what this means....?

I mean that people see themselves in everything around them. I hear "Boy meets man" and gayness is the VERY LAST thing that occurs to me. Someone who equates boys and men meeting with sex would see things differently. It speaks a lot less to the source material than to the preconceptions of the audience.

 

[If you shout...]

I mean that people see themselves in everything around them. I hear "Boy meets man" and gayness is the VERY LAST thing that occurs to me. Someone who equates boys and men meeting with sex would see things differently. It speaks a lot less to the source material than to the preconceptions of the audience.

Well, I'm not myself gay, nor am I the pedophile which you seem for some reason to think I am (and maybe some other posters, as wel)...so I guess I still don't see where this ridiculously narrow-minded and reductive approach comes from. I'm resisting the temptation to rip you a new one as we speak, but rather than that, I'll be a better person and just tell you that I think that has to be one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard in my life. And I've heard some shit, in my time.

Way to reduce issues of sexuality to no more than, "You're gay, so you think everything is gay." Assuming that you're straight, have you not considered that you yourself are doing the EXACT same thing that you're accusing us of doing? You're hetero. You see the songs as hetero. Props to you for thinking things through. I see you've done a remarkable job.

I would appreciate it if the moderators could perhaps say something about the sort of posting which "Niceman" has here made, and even moreso about some of the earlier, far less appropriate ones. Why is it acceptable to say something as horrible as "gays are pedophiles" without suffering any consequences?

There's nothing wrong with not accepting queer readings of U2's various texts, but to say something like what you've implied is uncalled for, rude, and closed-minded. Straight people, you know, are also allowed to investigate LGBT concerns. I'm an ally and I'm fuckin' proud of it.

I'll also note that the old man/boy references bear rather an obvious similarity to their most obvious concrete referent, Irishman James Joyce; particularly his writing in Dubliners. I'm not entirely sure what to make of Joyce from a queer perspective, as his literary voice is more than a little bit complicated. I know he was married and all, but so many of his works retain a powerful homosexual current. It's very interesting. Either way, the specific story I'm referring to is called, if memory serves, "An Encounter."

One of the best collections of short fiction ever written, the book is essential to understanding parts of this album from any perspective.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Gosh, I really wish I had time to give to this thread but here I am with wet hair trying to get out the door to work. I will be interested to hear how Niceman responds but it's possible he was referring to my post where I said that because of the gay subculture I was hanging out with when Boy was released I immediately heard gay references in that record. Perhaps he didn't mean that if you hear gay references it must mean you're gay but that you have an awareness due to your environment that others may not have so that such references wouldn't occur to others.

I also want to clarify that when I say I heard gay references in the 'boy meets man in the shadows' line I am not AT ALL equating pedophilia with gayness (surely my FYM friends in here know this about me) but rather I was thinking more of 'boy' as young man of sexually active age (i.e., guy), not 'boy' as in child. Many apologies if anyone read something offensive into what I said. The very thought that someone might have is horrifying to me.

I don't actually disagree with Niceman's statement that we see ourselves in everything (as long as he didn't mean "if you see gay subtext it means you're gay"). In psychology it's called projection. We all do it. I don't have a problem with that idea but again, I'll withhold judgment until he clarifies what he meant.

 

[randhail]

I would appreciate it if the moderators could perhaps say something about the sort of posting which "Niceman" has here made, and even moreso about some of the earlier, far less appropriate ones. Why is it acceptable to say something as horrible as "gays are pedophiles" without suffering any consequences?

Are you thinking he should be thrown in jail? taken out behind the woodshed and beaten? or maybe just having his pants pulled down in public?

