The funny thing about the comments I've seen against the Ring of Keys number is that they focus on the ick factor, as if there's something inherently sexual about it, and inherently sexual about queer love. Many have spoken out as finding Ring of Keys hitting shockingly close to home, particularly for queer individuals, where often you aren't really taught that you could, possibly, be gay or bi or lesbian or trans or anything, so suddenly you have this really amorphous realization about something you don't entirely understand. It's not like she's tearing off her clothes with lust, she's just realizing, hey - I feel a connection to this, whatever this is, this masculinity in this woman. And she's not entirely able to express it.
And you read all these positive reactions to the Ring of Keys number, and all these anecdotes, including my own (my dad loved Home Improvement, and I loved Al Borland, and I didn't know what that meant, or why, or how I could feel as I did), and I think it's moving and brave to include the Ring of Keys number, to put to music a moment that so many of us share. And I think it's borderline offensive to find it "icky", as if that moment is "icky" and we should all be ashamed for having it in our own lives. I can't imagine Sydney Lucas isn't a smart girl, and I can't imagine any damage would be done to her by introducing her to the concept of queer love.
It's exactly this spread of knowledge that will help our next generations in finding themselves, whoever they turn out to be.
Updated On: 4/30/15 at 11:49 PM