Ariana Grande and the question of appropriate expression of sexuality

[bjorb]

[quote author= Ant22]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.[/quote]

Men who behave like that really lack decency and can even be sexual predators. There is no question about that.


Btw, when it comes to objectification I am not just talking about women. Take this for example: (The link provides the video which I am not showing here)

Obamacare Advocates Release Ad Featuring Half-Naked Men
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/5-times-liberals-tried-ruin-christmas/

Apparently, Obamacare shills felt the only way to get their message through to the LGBT community is to show half-naked men in blatantly suggestive imagery.
No, we’re not kidding …

Western governments are the main perpetrators in objectification. Telling us basically that as a society we are nothing more than just meat for each others.

Hence me saying that this stuff sends out the wrong message and should be regulated. To protect the spiritual health of our society.

 

[anothermagyar]

[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]

I agree with bjorn, this upside down, twisted world we living, the new generation has no good example how to express themselves, women and men are objectified.
The supposedly ‘art’ is nothing else than pornographic noise. Singers not singing anymore, art has been ruined for a long time.
It is a reflection on society.
What happened to flirting express something in a subtle way, metaphors?
She is right and totally understand her feelings but we living in a very very sick world and this is just one of the symptoms.

 

[bjorb]

Objectification should never happen. And people saying that if you dress like that, you deserve to be objectified is of course complete and utter nonsense and really hurtful.

Ofcourse how people dress themselves can say a lot about them. But that's just about observation.

What others wear is none of our business. But I can't help that all those muppets start acting like animals whenever someone is dressed poorly.

So it's about seeing how it affects society as a whole. Regulation is about the greater good in this case and helping society develop sexuality in a healthy way. Only good can come out of it. OSIT.

 

[monotonic]

What happened to flirting express something in a subtle way, metaphors?

Nowadays merely being nice is considered flirting. Just compliment a lady or hand her something to help her out. An effect of the Hallmark channel? What really irks me is when I make a joke and people start telling me "she's taken". Can I not make a simple joke without sending people the wrong message?

 

[StrangeCaptain]

and should be regulated.

Not saying you are wrong... BUT... One issue, amongst MANY, that regional, national, global societies are trying to figure out is what should be regulated. For example, some nations have something like complete legal equality. There are no laws specifically targeting or excluding certain demographics (other than non-citizens of course because that is outside their boundaries). But inequities still exist... We can then start to talk about what Leftists sometimes refer to as institutional inequalities. What the heck are those? One example would be Timothy Wilson's "stereotype hazard" as explained in his book "Redirect" (working from memory here, folks). It is the phenomenon where a demographic tests more poorly against another when they have to take that test in the same room as another demographic where a stereotype exists than one is inferior to the other. In these conditions, they test more poorly than otherwise. Wilson claims that it has been tested with well-designed statistical studies enough that this phenomena almost certainly exists.

Assuming he is correct, we are talking about discrimination that exists inherent to a culture. Do you really want a government trying to think of a rule to fix a culture? I suspect cultural change takes years or even generations. How far do you want politicians as you know them now regulating? That is an honest question that I don't know the answer to.

 

[monotonic]

In the Work you set yourself an Aim. It may be to overcome a habit or to achieve something by a certain time. Then you choose your actions according to whether they further the aim. In the vast majority of situations there are many downsides, and few advantages to expressions of sexuality. It is a lot of energy to waste without a good reason.

 

[Ant22]

In the Work you set yourself an Aim. It may be to overcome a habit or to achieve something by a certain time. Then you choose your actions according to whether they further the aim. In the vast majority of situations there are many downsides, and few advantages to expressions of sexuality. It is a lot of energy to waste without a good reason.

This is a very good point monotonic, thank you for explaining it in this context. As for the bolded section, if I remember it right, in one of the Wave books Laura said that sexual energy is harvested by 4D STS. It would explain why promiscuity is encouraged and propagated by the media, it means more 'food' for the prison guard. It also is one of the symptoms of the trajectory the majority of humanity is on, maybe even one of the signs "of the times of Noah".

Hence me saying that this stuff sends out the wrong message and should be regulated. To protect the spiritual health of our society.

