Site New Answers Search Boards ILE ILM Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login

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

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Gotta dig up some quotes for a piece I've been assigned in my Journalism Ethics class, and what I have to deal with is sexism in my niche of specialty writing— music coverage, specifically live concert coverage (that's the bulk of my job).

There's a real tension in being able to cover female musicians without relying on Maxim tropes, and I admit that I have some trouble with it. You know, do you mention that a female musician is hot along with her playing well? Image and sex are part of music, especially rock and pop, and women (especially 3rd wave and post-3rd wave) are assumed to be in control of their sexuality. Kathleen Hannah likes fucking, Madonna made a career out of it.
But how do you seperate that from coming across as a leering boy, or tossing up one of those reviews like the gutter of Playboy pictorials... ("When she's not playing music, she likes primping and dreaming about sex with fans.")

I mean, obviously, it's a complex issue and I'm being a bit flip with it here, but how do you folks deal with it? What's the ethics of discussing sexuality within our general power structure? What are the pitfalls?

Women critics and musicians, I'd like to hear from you too.

― js (honestengine), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 00:29 (twenty years ago)


the donnas, of all people, wrote a song about this. "are you gonna move it for me." it would be fun to cite them in your bibliography.

― awful bliss (awful bliss), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 00:36 (twenty years ago)

YSI?

― js (honestengine), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 01:21 (twenty years ago)

if sex appeal is obviously an intended part of the show, i see no problem with talking about it.

― Special Agent Gene Krupa (orion), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 01:23 (twenty years ago)

What's the line? Should you talk about Le Tigre being hot?

― js (honestengine), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 01:31 (twenty years ago)

"kathleen hanna, tits til tuesday, is a strong frontwoman"

― gear (gear), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 01:37 (twenty years ago)

help me mommy
http://www.rilokiley.net/gallery/albums/shows/2005/0221/022105_09.jpg

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 01:53 (twenty years ago)

All of a sudden I understand the attention Rilo Kiley gets.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 01:54 (twenty years ago)

I realize this is a bottom-of-the-barrel example, but Eric Hedegaard's profiles for Rolling Stone circa 2002 always turned my stomach (I see he still writes for them, but I haven't looked at the magazine since then). The creepy second-person language he uses only points up the leering quality in his writing, turning every tiny affectation that a female artist displays during an interview into some kind of overly sexualized private performance. I remember reading some of his stuff on female musicians, but I'm having trouble coming up with specific examples. Anyway, he's a good example of what not to do.

― belle haleine, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 01:58 (twenty years ago)

mama
http://www.richardavedon.com/images/editorial2004/newyorker/catpower_full.jpg

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:01 (twenty years ago)

oops 24 is on seeya

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:01 (twenty years ago)


there was a famous jewel profile in rolling stone back in the late '90s wherein the dudely writer actually laid on a bed with her and wrote eloquently of the pillow that separated their bodies as some sort of metaphorical audience/artist divide that also, you know, obscured his righteous boner.

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.

― awful bliss (awful bliss), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:12 (twenty years ago)

there was a famous ILM thread ignited by that particular photograph of cat power that went into this stuff some but i'll be danged if i can remember what it was

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:15 (twenty years ago)

http://www.ondarock.it/photo/apple1.gif

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:15 (twenty years ago)

Female musicians who proffer sex as a selling point are getting exactly what they want. For them to complain about this kind of attention is like the girl with the low cut blouse taking umbrage at having someone glance a peek at her cleve.

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...

― Brian O'Neill (NYCNative), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:16 (twenty years ago)

maybe these sluts should keep their clothes on and play carter family covers in high necked dresses?th male journo trip of access to ivory towered panty wearers is often abused and can't be properly contained in print..gay reporters only rules?..it's hottystorical

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:17 (twenty years ago)

"getting exactly what they want"....she asked for it?..some girls like to dress w/out any regard to how it offends gods eyes..oh and he has seen a mouthfull

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:19 (twenty years ago)

brian, do you own diagonally striped shirts

― gear (gear), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:21 (twenty years ago)

I'm not suggesting that people can rape The Donnas. But asking them about sex and getting static seems inconsistant, don't you think?

― Brian O'Neill (NYCNative), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:22 (twenty years ago)

All of a sudden I understand the attention Rilo Kiley gets.

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

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:22 (twenty years ago)

http://umusicimages.ca/pjharvey/microsite/info1.jpg

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:22 (twenty years ago)

"For them to complain about this kind of attention is like the girl with the low cut blouse taking umbrage at having someone glance a peek at her cleve."

I take it burqas would be the next logical step.

xpost good GOD

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:23 (twenty years ago)

I mean I like Lewis and Rilo Kiley OK, but the whole "ooh she's sooo hot!" thing was getting on my nerves. honestly that's the first picture I've ever seen that corroborates it.

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:24 (twenty years ago)

even if I thought she was hot there's other things to discuss

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:24 (twenty years ago)

Or mentioning that the group was sexy in a concert, or did provocative things/said provacative things.

PC is so fucking 1999, inn'it?

― Brian O'Neill (NYCNative), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:24 (twenty years ago)

Seriously, dk to thread.

― deej.. (deej..), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:25 (twenty years ago)

xpost: No Bunnybrains titty shots, Dan?

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

― js (honestengine), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:27 (twenty years ago)

The trouble with writing about sexism is that, like racism, it's universal, and will be until gender and race are differences which no longer make a difference. For that reason, there really isn't a statement we can make about gender which isn't "sexist", or a statement we can make about race which isn't "racist". Unfortunately, many attempts to eradicate sexism turn into language-policing exercises, or attacks not on gender but on sexuality. In other words, they lead to puritanism and to attempts to conceal difference.

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

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:30 (twenty years ago)

I'm not sure how you distinguish between female musicians who "proffer sex as a selling point" and female musicians who "don't make an issue of it," Brian. From the tone of your post, it kind of sounds like the former are any female musicians a dude might find attractive, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the musician's intentions. People who make the "what she's wearing invites it" argument so often interpret all of a woman's behavior as directed at attracting a dude, which is a faulty, not to say self-centered, assumption.

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.

― horseshoe, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:31 (twenty years ago)

HERE we go -- twin threads, one on ILE, one on ILM --

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)

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:32 (twenty years ago)

[nsfw]
we try and make people reexamine their leery tendencies quite directly

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:33 (twenty years ago)

ILE: women and the body

ILM: You Are Free

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:33 (twenty years ago)

i.e. sex as a verb with her as the subject, rather than you as the subject

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:36 (twenty years ago)

New posts added after I typed this but... It's not like you can't ask female performers about sex, especially those who make it a crucial part of their routine. But personally I prefer to see an emphasis on the performative, not on the essentializing or, worse, a descent into bald objectification. I also don't think I'd be above challenging a female performer on the role sexuality plays in her work, particularly if it starts to seem like the spectacular side of her self-presentation is (or is in danger of) way overshadowing or undermining or outstripping (no pun intended) the content.

― belle haleine, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:38 (twenty years ago)

I'm not sure how you distinguish between female musicians who "proffer sex as a selling point" and female musicians who "don't make an issue of it," Brian. From the tone of your post, it kind of sounds like the former are any female musicians a dude might find attractive, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the musician's intentions. People who make the "what she's wearing invites it" argument so often interpret all of a woman's behavior as directed at attracting a dude, which is a faulty, not to say self-centered, assumption.

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.

― Brian O'Neill (NYCNative), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:41 (twenty years ago)

http://photos.allcelebs.us/wendy-owilliams/big-photo/wendy-owilliams_0001.jpg

― Brian O'Neill (NYCNative), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:43 (twenty years ago)

we had a lot of splainin to do on th devendra tour vis-a-vis,misogyny,faux rapings,nudity,gender,tender touchings,pregnancy,motherhood,lesbianism,tvestites,boobies and balls and th conclusion is that th flesh that is right underneath our clothes SCARES THE FUCK OUT OF PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:45 (twenty years ago)

I think the question for music criticism is this: sure, it would be sensible to call on music criticism to refrain from discussing differences which don't make a difference (eye colour, for instance, or shoe size). But why call on music criticism to refrain from discussing the very differences which do make a difference (gender and sexuality, for instance)?

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:47 (twenty years ago)

(Of course, it then all comes down to how you talk about those things, and that's key.)

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:48 (twenty years ago)

if th act is charged sexually it makes no sense to ignore it
if there is grass on th playin field..oh shit im way off track

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:48 (twenty years ago)

Give all journalists a drool towel when they interview hotasses.

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:50 (twenty years ago)

I like the irony of this thread needing a (NWS) tag because of naked women.

― Cunga (Cunga), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:52 (twenty years ago)

"What's wrong with being sexy?"

― Brian O'Neill (NYCNative), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:52 (twenty years ago)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/mgm/this_is_spinal_tap/_group_photos/christopher_guest2.jpg

― Brian O'Neill (NYCNative), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:52 (twenty years ago)

It's naive certainly to expect that a musical act can challenge and address in a positive way the underpinnings of a deeply repressed populace,but it's not unhopeful(?)to want to address it and possibly get people to treat others like people instead of "sluts" and "studs"..that said i had a lot of weird embraces from straight guys after shows and they seemed liberated in many weays

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:53 (twenty years ago)

I like the irony of this thread needing a (NWS) tag because of naked women.

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.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:56 (twenty years ago)

NJSOS?

(Not Jealous Significant Other Safe)

― Brian O'Neill (NYCNative), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:57 (twenty years ago)

hear hear http://webzoom.freewebs.com/thebunnybrains/bb4.jpg

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:58 (twenty years ago)

"The girl was perhaps the worst, I compare her to Fergee from the Black Eyed Peas...a blatant attempt at causing hard-on's, only this girl was slightly more of the extragenital consortium. Quite frankly, I didn't mind glancing at her protruding butt cheeks in hopes of seeing "something more", but this didn't make her a musician or anything resembling a real person. Her musical repertoire peaked at slamming her high heel against a metal folding chair while making the noise "eeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!"

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. "

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 03:00 (twenty years ago)

ok ill go back to my bushmills and cherry coke,,,carry on

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 03:01 (twenty years ago)

Skipping 54 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.
You royalist, Sterling.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 16:14 (twenty years ago)

xpost (heh): So, is there an ethical way to cover, say, "My Humps"? Or is that all gonna be a minefield?

― js (honestengine), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 16:15 (twenty years ago)

My point is not that a performer's sexuality isn't an issue - this is rocknroll we are talking about after all - it's just that in this age that is ALL THERE IS TO TALK ABOUT. ever seen one of those shows talking about Big Brother, and they bring on a C4 newsreader to comment, and the minute they open their mouths to say something vaguely intelligent they are stomped upon, the presenters yawn. panic stations! Back to the index!

― Dr X O'Skeleton, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 16:19 (twenty years ago)

Seeing as how the song's specifically about celebrating her tits, well, celebrate good times. (Except that there's a consensus that "lumps" is a hideous metaphor for tits.) But I'm still definitely interested in the quality of the actual song. JS, yes, you can cover My Humps without being a fucking pig about it.

― Je4nn3 ƒur¥ (Je4nne Fury), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 16:20 (twenty years ago)

i recently told a publicist that i wasnt going to review one of the things she sent me because of their overt and plying appeals to sexuality. my argument was that i saw no point in even talking about it. i was tempted to run a rant about how goddamned useless such a record by such a band is, but couldn't be bothered. it was a small album and from a small band. as "my humps" is evidently too big to ignore...i ugghhh....yeah...lord knows...discussing its its "impact" on what we hae to say about sex and sexuality seems as pedantic and exhausting as the stir its caused

― bb (bbrz), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 16:21 (twenty years ago)

dr. x pretty well OTM.

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

― bb (bbrz), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 16:24 (twenty years ago)

Hm, Je4nne. I have trouble recalling a single pop hit as cold, unerotic and clinical as "My Humps." It's actually - directly - about getting the listener to shell out money, rather than about Fergie luxuriating in her convexities.

― joseph cotten (joseph cotten), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 16:24 (twenty years ago)

xp: I'd say that "My Humnps" offers the perfect opportunity to discuss how some artists (and audiences) confuse self-empowerment with self-exploitation, but really... god, that song is awful.

― belle haleine, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 16:24 (twenty years ago)

xxxpost, the humps aren't that big!

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 16:26 (twenty years ago)

im pretty sure most of the world confuses self-empowerment and exploitation....i mean the current breed of spicegirls/sexinthecity feminism basically argues for empowerment by catering to personal needs in a pretty selfish way. not quite exploitation, but i tend to think choosing the immediately satisfying over a good that reflects interealation pretty much exploits what a person can be. how is saying i have a right and a need to be as sexy/satisfied as anyone else any different from saying you must be this object on my behalf? the definitions havent much changed, only, suposedly, the center of power.

― bb (bbrz), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 16:32 (twenty years ago)

Ah, Joseph. You just made me smile. I applaud your criticism. See folks? It's not hard to not be a leering laddie.

― Je4nn3 ƒur¥ (Je4nne Fury), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 16:35 (twenty years ago)

I suppose it would be harder to deal with the My Humps song if the writer found Fergie attractive.

― js (honestengine), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 16:42 (twenty years ago)

ugh ned dammit

― geoff (gcannon), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 16:43 (twenty years ago)

BB: I think that's a really good point. It's so weird to see people arguing that because they're free to act, they want to act in ways that confirm stereotypes and continue exploitative patterns. That'd be the Jane or Bust style feminism, I'd say. (Or the Maxim feminsim of Dawn whassername).

― js (honestengine), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 16:53 (twenty years ago)

ugh ned dammit

Hey, *YOU* clicked on the link.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 16:54 (twenty years ago)

I suppose it would be harder to deal with the My Humps song if the writer found Fergie attractive

Touché!

― joseph cotten (joseph cotten), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 16:56 (twenty years ago)

I haven't read Jane since the second or 3rd episode. i used to quite like bust though. it just seems like most mass-media chatter about or around feminism too often conflate sexual and gender issues in ways that don't lay paving stones towards a greater freedom from antiquated roles and mores.

― bb (bbrz), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 17:00 (twenty years ago)

Eh. I bought my girlfriend a subscription to Bitch and ever since it started coming to the house, I've been less able to read Bust (especially when they get all giggle-fest over Indie Rock Boys We'd Love To Suck Off in an Alley or whatever their music coverage is this month).

― js (honestengine), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 17:07 (twenty years ago)

It's so weird to see people arguing that because they're free to act, they want to act in ways that confirm stereotypes and continue exploitative patterns.

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

― Richj (Rich), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 17:29 (twenty years ago)

Point being: that's somehow better?

― Richj (Rich), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 17:30 (twenty years ago)

http://ihatepeas.org/photos/peteandcarl1-sm.jpg

― danbunnybrain (roxymuzak), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 17:38 (twenty years ago)

hee-hee

"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.

― bb (bbrz), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 17:55 (twenty years ago)

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

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).

― js (honestengine), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 18:25 (twenty years ago)


Andrea Dworkin is dead, I will remind you all. Oh yeah, 'Dworkin-style feminists' were all the rage about twenty years ago, I guess.

― patrick bateman (mickeygraft), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 18:33 (twenty years ago)

if sumone is bored enuff to start posting under my name then u know its gotten bad

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 18:47 (twenty years ago)

xpost-ugh

― Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 18:48 (twenty years ago)

http://www.artnews.info/sadiecoles/images/ex97_peyton.jpg

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 18:49 (twenty years ago)

did anyone take andrea dworkin seriously? or rebecca whats her name...

what was the drorkian take on madonna?

― bb (bbrz), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 18:51 (twenty years ago)

i like me some camille spank myself

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 18:57 (twenty years ago)

Because it's important to remember that posing in Playboy with a traditionally attractive body is a bold feminist action.

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.

― Richj (Rich), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 18:57 (twenty years ago)

http://fawny.org/spy/spy-illos/SPY1993-02.Paglia.jpg

― bb (bbrz), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 18:59 (twenty years ago)

so its now ok to be more porny more of the time...what good has that gotten us? (that's a serious question.) what if all the taboo was taken off of Britney, Xtina, whoever...? what would that do for anyone?

― bb (bbrz), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 19:02 (twenty years ago)

we have to de monsterize th monster..suckling babies and milky ducts are never really seen as hot,but so few bands nurse onstage,,there is an eroticism implict explicit in boob culture made by men but its one that leaves me so colllllllllllllddddddddddddddddd

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 19:03 (twenty years ago)

i was actually wondering how, if so many of us weren't breast fed, the whole boob culture keeps up so firmly? must be the equation of chicken wings and bussoms

― bb (bbrz), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 19:07 (twenty years ago)

what good has that gotten us? (that's a serious question.)

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).

― Richj (Rich), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 19:13 (twenty years ago)

i'm adding this even though I can't really keep up with this discussion while at work. kinda a response to what bb's been saying. i think objectification, and a little exploitation even, is a normal thing- only got a bad name b/c women were never allowed to engage in it. we turned the gaze back in on ourselves and it served only to define men/obscure ourselves/our desire. you ask a woman what is sexy or what turns her on and her answer is 9/10 a description of someone elses desire, usually some scenario about how someone percieves her hotness. that woman can do the nastiest stuff, talk about cock and whatnot and do multiple multiples, but she'll but utterly ashamed about being the source of her own feelings and will not admit it to another woman/hide it from lovers. most masc. identified folks i've known who meet a woman who is aggressivel looking out are really turned off and consider it some sort of afront - what are you trying to take from me??? a moment ago you were cuddling, now he's looking at you like an opponent simply b/c you looked at a collar bone. and my er personal experience with it is that men are highly sensitized to that - i'm not talking about blatantly explointing someone - just like hey you look really nice to me - i'm fuckign attracted to you etc. to bb, once female gender is able to admit that we are an actual source of all our experiences, then if the definitions need to change they will naturally. i think what's going on right now is huge and its everywhere like the way shakira shakes her hips - she's knows she looks sexy, but she's also luxuriating in how it feels for her and probably thinking about something dirty and she kinda wants you to know that. 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. but i dont' know her writing.

― Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 19:31 (twenty years ago)

also richj otm - and b/c i can't really figure out how this relates to music journalism except in the way general way it relates to everything. but i think its an important discussion anywhere/anytime.

― Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 19:34 (twenty years ago)

re jenny, apparently She knows like few others how sexy an intelligent woman's navel can be.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 19:38 (twenty years ago)

but i prefer to ponder how intelligent a sexy woman's navel can be.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 19:39 (twenty years ago)

or how many woman an intelligent sexy can navel.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 19:40 (twenty years ago)

to bb, once female gender is able to admit that we are an actual source of all our experiences, then if the definitions need to change they will naturally --- thats a good point, susan! and a good way of putting what i was trying to get at earlier while saying the only way things will be decent is if we start coming to a very personal understanding of our actions and feelings...

"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

― bb (bbrz), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 19:47 (twenty years ago)

Something else that strikes me as odd, and is something Bunnybrains have touched on, is how we're still a really weirdly repressed culture. Like, f'r instance, MTV will bleep out the word dick even as they show two people clearly fucking on the Real World. There's this strict adherence to a patina of respectibility over the incredibly dominant sub-message of how much sex sells and is a motivator. The Janet Jackson thing comes up too, where her writhing with Timberlake wasn't seen as dangerously salacious until the nipple came out, and then there was the sturm und drang about nothing. It seems like we've hit this point where real sexuality has a tremendous fear about it, and because of that it drives so much of our culture. That, combined with the continuing trend toward informality in culture really does seem to be leaving us with all sorts of odd moments.
So, while I don't think there's anything particularly exploitative about the Bunnybrains nudity, that's got a weird counterpoint in the extremely commercial sexuality of My Humps. The nudity feels both less dirty and less intended to arouse for me, while someone else thought that she was "not even human" while still trying to get a look at her pussy.

― js (honestengine), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 20:07 (twenty years ago)

http://filmacteursc.punt.nl/upload/connery_sean/connery_hunt_red_october.gif


naval intelligence is sexy!

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 20:22 (twenty years ago)

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

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

― mike a, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 20:26 (twenty years ago)

Damn. I started that "You Are Free" thread/shitstorm as a young ILMer many moons ago, and thought it had been buried in the past.

― T/S: Pinks/Oki Dog/Scoobys/Tail o' the Pup (Bent Over at the Arclight), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 20:36 (twenty years ago)

xpost: they should - according to his pictures he's just begging for it.

― Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 20:38 (twenty years ago)

i thought they already did? well, other than the sfj one..

― bb (bbrz), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 20:49 (twenty years ago)

xxpost-but you allowed people to come out of the closet with their very important to them expectations of Chan and bush-size.

― Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 20:59 (twenty years ago)

If you can leer with style and humor - do it if the situation calls.

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

― Uncle Tom (Uncle Tom), Wednesday, 1 February 2006 04:23 (twenty years ago)

Kim Gordon was onto all of this in 1983

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

― bb (bbrz), Wednesday, 1 February 2006 14:41 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.
Site New Answers Search Boards ILE ILM Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login