OK, Miley, Britney and Rihanna are a bit too raunchy now, but no-one complained when Britney was parading around in a school uniform.
Yea they did. Remember the Rolling Stone cover with her in her pants and her Twinky Winky doll?
The video itself was nothing wild - if you cut the uniform scenes you'd have a bog standard Billy Piper vid. But the photoshoot was playing up to the "I want you to know how young I am and you want to f me".
Britney made a career out of being a glorified stripper and using sex to get her name mentioned. Now she's revered by younger stars and people who grew up idolising her as this icon so is it any wonder they are worse.
With the internet I suppose its easier for them to make more x rated videos because theyre not confined to late night shots and reach bigger audiences faster
What's the point in protecting your own kids from filth & installing better values in them, when they go to school surrounded by kids who haven't? It rubs off on them anyway, it's a society without morals. A parent can't change that.
The chances of your child getting to see something you'd prefer them not to is very high. What with the internet being extremely popular and lots of people's phones being able to connect to it, they'll eventually get to see some sexual/sexualised image. When I say 'eventually' I don't mean when they're teenagers, but maybe 8+ years old.
The chances of your child getting to see something you'd prefer them not to is very high. What with the internet being extremely popular and lots of people's phones being able to connect to it, they'll eventually get to see some sexual/sexualised image. When I say 'eventually' I don't mean when they're teenagers, but maybe 8+ years old.
That's because so much is based on sex, including pop music, which is for kids as well as adults.
The chances of your child getting to see something you'd prefer them not to is very high. What with the internet being extremely popular and lots of people's phones being able to connect to it, they'll eventually get to see some sexual/sexualised image. When I say 'eventually' I don't mean when they're teenagers, but maybe 8+ years old.
Must agree with you. 10 years + ago I warned a freind about music videos as I knew her young son was keen on the music channels.
Like me she did not believe the 'stuff' she saw.
For me the worst was some rap type video (not a clue who it was) with topless girls groping, etc :eek: each other's bits. They had pole dancers who were having dollar bills shoved up their g strings.
Then if there was any doubt about how to treat a lady... Ahemm...credit cards being swiped through botty cracks :eek::eek::eek:
I enjoyed music videos but couldn't watch them for a long time after that one.
Wonder how many teens accept this sort of thing as everyday behaviour
To me, I don't think it's what's being worn that's the issue.
Frankly, sex sells, and it's not a new concept. It's been around as long as advertising has. A pretty face for a pretty product. But our ideas of what's sexy change - probably because in this hyper-sexual world, we become used to it. In the early 19th Century, it was risque to show leg, never mind cleavage. But that leg could sell product, or sell music in the way of performance.
The public got used to the leg, and so, by the time the 1950s came around, the leg just wasn't sexy enough - so the cleavage came in - and it was exciting. Roll on the decades, and as the public became less sexually-opressed, the clothes started falling off. The late 1970s saw the bondage gear enter the public vision, and as the decades rolled past, we've ended up with performers wearing barely anything.
For me, it's not people wearing barely anything which is the problem. It is, after all, just a body, everyone has one, and as un-PC as it sounds, it's quite natural for our human species to want to see bodies, before the Puritan Regime under Cromwell, and between the Restoration Era and the Victorian Era, although members of the public weren't naked, there were plenty of artistic pieces that showed the human body it's complete and utter natural, nude form - so the idea of things being naked and shown off to the public isn't a new thing. Children could walk down the street and see naked statues. It didn't mean they were all going to turn into raging sluts.
Anyway, to get to my point after this long-winded post, it's more the behaviour that's concerning. Annie Lennox may have performed in her bra - but to my knowledge, she wasn't going around shoving her tits in people's faces. Sex is perfectly natural, teenagers are curious about sex, and so it's not sex itself which is dangerous, but the attitudes around it.
What I find disturbing about Miley Cyrus is not that it's over-sexualised, but that there's a very disturbing and unfortunate sexual attitude behind there. I did see on Twitter when Cyrus posted the Sinead O'Connor meltdown screengrab, some guy on Twitter wrote: "I want to c*m inside you so badly" - or something to that effect. And why? Because Cyrus - and many others these days - put out an unhealthy sexual attitude in their video that allows people to think it's okay to say that kind of stuff. Lennox always had a great deal of power in her videos - I think she's an extremely attractive woman, and especially in her Eurythmics days, had a very strong sexual presence - but there was also a sense of self-worth, authority and power - she was in control of her sexuality. The same with Madonna's "Sex" days - very sexual, but again (in my opinion, anyway), there was still this sense of power - she knew what she was doing, and she knew the effect.
