Doesn't mean its acceptable for it to be exposed to the public in a fashion thats going to affect the integrity of the way in which our children are raised and make people feel as though they have to look a certain way or live a shallow lifestyle in order to be accepted. I understand "SEX S3LLZ!", however I think the public at a certain point needs to recognize that we've reached a certain point in our society that we've accepted perhaps a little too much over-sexualization in our media and we've got to take a moment to ask ourselves... How much IS too much?
Btw I'm not attacking you, Zidni Zawad, your post was just a catalyst for me to make my point.
umm Rihanna isnt the only one that does it..everyone else does too....jus saying...hey if people are gonna buy it then whatever i dnt care......because im sure if whoever wrote this was in the music business he/she wouldnt be a saint.....sex sells!
It'll be a sad day when we look to Mike Stock or anyone from the Stock Aitken Waterman hit factory for insight into the current pop music industry, much less ideas of "decency" and family friendly entertainment in out modern era. Their work fights any sort of social progression or intellectual stimulation.
If SAW were a squeaky clean production house in 80s and early 90s when they were working with Kylie and Rick Astley, they are downright puritanical in their old age. I appreciate "I Should Be So Lucky" and some of their other sappy hits, but only when I think of them in some sort of late 80s/early 90s cultural vacuum of feel good/sin free/pick-me-up entertainment that existed for a brief period of time from like 1987 to just before Madonna started releasing sex themed albums. It's very clear they would love to live in that moment forever, but the simple truth is, Mike Stock and his partners have not updated their motif for making music (or their recycled 1992 production techniques, but that's a different story), and consequently they have all but been forgotten and have not had a hit in at least a decade and a half.
To be releasing material such as this in 2010 is downright embarrassing. I'm not saying sexual motifs in pop music equal automatic sophistication and maturity (most sexual references in today's pop music are fairly low brow), but there's certainly nothing provocative or intelligent about this music. Sure, it's family friendly fare, and I'm sure it upholds some sort of antiquated moral standard, but it says absolutely nothing, it means nothing, and inspires no thought. Even today's most insipid, sexually explicit, no redeeming moral value, modern pop tracks are more stimulating and conducive to social progress, and for that reason, if for no other reason, I support all attempts at making pop music provocative.
I think it's important to remember that we're not that many years removed from a sexual revolution. The ideas that sexuality can be discussed in public forums, or that women can express their sexuality, or that intimate acts are not reserved entirely for reproductive purposes are still fairly fresh. People are still going to test boundaries and sex is going to become increasingly mainstream, but I do believe that at some point these sort of behaviors will mellow out. One day the need to argue whether our popstars, children, television shows, music and movies are overly sexualized will not be such a prominent issue.
And one final though. I hate discussions about the sexual objectification of women in modern society. It's become far too commonplace to look at modern women in the music industry that have sexualized images and say that they have been unfairly objectified by the pop music machine because they have been told they need to **** it up in order to sell, etc. The blame ultimately falls upon the horny male executives in the industry and horny male consumers, but the simple truth is that many women are adopting sexual motifs into their work/or are dressing provocatively on their own accord, and they're doing so because it is still a fairly novel principle. Never before have women been given more control over their sexuality or had more freedom to express that sexuality. Is it really objectification if most women are eager to explore and be more candid with their sexual expression? I would argue that women are most sexually objectified when they have no outlet for communicating their sexual energy, and are forced to live in 1940s-like, male dominated and mandated repression (i.e. the one random Pentacostal girl you know that is in public school with her jean skirts, her bible and her purity ring). Our grandmothers who were always expected to dress modestly, told to abstain from sex until marriage, expected to wait on their husbands to initiate intimacy, reminded that sex is not a thing of pleasure, told not to engage in any sort of scadalous conversation... they are the ones who became sexual objects, because oldschool social standards took away any sort of control they might have had over the subject and gave it to chauvanistic men. ****s like Britney Spears who have (and willingly take advantage of) various outlets for sexual expression are not objectified sexually.
Patrick's point is kind of ridiculous. No one saying to make music lame, just that a lot of the sexuality isn't needed. Plus he intentionally sought out the corniest video to back his point.
Anyway bit of sexiness I can appreciate (ex. Single Ladies video, Sweet Dreams video, Fergie in the Imma Be video, Pussycat Dolls When I Grow Up vid, Ciara Work vid, etc.). Even more sexiness is cool too as long it's not excessive (ex. Britney Spears Slave 4 U video, Video Phone video).
I just don't want the stuff thrown heavily in my face (ex. Not Myself Tonight video, Alejandro bed scenes) and all the damn time.
Britney's Slave 4 U is the sexist vid that I've seen that is perfectly done. It's not gross, excessive, or or "wtf."
Same deal goes for live performances and promo photos, etc.