I give up. I explained that I was more aggressive than I meant to be said I mean no ill will or attacks - basically, I held my hands up and apologised and it's still not enough for you.
So many posters seem to be looking for arguments where there isn't any. It really spoils this forum.
You may be right.
Here's the article I have been using as a source. It actually sides more with you but offers a critique of male artists as well.
1) Women are all bisexual, draping themselves over each other for the attention of men. (Yet any any hint of guys being gay or bisexual...no no no!)
2) Women have to be totally happy walking around in underwear, and must have great bodies. Guys can show of their chest (if they have a good one), its ok for guys to wear casual clothes, and to also be overweight (if they can rap).
3) Guys can seemingly interchange the girls they are with at will
4) Life is only really about making money and sex....
Those are pretty much my life lessons from watching music videos..
.'...the Force runs strong in you. Pass on what you have learned,....'
As i've seen you just want to be rude and argumentative with various people making out that information you have cherry picked to back up your argument is fact when its not. Sad really and im not one to argue, everyone can do their own research, see what you have decided to pick from it to back your case and make their own minds and opinions up.
i agree with what a previous poster said about people wanting to be argumentative on this forum. Its so ridiculous and is something i use to pass time on trains buses etc not something i take in a serious manner and people like Soupietwist are the exact reason i barely comment because sometimes its not worth the aggro from other users.
As i've seen you just want to be rude and argumentative with various people making out that information you have cherry picked to back up your argument is fact when its not. Sad really and im not one to argue, everyone can do their own research, see what you have decided to pick from it to back your case and make their own minds and opinions up.
i agree with what a previous poster said about people wanting to be argumentative on this forum. Its so ridiculous and is something i use to pass time on trains buses etc not something i take in a serious manner and people like Soupietwist are the exact reason i barely comment because sometimes its not worth the aggro from other users.
Firstly I was pointing out to a different poster that I thought the idea behind 'Salute' (Women being in control, banding together, female empowerment, we don't need men) was a little rich considering the amount of men that went into creating that song/video. You turned up and rudely said I needed to do research on the subject - which I did, then you said 'Colin Tilley' was ONE of Little Mixes managers - which is completely incorrect, to which I replied perhaps it's you who should do some research - rude maybe, but it's simply what you said first to me.
And no 'various people' did not make out that I'd cherry picked that information - only you did. Even the original person I was making the point to agreed with some points.
My main point from earlier was simply that so much of the criticism is aimed at female artists putting themselves on display but male artists ( Consider Justin Timberlake's vid for 'Tunnel Vision' or Calvin Harris's for 'Thinking About You') who also put women on display get away without criticism.
Men are definitely not exempt. I think the main thrust (excuse the pun) of this thread is aimed at female performers because they're the ones who are portraying themselves in a more sexual way. Male artists do not tend to do this. If they want to make a "sexy" video they'll stick a bunch of half naked women in there (like the execrable Robin Thicke).
The male as sex object was probably best parodied by Robbie Williams's brilliant video for "Rock DJ" where he literally stripped himself down to the bone (perhaps as homage to Depeche Mode haha). Men on the whole, though, only tend to strip to the waist. I don't think we'll be seeing Pitbull in a tiny pair of shorts wiggling his bum for 4 minutes any time soon (thank God!).
But of course plenty of male artists, especially rappers, use scantily-clad women in their videos but the men are firmly in control and the women are either window dressing or treated as objects or possessions along with cars and bling. I guess if the rappers are talking about money and women and jewellery then at least it's in context but it's still nothing more than old-fashioned chauvinism.
And of course it's going to generate interest. Lots of YouTube clicks if the artist's video features scantily-clad women. Video directors and record companies care little for the context or meaning as long as they know they can generate publicity by showing lots of flesh. This is a shame because the medium is great for showcasing major talent in video making - see acclaimed directors like Spike Jonze, Michel Gondry, Anton Corbijn, Chris Cunningham, Garth Jennings etc.
I'll state again that I am not anti-pornography and I'm certainly no prude - I'm as prone to admire depictions of sex and nudity in many forms as anyone else - but it's becoming almost ubiquitous now in pop music and while it's fine to move towards a more healthy, less repressed and freer society in terms of sexuality (like, say, Scandinavian countries have been for many years) we still seem to be largely stuck in old-fashioned objectifying portrayals of sexuality, of sex as a commodity and a publicity gimmick rather than an honest and equal depiction of sexual freedom.
That is one of the stupidest things I've read. If I had any interest in Beyoncé I'd have watched those videos dozens of times before now. I didn't watch them in their entirety (as I said) and as they are put out there for us all to watch, me watching them, many for the first time and certainly never having paid any real attention to them before, it's not what any one could realistically describe as voyeurism. I'm not the one who decided to present Knowles in that way but I am capable of seeing what is going on when it comes to selling her music. I wonder how many hundreds of millions of dollars she might have if the concept of the music video did not exist.
It says more about you than it does about Beyoncé.
It doesn't say anything about me other than I assembled an inexhaustive list of Beyoncé singles and made a point of giving them all a quick check for sexualised content because I suspected there would be a disproportionate amount compared to many other female singers. The amount proved to be disproportionate to the level of ridicule.
Maybe it says something about you in that you want to play down the blatantly obvious. This woman is trading on sex to sell music. Almost constantly. About the only time she wears anything less revealing is when she gets to play Etta James.
The context is that these are promo videos used to encourage people of all ages to buy a product. It's not a question of 'that nude scene in the bath' or that 'writhing around in hot pants' was essential to the plot. ^_^
That's just a quick statement to dismiss what I wrote.
"these videos are put out there to attract attention for the pop star in question" - not an assumption
"Kids like pop stars" - not an assumption
"Very few of them listen to more mature artists" - not an assumption. Yes of course the occasional one listens to Led Zep but that will be occasional. 8 to 12 year girls of the 21st century are more likely to be singing along to "Push The Button" or "Rude Boy" than classic rock. You can call that an assumption too but I've witnessed it and we all know these things regardless of whether we want to acknowledge them.
"Apart from a select few which are certificated, these videos are shown everywhere, all the time" - not an assumption. Most videos have not been certificated or controlled in any way and are shown on any channels at any hour.
"The people behind them know this perfectly well." - not an assumption. Record executives are aware of how the media works.
"They don't care." I don't believe they do. They are in the business of making money and all that would hinder them is regulation. Does anyone actually think Beyoncé etc. give a damn about their sexualised portrayals of themselves reaching primary school girls when they are making millions every month?
"Their only objective is to earn a great deal of money." I certainly believe this is the sole motivation. Take of clothing at every given opportunity, it generates interest and therefore sales. Who cares about artistic integrity when you can become a multi-millionaire acting like the only person who ever had an ass.
Firstly, many of the kids I know do listen to mature artists (Zeppelin, The Who, Nirvana all have their young fans) but I'm not sure that these mature artists lifestyles were always exemplary!
I'm sure. They weren't. Private lives is not what is being discussed.
Secondly, how are kids actually influenced by what they see.? What do they actually take from these videos? Do kids take these videos at face value or interpret them just as people here do?
They mimic the moves, sing the words and want to dress how they see their favourite pop stars dressing.
Most of the social science evidence points to the fact that it is access to hard core internet porn that may have an affect on adolescent male attitudes to sex.
It would. That is the sharp edge. Female pop stars wriggling around in fetish wear is not completely detached from the pornography spectrum. It is done to titillate and arouse and I believe it trains pre-pubescent girls to copy. I believe this based on having seen it myself. I don't believe women are mostly to blame for these female pop stars portrayals of themselves - they are playing to a male agenda, although it's more complex than that as many of them have gay fan bases also. Basically Beyoncé (or whoever) are doing what they are doing because of a heterosexual, sexist and exploitative male agenda but they are engaging with it to the max (I say that based on having watched Beyoncé's videos so I could comment fairly with some knowledge). These women are part of the problem because they don't need to be half stripped in 90-something percent of their videos. In fact, they don't have to do it at all. Most female singers don't and won't and I respect that, regardless of how much I might think they'd look good half naked. They don't do it. They value themselves. They have talent. They make their music. I think some of them are gorgeous but thankfully that is irrelevant.
This is rather similar to the suggestions that watching violent video games will make young people more violent. But there is very little evidence that this is the case, rather the evidence shows that interaction with video games improves certain skills.
It's very difficult to 'prove' many things but we do know that people (some people) act out learned behaviour. There are also a lot of topics that struggle to get funding for research because many people don't want any findings that conflict with their ongoing money-making agenda. Interaction with video games will improves certain skills. I'd be surprised if the research specified that the games have to be violent to improve those skills. That would be another red herring, such as concerning ourselves with the lifestyles of pop musicians when the subject is their portrayal in promotion videos.
Pop music from the 50s has consistently been about sexual freedom. We all know what the phrase 'Rock N'Roll' is short hand for. Elvis was seen as dangerous to the moral fibre of America and was only shown from the waist up on Tv for a long time.
Tina Turner was criticised for her provocative dancing in the 60s. The Pistols were seen as the enemy of the people in the 70s. Mick Jagger who is renowned for his womanising is now Sir Mick Jagger.
Would you have been up for banning Elvis?
I'm not Mary Whitehouse reincarnated. I've not suggested that I want to ban anything.
Standards change, what is now seen as disgusting and poor role models may well be surprising to future generations.
That nearly always proves to be the case. It doesn't mean that society won't have a different set of problems as a result. Professionals are seeing problems today that they attribute to current society, which they weren't seeing fifteen years ago. It's very unfashionable to have reservations about anything now however.
Men are definitely not exempt. I think the main thrust (excuse the pun) of this thread is aimed at female performers because they're the ones who are portraying themselves in a more sexual way. Male artists do not tend to do this. If they want to make a "sexy" video they'll stick a bunch of half naked women in there (like the execrable Robin Thicke).
...
I'll state again that I am not anti-pornography and I'm certainly no prude - I'm as prone to admire depictions of sex and nudity in many forms as anyone else - but it's becoming almost ubiquitous now in pop music and while it's fine to move towards a more healthy, less repressed and freer society in terms of sexuality (like, say, Scandinavian countries have been for many years) we still seem to be largely stuck in old-fashioned objectifying portrayals of sexuality, of sex as a commodity and a publicity gimmick rather than an honest and equal depiction of sexual freedom.
Good we have restored some balance which is all I was trying to do initially although you often get sidetracked on these threads.
I think there are some cultural differences between UK and US attitudes and depictions which would probably need thinking through but on the whole pop music has made a good contribution to breaking down the barriers of sexual repression.
But of course plenty of male artists, especially rappers, use scantily-clad women in their videos but the men are firmly in control and the women are either window dressing or treated as objects or possessions along with cars and bling. I guess if the rappers are talking about money and women and jewellery then at least it's in context but it's still nothing more than old-fashioned chauvinism.
Where you write "especially" rappers, that probably is the case now. Rap videos can be the more cringe-worthy and clichéd of all but going back a couple of decades, it was possibly the mainstay of Heavy Metal bands. Of course plenty of Hip Hop fans take issue with many rappers and their portrayals but these guys keep pandering to the populist agenda and again, it is the fault of the major labels. They have no interest in promoting socially conscious Hip Hop, just endless nihilistic party music created by thug-a-likes.
And of course it's going to generate interest. Lots of YouTube clicks if the artist's video features scantily-clad women. Video directors and record companies care little for the context or meaning as long as they know they can generate publicity by showing lots of flesh. This is a shame because the medium is great for showcasing major talent in video making - see acclaimed directors like Spike Jonze, Michel Gondry, Anton Corbijn, Chris Cunningham, Garth Jennings etc.
I'll state again that I am not anti-pornography and I'm certainly no prude - I'm as prone to admire depictions of sex and nudity in many forms as anyone else - but it's becoming almost ubiquitous now in pop music and while it's fine to move towards a more healthy, less repressed and freer society in terms of sexuality (like, say, Scandinavian countries have been for many years) we still seem to be largely stuck in old-fashioned objectifying portrayals of sexuality, of sex as a commodity and a publicity gimmick rather than an honest and equal depiction of sexual freedom.
Amen to that. Another problem seems to be that it is so easy to make money from being so crass and unimaginative. It's not having a good effect on chart music at all.
That is one of the stupidest things I've read. If I had any interest in Beyoncé I'd have watched those videos dozens of times before now. I didn't watch them in their entirety (as I said) and as they are put out there for us all to watch, me watching them, many for the first time and certainly never having paid any real attention to them before, it's not what any one could realistically describe as voyeurism. I'm not the one who decided to present Knowles in that way but I am capable of seeing what is going on when it comes to selling her music. I wonder how many hundreds of millions of dollars she might have if the concept of the music video did not exist.
You're the one doing the looking and describing it. I wouldn't discourage textual analysis but I would consider how you express the results.
It doesn't say anything about me other than I assembled an inexhaustive list of Beyoncé singles and made a point of giving them all a quick check for sexualised content because I suspected there would be a disproportionate amount compared to many other female singers. The amount proved to be disproportionate to the level of ridicule.
Maybe it says something about you in that you want to play down the blatantly obvious. This woman is trading on sex to sell music. Almost constantly. About the only time she wears anything less revealing is when she gets to play Etta James.
It says a lot about you that you would go to that trouble actually. I wouldn't.
The context is that these are promo videos used to encourage people of all ages to buy a product. It's not a question of 'that nude scene in the bath' or that 'writhing around in hot pants' was essential to the plot. ^_^
That's just a quick statement to dismiss what I wrote.
"these videos are put out there to attract attention for the pop star in question" - not an assumption
"Kids like pop stars" - not an assumption
"Very few of them listen to more mature artists" - not an assumption. Yes of course the occasional one listens to Led Zep but that will be occasional. 8 to 12 year girls of the 21st century are more likely to be singing along to "Push The Button" or "Rude Boy" than classic rock. You can call that an assumption too but I've witnessed it and we all know these things regardless of whether we want to acknowledge them.
"Apart from a select few which are certificated, these videos are shown everywhere, all the time" - not an assumption. Most videos have not been certificated or controlled in any way and are shown on any channels at any hour.
"The people behind them know this perfectly well." - not an assumption. Record executives are aware of how the media works.
"They don't care." I don't believe they do. They are in the business of making money and all that would hinder them is regulation. Does anyone actually think Beyoncé etc. give a damn about their sexualised portrayals of themselves reaching primary school girls when they are making millions every month?
"Their only objective is to earn a great deal of money." I certainly believe this is the sole motivation. Take of clothing at every given opportunity, it generates interest and therefore sales. Who cares about artistic integrity when you can become a multi-millionaire acting like the only person who ever had an ass.
Most of those are assumptions actually, they are just not unreasonable ones.
It would. That is the sharp edge. Female pop stars wriggling around in fetish wear is not completely detached from the pornography spectrum. It is done to titillate and arouse and I believe it trains pre-pubescent girls to copy. I believe this based on having seen it myself. I don't believe women are mostly to blame for these female pop stars portrayals of themselves - they are playing to a male agenda, although it's more complex than that as many of them have gay fan bases also. Basically Beyoncé (or whoever) are doing what they are doing because of a heterosexual, sexist and exploitative male agenda but they are engaging with it to the max (I say that based on having watched Beyoncé's videos so I could comment fairly with some knowledge). These women are part of the problem because they don't need to be half stripped in 90-something percent of their videos. In fact, they don't have to do it at all. Most female singers don't and won't and I respect that, regardless of how much I might think they'd look good half naked. They don't do it. They value themselves. They have talent. They make their music. I think some of them are gorgeous but thankfully that is irrelevant.
Yes, there is an attention grabbing element to this. But really there is no evidence that these videos affect teenagers attitudes. You can't make that leap, it may indeed have the opposite effect. You think that these videos are oversexualised, many young people will think exactly the same.
It's very difficult to 'prove' many things but we do know that people (some people) act out learned behaviour. There are also a lot of topics that struggle to get funding for research because many people don't want any findings that conflict with their ongoing money-making agenda. Interaction with video games will improves certain skills. I'd be surprised if the research specified that the games have to be violent to improve those skills. That would be another red herring, such as concerning ourselves with the lifestyles of pop musicians when the subject is their portrayal in promotion videos.
Of course it is difficult to prove these things. But people are too quick to leap to conclusions.
That nearly always proves to be the case. It doesn't mean that society won't have a different set of problems as a result. Professionals are seeing problems today that they attribute to current society, which they weren't seeing fifteen years ago. It's very unfashionable to have reservations about anything now however.
I didn't say it wouldn't have other problems but sexual repression might not be one of them.
I give up. I explained that I was more aggressive than I meant to be said I mean no ill will or attacks - basically, I held my hands up and apologised and it's still not enough for you.
So many posters seem to be looking for arguments where there isn't any. It really spoils this forum.
What are you talking about? Let's actually break down the conversation we exchanged:
- You said that you don't attack people who don't agree with you.
- I said that you did just that.
- Yes, you then admitted that maybe you went too far, but then you also accused me of nit-picking and getting personal.
- I said that I was just pointing out what you said and that I was not nit-picking or getting personal at all.
- You're now claiming that you admitted you were wrong and it still wasn't good enough for me... well yes it would have been if you didn't then accuse me of nit-picking and getting personal, which I didn't do at all.
I'm not looking for arguments. You're being childish imo. I didn't nit-pick. You already admitted that you went too far and how did I get personal? If quoting you is too personal, I apologise
MissMarvel, I don't know what you want me to say. I am truly confused, and getting quite upset by your posts.
I regret ever starting this thread, I had no idea it would possibly end up like this. I'm starting to think I'm not cut out for these forums as I seem unable to express myself properly to the point where I keep offending people. I'm not sure what else I can say other than sincerely apologise for any potential wrong doing and leave this thread for the sake of my mental health. Sorry everyone.
MissMarvel, I don't know what you want me to say. I am truly confused, and getting quite upset by your posts.
I regret ever starting this thread, I had no idea it would possibly end up like this. I'm starting to think I'm not cut out for these forums as I seem unable to express myself properly to the point where I keep offending people. I'm not sure what else I can say other than sincerely apologise for any potential wrong doing and leave this thread for the sake of my mental health. Sorry everyone.
I have no idea why my posts would upset you. I'm just trying to defend myself. I wasn't being a nit-pick, I wasn't getting personal and I was not looking for arguments. You can't accuse people of doing things and then get upset when they defend themselves.
I'm not offended and I don't want you to leave over this. It's just the Internet. Some people on here go out of their way to offend people. Even if you did accidently offend me, it's not a big deal. Don't worry about it.
As Spaceygal mentioned Girls on film by Duran Duran is probably the most porn like video I've seen.
Might I suggest that Nellie's 'Tip Drill Remix' (2003), Ludacris's 'P Poppin' (2003) and Madonna's 'Justify My Love' (1990) videos are closer to porn.
It may all be purposeful sexual display but the underlying message is rather unwholesome. Soft core porn videos are not really new but the importance of Youtube
views these days may have encouraged a renaissance(!) of sorts.
Comments
You may be right.
Here's the article I have been using as a source. It actually sides more with you but offers a critique of male artists as well.
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/aug/08/naked-women-pop-videos-justin-timberlake
.'...the Force runs strong in you. Pass on what you have learned,....'
As i've seen you just want to be rude and argumentative with various people making out that information you have cherry picked to back up your argument is fact when its not. Sad really and im not one to argue, everyone can do their own research, see what you have decided to pick from it to back your case and make their own minds and opinions up.
i agree with what a previous poster said about people wanting to be argumentative on this forum. Its so ridiculous and is something i use to pass time on trains buses etc not something i take in a serious manner and people like Soupietwist are the exact reason i barely comment because sometimes its not worth the aggro from other users.
Firstly I was pointing out to a different poster that I thought the idea behind 'Salute' (Women being in control, banding together, female empowerment, we don't need men) was a little rich considering the amount of men that went into creating that song/video. You turned up and rudely said I needed to do research on the subject - which I did, then you said 'Colin Tilley' was ONE of Little Mixes managers - which is completely incorrect, to which I replied perhaps it's you who should do some research - rude maybe, but it's simply what you said first to me.
And no 'various people' did not make out that I'd cherry picked that information - only you did. Even the original person I was making the point to agreed with some points.
Men are definitely not exempt. I think the main thrust (excuse the pun) of this thread is aimed at female performers because they're the ones who are portraying themselves in a more sexual way. Male artists do not tend to do this. If they want to make a "sexy" video they'll stick a bunch of half naked women in there (like the execrable Robin Thicke).
The male as sex object was probably best parodied by Robbie Williams's brilliant video for "Rock DJ" where he literally stripped himself down to the bone (perhaps as homage to Depeche Mode haha). Men on the whole, though, only tend to strip to the waist. I don't think we'll be seeing Pitbull in a tiny pair of shorts wiggling his bum for 4 minutes any time soon (thank God!).
But of course plenty of male artists, especially rappers, use scantily-clad women in their videos but the men are firmly in control and the women are either window dressing or treated as objects or possessions along with cars and bling. I guess if the rappers are talking about money and women and jewellery then at least it's in context but it's still nothing more than old-fashioned chauvinism.
And of course it's going to generate interest. Lots of YouTube clicks if the artist's video features scantily-clad women. Video directors and record companies care little for the context or meaning as long as they know they can generate publicity by showing lots of flesh. This is a shame because the medium is great for showcasing major talent in video making - see acclaimed directors like Spike Jonze, Michel Gondry, Anton Corbijn, Chris Cunningham, Garth Jennings etc.
I'll state again that I am not anti-pornography and I'm certainly no prude - I'm as prone to admire depictions of sex and nudity in many forms as anyone else - but it's becoming almost ubiquitous now in pop music and while it's fine to move towards a more healthy, less repressed and freer society in terms of sexuality (like, say, Scandinavian countries have been for many years) we still seem to be largely stuck in old-fashioned objectifying portrayals of sexuality, of sex as a commodity and a publicity gimmick rather than an honest and equal depiction of sexual freedom.
It doesn't say anything about me other than I assembled an inexhaustive list of Beyoncé singles and made a point of giving them all a quick check for sexualised content because I suspected there would be a disproportionate amount compared to many other female singers. The amount proved to be disproportionate to the level of ridicule.
Maybe it says something about you in that you want to play down the blatantly obvious. This woman is trading on sex to sell music. Almost constantly. About the only time she wears anything less revealing is when she gets to play Etta James.
The context is that these are promo videos used to encourage people of all ages to buy a product. It's not a question of 'that nude scene in the bath' or that 'writhing around in hot pants' was essential to the plot. ^_^
That's just a quick statement to dismiss what I wrote.
"these videos are put out there to attract attention for the pop star in question" - not an assumption
"Kids like pop stars" - not an assumption
"Very few of them listen to more mature artists" - not an assumption. Yes of course the occasional one listens to Led Zep but that will be occasional. 8 to 12 year girls of the 21st century are more likely to be singing along to "Push The Button" or "Rude Boy" than classic rock. You can call that an assumption too but I've witnessed it and we all know these things regardless of whether we want to acknowledge them.
"Apart from a select few which are certificated, these videos are shown everywhere, all the time" - not an assumption. Most videos have not been certificated or controlled in any way and are shown on any channels at any hour.
"The people behind them know this perfectly well." - not an assumption. Record executives are aware of how the media works.
"They don't care." I don't believe they do. They are in the business of making money and all that would hinder them is regulation. Does anyone actually think Beyoncé etc. give a damn about their sexualised portrayals of themselves reaching primary school girls when they are making millions every month?
"Their only objective is to earn a great deal of money." I certainly believe this is the sole motivation. Take of clothing at every given opportunity, it generates interest and therefore sales. Who cares about artistic integrity when you can become a multi-millionaire acting like the only person who ever had an ass.
I'm sure. They weren't. Private lives is not what is being discussed.
They mimic the moves, sing the words and want to dress how they see their favourite pop stars dressing.
It would. That is the sharp edge. Female pop stars wriggling around in fetish wear is not completely detached from the pornography spectrum. It is done to titillate and arouse and I believe it trains pre-pubescent girls to copy. I believe this based on having seen it myself. I don't believe women are mostly to blame for these female pop stars portrayals of themselves - they are playing to a male agenda, although it's more complex than that as many of them have gay fan bases also. Basically Beyoncé (or whoever) are doing what they are doing because of a heterosexual, sexist and exploitative male agenda but they are engaging with it to the max (I say that based on having watched Beyoncé's videos so I could comment fairly with some knowledge). These women are part of the problem because they don't need to be half stripped in 90-something percent of their videos. In fact, they don't have to do it at all. Most female singers don't and won't and I respect that, regardless of how much I might think they'd look good half naked. They don't do it. They value themselves. They have talent. They make their music. I think some of them are gorgeous but thankfully that is irrelevant.
It's very difficult to 'prove' many things but we do know that people (some people) act out learned behaviour. There are also a lot of topics that struggle to get funding for research because many people don't want any findings that conflict with their ongoing money-making agenda. Interaction with video games will improves certain skills. I'd be surprised if the research specified that the games have to be violent to improve those skills. That would be another red herring, such as concerning ourselves with the lifestyles of pop musicians when the subject is their portrayal in promotion videos.
I'm not Mary Whitehouse reincarnated. I've not suggested that I want to ban anything.
That nearly always proves to be the case. It doesn't mean that society won't have a different set of problems as a result. Professionals are seeing problems today that they attribute to current society, which they weren't seeing fifteen years ago. It's very unfashionable to have reservations about anything now however.
Good we have restored some balance which is all I was trying to do initially although you often get sidetracked on these threads.
I think there are some cultural differences between UK and US attitudes and depictions which would probably need thinking through but on the whole pop music has made a good contribution to breaking down the barriers of sexual repression.
My bold. My belief too.
Amen to that. Another problem seems to be that it is so easy to make money from being so crass and unimaginative. It's not having a good effect on chart music at all.
You're the one doing the looking and describing it. I wouldn't discourage textual analysis but I would consider how you express the results.
It says a lot about you that you would go to that trouble actually. I wouldn't.
There you go again.
Most of those are assumptions actually, they are just not unreasonable ones.
Do they?
Yes, there is an attention grabbing element to this. But really there is no evidence that these videos affect teenagers attitudes. You can't make that leap, it may indeed have the opposite effect. You think that these videos are oversexualised, many young people will think exactly the same.
Of course it is difficult to prove these things. But people are too quick to leap to conclusions.
I'm not entirely clear what you would like to do.
I didn't say it wouldn't have other problems but sexual repression might not be one of them.
Post #85: just really a reply to have the last word but adding little to nothing at all. This forum at it's finest.
What are you talking about? Let's actually break down the conversation we exchanged:
- You said that you don't attack people who don't agree with you.
- I said that you did just that.
- Yes, you then admitted that maybe you went too far, but then you also accused me of nit-picking and getting personal.
- I said that I was just pointing out what you said and that I was not nit-picking or getting personal at all.
- You're now claiming that you admitted you were wrong and it still wasn't good enough for me... well yes it would have been if you didn't then accuse me of nit-picking and getting personal, which I didn't do at all.
I'm not looking for arguments. You're being childish imo. I didn't nit-pick. You already admitted that you went too far and how did I get personal? If quoting you is too personal, I apologise
A bit like your own.
I was trying to be fair.
You can have the last word if you really want it.
I regret ever starting this thread, I had no idea it would possibly end up like this. I'm starting to think I'm not cut out for these forums as I seem unable to express myself properly to the point where I keep offending people. I'm not sure what else I can say other than sincerely apologise for any potential wrong doing and leave this thread for the sake of my mental health. Sorry everyone.
I have no idea why my posts would upset you. I'm just trying to defend myself. I wasn't being a nit-pick, I wasn't getting personal and I was not looking for arguments. You can't accuse people of doing things and then get upset when they defend themselves.
I'm not offended and I don't want you to leave over this. It's just the Internet. Some people on here go out of their way to offend people. Even if you did accidently offend me, it's not a big deal. Don't worry about it.
Might I suggest that Nellie's 'Tip Drill Remix' (2003), Ludacris's 'P Poppin' (2003) and Madonna's 'Justify My Love' (1990) videos are closer to porn.
It may all be purposeful sexual display but the underlying message is rather unwholesome. Soft core porn videos are not really new but the importance of Youtube
views these days may have encouraged a renaissance(!) of sorts.