Ariana Grande and the question of appropriate expression of sexuality

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
There's a recent story on Sott about tweets by 23 year old American singer Ariana Grande. The short version is that she was approached by a fan after a concert and the fan made some rude comments about her (you can read them in the article) and she responded on twitter that "expressing sexuality in art is not an invitation for disrespect !!! just like wearing a short skirt is not asking for assault."

A Sott editor comment at the end of the article reads:

How to cope with the residual effects of degrading insults and sexual innuendo is an emotionally crippling problem for many women, but it becomes especially prevalent for those in the celebrity spotlight deemed 'public property.' This young woman had courage and patience to take on stereotypical responses and convey the damage inherent in this thoughtless behavior. Maybe it will always be this way and men remain crass and clueless, but women have both a right and a say in how they are treated by the other half of humanity.

Dealing with sexuality and sex is a pretty big part of the 'Work' on the self (hence the board this topic is in), so using this story as a launching pad, what are members' take on this story in particular and how it relates to the broader 'work on the self'?
 
Tough to work on yourself when you have hundreds of people pulling your strings your goal is fame attention and sell yourself for the spotlight likes and money. I understand what your saying but I also hope that others understand that celebrities like her want attention and dress for it publicity is what keeps her in the public eye. For someone to disrespect her because of how she dresses is not correct but as it is said if ariana plays in the dirt she is going to get dirty.

She does it for more than "Art"

She also then says wearing a short skirt is not asking for assault. Well of course it's not but it is asking for controversy if you are looking at the world as it is she is blurring the lines with that comment. In an ideal world we should all be able to walk around naked without problems however in the objective world if you dress like a policeman people are going to think your a policeman if you dress like a floozy people are going to think you are more aligned toward that behavior "art" or no "art"
 
One can understand her feelings when the shoe's on the other foot.

Cop says female boss sexually harassed him, sues Wayne County
Tresa Baldas , Detroit Free Press 10:01 p.m. EST January 2, 2017
_http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2017/01/02/cop-says-female-boss-sexually-harassed-him-sues-wayne-county/94622708/
According to his lawsuit and his lawyer, here is what happened for nearly a year at the Wayne County Sheriff's department, where the 53-year-old Kozlowski worked for more than two decades before a female superior allegedly turned his life upside down.

Hollywood is a definite collaborator within shaping the immoral behavior within the general population towards sexism.
Time For Change: 11 Powerful Stories of Hollywood Sexism
_http://people.com/celebrity/sexism-in-hollywood-10-powerful-stories/

I once lived in small flat of of apartments. One of my neighbors, was an elderly gay man. When ever we would have face to face conversations (about musings around the neighborhood), it always felt like he was looking at me like as if i were in a meat case, as a possible piece, of USDA prime.

After our brief verbal conventions, i always felt like i needed to take shower. Just creepy. :shock:
 
c.a. said:
<snip>
I once lived in small flat of of apartments. One of my neighbors, was an elderly gay man. When ever we would have face to face conversations (about musings around the neighborhood), it always felt like he was looking at me like as if i were in a meat case, as a possible piece of USDA prime.

After or brief verbal conventions, i always felt like i needed to take shower. Just creepy. :shock:

I think it's fair to say that Ariana Grande brought up a very important topic. Simply because I doubt there is a girl who has never been in that very situation of disrespectful (and disgusting) objectification. The above comment by c.a. illustrates very clearly how it feels, thanks for describing the situation.

It's funny how straight men go insane when they are being objectified by gay men but when they do the same to women - she was asking for it because of what she wore, what she said, how she danced or simply because she was sipping on an alcoholic drink.

Unless you were wearing tight shorts, I doubt the situation you described was provoked by your outfit or behaviour. And let me reassure you women get objectified regardless what they wear. I can reassure you of this because I myself am a woman who had men shouting at her from their car in the street when I was running to the corner shop to do my grocery shopping in ripped jeans, sneakers and a baggy t-shirt.

Menna said:
Tough to work on yourself when you have hundreds of people pulling your strings your goal is fame attention and sell yourself for the spotlight likes and money. I understand what your saying but I also hope that others understand that celebrities like her want attention and dress for it publicity is what keeps her in the public eye. For someone to disrespect her because of how she dresses is not correct but as it is said if ariana plays in the dirt she is going to get dirty.

She does it for more than "Art"

She also then says wearing a short skirt is not asking for assault. Well of course it's not but it is asking for controversy if you are looking at the world as it is she is blurring the lines with that comment. In an ideal world we should all be able to walk around naked without problems however in the objective world if you dress like a policeman people are going to think your a policeman if you dress like a floozy people are going to think you are more aligned toward that behavior "art" or no "art"

Menna, if this is what you think of celebrities, I would be really amazed if your opinion of women in workplaces, clubs or pubs is any different. Please don't try to convince me I am incorrect, I have heard arguments very similar to what you wrote expressed by my men I know about women they know. I could give you a long speech about what I find hurtful and really disappointing about what you wrote. This topic could be argued till the end of time and I somehow doubt anything I said would make you change your mind.