If my take on this, as described above, is correct, is any means of control and regulation likely to be successful? Wouldn't the matrix act to ensure its source of food is maintained? I can definitely imagine people raising a cry that their rights are being infringed and comparing any attempts to restrict their choice of outfit or expression of sexuality as an attack on their "freedom". Potentially they'd even compare it to the limitations imposed on women in muslim countries. And given the islamophobia rhetorics currently propagated by the media this would probably be quite a successful argument against regulation.

It may be a step too far on my part, but it's an STS approach to seek to control the situation or environment. I wonder what an appropriate STO approach would be though? Those who enjoy excessive sexualisation of the media don't seem to be asking for help.

 

[Cosmos]

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

[...]

Yep, I think so too. Maybe a bit more backround information will add to the discussion, especially in regards to those two statements by Ariana (notice especially the bolded parts):

seeing a lot of "but look how you portray yourself in videos and in your music! you're so sexual!" .... please hold.. next tweet... i repeat

expressing sexuality in art is not an invitation for disrespect !!! just like wearing a short skirt is not asking for assault.

and her initial statement about the incident:

On Tuesday, Grande tweeted that she was getting takeout with boyfriend Mac Miller when a "young boy" followed Miller to the car to tell him how big a fan he was. Grande wrote that, sitting in the passenger seat, "I thought all of this was cute and exciting until he said 'ariana is sexy as hell man i see you, i see you hitting that!!!' *pause* Hitting that? the f**k??"

The encounter made Grande feel "sick and objectified," she wrote; since it happened, she's been "really quiet and hurt." It may seem trivial to some, she continued, but these too frequent reminders that women are viewed as achievements or belongings for which to congratulate fellow men "contribute to women's sense of fear and inadequacy."

"I am not a piece of meat that a man gets to utilize for his pleasure," Grande wrote. "I'm an adult human being in a relationship with a man who treats me with love and respect. ... I felt like speaking out about this one experience tonight because I know very well that most women know the sensation of being spoken about in an uncomfortable way publicly or taken advantage of publicly by a man."

What follows is a little selection of Arianas achievements (WARNING: Graphic Content follows).

Arianas latest music video:
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXiSVQZLje8 (622,5 Million views)

The performance of the song above looks like this:
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-03LZrmMvA (14 Million views)

Two other music video with Ariana:
-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HDdjwpPM3Y (almost 814 Million views)
-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ekZEVeXwek (375 Million views)

A couple of pictures and contents from her tweet account:
_https://twitter.com/ArianaGrande/status/771035130114609152
_https://twitter.com/ArianaGrande/status/770373216175022080
_https://twitter.com/ArianaGrande/status/752242063035408385
_https://twitter.com/ArianaGrande/status/734282328927666176
_https://twitter.com/ArianaGrande/status/713840691223224320

 

[DianaRose]

<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.

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.

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.

Ah your take on what Menna said is interesting. I'm a girl but my opinion is somewhat close to Menna though I see where you're coming from. Let me explain. I think Ariana Grande (whom by the way I'm a fan) was right to point out this issue. And she was right when she said that just because is wearing something short or sexy it doesn't mean that she should be disrespected. And those who said "yeah but look at how you dress how can you say that!" are just narrow-minded and/or stupid. Objectification is something women have to live with on a almost daily basis.

However, let's be honest none of these singers, reality tv star dress sexy/ post racy picture of instagram "only" because they like it. Obviously, if you're Young, attractive and rich you take a lot of pleasure that's for sure :P . But the point is sex sell. Scantily clad women sell even more. Kim Kardashian made a entire career out of her body AND out of the objectification of women. For exemple look at singers and how they Evolved, from Britney Spear to even Grande. Slowly but steadily, they changed their image to have a sexier, raunchier persona. Miley Cyrus is an extreme case of this. Now look at male singer, do they have the same evolution? And yes they DO have 100 of people (most of whom are men) telling them wear this because it's gonna get you extra attention, don't wear that because it's boring and even far far more than that.

The thing is that unlike before, nowadays if you dress very sexily you can call it "empowerement" or "expressing your sexuality" and become a feminist icon even though the only thing you're trying to empower is your bank account, lol !

Where I disagree with Menna is that even if someone plays in the dirt doesn't mean we should throw even more dirt at him. Instead in the sense of the Work it is better to understand his/her situation and the system of oppression that lead to it so as better grasp the nature of our world. In the case of female celebrities, my own opinion is that if they want to succeed in their industry they HAVE to objectify themselves and hence become participant in a culture that does eveything to turn women into less than a being. Of course you have exception like Adele and Taylor Swift but even they in their particular way play specific role. Adele is the "non-sexual women that society sometimes allow to exist" as for Taylor, she's the "cute, good girl".

Also I want to add that everybody should be allowed to dress however they want. However, we don't live in a glass house, people will form ideas about you from your appearance. Still, that doesn't mean anyone should be belittled, disrespected or assaulted because they dress a certain way.

On a side note what I find funny is that people are calling out Ariana for being sexy. She's a year older than me, but she remind me of a lolita playing dress up most of time. I can see why you got so emotional though Ant22. Sometimes, I can agree with straight man on women issue. But I often wonder how much of their reasoning is internalised sexism and how much is critical thinking.

 

[msante]

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"

Well, I was reading what others wrote here and I am a little surprised. When I see a woman (or a man) playing with her/his sexuality (dress, erotic dances, etc) to gain attention/devotion/admiration (it's usual in the music industry) I think that in most cases this respond a "social programming and narcissistic needs" (as Ant22 said). Of course can have exceptions, but in general terms I think in influences type A, mechanical behabior, and emotional wounds dominating society.

Thinking in some way someone deserve to be treated like an object just to be under the influence of these forces is a matter of concern for me, even more in case of people supposedly doing The Work. I can understand that we can found an explanation to this behavior, i.e. one can understand that if a woman dress sexy it is likely that most of men see her as object, especially in our society that is pushed constantly to see others in a dehumanized way. But "understand" do not mean feel a kind of justification for that or feel "she deserves it".

Maybe I am misuderstanding you, Menna, but I perceive a kind of this way of thinking on your words. Maybe I am a little intransigent on this particular topic, but I think that one of the first result of do The Work is to start to see people as people (humans beings) and stop seeing them as things. IMHO I think that kind of thinking requires a review of what we have learned and understood since we started our journey.

Just my thoughts...

 

[Alana]

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."

Starting with this particular case, I went and watched a few videos of her "art", the one Ariana Grande talks about. I never heard of her and never been exposed to her "art" so I was curious. Here are the videos I watched:

https://www.youtube.com/user/ArianaGrandeVevo/featured (the one featured on top of her page there)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HDdjwpPM3Y a video clip of a song titled Bang Bang, here are the lyrics
and another video clip for a song I am into You https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4KZaI_jtKs

I can't watch and hear any more, this kind of "art" is not my type, but she has tons of video clips with her songs on the web.

My first question is whether I should consider her work as art. Even though I don't like what she is singing, I do consider her voice as a good singing voice (especially as she performs in the bottom video above). But the lyrics she is using her voice for are pretty poor (language wise), nonsensical, and what message do all her songs convey? It is all about sex basically.

From the bang bang song:

She got a body like an hourglass
But I can give it to you all the time
She got a booty like a Cadillac
But I can send you into overdrive (oh)
Stop and wait, wait for that
Stop hold up, swing your bat
See anybody could be bad to you
You need a good girl to blow your mind, yeah

Bang bang into the room (I know you want it)
Bang bang all over you (I’ll let you have it)
Wait a minute let me take you there (ah)
Wait a minute tell you (ah)
Bang bang there goes your heart (I know you want it)
Back, back seat of my car (I’ll let you have it)
Wait a minute let me take you there (ah)
Wait a minute tell you (ah)

She might’ve let you hold her hand in school
But I’mma show you how to graduate
No, I don’t need to hear you talk the talk
Just come and show me what your momma gave (Oh yeah)
Your love gotta be baby, love but don’t say a thing
See anybody could be good to you
You need a bad girl to blow your mind

Bang bang into the room (I know you want it)
Bang bang all over you (I’ll let you have it)
Wait a minute let me take you there (ah)
Wait a minute tell you (ah)
Bang bang there goes your heart (I know you want it)
Back, back seat of my car (I’ll let you have it)
Wait a minute let me take you there (ah)
Wait a minute tell you (ah)

It’s Myx Moscato
It’s frizz in a bottle
It’s Nicki full throttle, it’s oh, oh
Swimming in the grotto
We winning in the lotto
We dipping in the pot of blue foam
Kitten so good
It’s dripping on wood
Get a ride in the engine that could
Go, Batman robbin’ it
Bang, bang, cockin’ it
Queen Nicki dominant, prominent
It’s me, Jessie, and Ari
If they test me they sorry
Ride us up like a Harley
Then pull off in this Ferrari
If he hanging we banging
Phone ranging, he slanging
It ain’t karaoke night but get the mic 'cause he singing

I am not sure what most of the above even mean as sentence structures. But the sexual innuendos are not even covert.

In the bottom video I posted above she appears the most dressed, compared to the other two videos I watched. The lyrics she is singing however follow the same unimaginative line:

So, baby, come light me up, and maybe I'll let you on it
A little bit dangerous, but, baby, that's how I want it
A little less conversation and a little more "touch my body"
'Cause I'm so into you, into you, into you
Got everyone watchin' us, so, baby, let's keep it secret
A little bit scandalous, but, baby, don't let them see it
A little less conversation and a little more "touch my body"
'Cause I'm so into you, into you, into you, oh yeah

So ok, so far we have a woman with a good voice, singing nonsensical lyrics inviting men to have sex with her, with a backround music that sounds unmelodic and cacophonous to my ears.

What about the visuals of her "art"?

It's mostly women in their underwear singing and dancing around in private and (mostly) public spaces. Maybe that's the "art" she talks about? Because in everyday life women don't go into the streets in their underwear. Why? Is it because we don't feel so comfortable with our bodies? Ariana and her friends are probably spending a lot of effort, time and money to have a body that does make them comfortable to show almost naked in public. On the other hand, most women will wear a swimsuit and go to the beach no problem. So why not their underwear? Especially where I come from, we spend days on end from morning till night in our swimwear, when we are in a city by the beach. But none of us would wear a swimsuit to go to school, office, for groceries or to a neighbour's house in a swimsuit. Nobody told us not to, but it is like this unwritten rule of the society/community we live in. And I think it is the same with wearing one's underwear in public. Some things are socially accepted at certain places and others are best kept within the walls of one's private space, like a couple's intimate moments. It is the externally considerate thing to do. In the end it might not be so much about "showing skin", but how and where is done I think.

So, when Ariana is complaining here that she is being objectified, I actually think that her "art" is doing women a disservice because she is the one objectifying women. She is the one wearing skimpy clothes and inviting men (maybe women too? her message is not clear to me) for sex. She is the one who says "Hey! My skimpy clothes are an invitation to view me as a sex object because that's what I say when I wear them". And then another young woman somewhere wears skimpy clothes because she watched an MTV video and thinks it's the new fashion, and she gets identified with the same message, though she only just wanted to be considered in/fashionable/cool by her other young friends, and she wanted the young man she likes to pay attention to her and think her sexy, but she got attention by way more than just him.

Can we blame Ariana for all that? Somebody else is writing her lyrics, somebody else is dressing her and directing her video clips, and she is making lots of money from all these. She is a participant however, and one of the deliverers of this message. Among countless other artists, and it is not just about the sex-objectification of women but men (and children) also, through this MTV/Hollywood type of unimaginative, uncreative, moraly degenerative lyrics, music and video that is being sold as "art". And I think that celebrities/public figures are public property in a way. The more people know you, the more positive and negative things you are going to hear about your person and your work, it's just how it is.

Ok, that's all I am thinking right now, though I am not sure how it all relates to Work. I have still to read the replies that keep accomulating as I write this.

PS {funny note} At some point I'd like to talk about the objectification of kitties too. Just take a look here:

‌http://www.boredpanda.com/cats-vintage-pin-up-girls/

http://www.boredpanda.com/hot-guys-and-kittens-part-ii/

Nobody looks at the sexy pin-up girl or the sexy sad-eyed man anymore when a kitty appears next to them. What's up with that? :P

 

[Oxajil]

Thank you for starting this thread, Joe. I think that Ariana did a good thing to write about this and make many people think about this problem. What that guy said to her was indeed out of line. Having said that, she should also know that she plays a role in supporting exactly that kind of objectification. Many guys look at girls as objects, but there are also many girls who look at guys the same way. Look at her recent song with - never decently clothed - Nicki Minaj, where she sings:

I've been there all night, Ariana
I've been there all day, Nicki Minaj
And boy, got me walkin' side to side
Let them hoes know

See you standing over there with your body
Feeling like I wanna rock with your body
And we don't gotta think 'bout nothin' ('bout nothin')
I'm comin' at ya
'Cause I know you got a bad reputation
Doesn't matter, 'cause you give me temptation
And we don't gotta think 'bout nothin' ('bout nothin')

So here we see a clear example of Ariana supporting the idea of seeing men as objects, especially those with a 'bad reputation', and yeah she refers to girls as 'hoes'. Kind of reminds me of Beyonce singing "Bow down to me b**ches". Of course, in most cases, artists don't get to choose what lyrics to sing or even how to dress, it's decided for them. But at least an effort should be made by them to steer away from that, to at some point get out of the 'dark circles' and start deciding for themselves. But maybe some of them don't mind, and see it as 'art'. The way Ariana presents herself and the kind of songs she releases doesn't give the right message to the young generation.

The relation to the work on the self, I would think is to not allow the entertainment industry to suggest what you should wear, how you should talk or behave. I think people should think about what is more respectful, towards the self and others.

I would support the idea of strict regulation on what kind of songs are acceptable, or at least good education on the effect of such songs and the videoclips that go with them on the mind. My 2 cents!

 

[DianaRose]

In the Work you set yourself an Aim. It may be to overcome a habit or to achieve something by a certain time. Then you choose your actions according to whether they further the aim. In the vast majority of situations there are many downsides, and few advantages to expressions of sexuality. It is a lot of energy to waste without a good reason.

This is a very good point monotonic. As for the bolded section, if I remember it right, in one of the Wave books Laura said that sexual energy is harvested by 4D STS. It would explain why promiscuity is encouraged and propagated by the media, it means more 'food' for the prison guard. It also is one of the symptoms of the trajectory the majority of humanity is on, maybe even one of the signs "of the times of Noah".

Hence me saying that this stuff sends out the wrong message and should be regulated. To protect the spiritual health of our society.

If my take on this, as described above, is correct, is any means of control and regulation likely to be successful? Wouldn't the matrix act to ensure its source of food is maintained? I can definitely imagine people raising a cry that their rights are being infringed and comparing any attempts to restrict their choice of outfit or expression of sexuality as an attack on their "freedom". Potentially they'd even compare it to the limitations imposed on women in muslim countries. And given the islamophobia rhetorics currently propagated by the media this would probably be quite a successful argument against regulation.

It may be a step too far on my part, but it's an STS approach to seek to control the situation or environment. I wonder what an appropriate STO approach would be though? Those who enjoy excessive sexualisation of the media don't seem to be asking for help.

I don't think controlling people would be productive and anyway, we already are controlled. If you follow mainstram media, even those for specific audience, a lot are basically saying sex work is fine and empower women, porn is fine and empower women, casual sex is fine and empower women if you want to go out half-naked, it's fine because it empower you. Anyone who dares criticize their point of view is labelled as old, out of touch, a prude, elistist or classist. This is liberal feminism which is the dominant form of feminism nowadays. And highly promoted by celebrities. Radical feminism which often has a bad name is tad more sensible in my opinion.

 

[Pearce]

Objectification should never happen.

...

So it's about seeing how it affects society as a whole. Regulation is about the greater good in this case and helping society develop sexuality in a healthy way. Only good can come out of it. OSIT.

I couldn't help but think when reading this though, that if these and other things were regulated, then my ability to choose that I don't want to be part of that culture has been taken from me. And perhaps I'm off with this thinking, but in my mind that choice helps make me more of myself, if that makes any sense. From our perspective it would possibly be greater good, but what about those who want to go the STS way? If we serve to exist as reflection to one another, then without "them" then "we" wouldn't be, right?

I know it's maybe simple thinking, and it doesn't add too much in the realm of how to practically handle the situation, but I just noticed some absolute or black and white thinking and wanted to try to stay in the middle the best I know how.

In any case, I'm all for an overhauled media. I wouldn't want our current slime regulating anything, but it would be nice to have more outlets for brighter ideas, though it's no secret here why this isn't so. But again, the idea of someone telling me what I can or can't do or say, doesn't sit with me well, even if I would have been doing the exact same things I was told to do. It's in the choice that brings the most purpose from my experience. Regulation also has a chance to produce the opposite than intended effect, such as when you tell a kid not to do something, they will want to do it more, until ultimately they will.

 

[Cosmos]

I have a couple of questions regarding what Alana sumarized here:

[...]Starting with this particular case, I went and watched a few videos of the her "art", the one Ariana Grande talks about. I never heard of her and never been exposed to her "art" so I was curious.
[...]
I can't watch and hear any more, this kind of "art" is not my type, but she has tons of video clips with her songs on the web.

My first question is whether I should consider her work as art. Even though I don't like what she is singing, I do consider her voice as a good singing voice (especially as she performs in the bottom video above). But the lyrics she is using her voice for are pretty poor (language wise), nonsensical, and what message do all her songs convey? It is all about sex basically. [...]

I am not sure what most of the above even mean as sentence structures. But the sexual innuendos are not even covert.

In the bottom video I posted above she appears the most dressed, compared to the other two videos I watched. The lyrics she is singing however follow the same unimaginative line: [...]

So ok, so far we have a woman with a good voice, singing nonsensical lyrics inviting men to have sex with her, with a backround music that sounds unmelodic and cacophonous to my ears.

What about the visuals of her "art"?

It's mostly women in their underwear singing and dancing around in private and (mostly) public spaces. Maybe that's the "art" she talks about? Because in everyday life women don't go into the streets in their underwear. Why? Is it because we don't feel so comfortable with our bodies? Ariana and her friends are probably spending a lot of effort, time and money to have a body that does make them comfortable to show almost naked in public. On the other hand, most women will wear a swimsuit and go to the beach no problem. So why not their underwear? Especially where I come from, we spend days on end from morning till night in our swimwear, when we are in a city by the beach. But none of us would wear a swimsuit to go to school, office, for groceries or to a neighbour's house in a swimsuit. Nobody told us not to, but it is like this unwritten rule of the society/community we live in. And I think it is the same with wearing one's underwear in public. Some things are socially accepted at certain places and others are best kept within the walls of one's private space, like a couple's intimate moments. It is the externally considerate thing to do. In the end it might not be so much about "showing skin", but how and where is done I think.

So, when Ariana is complaining here that she is being objectified, I actually think that her "art" is doing women a disservice because she is the one objectifying women. She is the one wearing skimpy clothes and inviting men (maybe women too? her message is not clear to me) for sex. She is the one who says "Hey! My skimpy clothes are an invitation to view me as a sex object because that's what I say when I wear them". And then another young woman somewhere wears skimpy clothes because she watched an MTV video and thinks it's the new fashion, and she gets identified with the same message, though she only just wanted to be considered in/fashionable/cool by her other young friends, and she wanted the young man she likes to pay attention to her and think her sexy, but she got attention by way more than just him.

Can we blame Ariana for all that? Somebody else is writing her lyrics, somebody else is dressing her and directing her video clips, and she is making lots of money from all these. She is a participant however, and one of the deliverers of this message. Among countless other artists, and it is not just about the sex-objectification of women but men (and children) also, through this MTV/Hollywood type of unimaginative, uncreative, moraly degenerative lyrics, music and video that is being sold as "art". And I think that celebrities/public figures are public property in a way. The more people know you, the more positive and negative things you are going to hear about your person and your work, it's just how it is.

Ok, that's all I am thinking right now, though I am not sure how it all relates to Work. I have still to read the replies that keep accomulating as I write this.
[...]

Nobody looks at the sexy pin-up girl or the sexy sad-eyed man anymore when a kitty appears next to them. What's up with that? :P

How does real sexuality (in the sense of the work, or even just what was once considered a normal connection of two beings, without perversity involved), compare to lets say pornographic content?
Is there a difference? Are actions, words and contents that a person present or suggests, that follow a very specific line (in this case: I want, have, or need "sex" from a "man" or "I'm so desirably sexually" and "look here what I can do"?) not normally followed by exactly "getting what you ask for"? And how can it be explained that one can be so "shocked about it", even though one has clearly played with inviting that kind of thinking and behaviour?