Re: Wow! vs. Kashka?

[glocke@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Gordon Locke )]

In article <1992Oct12.170829.3507@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik) writes:
>	The lyrics to "Wow!" contain a line which *sounds* like: "He's too
>busy hitting the Vaseline".  If this is really how the lyrics go, am I
>mistaken in assuming that Kate is establishing the "He" as a--to be
>technical--homosexual?  If so, I wish she could have found a more appealing
>turn of phrase.  It borders on the offensive, were I the easily offended
>type.

	Yes, I understand the song to be referring to homosexuals, but
in a positive way.  Don't forget, the actor's "Vaseline-hitting" is why
 
"he'll never make the Sweeney (movie theatre?) / Or be that movie queen".  I've always taken this to refer to discSrimination in the acting business.
The song also sez: "We'd give you a part, my love, / But you'd have to
play the fool."  My guess is that this is the sort of implied
condescending attitude such an actor would get a lot of. 
 
>	However, another song on the album, "Kashka from Baghdad"--and here
>I'm sure I'll plunge myself into attacks of flaming from all sides--*seems*
>to imply a homosexual couple.  The line goes, if I hear it right, "Kashka
>from Baghdad lives in sin, they say, with another man but no one knows who." 
>I take this line to mean (since I don't know the gender of the name Kashka)
>that Kashka is also a man.  Now the song is very positive ("They know the
>way to be happy") and I wonder at Kate's inclusion of both lyrics on the
>same album.  Am I interpreting this the way most people do?  Is Kashka a
>woman, really?  What are the thoughts out there?  And what's Kate's opinion
>regarding sexual preference?

	Really fun song, eh?  Again, your interpretation is the one I've
assumed all along.  There was some discussion on r.m.gaffa a while back
on whether Kate is "queer positive" or not.  If her views on women''s
rights, animal testing, etc. are any indication, she's probably ... how
do you say ... open-minded towards the idea of homosexuality.  ie.,
she'd probably vote NO on this Oregon referenndum thing.
	Anyway, Kate could never hold an incorrect opinion, could she?
=^] =^] !!

	- Gord, a.k.a. glocke@morgan.ucs.mun.ca