I would however like to point out that you have a shirtless photo of yourself as your avatar. It makes me wonder whether you don't see anything wrong with objectification because you don't mind being objectified yourself. This is absolutely fine of course, there are women who enjoy this kind of attention too. But there are also people of both sexes who simply do not welcome it. I myself prefer to be assessed wholistically and if someone isn't capable of it, it says a lot about them, not about me.

Hopefully the below post will give you a different perspective:

_https://web.facebook.com/abrine/posts/10153959293409401?_rdr

I'm gunna start going home with random very drunk guys and stealing all of their shit. Everything they own. It won't be my fault though... they were drunk. They should have known better. I'll get away with it 90% of the time but then when one brave man takes me to court over it, I'll argue that I wasn't sure if he meant it when he said 'no don't steal my Audi.' I just wasn't sure if he meant it. I said 'Can I please steal your Gucci watch?' He said 'no' but I just wasn't sure if he meant it. He was drunk.He brought this on himself. You should have seen how he was dressed at the club, expensive shirts and shoes. What kind of message is he sending with that!? I thought he wanted me to come and steal all of his shit. He was asking for it. When he said 'no' to me taking everything he owned I just didn't know if he meant it. 'No' isn't objective enough, it could mean anything.

By the way, every girl I shared it with LOVED it and the post went viral when it was first published.
 
It didn't sound to me like Menna was condescending towards women. I could say kissing lizards will give you salmonella but that does not mean I am insulting lizards or people who kiss them.
 
What other people wear is none of my business. Although, dressing up more mature is more attractive. But again, none of my business.

I can imagine that objectification is really hurtful and that it can even feel threatening.

It's basically saying, we don't care about you, we just want to use you.


But do you also mean that the state should regulate what people should wear on stage, or in magazines photos etc?

If you want people to learn how to practice sexuality practiced in a healthy way you could ban objectification in the media, on stage etc.

Maybe some rules can apply what people on stage should wear and not? And how they can dance and not? And what the lyrics of the music can consist of and not?
 
Joe said:
Dealing with sexuality and sex is a pretty big part of the 'Work' on the self (hence the board this topic is in), so using this story as a launching pad, what are members' take on this story in particular and how it relates to the broader 'work on the self'?

I was really excited when I read Joe's post, especially the quoted section above. It would be really useful to discuss it from the above perspective and I must say I am disappointed the conversation has taken a different turn.

:(

I'm still very new here and I was really looking forward to learning how other members perceive such an important issue from the perspective of the Work. Especially that a lot of you have been here for much longer than me, so sharing your take on this would be of great value to those of us who are still learning to assimilate the concepts of the Work in our everyday lives.
 
Menna said:
She also then says wearing a short skirt is not asking for assault. Well of course it's not but it is asking for controversy if you are looking at the world as it is

Can you describe what you mean by "the world as it is"? How is it? And why do you think it is that way? And do you think that way is ok?
 
Ant22 said:
I was really excited when I read Joe's post, especially the quoted section above. It would be really useful to discuss it from the above perspective and I must say I am disappointed the conversation has taken a different turn. :(

Well, hang on, this is likely to be a fairly long thread.

Ant22 said:
I'm still very new here and I was really looking forward to learning how other members perceive such an important issue from the perspective of the Work. Especially that a lot of you have been here for much longer than me, so sharing your take on this would be of great value to those of us who are still learning to assimilate the concepts of the Work in our everyday lives.

We'll get there, hopefully! :D
 
bjorn said:
If you want people to learn how to practice sexuality practiced in a healthy way you could ban objectification in the media, on stage etc.

Maybe some rules can apply what people on stage should wear and not? And how they can dance and not? And what the lyrics of the music can consist of and not?

You did raise a couple of points that made me think of whether my perspective is correct. Maybe my above post had a bit of an emotional flavour, I'm sorry for this, it wasn't necessary or productive.

As for regulating what people wear on stage, it's their choice to wear whatever they want, just as much as it is the audience's' choice to respond however they want. Both choices are in fact mechanical ones. Social programming and narcissistic needs do quite a lot to encourage these behaviours and justify audience's responses.

I think that doing the work is also about working on those mechanical choices and responses to other people's outfits and behaviour.
 
Joe said:
Ant22 said:
I was really excited when I read Joe's post, especially the quoted section above. It would be really useful to discuss it from the above perspective and I must say I am disappointed the conversation has taken a different turn. :(

Well, hang on, this is likely to be a fairly long thread.

Ant22 said:
I'm still very new here and I was really looking forward to learning how other members perceive such an important issue from the perspective of the Work. Especially that a lot of you have been here for much longer than me, so sharing your take on this would be of great value to those of us who are still learning to assimilate the concepts of the Work in our everyday lives.

