Ariana Grande and the question of appropriate expression of sexuality

[quote author= msante]I understand your point bjorn, but I think that this last example can not be extrapolated 100% to this particular case. If you are vulnerable to some kind of influence through your emotional wounds (or something like that) maybe someone can make you believe or feel that you sell "art". If you sell bombs generally you know that bombs are to kill. I know, the line can be fuzzy and the difference subtle, and also it is possible that someone can make you believe that that bombs are for a "noble" cause, but I think that in the case of Ariana and entertaiment industry it is easier set a trap. [/quote]

Yes, that example of mine was a bit overkill.


[quote author= msante]I am not so sure that this can be so simple. I can be wrong but what you say sound for me as if you never in your life have fallen in a delusion. I (like many of you I guess), have fallen many times (specially on my youth) on false beliefs and that made me make mistakes, and in many cases harm others. IMO I think that as many of us Ariana is victim and victimazer at the same time. I am not trying to do a defense of this girl or puting her just like a victim, but I think that just to sit to blame her for not take her opportunity to "grow" or something like that maybe is a point of view a little simple and a kind of black and white thinking. [/quote]

If you ask me the Universe just landed a billboard on her head with what that boy said about her. This women believes she has the moral highground talking about objectification when her songs are all about objectification. It doesn't help the cause.

It's such a contradiction. I even dare to call it something psychophrenic.

Because of that I doubt she is even all that sincere. Makes me wonder if she didn't post it out of some self-righteous, pity ploy. That doesn't mean that she didn't share some good points. But if you are against objectification, don't sing freaking songs about objectifying men and women. Whatever happened with logic with these people. It shouldn't be rocket science.

If she wants to take a real stance against objectification, this women should admit she realized that she is selling poisen and by that actively speak and act out against it.

But that can be troublesome, First of her self-image (Ego) would crumble, secondly her attention of millions of fans will disappear, thirdly, no more millions to earn by selling your 'art' (porn)
 
Beau said:
Jenn said:
When I first saw the headline about Ariana I reacted really emotionally with anger directed at her and other women who say similar things, maybe the strong reaction came because I used to model that and it's kind of horrifying?!
After reading the comments here I feel abit embarrassed now because I think I adopted that mindset of 'blaming the victim' as Beau mentioned
Click to expand...

The truth is that when I read the headline, my initial reaction was to think that it's Ariana's fault, because of the way she dresses and behaves. Then after I thought about it I felt bad and it reminded me of how people react to a woman who goes home with a man after being out at the bar and then goes to police because she was raped. Some people say that she was basically consenting to sex because she did all those things, despite the fact that it's still her choice to have sex. That's blaming the victim, but after thinking about it a bit more that's different than this situation. I swung from one side of the other, while I think the truth is somewhere in the middle as the others have mentioned. It's not blaming the victim to hold her accountable for how her behavior affects men's perceptions of women who don't project themselves the way she does. So you were right, it's rather hypocritical of her getting mad about something she actually engenders with her behavior. I don't blame you for being upset about that.
Click to expand...
I have to hold my hands up and say that when I read the article, I too reacted like you Beau/Jenn. Then I thought about it and read the SOTT article and the replies here and totally changed my opinion.

It was wrong of the man to say such disgusting things but, he is a product of a society that promotes this type of exploitative "art". Ariana has had a hand in creating the message that he has absorbed and acted on. She had every right to be upset and disgusted, she shouldn't have to experience that, but she should also take responsibility for the message that she is sending to the world and to the girls who look up to her for inspiration, who look to their peers for how to act.

She comes across as an intelligent person so it really begs the question, how aware is she of the image she is promoting? She must have come across the concept that girls look to her as a role model, so why does she dress and act the way she does? Looking at the links Alana provided, I can understand Jenn's, Beau's and my own initial reaction when you see someone who dresses up as a black latex bunny and sings about sex, complaining about being objectified. She does nothing to help the cause.

This reminds me of a great lecture I watched a while back, by Gordon Neufeld. He talks about how children no longer look to their parents, but to their peers, as their moral compass.

https://youtu.be/UlMkWJY5T_w
Judging by Ariana's videos and lyrics, society's moral compass is broken.