 

[Irvine511]

I also want to clarify that when I say I heard gay references in the 'boy meets man in the shadows' line I am not AT ALL equating pedophilia with gayness (surely my FYM friends in here know this about me) but rather I was thinking more of 'boy' as young man of sexually active age (i.e., guy), not 'boy' as in child. Many apologies if anyone read something offensive into what I said. The very thought that someone might have is horrifying to me.

i never thought that at all.

here might be a point of misunderstanding -- in gay culture, the word boy, often spelled "boi," is a reference to a particular type of gay man. it has nothing, repeat: nothing, to do with actual children. a "boi" is usually a young man (18-25), or just a youngish looking man, who tends to be svelt, smooth, and embody certain gay stereotypes such as spending lots of time in clubs and bars, loving dance music, and being a bit more effeminate than your average gay guy.

btw, the most offensive thing i can imagine is the equating of homosexuality with pedophilia. firstly, more girls are sexually abused by adults than boys, and it's usually at the hands of an older male relative. it's also important to point out that pedophiles -- by this we mean people who are attracted to pre-pubescent children -- are more likely pre-sexual than homo or heterosexual. so it's less that, say, a priest is a homosexual and more that he's pre-sexual, and also that he has access to males -- say, church sleep overs or the locker room or whatever -- than he does to females.

 

[joyfulgirl]

i never thought that at all.

here might be a point of misunderstanding -- in gay culture, the word boy, often spelled "boi," is a reference to a particular type of gay man. it has nothing, repeat: nothing, to do with actual children. a "boi" is usually a young man (18-25), or just a youngish looking man, who tends to be svelt, smooth, and embody certain gay stereotypes such as spending lots of time in clubs and bars, loving dance music, and being a bit more effeminate than your average gay guy.

Thank you--that is precisely what I meant, the exact image that line called up for me.

I think this clarification is very important to this discussion and may in part account for the misunderstandings early on in the thread.

 

[If you shout...]

Are you thinking he should be thrown in jail? taken out behind the woodshed and beaten? or maybe just having his pants pulled down in public?

No.

 

[Niceman]

Well, I'm not myself gay, nor am I the pedophile which you seem for some reason to think I am (and maybe some other posters, as wel)...so I guess I still don't see where this ridiculously narrow-minded and reductive approach comes from. I'm resisting the temptation to rip you a new one as we speak, but rather than that, I'll be a better person and just tell you that I think that has to be one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard in my life. And I've heard some shit, in my time.

Way to reduce issues of sexuality to no more than, "You're gay, so you think everything is gay." Assuming that you're straight, have you not considered that you yourself are doing the EXACT same thing that you're accusing us of doing? You're hetero. You see the songs as hetero. Props to you for thinking things through. I see you've done a remarkable job.

I would appreciate it if the moderators could perhaps say something about the sort of posting which "Niceman" has here made, and even moreso about some of the earlier, far less appropriate ones. Why is it acceptable to say something as horrible as "gays are pedophiles" without suffering any consequences?

There's nothing wrong with not accepting queer readings of U2's various texts, but to say something like what you've implied is uncalled for, rude, and closed-minded. Straight people, you know, are also allowed to investigate LGBT concerns. I'm an ally and I'm fuckin' proud of it.

I'll also note that the old man/boy references bear rather an obvious similarity to their most obvious concrete referent, Irishman James Joyce; particularly his writing in Dubliners. I'm not entirely sure what to make of Joyce from a queer perspective, as his literary voice is more than a little bit complicated. I know he was married and all, but so many of his works retain a powerful homosexual current. It's very interesting. Either way, the specific story I'm referring to is called, if memory serves, "An Encounter."

One of the best collections of short fiction ever written, the book is essential to understanding parts of this album from any perspective.

You have issues....

Again, people look around and they see their own issues. I didn't suggest that you were a pedophile, or gay, or anything like that.

I mentioned the "boy meets man" line because I noticed that someone had singled it out earlier in the thread.

When I hear "boy meets man" sex is the last thing on my mind. Does that mean that I think you are gay because you hear the line and imagine/assume sex? I suggest that you see the world VERY differently than I do if you write sex into that. Am I suggesting that YOU personally do? NO. But if you do, then that says a lot more about you than it says about the album. What it says, I wouldn't presume to guess, except it would reflect what you imagine a man and a boy do together....

As far as the moderators doing something about me...don't be such a nazi. That comment was unwarrented, inapropriate, and rude. Because I don't imagine men and boys have sex or think that that is internal to the album, I'm a criminal? Try and deal with your personal issues before posting next time, don't take them out on me...

Best,
Niceman