We'll get there, hopefully! :D

I'm sorry Joe, I did react a little too emotionally :-[
 
[quote author= Ant22]As for regulating what people wear on stage, it's their choice to wear whatever they want, just as much as it is the audience's' choice to respond however they want. Both choices are in fact mechanical ones. Social programming and narcissistic needs do quite a lot to encourage these behaviours and justify audience's responses.[/quote]

Yes, but the media is one of the main perpetrators of objectification. If you want to stop objectification, I think starting there is a good way to go.

Russia banned pornography for example because they know it has a poisonous effect on people. In the end, the state responsibility is about protecting their own people. Spiritual health included.

And objectification can have a poisonous effect on people. So maybe setting rules what people may wear or not on stage and in the media isn't all that bad.

What other people wear is none of my business. But it's about seeing how it affects society as a whole.
 
I have been thinking about this a bit lately because the Clinton "left" in the States, that is the citizen supporters and not the professional politicians, is so preoccupied with inequities between various sexual and racial classes WITHIN the US that they seem to have have forgotten quite thoroughly the effects of poisonous US foreign policy and have apparently started believing their government about things such as relations with Russia. While I find this mind boggling and disgusting, I don't discount this group's ideas completely no matter how naive they are in the bigger picture.

I think their argument that consent is the governing principle of civil sexuality is "roughly" correct. The idea that no one is asking for sexual abuse is "roughly" correct. Does common sense weigh in? Certainly... I should not drunkenly stumble through a ghetto with 100 dollar bills taped to my 3-piece suit. However, the mere existence of ghettos speaks to the existing inequities. The practical need to exercise common sense does not in any way nullify the unpleasant reality of the ghetto. Young women going clubbing together dressed up for exactly that activity, and by extension, rock stars wearing their "uniform" are not in any way asking to be molested, harassed, etc. The fact that someone somewhere views clothing as an excuse to take advantage of someone else simply illustrates some ethical weakness in society, that is, if it is occurring statistically more often than would occur if these acts were only perpetrated by psychopaths and others constitutionally incapable of acting in a civil manner.

But the question was how this pertains to The Work... I must add the disclaimer that I only practice The Work to the extent that it helps me be more productive in my daily life and not to the more profound extent than many here discuss. Someone exploring The Work will likely have a more "choose your battles" attitude, so to give an exaggerated example, this person will not dye his hair pink if he is working at a bank or a steel foundry (unless he is looking for trouble). Someone doing The Work will observe some societal norm unless it suits him for a purpose to go outside of it or unless he decides that he has chosen a battle. In this sense, someone doing The Work that happened to be pop star could make exactly the same statement, but it might be more conscious. Such a person would realize that disgusting idiots exist and would make the statement consciously because he or she chose that battle, and such a person would be hopping around in glittery, minimal clothing because that is the pop star's uniform.

I am not saying that it would be easy to make these decisions in such a situation, and I am not sure putting this in the context of The Work is useful. This person may be someone following a career, wearing its uniform, and simply saying, "I am doing my job, and I don't think letting myself be verbally or physically abused was a part of the job description."

It is really more complicated than this, because doing The Work or not, a person is always choosing how to express their personal attitudes and tendencies with respect to what is acceptable in their environment except for in the case where complete, or near complete, consensus with that environment exists.

I think the only difference may be that someone doing The Work has a more holistic sense of the context in which he or she is making a decision. The average person has the choice to focus on one issue such as civil rights for some demographic, the environment, the economy, etc to the near complete exclusion of all others. Something in The Work, I think, demands taking a wider view.
 
bjorn said:
[quote author= Ant22]As for regulating what people wear on stage, it's their choice to wear whatever they want, just as much as it is the audience's' choice to respond however they want. Both choices are in fact mechanical ones. Social programming and narcissistic needs do quite a lot to encourage these behaviours and justify audience's responses.

Yes, but the media is one of the main perpetrators of objectification. If you want to stop objectification, I think starting there is a good way to go.

Russia banned pornography for example because they know it has a poisonous effect on people. In the end, the state responsibility is about protecting their own people. Spiritual health included.

And objectification can have a poisonous effect on people. So maybe setting rules what people may wear or not on stage and in the media isn't all that bad.

What other people wear is none of my business. But it's about seeing how it affects society as a whole.
[/quote]

Well, seeing how the mainstream media has impacted on how other areas of life are perceived by the public, I must say I agree with your point. Take the "fall of Aleppo", anti-Putin propaganda or "fluoride is good for your teeth" for example.
There's most likely a 'hidden agenda' of social manipulation behind such explicit sexual context of these shows too.

And having given it a second thought, I must say there are women who dress to attract attention and then shout "objectification!" when they get response from men they are not interested in. If a man who is her type and she fancies him does that, all of a sudden it's not objectification but flirtation. I admit it was quite hypocritical of me not to take this into account straight away, especially that I have in fact witnessed it among my own friends.

Thank you for describing it from a different perspective to my own! It is a complex issue and the more input the better.
 
Back
Top Bottom