With Cyrus especially, that power, authority and dignity is missing, and then so are the boundaries - that's why it looks desperate, and that's why I find it particularly scary. It's because of this that now sex is becoming this thing where you have to be either very liberal or very conservative with it. You can still dress in skimpy outfits and have your dignity and pride, you can still be overly-sexual and have your dignity and pride. Cyrus doesn't. I suppose it's like everything in sex - there's people who have sex because they enjoy it, and there's people who have sex because they unfortunately feel it's the only way they can feel valued and have a place in society.
People should enjoy sex, they shouldn't feel sexually opressed, and they should feel sexually-attractive. What they shouldn't think it's that sex and being sexually-attractive is their only talent or skill in life - and that's the message that's being put out these days by many of these "artists" who want to be famous. Cyrus said she wanted to shift her "Hannah Montana" image - well, there's plenty of ways to do that if you're clever or talented enough.
To me, I don't think it's what's being worn that's the issue.
Frankly, sex sells, and it's not a new concept. It's been around as long as advertising has. A pretty face for a pretty product. But our ideas of what's sexy change - probably because in this hyper-sexual world, we become used to it. In the early 19th Century, it was risque to show leg, never mind cleavage. But that leg could sell product, or sell music in the way of performance.
The public got used to the leg, and so, by the time the 1950s came around, the leg just wasn't sexy enough - so the cleavage came in - and it was exciting. Roll on the decades, and as the public became less sexually-opressed, the clothes started falling off. The late 1970s saw the bondage gear enter the public vision, and as the decades rolled past, we've ended up with performers wearing barely anything.
For me, it's not people wearing barely anything which is the problem. It is, after all, just a body, everyone has one, and as un-PC as it sounds, it's quite natural for our human species to want to see bodies, before the Puritan Regime under Cromwell, and between the Restoration Era and the Victorian Era, although members of the public weren't naked, there were plenty of artistic pieces that showed the human body it's complete and utter natural, nude form - so the idea of things being naked and shown off to the public isn't a new thing. Children could walk down the street and see naked statues. It didn't mean they were all going to turn into raging sluts.
Anyway, to get to my point after this long-winded post, it's more the behaviour that's concerning. Annie Lennox may have performed in her bra - but to my knowledge, she wasn't going around shoving her tits in people's faces. Sex is perfectly natural, teenagers are curious about sex, and so it's not sex itself which is dangerous, but the attitudes around it.
What I find disturbing about Miley Cyrus is not that it's over-sexualised, but that there's a very disturbing and unfortunate sexual attitude behind there. I did see on Twitter when Cyrus posted the Sinead O'Connor meltdown screengrab, some guy on Twitter wrote: "I want to c*m inside you so badly" - or something to that effect. And why? Because Cyrus - and many others these days - put out an unhealthy sexual attitude in their video that allows people to think it's okay to say that kind of stuff. Lennox always had a great deal of power in her videos - I think she's an extremely attractive woman, and especially in her Eurythmics days, had a very strong sexual presence - but there was also a sense of self-worth, authority and power - she was in control of her sexuality. The same with Madonna's "Sex" days - very sexual, but again (in my opinion, anyway), there was still this sense of power - she knew what she was doing, and she knew the effect.
With Cyrus especially, that power, authority and dignity is missing, and then so are the boundaries - that's why it looks desperate, and that's why I find it particularly scary. It's because of this that now sex is becoming this thing where you have to be either very liberal or very conservative with it. You can still dress in skimpy outfits and have your dignity and pride, you can still be overly-sexual and have your dignity and pride. Cyrus doesn't. I suppose it's like everything in sex - there's people who have sex because they enjoy it, and there's people who have sex because they unfortunately feel it's the only way they can feel valued and have a place in society.
People should enjoy sex, they shouldn't feel sexually opressed, and they should feel sexually-attractive. What they shouldn't think it's that sex and being sexually-attractive is their only talent or skill in life - and that's the message that's being put out these days by many of these "artists" who want to be famous. Cyrus said she wanted to shift her "Hannah Montana" image - well, there's plenty of ways to do that if you're clever or talented enough.