As far as what it means to me in work terms, I guess we are responsible for being aware of the messages/impressions that this type of thing sends out, to not act in such a way as to send similar messages, to not be influenced by people who send those messages/impressions, to not believe the lie, that this (both Ariana's and the offending young boy's) behaviour is somehow acceptable, to not align ourselves with the very STS nature of it all.
 
Adaryn said:
Just to make things clear, I don't think it's right, and I'd never justify such behaviour towards women: insulting her/assaulting her/thinking she gave you the right to treat her like a sexual object/a thing to use and abuse simply because she sings 'sexually explicit' lyrics, dresses provocatively, or was drunk at a party, or simply looked at you. Or just simply because she's a woman, and it's "the way things are" ("Boys will be boys", and it's normal to be 'aroused' by women). So, however a woman dresses, whatever her behaviour, however she looks or talks, this kind of behavior / abuse is never OK.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with the above.


From the perspective of the Work, I'd say a more spiritually developed man would see this kind of so-called 'free expression of female sexuality' as trivial and infantile.

I'd say the first task, if we want to get out of this mess, would be for men to grow up emotionally/sexually, and then the rest would follow naturally. Not the other way around, i.e. women having to cover themselves in order to not 'provoke' and 'arouse' men.
An emotionally grown-up man would not be aroused by such display.
Click to expand...
I think there is also a requirement to be externally considerate in this sense too though. We shouldn't have to cover ourselves up, but we also shouldn't flaunt ourselves or act inappropriately just because men should be able to grow up emotionally/sexually. I think there is a fine line here.
 
This has been an enlightening thread. Thanks Joe for bringing it up, and thanks for everyone’s input.

I too had no idea who she was and checked out the story first, then looked up her videos. My first thoughts were, “Oh girl, what goes around comes around”.

Not that I’m justifying what the young fan(atic) said, but the connectedness of us humans is all the more apparent in situations like this.

I really like what Joe said here:

Joe said:
Taking a philosophical approach, the 'problem' of male objectification of women (and vice versa) seems to part of a general popular 'objectification' of almost everything, i.e. the tendency of human beings to see everything outside themselves through the lens of their own needs and what 'it' can do for them, thereby ignoring any independent or sovereign reality or identity or meaning (other than the one we want it to have) than the other or other thing actually has. That sounds like just another way to describe 'service to self'. The world is full of opportunities for anyone to use and exploit everything else, if they so choose, and we notice that, as time progresses in our civilization, people seem to be doing this more and more.

So this 'Ariana Grande' problem is just one aspect of the general problem that service to self beings encounter when they try to 'rebel' against and change our 'nature', a big part of which is biological imperatives, which could be said to include learned 'programs' because they generally are adopted as a 'survival' mechanism, which is a biological imperative.

So if we going to attempt to change our sts nature, we obviously need material to work with, or work against. How is a ship's captain expected to become an expert navigator of stormy seas if the seas are always calm? So rather than seeing this 'objectification' issue as something that needs to solved for society as a whole, maybe we, those engaged in the Work on the self, should see it as just one example of the 'raw material' that is essential for us to do battle with ourselves and our biological urges. Sure, it's a tall order and pretty difficult at time, and involves a 'try try and try again' approach, but that seems to be what's involved in achieving anything of real value.

Perspective is everything (I think someone said) and it's true. It's only a matter of choice (informed by awareness) for us to change our perspective on what the point of life is. We can change our conception of the meaning or purpose of life (and our purpose in it) from something for us to tailor to our specific (biological or programmed) preferences, to something towards which we must respond with knowledge and awareness and in the context of the understanding that life is a testing ground, so you will, at every moment potentially, be tested! How you respond to each test, each 'question' that life asks of you, will define your future and the ultimate meaning of your life. In short, YOU give your life a meaning by your choices, which are determined by your understanding. It's all a process, a journey, going somewhere we don't really know.

Ok, enough philosophizing. :lol:
Click to expand...

Wow Joe, it’s like we are in a sort of school where some of us take certain roles for a period of time to show others different prospective to help the general lessons at hand! ;)

Joking aside, what I mostly think about is balance. I think Pierre touched on it too.
When it comes down to it, STS is seeking imbalance, where STO is seeking balance. When a world such as ours has so much imbalance the physical manifestation of it is very understandable.

I think, like very many others like her, Ariana maybe very nescient about the world. The universe has provided her with an opportunity to learn from and grow. Whether she sees it or not is up to her. It also presents an opportunity for others like many here to learn from and grow.

As the saying goes, “if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.”

I wouldn't say anyone is at fault in particular, rather everyone is at fault in a way adding to the collective imbalance.

When people stop responding to the base programing, when society brings balance to everyday interactions, and when there is more harmony in general, I think things will naturally find their place.

And as it was said earlier in the thread, it starts with all of us at an individual level. Learning and being the change we want to see, OSIT.
 
I didn't even know who Ariana Grande was until today and could only tolerate about 30 seconds of one of her videos. Her complaints about being objectified are laughable. But she's a product of society and a Hollywood product which makes things doubly bad. The boy who made the comment is also a product of society. It doesn't make his comments okay but it's certainly not a shock. Maybe in the old days he would've said to the boyfriend, "You're a very lucky man" or something along those lines but things have gotten so gross in this society that some people think that blatantly commenting about someone's sex life is okay.

In a perfect world no one would be objectified and no one would feel the need to flaunt their half naked bodies on tv while singing sexually suggestive lyrics. People would act like mature adults and save their sexual expression for the privacy of their bedrooms. But we're not living in that world and neither Ariana and her ilk nor the commenting boy are doing the work.

As has been said before, a part of doing the work means reigning in your horses and practicing external consideration by not offending or, dare I say, arousing people's emotions (whether it is in regards to sexuality, politics, religion or whatever). It also means knowing about reality and human nature. Knowledge protects. Dressing or behaving in a certain way can trigger slavering sex fiends, invite degrading comments or at the very least give the wrong impression. It may not seem fair but that's the way it is. People are mechanical and the world is corrupted and those doing the work must act accordingly.
 
First of all I never heared of that person before until reading article about it on sott.net, and do not see why is there much fuss about it, to me it seems like a case of snowflake getting melted by her snowflaking, case of delusional and ilusional individual. So to get it right someone who promotes certain behavior gets offended because others react to such a behavior in a programmed and biological way, while that person does not like it and sees her behavior and dressing as an art, which I can not frankly understand, probably has to do with modern perception of art. Little consideration of the world today would reveal to her that most of things revolve today around sex, and most people are not interested about what she calls and thinks is art but about sex especially in times of cultural and moral collapse, but that is stretching it too far for that naive person to understand it because that person lived in a bubble thinking people liked her songs and not her image, fame, looks,popularity, lifestyle she promotes and majority longs for, not mentioning that majority of males want to bang her to use that slang thanks to biology that is much reinforced by todays culture-programming, so everybody is a victim by choice, it can not be other way.
 
Joe said:
Taking a philosophical approach, the 'problem' of male objectification of women (and vice versa) seems to part of a general popular 'objectification' of almost everything, i.e. the tendency of human beings to see everything outside themselves through the lens of their own needs and what 'it' can do for them, thereby ignoring any independent or sovereign reality or identity or meaning (other than the one we want it to have) than the other or other thing actually has. That sounds like just another way to describe 'service to self'. The world is full of opportunities for anyone to use and exploit everything else, if they so choose, and we notice that, as time progresses in our civilization, people seem to be doing this more and more.
Click to expand...

I think this is a good point. And I think there may even be some kind of repression of this fact going on, which only makes the problem worse. Basically, the emotional/belief logic goes something like this:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Objectification is a widespread phenomenon applying to many aspects of our lives, interactions, and how we see others.
[*]Objectification is bad.
[*]"I" am not bad.
[*]Therefore I do not objectify.
[/list]

The first premise gets subconsciously blocked because it leads to an unwanted conclusion ("I am bad"). So our internal censor goes in and rewrites the narrative so that we come out smelling like roses and we don't have to feel badly about ourselves.

