A senior Russian lawmaker and deputy chair of the State Duma committee on family, women, and children has asserted that the actions of the Tatu group contributed to a rise in visibility and acceptance of LGBT individuals in Russia. She questioned how legislation banning LGBT propaganda would operate on a national news platform if adopted, prompting a broader discussion about media control and cultural messaging.
She reflected on how times have changed since the days of the group Tatu, noting that younger generations would not necessarily expect women to date women. She argued that public exposure of such relationships influenced behavior, as images and themes appear across channels and channels of information.
For her, music carries meaning beyond rhythm and lyrics; it sends a message urging audiences to imitate or explore certain lifestyles. During a panel, she referenced the Tatu song promising a provocative message and faced a counterpoint from an expert affiliated with a patriarchal commission, who dismissed the song as a national treasure that should be tolerated but not celebrated in public life.
She suggested that if a work resonates with someone, it should be consumed privately using headphones, while arguing that existing productions should be kept out of the public arena. She also mentioned the work of a well-known artist, asserting that while people may be familiar with such artists, public displays should be curtailed.
The deputy compared homosexuality to a medical condition and urged individuals to seek professional help, using a medical analogy about treatment when ill. She emphasized that boys should present as boys and girls as girls, drawing a parallel between illness and personal identity and urging those who disagree with a condition to address it privately rather than broadcasting it publicly.
At the press conference, she proposed that after enacting a ban on LGBT propaganda, gay clubs might gradually shut down on their own. She suggested that people could meet discreetly within their private homes and cautioned against public enforcement of such gatherings.
The deputy also insisted that the law would not restrict artists in any fundamental way. She advised creators of LGBT-themed works to pursue their passions quietly and personally, without seeking public validation. She framed Russia as a center for reviving traditional family values, aligning the policy with national cultural priorities.
“Nature does not depend on us”
The Tatu group dissolved in 2011, and since then the two remaining members have occasionally performed together. One member is married with two children, while the other has remarried. This second member has publicly identified as Orthodox and attends church regularly. A public relations representative for the latter indicated she would not comment on current discussions due to personal circumstances.
A composer who helped create Tatu commented on the deputy’s remarks, noting that some ideas may have shifted public perception. He observed that there has not been a formal statistical study of the group’s impact, but he acknowledged a possible increase in public demonstrations of affection. He emphasized that changes in social openness could reflect broader shifts in society even if they are not strictly caused by a musical act.
While not ruling out a positive effect, the composer warned against assuming that the group’s work alone created social change. He suggested that visibility could empower individuals to live more honestly and openly, while acknowledging the complexity of social progress. He underscored that society ultimately faces a choice between acceptance and coercion, and that attitudes toward those who are different hinge on collective responsibility. [Attribution: interview summary, source unspecified]
“Same Book”
During the conference, the deputy explained that lawmakers were motivated to pursue restrictions after a recently published work about a relationship between two young men appeared in stores. She described this as a triggering factor for legislative action and used a phrase to describe the trigger event that signaled a broader societal concern. She argued that classical literature often carries less immediate impact, but contemporary works can present vivid examples that some fear could be promoted in schools and public spaces. She urged vigilance as new media entries emerge.
The deputy said a complaint was filed with a regulatory agency after the book appeared in stores. However, officials did not find a violation because the work was rated for mature audiences and thus restricted in public broadcasts. On a particular date, the Duma advanced a law banning LGBT propaganda, with a scope covering the internet, media, books, audio-visual services, cinema, and advertising. Publishers responded by pausing the sale of several titles as a precaution, reflecting a broader policy shift in public life.
The discussion overall framed the legal move as part of a larger push to safeguard traditional family values and to regulate cultural content in line with national norms. The debates highlighted tensions between creative expression and government oversight, and the potential implications for artists, readers, and viewers across the country. [Citation: policy timeline and public statements, attribution provided in context]