Well said you've just hit the nail on the head - anyone else find Robin Thicke creepy and desperate too for similar reasons?
Anyway, to get to my point after this long-winded post...
What I find disturbing about Miley Cyrus is not that it's over-sexualised, but that there's a very disturbing and unfortunate sexual attitude behind there. I did see on Twitter when Cyrus posted the Sinead O'Connor meltdown screengrab, some guy on Twitter wrote: "I want to c*m inside you so badly" - or something to that effect. And why? Because Cyrus - and many others these days - put out an unhealthy sexual attitude in their video that allows people to think it's okay to say that kind of stuff. Lennox always had a great deal of power in her videos - I think she's an extremely attractive woman, and especially in her Eurythmics days, had a very strong sexual presence - but there was also a sense of self-worth, authority and power - she was in control of her sexuality. The same with Madonna's "Sex" days - very sexual, but again (in my opinion, anyway), there was still this sense of power - she knew what she was doing, and she knew the effect.
With Cyrus especially, that power, authority and dignity is missing, and then so are the boundaries - that's why it looks desperate, and that's why I find it particularly scary. It's because of this that now sex is becoming this thing where you have to be either very liberal or very conservative with it. You can still dress in skimpy outfits and have your dignity and pride, you can still be overly-sexual and have your dignity and pride. Cyrus doesn't. I suppose it's like everything in sex - there's people who have sex because they enjoy it, and there's people who have sex because they unfortunately feel it's the only way they can feel valued and have a place in society.
People should enjoy sex, they shouldn't feel sexually opressed, and they should feel sexually-attractive. What they shouldn't think it's that sex and being sexually-attractive is their only talent or skill in life - and that's the message that's being put out these days by many of these "artists" who want to be famous. Cyrus said she wanted to shift her "Hannah Montana" image - well, there's plenty of ways to do that if you're clever or talented enough.
Great post, noodkleopatra, and not in the least long-winded (the background is as pertinent as the conclusion). It is exactly that authority and sense of self-worth that keeps the focus on the talent. Without it, it's just cheap, tacky, throwaway porn.
To me, I don't think it's what's being worn that's the issue.
Frankly, sex sells, and it's not a new concept. It's been around as long as advertising has. A pretty face for a pretty product. But our ideas of what's sexy change - probably because in this hyper-sexual world, we become used to it. In the early 19th Century, it was risque to show leg, never mind cleavage. But that leg could sell product, or sell music in the way of performance.
The public got used to the leg, and so, by the time the 1950s came around, the leg just wasn't sexy enough - so the cleavage came in - and it was exciting. Roll on the decades, and as the public became less sexually-opressed, the clothes started falling off. The late 1970s saw the bondage gear enter the public vision, and as the decades rolled past, we've ended up with performers wearing barely anything.
For me, it's not people wearing barely anything which is the problem. It is, after all, just a body, everyone has one, and as un-PC as it sounds, it's quite natural for our human species to want to see bodies, before the Puritan Regime under Cromwell, and between the Restoration Era and the Victorian Era, although members of the public weren't naked, there were plenty of artistic pieces that showed the human body it's complete and utter natural, nude form - so the idea of things being naked and shown off to the public isn't a new thing. Children could walk down the street and see naked statues. It didn't mean they were all going to turn into raging sluts.
Anyway, to get to my point after this long-winded post, it's more the behaviour that's concerning. Annie Lennox may have performed in her bra - but to my knowledge, she wasn't going around shoving her tits in people's faces. Sex is perfectly natural, teenagers are curious about sex, and so it's not sex itself which is dangerous, but the attitudes around it.
What I find disturbing about Miley Cyrus is not that it's over-sexualised, but that there's a very disturbing and unfortunate sexual attitude behind there. I did see on Twitter when Cyrus posted the Sinead O'Connor meltdown screengrab, some guy on Twitter wrote: "I want to c*m inside you so badly" - or something to that effect. And why? Because Cyrus - and many others these days - put out an unhealthy sexual attitude in their video that allows people to think it's okay to say that kind of stuff. Lennox always had a great deal of power in her videos - I think she's an extremely attractive woman, and especially in her Eurythmics days, had a very strong sexual presence - but there was also a sense of self-worth, authority and power - she was in control of her sexuality. The same with Madonna's "Sex" days - very sexual, but again (in my opinion, anyway), there was still this sense of power - she knew what she was doing, and she knew the effect.
With Cyrus especially, that power, authority and dignity is missing, and then so are the boundaries - that's why it looks desperate, and that's why I find it particularly scary. It's because of this that now sex is becoming this thing where you have to be either very liberal or very conservative with it. You can still dress in skimpy outfits and have your dignity and pride, you can still be overly-sexual and have your dignity and pride. Cyrus doesn't. I suppose it's like everything in sex - there's people who have sex because they enjoy it, and there's people who have sex because they unfortunately feel it's the only way they can feel valued and have a place in society.
People should enjoy sex, they shouldn't feel sexually opressed, and they should feel sexually-attractive. What they shouldn't think it's that sex and being sexually-attractive is their only talent or skill in life - and that's the message that's being put out these days by many of these "artists" who want to be famous. Cyrus said she wanted to shift her "Hannah Montana" image - well, there's plenty of ways to do that if you're clever or talented enough.
Well what about Disclosure's Latch, with lyrics like 'I'm latching over you', basically saying 'I wanna cum into you'?
Or does Annie Lennox find that song OK because it's sung by a man and written and produced by men?
Wouldn't the other way be to cut the publicity oxygen for those artists?
And for parents to not buy the albums and merchandise and concert tickets for them? The press whip up the controversy when Rihanna/Miley releases a video, and the parents buy the albums, which adds fuel to the fire.
Wouldn't the other way be to cut the publicity oxygen for those artists?
And for parents to not buy the albums and merchandise and concert tickets for them? The press whip up the controversy when Rihanna/Miley releases a video, and the parents buy the albums, which adds fuel to the fire.
It's not necessarily the parents buying though, the kids get itunes vouchers for Christmas and whatever and download away onto their iPods.
But I think, yes, parents have a duty to keep on track of what's "in" and talk to their kids about what's going on. Eg the Wrecking Ball the song might be fine to listen to but they don't need to watch the vid. Rihanna is tricker coz her lyrics are a bit "ruder" and no one wants their kids singing S S S S M M M M or Rude Boy Can you get it up!?
That said though I used to sing along to Luniz I got 5 on it and Salt n Peppa Let's talk about sex without a thought it my head... although I do remember a family friend buying Britney tickets for her daughters aged 8 and 6 and having to sell them when she saw photos in the paper of what kind of things went on.
It's not necessarily the parents buying though, the kids get itunes vouchers for Christmas and whatever and download away onto their iPods.
But I think, yes, parents have a duty to keep on track of what's "in" and talk to their kids about what's going on. Eg the Wrecking Ball the song might be fine to listen to but they don't need to watch the vid. Rihanna is tricker coz her lyrics are a bit "ruder" and no one wants their kids singing S S S S M M M M or Rude Boy Can you get it up!?
That said though I used to sing along to Luniz I got 5 on it and Salt n Peppa Let's talk about sex without a thought it my head... although I do remember a family friend buying Britney tickets for her daughters aged 8 and 6 and having to sell them when she saw photos in the paper of what kind of things went on.
It's the same point I raised with the soaps- it was OK for parents to let their kiddies watch Shortland Street in daytime/teatime in most ITV regions, despite the racy storylines in the early years like Guy sleeping with Nick Harrison's mum and Meredith Fleming, or Marj's son Darryl attempting to sexually assault Kirsty Knight. Denise Welch clearly found it OK for her (now older, but about 5/6 at the time) son when Granada broadcast it in the mid-1990's briefly at the H&A 5.10pm slot (hence why Tyne Tees probably acquired it) and my mum found it OK (when I was 10) when TT broadcast it in the mid-afternoons.
If they had a problem with Shortland Street (or with Prisoner, the Margi Clarke sex show or any racy programme the kids were watching), they would have not let us watch it, ban TV's so we were unable to watch SS or go crowing to Granada/TT/Central/any other ITV region. But they chose not to-allowing their kiddies (and me) to watch the show,effectively lighting the bluetouch paper and standing back leading now to the situation with Rihanna/Britney/Miley getting raunchier now and Annie Lennox complaining.
It's the same point I raised with the soaps- it was OK for parents to let their kiddies watch Shortland Street in daytime/teatime in most ITV regions, despite the racy storylines in the early years like Guy sleeping with Nick Harrison's mum and Meredith Fleming, or Marj's son Darryl attempting to sexually assault Kirsty Knight. Denise Welch clearly found it OK for her (now older) son when Granada broadcast it in the mid-1990's (hence why Tyne Tees acquired it) and my mum found it OK (when I was 10) when TT broadcast it.
If they had a problem with Shortland Street (or with Prisoner, the Margi Clarke sex show or any racy programme the kids were watching), they would have not let us watch it, ban TV's or go crowing to Granada/TT/Central/any other ITV region. But they chose not to-allowing their kiddies (and me) to watch the show,effectively lighting the bluetouch paper and standing back leading now to the situation with Rihanna/Britney/Miley and Annie Lennox complaining.
Ive never seen shortland st but this reminds me a bit of a good few years back there was a scene in Corrie where Danny Baldwin was called a "bastard" by his soon to be ex wife. People complained about the use of the word bastard before 9.00 and the effect it would have on the kiddies watching. My mother, reading about the storm, raised the point that what did the impressionable kiddies think he was being called a bastard FOR! Afterall the storyline was he had be shagging his SONS girlfriend!!! But seemingly thats ok for the kiddies to watch just dont say a swear!
Does anyone really find what Miley, Rihanna and Britney are doing ''shocking''?
I mean, what they're doing is playground stuff compared to Madonna simulating bestiality or Courtney Love screwing her guitar onstage... I can't call this ''boundary pushing'' or ''controversial'' when other people have gone further, and in the case of Madonna, are still going further.
Does anyone really find what Miley, Rihanna and Britney are doing ''shocking''?
I mean, what they're doing is playground stuff compared to Madonna simulating bestiality or Courtney Love screwing her guitar onstage... I can't call this ''boundary pushing'' or ''controversial'' when other people have gone further, and in the case of Madonna, are still going further.
I know I don't but a video showing 'woman as ****' (Rihanna) is really pretty nasty, and going nude just for shock value (Miley) sets feminism back a long way. Britney I can't speak for as I haven't seen the video in question, but when you've been around as long as I have, there's not much that shocks me.
Very interesting comments, really enjoyed reading everyones opinions.
For me one of the issues is the inequality of videos, I watched 4 Music a couple of months ago (I'm too old to watch it regularly but was curious to know what kids are into) and saw three videos in a row, in each one there were women wearing next to nothing and men fully clothed. The men clearly being portrayed for their talent and the women for their bodies.
Working in a school I really notice how boys treat girls with much less respect than my peers did. It is really sad to see, as a previous poster said that feminism really has been set back. Whatever happened to girl power?
Very interesting comments, really enjoyed reading everyones opinions.
For me one of the issues is the inequality of videos, I watched 4 Music a couple of months ago (I'm too old to watch it regularly but was curious to know what kids are into) and saw three videos in a row, in each one there were women wearing next to nothing and men fully clothed. The men clearly being portrayed for their talent and the women for their bodies.
Working in a school I really notice how boys treat girls with much less respect than my peers did. It is really sad to see, as a previous poster said that feminism really has been set back. Whatever happened to girl power?
Much as I loathed their musical output - they did at least have a 'musical' output that wasn't sexually reliant. They were 'fun' in a silly way and hardly in the same league as say The Pussycat Dolls, who were just beyond sexual. The Spice Girls weren't that interested in breaking boundaries - they were more about making money. I'd say they were one of the most harmless female groups tbh.
Comments
Yea they did. Remember the Rolling Stone cover with her in her pants and her Twinky Winky doll?
The video itself was nothing wild - if you cut the uniform scenes you'd have a bog standard Billy Piper vid. But the photoshoot was playing up to the "I want you to know how young I am and you want to f me".
Britney made a career out of being a glorified stripper and using sex to get her name mentioned. Now she's revered by younger stars and people who grew up idolising her as this icon so is it any wonder they are worse.
With the internet I suppose its easier for them to make more x rated videos because theyre not confined to late night shots and reach bigger audiences faster
The chances of your child getting to see something you'd prefer them not to is very high. What with the internet being extremely popular and lots of people's phones being able to connect to it, they'll eventually get to see some sexual/sexualised image. When I say 'eventually' I don't mean when they're teenagers, but maybe 8+ years old.
That's because so much is based on sex, including pop music, which is for kids as well as adults.
Must agree with you. 10 years + ago I warned a freind about music videos as I knew her young son was keen on the music channels.
Like me she did not believe the 'stuff' she saw.
For me the worst was some rap type video (not a clue who it was) with topless girls groping, etc :eek: each other's bits. They had pole dancers who were having dollar bills shoved up their g strings.
Then if there was any doubt about how to treat a lady... Ahemm...credit cards being swiped through botty cracks :eek::eek::eek:
I enjoyed music videos but couldn't watch them for a long time after that one.
Wonder how many teens accept this sort of thing as everyday behaviour
Frankly, sex sells, and it's not a new concept. It's been around as long as advertising has. A pretty face for a pretty product. But our ideas of what's sexy change - probably because in this hyper-sexual world, we become used to it. In the early 19th Century, it was risque to show leg, never mind cleavage. But that leg could sell product, or sell music in the way of performance.
The public got used to the leg, and so, by the time the 1950s came around, the leg just wasn't sexy enough - so the cleavage came in - and it was exciting. Roll on the decades, and as the public became less sexually-opressed, the clothes started falling off. The late 1970s saw the bondage gear enter the public vision, and as the decades rolled past, we've ended up with performers wearing barely anything.
For me, it's not people wearing barely anything which is the problem. It is, after all, just a body, everyone has one, and as un-PC as it sounds, it's quite natural for our human species to want to see bodies, before the Puritan Regime under Cromwell, and between the Restoration Era and the Victorian Era, although members of the public weren't naked, there were plenty of artistic pieces that showed the human body it's complete and utter natural, nude form - so the idea of things being naked and shown off to the public isn't a new thing. Children could walk down the street and see naked statues. It didn't mean they were all going to turn into raging sluts.
Anyway, to get to my point after this long-winded post, it's more the behaviour that's concerning. Annie Lennox may have performed in her bra - but to my knowledge, she wasn't going around shoving her tits in people's faces. Sex is perfectly natural, teenagers are curious about sex, and so it's not sex itself which is dangerous, but the attitudes around it.
What I find disturbing about Miley Cyrus is not that it's over-sexualised, but that there's a very disturbing and unfortunate sexual attitude behind there. I did see on Twitter when Cyrus posted the Sinead O'Connor meltdown screengrab, some guy on Twitter wrote: "I want to c*m inside you so badly" - or something to that effect. And why? Because Cyrus - and many others these days - put out an unhealthy sexual attitude in their video that allows people to think it's okay to say that kind of stuff. Lennox always had a great deal of power in her videos - I think she's an extremely attractive woman, and especially in her Eurythmics days, had a very strong sexual presence - but there was also a sense of self-worth, authority and power - she was in control of her sexuality. The same with Madonna's "Sex" days - very sexual, but again (in my opinion, anyway), there was still this sense of power - she knew what she was doing, and she knew the effect.
With Cyrus especially, that power, authority and dignity is missing, and then so are the boundaries - that's why it looks desperate, and that's why I find it particularly scary. It's because of this that now sex is becoming this thing where you have to be either very liberal or very conservative with it. You can still dress in skimpy outfits and have your dignity and pride, you can still be overly-sexual and have your dignity and pride. Cyrus doesn't. I suppose it's like everything in sex - there's people who have sex because they enjoy it, and there's people who have sex because they unfortunately feel it's the only way they can feel valued and have a place in society.
People should enjoy sex, they shouldn't feel sexually opressed, and they should feel sexually-attractive. What they shouldn't think it's that sex and being sexually-attractive is their only talent or skill in life - and that's the message that's being put out these days by many of these "artists" who want to be famous. Cyrus said she wanted to shift her "Hannah Montana" image - well, there's plenty of ways to do that if you're clever or talented enough.
Well said you've just hit the nail on the head - anyone else find Robin Thicke creepy and desperate too for similar reasons?
Great post, noodkleopatra, and not in the least long-winded (the background is as pertinent as the conclusion). It is exactly that authority and sense of self-worth that keeps the focus on the talent. Without it, it's just cheap, tacky, throwaway porn.
OMG, he's beyond creepy :eek: I can't look at him, he repulses me. And he is so unattractive, he reminds me of a rodent
Well what about Disclosure's Latch, with lyrics like 'I'm latching over you', basically saying 'I wanna cum into you'?
Or does Annie Lennox find that song OK because it's sung by a man and written and produced by men?
And for parents to not buy the albums and merchandise and concert tickets for them? The press whip up the controversy when Rihanna/Miley releases a video, and the parents buy the albums, which adds fuel to the fire.
WHAT?:eek:
Is that what that means ???
I love that song ... I ... *faints*
It's not necessarily the parents buying though, the kids get itunes vouchers for Christmas and whatever and download away onto their iPods.
But I think, yes, parents have a duty to keep on track of what's "in" and talk to their kids about what's going on. Eg the Wrecking Ball the song might be fine to listen to but they don't need to watch the vid. Rihanna is tricker coz her lyrics are a bit "ruder" and no one wants their kids singing S S S S M M M M or Rude Boy Can you get it up!?
That said though I used to sing along to Luniz I got 5 on it and Salt n Peppa Let's talk about sex without a thought it my head... although I do remember a family friend buying Britney tickets for her daughters aged 8 and 6 and having to sell them when she saw photos in the paper of what kind of things went on.
It's the same point I raised with the soaps- it was OK for parents to let their kiddies watch Shortland Street in daytime/teatime in most ITV regions, despite the racy storylines in the early years like Guy sleeping with Nick Harrison's mum and Meredith Fleming, or Marj's son Darryl attempting to sexually assault Kirsty Knight. Denise Welch clearly found it OK for her (now older, but about 5/6 at the time) son when Granada broadcast it in the mid-1990's briefly at the H&A 5.10pm slot (hence why Tyne Tees probably acquired it) and my mum found it OK (when I was 10) when TT broadcast it in the mid-afternoons.
If they had a problem with Shortland Street (or with Prisoner, the Margi Clarke sex show or any racy programme the kids were watching), they would have not let us watch it, ban TV's so we were unable to watch SS or go crowing to Granada/TT/Central/any other ITV region. But they chose not to-allowing their kiddies (and me) to watch the show,effectively lighting the bluetouch paper and standing back leading now to the situation with Rihanna/Britney/Miley getting raunchier now and Annie Lennox complaining.
Ive never seen shortland st but this reminds me a bit of a good few years back there was a scene in Corrie where Danny Baldwin was called a "bastard" by his soon to be ex wife. People complained about the use of the word bastard before 9.00 and the effect it would have on the kiddies watching. My mother, reading about the storm, raised the point that what did the impressionable kiddies think he was being called a bastard FOR! Afterall the storyline was he had be shagging his SONS girlfriend!!! But seemingly thats ok for the kiddies to watch just dont say a swear!
I'm not familiar with the song - and I have no idea if Annie is...
Onto and into are two different things. I could understand if you were to say that it was basically saying that they wanted to released it over them.
I mean, what they're doing is playground stuff compared to Madonna simulating bestiality or Courtney Love screwing her guitar onstage... I can't call this ''boundary pushing'' or ''controversial'' when other people have gone further, and in the case of Madonna, are still going further.
I know I don't but a video showing 'woman as ****' (Rihanna) is really pretty nasty, and going nude just for shock value (Miley) sets feminism back a long way. Britney I can't speak for as I haven't seen the video in question, but when you've been around as long as I have, there's not much that shocks me.
For me one of the issues is the inequality of videos, I watched 4 Music a couple of months ago (I'm too old to watch it regularly but was curious to know what kids are into) and saw three videos in a row, in each one there were women wearing next to nothing and men fully clothed. The men clearly being portrayed for their talent and the women for their bodies.
Working in a school I really notice how boys treat girls with much less respect than my peers did. It is really sad to see, as a previous poster said that feminism really has been set back. Whatever happened to girl power?
I blame the spice girls.. I really do!!
Much as I loathed their musical output - they did at least have a 'musical' output that wasn't sexually reliant. They were 'fun' in a silly way and hardly in the same league as say The Pussycat Dolls, who were just beyond sexual. The Spice Girls weren't that interested in breaking boundaries - they were more about making money. I'd say they were one of the most harmless female groups tbh.
I'm latching onto you, which means nothing of the sort. :rolleyes: