Ariana Grande and the question of appropriate expression of sexuality

[Adaryn]

Haven't read all the other answers yet, which are piling up… So this is my take for now:

You say that burkas are out of the question, but I think a list of what gets men going would be so long and random that women wouldn't have much freedom left in terms of how they looked, what they said, how they acted, what they did for a living, what they did in their spare time, whether they were kind or cold, whether they were demure or provocative, etc., etc.

I'd agree with T.C. and Keyhole here. I don't see the point of making such a list. Really, in this world where everything is hyper sexualized, where men/women relationships are so strained and fraught with misunderstandings on both parts, depending on the person and his/her inner state at any given moment, anything could be judged as provocative. A glance, a friendly gesture taken as an invitation for more, a smile misunderstood as flirting… anything. And I think this applies to everyone, both outside and inside the Work. We're all works in progress.

I think, as has already been said, it's down to the man to learn how to overcome his 'urges'. Nothing wrong with finding a woman attractive, but he just has to learn to see beyond mere appearances. To appreciate and celebrate beauty/feminity in a more respectful, less sexually loaded way.
Otherwise, where do we draw the line? I think it's impossible. Some women will be considered naturally 'sexy' (by both men and women) no matter how they dress or behave. Perhaps they've been favoured by nature and will have more noticeable feminine attributes which 'normal men' naturally find appealing. They may just have natural 'sex appeal' (think Marilyn Monroe). Same for men - some just ooze that kind of 'vibe'. And we can't hold them responsible for being 'naturally' appealing.
So no matter how they dress, these type of people (men or women) would be more noticed/looked at. It wouldn't be reasonable or fair to ask them to cover their body or "hide" certain parts under 3 layers of clothes out of 'external consideration' for the opposite sex.

Also, think of normal teenage girls passing in the street and getting harassed through not fault of their own just because they're young and pretty. Or not even 'pretty': they just happen to be girls, thus it's OK for men/boys to objectify them - judge them by their looks.
I'm pretty sure every lady on this forum has been harassed in such a way at least once, or has been the subject of sexist or insulting comments, or physically 'assessed' by a group of men on the street while doing nothing to provoke it. Or even worse, while doing everything to avoid it.

I think ideally women should be able/free to wear beautiful dresses, a pair of tight jeans (not too tight, obviously), or a pair of high heels, without fearing that it might "trigger" those poor guys. Of course I'm not talking about really provocative clothes or a deliberately raunchy behaviour. That's a no-no, of course.
Sure, one might ask what's the point of wearing, say, (relatively) short dresses, ruby red lipstick or high heels? Would some women still dress that way if there were no men around? I personally find those kind of clothes uncomfortable and over the top. I don't like lipstick either. But that's just my personal taste. I would tend to think that often, these things are used to manipulate/attract men's attention. But maybe not. Maybe I'm off. Maybe some women just like to express their feminity in this way.

I'm repeating myself here, but really I think no matter how you cut it, it always comes down to this need for men to master their urges first, so that they don't react so much to such stimuli. If there's no reaction on the man's part, the woman might just adjust her behavior accordingly. Men leading the way here, women following and then the dance could begin? Maybe :)

 

[mkrnhr]

Like everything else, communication depends on the context and the people involved. For instance I warned "very discreetly" a woman on bicycle that her underwear was showing from the sitting position. She adjusted her trousers and thanked me. No big deal.

Those who make the choice to work on their being have a different outlook on things even if certain things tend to overlap. Certain discussions in this thread reminded me of arguments I heard a long time ago when the hidjab (so-called Islamic veil) was introduced. The main argument I heard from "boys" was that men are weak and that the veil protects them from impure thoughts and urges. Well, the counter arguments would be that if you don't control your thoughts and urges, you're not really a man. Harassing a woman who's just minding her own business because you cannot control yourself is not manly.

There were recently a few arguments in favour of this or that behaviour: if animals do it, therefore it's natural for humans as well. That one is so stupid it's too easy: Animals don't use bathrooms, go ahead and do what you need to do in the street

Also, all males are not the same and all females are not the same. There are also "women" who enjoy the primal effect they provoke and I don't think it's related to the amount of visible skin but it's mostly in the body language and attitude. Those individuals who engage in the work try to optimize the balance between body, emotions, intellect, etc. but it shouldn't be forgotten that there are other people out there who have chosen a different reality. Is it wrong? It depends. If a woman is assaulted by a semi-human who "thinks" it's because he's entitled to the possessing of another person for its own urges, it's wrong. A male or woman goes to a bar to do some "I'm in need of a mate right now" signaling? That's their reality, their choice. We may observe it, weight its effect on our being and aim, and decide whether we want to belong to that world or not.

 

[Joe]

I think it would be useful for everyone to approach any situation from the understanding that we are very often wrong in our assessments of situations, that we are by default subjective in our outlook. That understanding in itself is a pretty big one, and we must remind ourselves of it constantly. Basically, we should err on the side of doubting our perceptions. That's not a recipe for perpetual doubting or second guessing ourselves, on the contrary. By following that process, by removing the subjective 'dross' that we project onto any given situation, we are left with what IS objectively there or real about any situation. That then is very valuable knowledge and allows us to be more confident about making a quick diagnosis the next time a similar situation or dynamic arises. Eventually we build up a wide store of such experiences that allows to more successfully and accurately navigate life and its experiences.

This approach can be applied to personal relationship dynamics as well as figuring out what is going on in the wider world. For example, (I've said this before somewhere), when I look at any given world event, I immediately form a theory about what it means, who dunnit, that kind of thing, based on past experience. The next step I take is to make all efforts to disprove that theory. If I disprove it, in whole or part (often in part) what I'm left with is more likely to be an accurate assessment. If I can't disprove it, then it means there is at least some truth to the theory. Sincerity in questioning our assumptions and projections is very important, obviously.

One example of an advantage derived from doing this often enough in a particular area, is that I can now quickly and confidently react with objective disbelief to most of the CIA's intelligence reports without having to investigate the claims.

 

[mkrnhr]

The area that women need to be conscious of is their programmed behavior with sexual overtones that is a covert attempt to "draw a man in" for nefarious purposes!

Another thing they must be aware of too is that there are sickos out there. Not in the sense that "all men are pigs" but if they learn to distinguish between safe and dangerous situations, that would help. For instance, if they go to a party full of strangers and get drunk to a point close to death, that could be dangerous on many different levels.

 

[Joe]

Otherwise, where do we draw the line? I think it's impossible. Some women will be considered naturally 'sexy' (by both men and women) no matter how they dress or behave. Perhaps they've been favoured by nature and will have more noticeable feminine attributes which 'normal men' naturally find appealing. They may just have natural 'sex appeal' (think Marilyn Monroe). Same for men - some just ooze that kind of 'vibe'. And we can't hold them responsible for being 'naturally' appealing.

So no matter how they dress, these type of people (men or women) would be more noticed/looked at. It wouldn't be reasonable or fair to ask them to cover their body or "hide" certain parts under 3 layers of clothes out of 'external consideration' for the opposite sex.

It's like we're genetically addicted to sugar and forced to walk endlessly through a candy store. In the end, there's only one answer: control your urges or you'll get diabetes (and probably cancer). :D

 

[Mikey]

This thread has diverged into several topics: Gender, sex, celebrities, social issues, etc. Looking at the topic of sex in general terms and returning to Work concepts I would like to share the following:

I think with sexuality it is like with everything else: knowlege and awareness protects. People have to understand how BIG a force sexuality is. Sex for reproduction is the main mechanism for the survival of life in the universe (at least on Earth) on all scales and has been for billions of years. I think it is safe to say that it is even a bigger and more fundamental force/law than the human subconscious, which is difficult to deal with alone.

In this sense, it is like being in road traffic: Many bad things can happen, too many to enumerate, so a general sharpened awareness protects best - independent of the gender (or the vehicle type, imagined or real) of the 'traffic participant'.

Mouravieff calls this fundamental force the Absolute III -- as opposed to the Absolute II which is one level 'higher' and could be called Spiritual Love:

This secret [about the Absolute III] is of the first importance. Some aspects of it are at the same time amazingly upsetting, so much so that they had never been divulged. The system by which the Universe works has never been the object of a complete teaching; it has been given in symbolic form, but now it is brought out into the open.

The Absolute III is the absolute of the conception of corporeal life. His action is exercised only on the elements of organic life. ... He is the Absolute for everything that governs the creation of conditions necessary to ensure the reproduction of corporeal life: those that allow the conception and then the birth ... Becoming autonomous from birth until death, these organisms enter the first lateral octave as an integral part of it, and they remain under the authority of the laws which rule it. ... The Absolute III maintains his authority over the notes SOL and FA. In what concerns LA — man — his authority, while concrete and great, is not after all absolute. In principle, exterior man is offered a choice. If he crosses the first Threshold by devoting himself to esoteric work, he can progressively escape the hold of the Absolute III.

The direct intervention of Absolute III in human life generally occurs at the time of puberty; he perturbs the organism by various manifestations, from sexual attraction to a vivid upsurge of imagination which is the source of all sorts of romantic and other illusions.

The hold of the Absolute III over man and woman ends progressively from the menopause in women, and from the time of analogous troubles in men. Normally, the surplus of sexual energy in excess of that needed for reproduction in humans is provided not simply for the pleasures of carnal love—wasting it for nothing—but to give these sad beings (malheureux) the chance to escape from their otherwise inescapable condition. This surplus of energy, once mastered and utilized in an appropriate way, can assist in die growth and development of the Personality. It is in this that man has a choice: by beginning to climb the Staircase he places himself progressively under the authority of the Absolute II, to whom he will finally become subject after the second Birth.

Sexual attraction and the pleasure of carnal love continue to exert a decisive influence over those who still remain on the wrong side of the first Threshold. They actually seek this attraction, and it takes many forms because of the unlimited possibilities of the imagination.

1, Creative imagination, coming from the Absolute II, is awake and constructive. It is this divine force which distinguishes men from beasts: it is an active force.
2. Dreamlike imagination comes from the Absolute III, and is also found to a certain degree in animals: it is a passive force.

The latter form of imagination, the 'dream of the sleeping serpent', produces a hypnotic effect on man, keeping him in the state in which the vast majority of humans pass their lives.

A great part of the Doctrine is dedicated to methods which allow us to struggle against this dreamlike imagination, sometimes by calling on the creative imagination.

I think that there is no way we can 'solve' the 'problem' of this Absolute III while being within it (especially when we get trapped by trying to discuss its infinite number of details), and without going one level higher - but that is an individual choice. It is the choice for those who 'had enough'.

 

[Carl]

Otherwise, where do we draw the line? I think it's impossible. Some women will be considered naturally 'sexy' (by both men and women) no matter how they dress or behave. Perhaps they've been favoured by nature and will have more noticeable feminine attributes which 'normal men' naturally find appealing. They may just have natural 'sex appeal' (think Marilyn Monroe). Same for men - some just ooze that kind of 'vibe'. And we can't hold them responsible for being 'naturally' appealing.

So no matter how they dress, these type of people (men or women) would be more noticed/looked at. It wouldn't be reasonable or fair to ask them to cover their body or "hide" certain parts under 3 layers of clothes out of 'external consideration' for the opposite sex.

It's like we're genetically addicted to sugar and forced to walk endlessly through a candy store. In the end, there's only one answer: control your urges or you'll get diabetes (and probably cancer). :D

That's basically what I'm learning. I think most women would be horrified about the thoughts that men have about them, men that they meet every day. You just have to go on the internet for a little while to see it, just look at a youtube video with a pretty woman on it even.

For the sexual stuff, it goes both ways. If we're talking about an ideal society at least. To be blunt, men should get to the point where a nice ass is not enough to make them stand to attention like a 14 year old. It's not an easy task for sure, but for a while now I've been actively working on this because I hate being manipulated by it, seeing it in the streets and all over media and advertising, and I hate seeing other men fall for it.

(But also women would ideally start wearing something more than a push-up bra and leggings again. If you go to a gym or walk round a city in summer time you'll see what I mean, it's kinda ridiculous now.)

Romantic fantasising is a different beast IMO. This comes from a place of being needy and not being firmly enough attached to a goal or mission, or generally not having enough social connection, so that you make up and latch on to 'the one' fantasies about a woman when there's nothing of substance really there.

 

[lilyalic]

I think ideally women should be able/free to wear beautiful dresses, a pair of tight jeans (not too tight, obviously), or a pair of high heels, without fearing that it might "trigger" those poor guys. Of course I'm not talking about really provocative clothes or a deliberately raunchy behaviour. That's a no-no, of course.
Sure, one might ask what's the point of wearing, say, (relatively) short dresses, ruby red lipstick or high heels? Would some women still dress that way if there were no men around? I personally find those kind of clothes uncomfortable and over the top. I don't like lipstick either. But that's just my personal taste. I would tend to think that often, these things are used to manipulate/attract men's attention. But maybe not. Maybe I'm off. Maybe some women just like to express their feminity in this way.

I'm repeating myself here, but really I think no matter how you cut it, it always comes down to this need for men to master their urges first, so that they don't react so much to such stimuli. If there's no reaction on the man's part, the woman might just adjust her behavior accordingly. Men leading the way here, women following and then the dance could begin? Maybe :)

I agree with you here Adaryn, women should be able to wear what they want without the fear of being harassed.

I've seen plenty of these videos, this woman isn't even dressed in a provocative way

http://<iframe width="560" height="...Rk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm 22 years old, and I remember when I was in high school with my group of girlfriends and they'd always like to go out and walk on the streets to try and get beeps from cars. TBH I used to go home because I've never liked the thought of that, but there's definitely an appeal for females my age, and even younger to be noticed, and in this society the easiest way seems to be by appearance.

So if that reaction wasn't there in the first place, I guess there would be healthier ways for females to feel validated/ noticed/ loved. Women who are brought up with poor parental figures and don't get the right emotional attention, would naturally try and gain this back from males as that's who they would receive it from first.

 

[bjorb]

First I felt sorry for Ariana Grande. But when I found that she is a sockpuppet for the Empire, nothing can be more unattractive than that.

I think that there is a difference between sexual-affection (true intimacy) and just 'needs' when it comes to sexuality. I think it's more about learning to appreciate affection. And affection (true intimacy) can only be found in the soul of others.

And the truth of the matter is. You can't get affection (true-intimacy) from a plastic soulless muppet like Ariana Grande. To me she seems like a person who can only care about herself.

So speaking about controlling urges. I think that trying to see women as they are and learn to appreciate true caring soul qualities helps. That also includes learning to dislike women who don't possess that.

To me, many men seem unable to dislike women. Simply because there urges tell them to keep trying. They only follow their 'needs'.

While only affection can bring meaning.

I hope that made sense…?

 

[Oxajil]

Maybe it's a bit simplistic but I'd say the whole problem could be solved from either side with direct and respectful communication in the moment. I mean, in the context of The Work, if everyone can agree that:

1) most people have not entirely mastered their drives, impulses, programs, etc. in this area
2) that they are sincerely working to do just that
3) burkas aren't the solution
4) repression isn't the solution

....then if or when a situation occurs that needs addressing, everyone learns to do just that. Like "Hey Man, when you talk like that it makes me feel like you think I'm a stupid woman." or "Hey Woman, when you act like that it makes me feel like you're inviting my attention." And then discuss and find a solution.

Of course it can be difficult for anyone not used to communicating like that, and it would take self-awareness, but I think it could work. Maybe if everyone could do that with each other in this context and grow a better sense of the opposite sex and all the potentials therein, that could help in dealing with interactions outside of The Work too.

I think that's a good approach. It can be difficult like you said, especially when ''be nice'' programs kick in, but it can be done by reminding oneself that by saying it straight the problem will be resolved, and not grow into a bigger and more complicated one!

Sure, one might ask what's the point of wearing, say, (relatively) short dresses, ruby red lipstick or high heels? Would some women still dress that way if there were no men around? I personally find those kind of clothes uncomfortable and over the top. I don't like lipstick either. But that's just my personal taste. I would tend to think that often, these things are used to manipulate/attract men's attention. But maybe not. Maybe I'm off. Maybe some women just like to express their feminity in this way.

I think that on occasion it can be fun to try out a new color, or try out a new technique and things like that. I think a woman putting on eyeshadow or lipstick, can be similar to when someone does something different to their hair, or wears a different shirt. It becomes more about being creative about how one presents oneself. Not in an over-the-top way! But in the way of experimenting and creativity. Occasionally or on special events. So I think that yeah, it can be a way to express your feminity.

 

[Neil]

Yeah, this Ariana episode looks to me like a 3rd density manifestation of the concept of frequency resonance. After looking at a couple of her music videos, this sort of base, low vibration energy is the type of energy that permeates her songs. In this particular case, the universe pretty much gave her what she was asking for by attracting a person who resonates with that level of energy in the encounter. It's the same principle with how people get possessed or messed with by 4D STS; it's simply that bad psychic hygiene creates windows. It is possible that some of her little is were shocked by this encounter, which in the Work should give her pause to think about why her reality is the way it is and what to do about it. We all know she won't do that, and she seems pretty strongly aligned with the objectification principle. While this may not be necessarily true of every encounter of this type, the thoughts and gestures that you send out into your reality apparently mean a lot esoterically speaking, and hers are not good.

First I felt sorry for Ariana Grande. But when I found that she is a sockpuppet for the Empire, nothing can be more unattractive than that.

Yeah, people like her and people who internalize what she's selling are profoundly unattractive. She may be very smooth and have all of the right curves in the right places, but there is a sort of repulsive wall of "falseness" that emanates from such people and I don't find it sexy at all. It reminds me of what Gurdjieff described as woman-mothers vs woman-females; the ones who lean toward woman-mother exude qualitatively different and more comforting impressions.

On a somewhat related sidebar, I was feeling slightly guilty for enjoying this video so much _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhW1mh7U6-U because it is fundamentally a pop song and part of the appeal was that I found the women sexy, which is actually somewhat difficult for me amongst all of the "falseness" that is propagated out there. Even though they are still kind of "strutting their stuff," they seem to have a more dignified way of going about it. Comparing this music to Ariana's is like comparing a Greek sculpture to a porn magazine, it just doesn't "reek" of those coarser impressions. I'm sure they get harassed, heck I would even stare a little bit, but I think they attract a different kind of person. Still, watching beautiful women singing about a mythical love affair with subtle esoteric undertones while they do their pseudo-celtic dance is probably not something I should be spending my time on...

 

[Phill4]

I was gonna post something yesterday, then sudently it became super active.

I think that to look at this issue, there needs to be a clear division of all the elements, because there is a lot to be said certanly.

Some of the things are being touched uppon as far as the situation itself with her, so i am only gonna comment right now about the sex and sexual energy

In that i think it is important to look at it in the biological, psychological emotional and esoteric perspectives, to get a clues as to how it works, and then how we experience/perceive it.


I did a quick search and found something that may help this:

Important to note about this article is that the subjects in the experiment were people with abnormal sexual desires due to tumors or other conditions.(link to the experiment bellow the introductory quote of the article)

INTRODUCTION (neuroscience)

.
Sexual desire is defined as the behavioural drive that motivates individuals to fantasize about or seek out sexual activity. In contrast, sexual arousal is defined as the autonomic physiological processes that prepare the body for sexual activity (Toledano, Pfaus., 2006). It is important to make clear distinctions between the two definitions as confusion can occur due to, the often simultaneous occurrence of both mechanisms (Pfaus., 2009).

Sexual desire is the culmination of several different neural mechanisms, each is controlled in different areas of the brain and is activated at different times of the sexual experience. The euphoric and pleasurable experience of sex stems primarily from the limbic system. The colloquial term for areas including the amygdala, hippocampus and limbic lobe (dentate and cingulate gyrus). This area is common to all mammals and is considered one of the oldest areas of the brain. It regulates emotion and encourages the avoidance of painful of aversive stimuli and the repetition of pleasurable experiences.

From a physiological perspective sexual arousal is controlled by the parasympathetic portion of the autonomic nervous system and manifests itself as vasodilation in sexual organs along with several other physiological phenomena including an increase in heart rate. An orgasm and in particular male ejaculation is controlled by the sympathetic portion, this is also accompanied by deactivation of many areas in the brain relating to external stimuli in particular fear, allowing the mind to focus on the task at hand.

The article goes on to explain how the biological mechanism works in Broad lines, you can find it here:

_http://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/Sex+and+the+Brain.+What+parts+are+involved%3F


There are several systems at play that are involved from a phisiological process and from a psychological process.

This seemed interesting interms of the work, because it indicated that the second, the psychological process is random and dependent on the subject, more precicely how the psyche developed during its formation, and how events formed behaviors during puverty.

In terms of the work also and this conversation there is domething i came to mind and there seems to be socially and personally an element of emotional repression which translates in 1) a disconection from the phisical-emotional centers and becomes a physical-intellectual Where the intellect-emotional when acting in function of sex , is already distorted with programs and more. At the core.

And the second thing is an element of emotional repression.

How society represses and is repressed through the promotion of removal of the emotional factor conected to sex
And how we are individually in some aspects or others we are repressed and repress others through this form of programing.

The thing with all of this is to discover our inner imaging taking into account this is a hardwired physical and emotional process.

In the example even when she narrates that is her "sexual expression" to me it is a very shallow comment, meaning she has no idea what that means in any way any more that the programing itself, she just came up with that, but even in that example , you can see how it is implistly saying that there needs no need of emotional connection for sex. (Which is part of the programing). Or maybe that the emotional connection is very low.
She is acting in complete unawareness of what is going on in deep terms.


The other thing as far as what is discussed that came to mind was that of attachments or entities broadcasted though this kind of propagation, if she has attachments at the spiritual level, i wonder, what is the effect of her consciousness, with attachment-driven underlying motives in a mass scale, how our sexual biases resonate with it at an unconscious level, i mean what is all that process.
Again, taking into account it is a process that is physical-emotional.(chemical and sensory) And then psychological-emotional.(fantasies thoughts etc)

It is extensive and deals with a lot of things...

 

[T.C.]

There's a song I wrote a long time ago that keeps coming to mind in relation to this thread, so I thought I'd share it, although I can't for the life of me remember the first lines of the second verse.

I wrote it not long after discovering The Work. I ended up 'falling in love' with my boss at work, who was married and also Muslim. The mere thought of her face was like experiencing the high from a drug. Through what I'd learned from the forum, I managed to process how I felt about it through writing a song in the style of a 'British Indie Anthem'.

Animalistic

Why do all my friends think I'm gonna make a move, when I open up and tell them of the way I feel for you?
Coz life is full of woulds and shoulds, and itches that you just don't scratch.
Yeah, I'll admit there's times when I'm laid in bed alone, and your face appears before me like you've come to keep me warm.
But I can tell the truth from lies, and the way you make me feel is no surprise.

Coz you must push a button on my dial
And a chemical reaction makes me smile
We'll never be together and that's fine
But if this was me ten years ago, I would put my job on the line.

[...]
I'm animalistic, and that is why I'm better on my own.
But it's nice to get to learn to see a woman as a friend, and come to terms with feelings that I don't need to defend
At first I was ashamed but now I know I'm not to blame for what I am.

Coz you must push a button on my dial
And a chemical reaction makes me smile
We'll never be together and that's fine
But if this was me ten years ago, I would put my job on the line.

 

[neema]

I also think that if men are more willing to accept personal responsibility and be aware of their underlying programing and essentially not ‘feed’ such behavior, they can help women develop a more balanced energy.

Speaking of energy, if we are potentially energy life forms with our current corporeal existence being a symbolic manifestation of our vibrational frequency, then our behavior is effected both by our will and level of self-awareness.

Of course, the degree of self-awareness and will varies from person to person.

Imo it’s not just having will that’s important, we also need to have awareness. After all, animals can be very willful. If we have enough awareness of our mechanical and biological subconscious programs, we can observe them and use our will to direct our behavior.

Theoretically speaking, our “major” differences (race, sex, and age) are subjective illusions necessary for individual lesson profiles.

Taking this theory further, why not extend it and say we are a soul first and a man/woman second. If one stops identifying so much with the subjective illusion of separation and maintains this level of awareness, perhaps carnal desire can cease its pull, OSIT.

Just some of my thoughts provoked by this thread.

 

[Ruth]

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.

It raises the question of is sex appropriate in art? I don't think it is, and if it is in art, it's merely incidental, never a main theme, but of secondary importance.

As an aside, I did once see an art program about Catherine the Great's erotic art collection. She was a prolific art collector and I think a lot of it was for status and ego, but she had an erotic art collection too, not all of which, the Germans managed to steal in WWII. The question the narrator asked when describing some of the pieces was when does erotic art become pornography? It was an interesting question I thought, at the time.

On the other hand, sex in life, entertainment and/or marketing? Then yes. Totally appropriate. It's not like we can escape it. It's there. See how some people view sex in the Sense8 thread on this forum. When the main issues maybe more along the lines of gender, race, cultural differences, communication and relationships. Some people feel that it has no place in entertainment either, especially if it is too overt.

I see Ariana Grande as an entertainer, not an artist, who markets herself in a specific way. Perhaps she has been far too good at it and the entertainment and marketing is seen as real instead of fake, by some members of the general public. Perhaps their ability to distinguish real from imaginary is not very good? They may or may not care, depending on whether they want to live in a real or a fake world, and that depends on their nature.