The result being that people do not acknowledge the ways in which they objectify others, and thus never change.

But the fact is, we do objectify. And I don't even think it's intrinsically bad (it can and does become so given other conditions, however). It's just STS - our default state. It's kind of like the pronoun issue. If you meet someone you don't know, you'll automatically refer to them as he or she based on their appearance. In that moment, you make a quick categorical judgment: "This person has a man's body." Not, "This is John Duckleton, father of 3, good, honest, hard-working, who lost his beloved wife 2 years ago but who despite his sadness is always first to come to the aid of those he loves."

If you're the owner of a company hiring workers, you won't necessarily care about who the person is as a person - just "what can he do for me and my company?" It's even kind of impractical to see everyone in all their all-roundedness all the time. There are too many people. 7+ billion. Just as we categorize based on gender for ease, we categorize based on usefulness. If I'm a sculptor sculpting a sculpture of Jupiter, I'm going to look for a model who has the traits I want for Jupiter. I'm going to objectify him in that instance and in that context.

The problem is when it becomes a habit, and when we don't actually make the effort to go beyond that objectification. First we can make sure that we really try to see those closest to us for who they truly are - not just objects in space. Too many people seemingly can't even do that very well. Then we can widen our sphere of empathy out from there. To the point where even if you may not be able to personally know all your employees, you at least understand in principle that they are real people with complex lives, take an interest in them as such when the opportunities arise, and run your business in such a way that takes that fact into account.

Or, be aware that the nude model whose beautiful body you are reproducing in the studio is not JUST a beautiful body. In other words, just be a decent human being and treat him with courtesy, and even respect if you discover that his character merits it. (Same goes for Ariana Grande. I don't think she necessarily deserves any respect for what she does, but she should at least be treated with a modicum of courtesy by strangers.)

And when you do encounter strangers, either in person or at a distance (as statistics or as images in the media) you can creatively see them as real complex people. There are some examples of doing just that in this thread.
 
Now, from a Work perspective, any individual can, of course, feel attracted but it is his/her responsibility not to be slave of those impulses, i.e. not to act mechanically.

The main trap when trying to control those impulses is to overcompensate by repressing them (and we know where repression leads to: emotional thinking, psychosomatic conditions,....). So, a balance approach seems to be key: acknowledging the existence of those impulses while not being controlled by them.
Click to expand...

I think for me this comment by Pierre hits the nail on the head. My initial reaction was that how can I balance my impulses, I can control what I say, but it is harder to control what I think. So being aware of these thoughts and analyzing them is something that I try to do, so when I see someone I am attracted to, instead of letting my base instinct take over I try to appreciate the beauty I am seeing, moving my thoughts away from objectification and towards appreciation. At this this is how I think I can benefit from these moments. I am sure there is more to it than that, but I think it's a start. I would be interested to hear what others do to combat these impulses.

As a side note, I worked in the music industry for 10 years, as an artist, I can say even with my limited success, dealing with record companies who are obsessed with image rather than content made me give up my aspirations in this area. It seems the artists of today are no more than a commodity, I would also say that it seems much worse for women as they are expected to be sexy and to flaunt that to sell records. There are exceptions to be sure, but there is a huge double standard.
 
Adaryn said:
Ideally, men and women would work together to overcome their programming. But as I said, first, I think it'd be the man's task to overcome his urges so the woman can be "free" - free to be, and to become whoever she wants to be. Don't know if that makes sense.
Click to expand...

I think you summed it up pretty well in your post Adaryn and got to the crux of the matter from a potential solution POV (even if it's unlikely to happen because solutions to major cultural and social issues are not what this world is about because those problems are there for a specific reason i.e. learning, and producing much discussion on this forum :D )

So yeah, the line of force here seems to me to be what you say above, that the rational and logical way to solve this problem would be for men to take the initiative to grow up, change their understanding of themselves and women and thereby not create a demand for the kind of display that women are encouraged to put on for men. Because that's the core of the issue as you say, if there was nothing in men that responded positively to the hypersexualized image of women, then women would have no good or enduring reason to engage in that kind of display.

Then again, there might be something to be said for women like Grande to stop presenting themselves in this way. That might go a long way to dulling and eventually changing men's expectation that women appear in that hypersexualized way. So maybe the solution is for all of humanity to wake the hell up and cut the crap out. But yeah, let's not hold our breaths for that one. It seems that, at this stage, we can fairly confidently conclude that there are intractable and insoluble problems with human society, and they are that way for a very good reason, because the more insoluble a problem, the more it provides the chance for people to really think deeply about the nature and meaning of life on planet earth.
 
I don't like her "art" and I don't even consider that as art, what I think she does is comercial music, empty lyrics, nonsense videos, it doesn't transmit anything, at least for me. She have a really good voice and I think she could be doing better songs with real meaning and have even a greater career, but that's just my opinion.

After reading what all of you guys wrote, two things come to my mind: the music industry or the entertainment industry in general and Arianna Grande's attitude towards herself and her lack of respect towards her person.

We have famouse singers like Miley Cyrus, Nicky Minaj, Rihanna, Beyonce, Katy Perri, etc. and we can say that all of these singers are on the top, they are almost known for everyone and their music videos have millions and millions of views and also all of them have something in common, they where involved in a scandal or they make catchy songs appearing half naked in their music videos.

Today this is what sells the most, if you are involved in a scandal it's 100% sure you will appear on tv and you will have your 15 minutes of fame, another thing that I observed it's that many womans, specially young womans... specially teenagers full of insecurities see the act of appearing in music videos or doing a concert half naked as an act of self-confidence, an act of braverity by the artist itself, and this girls see their idol as a rol model, and the responsable of this are the artist itself and the tv programs who transmit this to an insecure society, full of stereotypes propagated by the media and artists.

Then we have male teenagers full of hormones and full of stereotypes, thinking that men should be like this and that, and that woman likes this and that because they saw it in a video and then they think that it's right to do that.

Arianna Grande it's not showing the respect to herself that she wants to have. It is all cause and consequence. What where you expecting? If you make videos and lyrics sexually oriented and you give to understand that the only thing you want is sex, well... don't expect people to remember you in a different way, you are a singer, your work is your music/music videos, that is the way and the place where you present yourself, the first image, the first memory someone will have of you. What are you expecting? You want people to remember you because of you instagram's photos, because of your tweets? Of course you can do that if you got yourself in a big scandal, but that will lead you to the same, a bad image of yourself, and you will have a lot of people disrespecting you, people who don't have the right to do it but they will do it anyway because today our society lacks of values.
IMO Arianna forgot her responsibilities and immediately put herself on the side of the victim and from my point of view there is no victim here, just a cause and a consequence.

And for the guy, he is a completelly idiot, nothing else to say here, I think his words talks for himself. I don't know if he thought to say that was right or if he really wanted to be malicious, in the first case we have a serious problem of disernment or a big confussion because of what Arianna transmits in her videos, and in the second case, well, he would be leaving much to be desired as a person.
 
As was stated in different ways, there's a big lack of both male and female positive role models. It's hard to take seriously a the shock and demand for respect, because of the lack of self-respect in what she does which, in the final analysis, also spreads the objectification and lack of respect she complains about. I'd never heard of her either, and don't know much about her, but I can't see why she doesn't take responsibility for being part of the problem of objectification. She has contributed to her own objectification as well as that of others by actively playing the role she plays in the entertainment industry.

I think, there's a big difference between blaming the victim in a rape case, and something like this. Basically, Grande is taking offense in a personal way for something she participates in spreading in an impersonal way. Or so I think.
 
RE Ariana being a victim: I can imagine the C's saying "on some level, she chose it."

RE Ariana's seemingly disingenuous "shock" at the response from the young fan to her soft porn, Lolita, "art" act: Perhaps she is one of those split personalities the Vigilant Citizen speaks of who can muster genuine innocence from a remaining shred of her disembodied personality while some disassociated alter-ego is doing the hoochie-koochie dance. (and the 2 aren't really aware of each others existence on some level)

RE real victims: yeah - young teen and pre-teen girls who fall for the rebellious "individuality", power/autonomy and "self-expression" represented by the harlot archetype.

RE "society" and "popularity": Is society really promoting or allowing the descent into objectification and the lowest common denominator? Is there even such a thing as society or culture in the US any more? Or are the Ariana Grande's of the world tools of an agenda that is being promoted by the psychopathic PTB to destabilize and ponerize the relationship between the sexes and marginalize the family unit?

Finally - RE work. G's comments were interesting in that he said there is no one-size-fits-all solution regarding the sexual center and an individuals relationship with it.

I really want to get back to the original thrust (no pun intended) of the thread, but I wanted to clear out my Ariana observations first.

And I LOVED the high-minded quote earlier about the relationship of men and women in a healthy society:

"(Men) must consciously, voluntarily, deliberately and strategically accept their responsibility for the relationship between autonomous female companionship, support, love, and the responsibility of producing that next generation. This means rejecting, among other things, the misbegotten idea of casual sexual gratification. Sex is either the impulsive, short-term gratification of a domineering biological impulse, or the union of two conscious spirits taking responsibility for what they are doing. The former is not commensurate with the demands of an advanced civilization, which requires the adoption of responsibility above all for its preservation, maintenance and expansion."
 
Just found out that this soulless sockpuppet is a cheerleader for the Empire.

She campaigned for Killary and cried when Trump won. She is one of Satan's special snowflakes. Why am I not suprised.

Ariana Grande In Tears After Hearing ‘Terrifying’ Donald Trump Victory News
http://hollywoodlife.com/2016/11/09/ariana-grande-cries-donald-trump-president-terrifying/

We feel you, Ariana Grande. The ‘Dangerous Woman’ singer admitted she was in tears after Donald Trump was elected the next President of the United States on Nov. 8. Ariana, a passionate Hillary Clinton supporter, tweeted that the news of Donald Trump becoming the new Commander-in-Chief is absolutely ‘terrifying.’
Ariana was crying about the election even before Donald gained the 270 votes needed to win the presidential election. “Well this is utterly terrifying,” Ariana tweeted as Donald gained a steady lead against Hillary Clinton on election night. Ariana followed up with, “I am in tears.” Same, Ariana, same.

Ariana is devastated like many of the Hillary supporters around the country. Her home state of Florida, a critical battleground state, was a victory for Trump, giving him 29 key electoral votes.

Many celebrities tweeted their shock and disappointment after Donald became the President-elect. John Legend, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Mandy Moore, Keegan Allen and more were open about their disgust with the election results. These celebs, who campaigned hard for Hillary over the course of the campaign season, desperately wanted to see Hillary become the first female president. Before the election, many Hollywood stars said they would leave the country if Trump was elected. Their worst nightmare came true, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
 
Odyssey said:
I didn't even know who Ariana Grande was until today and could only tolerate about 30 seconds of one of her videos. Her complaints about being objectified are laughable. But she's a product of society and a Hollywood product which makes things doubly bad. The boy who made the comment is also a product of society. It doesn't make his comments okay but it's certainly not a shock. Maybe in the old days he would've said to the boyfriend, "You're a very lucky man" or something along those lines but things have gotten so gross in this society that some people think that blatantly commenting about someone's sex life is okay.

In a perfect world no one would be objectified and no one would feel the need to flaunt their half naked bodies on tv while singing sexually suggestive lyrics. People would act like mature adults and save their sexual expression for the privacy of their bedrooms. But we're not living in that world and neither Ariana and her ilk nor the commenting boy are doing the work.

As has been said before, a part of doing the work means reigning in your horses and practicing external consideration by not offending or, dare I say, arousing people's emotions (whether it is in regards to sexuality, politics, religion or whatever). It also means knowing about reality and human nature. Knowledge protects. Dressing or behaving in a certain way can trigger slavering sex fiends, invite degrading comments or at the very least give the wrong impression. It may not seem fair but that's the way it is. People are mechanical and the world is corrupted and those doing the work must act accordingly.
Click to expand...

Thank you Odyssey, I think your post sums it up well.

It seems to me that using the “blame the victim” narrative is a convenient catchphrase that allows certain people to avoid taking responsibility for their actions.

Arianna Grande prances around on stage wearing skin tight revealing clothes, singing overtly sexualized lyrics, twerking her butt on camera in front of millions of people, then has the audacity to complain about being objectified when a fan makes an inappropriate comment about her body. Give me a break!

Her entire public persona is deliberately crafted towards the goal of selling herself as a “sex object”. She has prostituted herself to the music industry and shouldn’t really be surprised when a fan treats her like an object to be consumed. It is the epitome of hypocrisy on her part to play the victim in this situation and she must bear some responsibility for her choices.

So, in a sense, considering her behaviour, appearance and overall message, I think she is “asking for it”, in the literal sense of the phrase. Whether or not she “deserved it” is an altogether different matter, but as they say, you get what you pay for.

This is not to absolve the young man who made the off colour comments from the responsibility of his part in the drama, however considering the nature if his crime, it seems like small potatoes in comparison with the part she is playing. Considering the bigger picture, it behooves us to ask which participant is causing the greater overall damage to society at large?

On one hand, you have an overzealous fan who made a rude comment to one person, yet that one person, by virtue of her public exposure, is influencing millions of impressionable young people to dress and behave in wildly inappropriate ways. Who is the real perpetrator here?

If she demands the freedom to to act like an objectified piece of meat in public then she she must allow her fans the same freedom to express themselves in kind. As long as that expression remains in the realm of words only and does not cross over into actual hurtful actions, then essentially no real harm has been done

In a truly free society all opinions and comments must be allowed, especially unpopular or ignorant ones, if only to bring them into the light for analysis and discussion.

In regards to the perspective that Arianna Grande is a poor victim being manipulated by the evil music industry, I’m not buying that either. I think she knows exactly what she’s doing and is milking this non-controversy for all it’s worth. If she possessed any real awareness about the negative implications of sexual objectification, she would quit the business entirely and speak out against the insidious music industry machine that has made her famous millionaire superstar. I’m not holding my breath on that one.

And that brings us to an important issue as Odyssey points out above. That neither of the actors in this drama are at all self aware nor engaged in any conscious “work” on themselves. What we are dealing with is completely mechanical behaviour on both sides. One doesn’t blame a computer for crashing because of bad code. A machine will do what a machine will do. We can’t really judge either party using work concepts, but only use their example as a template as to how we on this forum would act under similar circumstances.

I’d also like to touch upon the idea that “people should be allowed to wear whatever they want” without repercussion and responsibility, which to me seems like a blatantly false premise. Sure, one can choose to wear any outfit in any specific situation, but they must also acknowledge that such a choice may bring unintended negative consequences.

You wouldn’t wear a neon pink sequinned jumpsuit to a funeral and expect the bereaved not to be offended. You wouldn’t wear pasties and a G-string to your job as a kindergarten teacher or walk down a street in south central LA wearing a KKK outfit. You wouldn’t want to enter a mosque wearing bikini or sit at a redneck biker bar in a burqa.

These may seem like common sense, but some radical feminist types would demand that women be allowed to walk naked down the street and publicly shame any man who dare have an impure thought about it. It’s a ridiculous double standard that has no actual bearing on reality.

As Odyssey mentions above, a key part of working on ourselves is to practice external consideration. Being mindful of the context and specific situation one is in, is what determines how one should act, dress and behave in that situation. Being open and able to adapt ourselves to our environment will go a long way in reducing any potential negative consequences, and at the same time respecting those we share the environment with.

Being overly attached to a certain appearance or identity at the expense of the specific context of a situation is to unconsciously invite negative repercussions. Society, in that respect, is like a jungle, full of potential predators and teeming with danger at every turn. Armed with the knowledge that virtually 99% of the population is essentially asleep, an enlightened individual can successfully navigate this jungle and mitigate much of the inherent danger by simply exercising modesty in appearance and behaviour.

My impressions so far, unpopular as they may be. ;-)

"The politically correct simultaneously demand absolute propriety in sexual behavior and absolutely unrestricted sexual libertinism."

~ Jordan B Peterson
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom