Ethics of leering? Sex and music writing [nsfw, sigh]

a colleague of mine decries this sort of thing as "one-handed journalism."

jenny lewis interviews are, indeed, quickly approaching "you're so hot -- talk about that" status. a torch willingly passed on from neko.

Female musicians who don't make an issue of it have every reason to hit the guys who scream "take off your tops" with their guitar, keybord, or whatever instrument they happen to play. OR take up really heavy instruments like tuba for such occurances.

The same goes for males... Yeah, right.

xp - Are those pubes? Why yes, they are...

Two days after I posted "wtf is up w/everyone calling Jenny Lewis 'hot' anyway?" on my blog and everything too.

I take it burqas would be the next logical step.

xpost good GOD

PC is so fucking 1999, inn'it?

Is there a good way to talk to female musicians about sex without it coming across as leering?

Anyway, here's my own rumination on the ethics of leering: Leaf Beats. Example or exposee of sexism? You decide.

I think the opening post asks a good question. My instinct is to say for music criticism that's published, and not just a bunch of friends chatting about bands, it's worth editing out most of the personalized observations about the musician/band's hotness. If criticism is an invitation to a conversation, it's best to be careful not to alienate half your potential audience. But I don't know if I even mean that, frankly, because I often really enjoy the ILM threads that mix music appreciation with crush-y comments. Still, maybe a better, more feminist music criticism would result if we all tried to resist that urge, or at least transform it from leering into something more analytic.

http://ilx.p3r.net/thread.php?msgid=3783465
http://ilx.wh3rd.net/thread.php?msgid=3794383

js, how about: by talking about sex in a way that doesn't objectify women, i.e.

every comment on the photo is re: her pubes or how much viewer finds her attractive
this isn't entirely true. there are also comments about her weight and whether the clothes she's wearing are liked. but these still stress her object status.

-- The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylure...), August 21st, 2003. (lucylurex)

ILM: You Are Free

Meanwhile, you are making an assumptiomn yourself based on... Well, I don't have the foggiest. Someone might find Lisa Loeb attractive but this doesn't mean that I think she's "proffering sex." I think you take in the whole package - lyrics and the visuals the group/artist employ. It really isn't that fucking hard to draw the line unless you happen to jerk that knee so far up is clouds your vision.

Morningwood is proffering sex. I think if I interviewed the singer of that band, it would be negligent of me as a music journalist to NOT mention that aspect of the band since it's such a huge portion of what they do.

Some people use sex to sell their product. Some of them happen to be selling music. Some of them happen to be female. To think that it would be unreasonable to ask them or comment on it when it's plainly there is silly.

"What's wrong with being sexy?"

I like how it's always assumed that "work" is an office. Some of us are in the entertainment industry, where being semi-naked in a photograph is work.

(Not Jealous Significant Other Safe)

Don't listen to this other guy, although Bunny Brains might represent the most intensely visceral experience of your ignorant or not-so-ignorant life, they are a complete joke, not to be bothered with. "

(I'm ill, so it's pot cookies...)

Brian, honestly, I think it was your cleavage analogy that bothered me...it seemed to point to "I see something that excites me=she intended it to excite me=she's selling me sex." Sorry if I misunderstood.

I say more about this in my essay "Big Nose From Winnetka."

(For the gay analogue, I'd offer as an example the Franz interview that ran in some Seattle gay mag, where the writer was one step from asking the band if he could sniff their taints).

Most women (or men) who dress provocatively are cool with being looked at unless the person looking is drooling or violating her personal space in ways that go beyond the eyes.

To continue the analogy, the act of mentioning sexuality in a review or directly confronting an artist about sexuality in an interview setting is the equivalent of this glance. Usually, a glance is just fine, just as asking Madonna questions about her sexuality is usually just fine, or commenting on the flirtatiousness of The Donnas' between-song banter.

However, just because a woman has a low-cut blouse doesn't mean she wants to be boned - at least not by you - and asking an artist or commenting on sexuality in music criticism can be done without being crass about it.

Also, I just figured out my best response to Tracer Hand would have been whether (s)he wanted to know if I stopped beating my wife yet.

Beautiful
Cute
Pretty
Attractive
Hot
Sexy

You can always talk about the more unambiguously positive things (basic physical beauty) without getting into the more objectifying sexiness stuff, unless sexuality is clearly an element of their art (or they're objectifying themselves), in which case go cautiously nuts. Also, remember that many many many performers are sexy without being pretty or cute without being attractive. It's important to differentiate these qualities, I feel.

Physical appearance is a vital aspect of any artform that includes performance and should not be avoided, but you should try not to make yourself look like a sleazebag,* and probably the best way to do that is to talk about a performer as you would a piece of visual art rather than, say, a stripper.

* Unless you're Momus and it's part of the point, I guess, but he's not a journo.

Horseshoe (horseshoe?) OTM. A lot of hip-hop writing is just "damn, that's 'hood'" dressed up as something more substantive.

Ana Matronic can just prance around on-stage, though, that'd be fine.

Oops, I said hard. I should go to bed.

Internet acronyms need to be practical.

So... you don't ever feel wary of that now hoary "male gaze"?

also, christgaU - not gaY.

Wrongwrong, I'm not trying to look like a sleazebag and I am a journalist!

Now I'm fucking suicidal.

it's not hard to ask a woman, or a man, a question about how they use their sexuality in their art without being leery! being leery is not a bad thing per se - god knows i'm leery enough when it comes to eg rufus wainwright or dougie from mcfly or michael mayer. and some objects of leeriness will actively seek it out and enjoy it. but the line they don't want people to cross, which will be different for each individual, will usually be made clear, and therefore you shouldn't cross it. simple as that.

But this, as a position, isn't good enough. Equal opportunity leering doesn't affect men and women in the same way, because men and women have completely different experiences of the world. To be treated as a sexual object is going to be peripheral, or a novelty, for a man, but central, or "business as usual", for a woman. Therefore the exact same treatment (the leer) means something quite different depending on the gender of the person being leered at. This is where "equality of opportunity" and "equality of result" are (as usual) shown to be completely different things, with "equality of opportunity" some sort of abstract bullshit that changes nothing in the world of results.

1) Above all, *focus on the music* - do I like this record? would my readers? why or why not?

2) If the band doesn't play up an overtly sexual angle, don't bother inventing one. Especially don't bring it up in interviews unless the conversation goes that way.

3) If you *must* ask what it's like to "be a woman in a band," frame it in a specific way that the band member can actually answer (e.g. do you get shit from soundpeople or music store clerks?). Indie-rock has at least progressed to a point where female musicians are no longer novelties: don't pretend otherwise.

4) If sexuality *is* a theme in the lyrics or presentation, go ahead and ask. But don't leer in print. It's embarrassing, and the interviewee is almost certainly not into you.

5) It's not necessary to mention whether you think the interviwee is attractive. If a mimbo like Conor Oberst can get away without "omg he is soo cute," then Jenny Lewis should as well.

6) FOCUS ON THE MUSIC. Can't say it often enough.

The mainstream media in general these days seem chock-full of leering and winking sexism and softcore T&A, no question there.

Don't rely on any artist's sexual comeliness to make your story. You'll be leering. That said, if *an artist* relies on his/her sexual comeliness to make the performance, that should signal an alarm.

ditto *NSync.

whoever above made he moment on politeness and social responsibility was pretty OTM...I've said again and again, the thing i find most lack ing music writing, and society in general, is a sense of self-responsibility. Issues of gender and sexuality can be taken up in sincere and useful way, but you have to consider the implication of what you do. If youcontinue to run with the everyday, marketing/PR era concept of sexiness, you have to aknowledge that you are using a definition of "sexy" that is taken from noplace and means nothing. the end result of such concepts is alientation of the actual people involved (performer, audience, reader, etc). I heavily question the definition of "sex(y)" that is the comon parlance. As time goes by, I feel less and less connected to it and more and more confounded by its use. (the term not being confined to text...and perhaps used even more regularly and confounding ly in non-text-based visuals).

I tend to view what were calling "leering" as a symptom of the culture that demands sex and sexuality be a publicthing and a requisite for competance. We can only leer when the object of desire is something truely outside of us (and the definition of or locating of that object is outside of us). If the desire is legitimate, than voicing that desire in self-responsible terms should be fair and decent. But, again, what is sexy? What is being desired? And why?

I think those questions can adress what dan is suggesting bunnybrains do and have done publicly by playing with sex and gender themes in their performance.

The Maxim-esque tripe results from a culture of agrandizing sex as the ultimate form of trancendence, if not the most sublime commodity (though i hesitate to use such terms, as they come awfully cheap). This is sex outside of human experience. Anything that takes human relations further from human relations should be avoided in all writing (and performance unless it intends to be alientating in order to inform or question...and everyone knows how tricky that is).

sorry these are rushed thought to try and catch up. more coffee and closer talk as we continue.

but was his amazing looking-ness truely a sexual thing? there was a lot of gender play, but that is only "sexy" in that it asks questions about how we identify ourselves...that argument falls a bit too heavily on freud/lacan definitions of identity, gender, and sexuality for me to truely buy it...

the carnal feelings fired up by music is a huge can of worms

this ties into the bowie/blondie thing a bit. for bowie to take up a performance where he plays with the concept of object is totally differnt, and has to be, from debbie regardless of their intentions. while debbie might want to play similar games with positioning herself as blondie, she has also come from a position where she is immediatly the object in a historic sense. a bit different for boys, especially in a boys world. in this comparison we get a bit of asking for it and a bit of demanding it be asked.

xpost: "and I won't let that go" please do, for all of our sake...

maybe I'm entirely alone in this, but I am beyond bored with career's made on body parts...like paris hilton or whomever, if we ignore it, it might just go away.

Only up to a point. I don't want to read about how a reviewer wants to tit-fuck Meg White either. It's not interesting, it's not polite, etc etc. That doesn't mean White Stripes performances aren't heavily sexual or there's no way to write about it. Leering writers are a turn-off because of the way they approach sexuality, not because they do it. I still don't think you can really separate out sex and performance.

I never said or implied otherwise.

Leering writers are a turn-off because of the way they approach sexuality, not because they do it.

I agree.

I still don't think you can really separate out sex and performance.

I still disagree. So we agree to disagree.

i mean i think the sexuality thing is just a red herring and the real question is are writers projecting their own little deal or exploring stuff actually present in the totality of what the artist is bringing to bear?

How much better would the world be if Bright Eyes profiles talked about how hot he was rather than his burgeoning political sensibilities?

Yeah, but that's not the same thing as 300 words harping about how you're crazy in love with Beyonce's bangin' ass.

this is precisely what im getting at. and the way most magazines function basically demands that the kids fall in line.

and i think the sexual mores of the period before the sexual revolution probably effected the public sexual persona of Dean, Brando, Monroe, Bogart, etc more than their inert person or their method. there was a lot coming down on them, more, probably, than they put out.

i guess thats why im soooooo bored and just ignore so much.

Hey, *YOU* clicked on the link.

Touché!

And what of those who argue that women shouldn't exercise said freedom? Dworkin-style feminists?

"And what of those who argue that women shouldn't exercise said freedom? Dworkin-style feminists? " yeah, no...the same sort of thing as arguing for one god. well, no. that argument supports the safety of the status quo and protects the freedom of very few. funny how those style feminists seem to come from a pretty cushy lap.

Right. Because it's important to remember that posing in Playboy with a traditionally attractive body is a bold feminist action.
As far as sympathies go, I do tend to favor those who'd change the status quo over those who argue that being able to exercize their freedom means choosing traditional roles is good.
Same way that I tend not to favor those anti-gay rights conservatives who argue that toleration should include tolerating their anti-gay views, or (to draw a possibly specious historical analogy) those who would remind us that their freedom of franchise includes the freedom to vote for anti-democratic politicians (communism, fascism).

what was the drorkian take on madonna?

Well, of course it isn't inherently, but I just wonder whose right it is to tell anyone what should or shouldn't be empowering to them.

Applaud baby steps to changing the status quo all you want, but things being as they are, it's the broad strokes -- the tits rubbed in faces -- that even have a shot at making an accessible statement.

A good one, too. I think if an open dialogue about sex, regardless of how cartoonish it is, encourages people to be less ashamed of themselves (say by encouraging women to get on top and come), all is not lost. I'm obviously speaking hypothetically here, as someone who likes sexual people, who likes sexuality and who loves women (but not in that way).

"maybe dworkin skipping this step and envisioning a world where you then kinda own and luxuriate in being the object b/c its not taking anythign from you anymore" --- this makes me a bit nervous...which just means i have to consider it more clearly

i'm also at work and not following/contributing as effectively as i'd like to...glad its on the table though

i third you rich..but then get somewhat prudish myself, in the sense that i dont give much of a damn about other people's sexlives...or want them to care about mine

Touche. I've got to give it to you there.

and if you can't -- you probably can't write worth a shit anyway.

from the cd insert for the dgc reissue of "Confusion is NExt/Kill Yr Idols"

"People pay to see others believe in themselves. Many people don't know whether they can experience the erotic or whether it exists only in commercials; but on stage, in the midst of rock 'n' roll, many things happen and anything can happen, whether people come as voyeurs or come to submit to the moment... Performers appear to be submitting to the audience, but in the process they gain control of the audience's emotions. They begin to dominate the situation through the awe inspired by their total submission to it."

"'I'm Really Scared When I Kill in My Dreams'"
Artforum, January 1983