That’s a good idea Bryan, and one I would certainly do if I had children. I’m also not for legislating morality, although I would like to see some sorts of limits on what you could see on TV (obvious examples being child pornography, graphic depictions of violence, etc.). It’s simply too easy for people to disagree on what’s moral or not and then to start nailing each other to trees when differences of opinion arise. However, we seem to be edging towards the limits of respectability here, especially when you start having kids (?!) being used in such a manner. When is it going to stop? When is this too much? I’d like to think that as a society we’d eventually say ‘this is out of hand, I’m not going to buy this product’ and these media moguls (who respect the market if nothing else) will start swinging things in the other direction. In fact, I think that might be what happens to MTV; at some point, these types of video’s will get boring and people will start reacting to other methods of advertising. No need for legislation, in other words.
RE: the cheese cake comment. Would you still like cheese cake if you ate it 3 times a day, 7 days a week for years on end?
And lastly, what I find so offensive about these video’s is that they protray people as essentially shallow and meaningless. The men in the videos exist for the sole purpose of reproduction (the cars and houses are simply prop’s which enable them to do so) who have little, if any, motivation to help out anyone else. The women tend to be protrayed in a similar light except they don’t even have the ability to amass stuff and are reduced to tottering around half-dressed, hoping that some guy will ‘breed’ them. If that’s not offensive to you, so be it but I’d like to think that people can be worth more than just the sum of their biological functions.
Maybe you’re right. I may have over-reacted, but Lizard was hurling accusations in my direction, ‘wrong-headed logic’ etc., and so it seemed appropriate to get the facts straight.
The ‘pedantic distinction’ card is always there to be played, for sure, and maybe I deserved it. Then again, I was just offering the facts of the matter in response to someone who clearly lacked a grasp of them. Isn’t this within the remit of ‘fighting ignorance’? Sometimes, one person’s ‘pedantic distinction’ is another person’s ‘accuracy’! And the facts are as I stated them.
I don’t remember anyone appointing me as a ‘judge’ of anything at all. As it happens, I don’t generally like these videos or the music they promote. So what? My personal taste is irrelevant. You, Wabbit, can judge all you want, if you entertain the delusion that you’re in any position to. See how much notice anyone takes. I can, however, appreciate the skill and talent of hard-working professionals, and maybe learn a thing or two from them. I suspect this is a bit more positive and productive than spouting unsubstantiated myths about ‘objectification’, and setting myself up as some sort of moral arbiter of what other intelligent people should, and should not, put in a pop video.
Responsibility for what children see, and the messages they draw from what they see, lies with their parents, not with me or anyone who works in the promotional video industry. The people who make the promotional videos have no right to tell parents how to raise their children. Parents raising children have no right to tell the producers of promotional videos how to make them. Let each take care of their own work and their own responsibilities, and respect other people who do the same.
You can see whatever messages you want. Here’s one message that I think is very healthy: “Every person has the right to earn a living using whatever skills, talents and abilities they have. Some women are very attractive and sexy, and they learn to keep themselves extremely fit and active, and to dance in nice ways that lots of people like to watch. In this way, some women can make a career for themselves, work hard and provide for themselves and their children. These women are very proud of what they do, and rightly so. It’s tough, difficult and demanding work. Their hard work, self-discipline and self-determination is an admirable lesson for us all. We can’t all do the things they do, nor would we all want to, but we can each put our own skills and talents and abilities to good use, and we live in a country where everyone has the right to this kind of self-fulfilment”.
If you care so very much about children, learn how to use an apostrophe correctly before you set one of them a bad example. It won’t kill you.
ianzin, I like hip-hop music but I really dislike the type of video we’re talking about. Most performers who use that type of video don’t really havegood music -they have to use the hard sell approach, but when I actually like a song with that type of video (Midwest Swing by St. Lunatics is a perfect example) I feel compelled to not buy the CD because I don’t want to support that type of advertising. I wouldn’t censor music videos by any means, but I wish some of the artists would realise that the music should be the focus.
First, let me state that these are honest questions and not meant to be inflamatory–just trying to see where you’re coming from ianzin. What sort of messages do you think these women ‘dancers’ (because I’m still not sure that there’s any real dancing going on in a good chunk of these–not all however-- although I can see where it would be a challenge to be able to actually walk in the shoes they tend to be wedged in to) giving to our children? Are these healthy messages or not?
Now granted I have no delusions that I, alone, can take on the huge media industry and somehow force them to consider the long-term effects of their short-term policies to squeeze as much profit from every video. Quite frankly I like the ideas Bryan suggested in his post–at least I could stop the spread of these toxic ideas to my kids (if I every have any).
And thank you, oh wise one, for pointing out my short-comings on punctuation…
astro, I’m not an old lady wearing a shawl of objectification. I have zero interest in instituting content controls. I don’t think anybody should be legislating moral content on anything; I think people should be monitoring themselves. I firmly believe that people should be responsible for their own actions, including people in the advertising, marketing and music industries, and realize for themselves what useless, possibly damaging crap they are producing. I understand that this is a very naive belief, and that it’s never going to happen in the real world, but I still think it is the goal we should be shooting for.
Define “revealing clothing.” I see guys walking down the street with no shirts on all the time, obviously to show off their muscles. Who are they doing this for? Why was the muscle shirt invented, anyway?
Women ARE turned on by a good body, but it doesn’t make them buy things. That was my point before. Exactly what a certain image makes them feel is irrelevant if it doesn’t generate sales. People forget that the reason pop culture is created is to make money. A sexy woman can convince a man to buy something. A sexy man can’t do it as well for women, for whatever reason. It has nothing to do with what people actually like, or what really turnes them on, or anything close to that. It’s all about what sells.
I never said anything about kids taking part in the production of this material; I thought my repeated use of the word “adult” made it clear. Once I became an adult, I feel I earned to right to hold in contempt and to ignore anyone who attempted to censor material or made noise about how the material was evil. As far as I’m concerned, anyone has the right to make such a statement, but I retain my right to ridicule them for it.
And, when a dancer becomes an adult, he or she should have to right to hold in contempt anyone who tries to limit how they can ply their trade, be it on video, in hot oil, in the nude, what have you. I’m automatically dismissive of anyone who uses words like “degrading” and “objectification” since I feel it is up to the dancers themselves to decide what they will and won’t do, without need to defend or explain their choices.
Children should not be involved in sexual productions, but once you hit 18 or 21 or whatever standard is in effect, you should have the right to ply your trade any way you choose.
Exactly: let market forces determine what is profitable, not what is acceptable. This material is produced not because someone is determined to piss people off (though it is a fringe benefit to some), but because it makes money.
What’s your point? If I don’t go to ridiculous extremes with my pleasures, I don’t deserve them? Shouldn’t the amount of cheesecake, or the number of nearly nude adult female dancers I ogle, be entirely up to me?
What’s wrong with focusing on biological functions? Biological functions can be fun. Even Shakespeare wrote at length about biological functions. If the situtations portrayed in the videos seem infantile… well, I agree. But I wouldn’t try to restrict or ban them on that basis. Applying an “artistic meric” or “social awareness” means test to entertainment is unworkable and destructive.
Some of y’all expect way too much out of a very restricted medium. Music videos are, what, four minutes long? Couple that with the fact that the video is tied to some particular tune and has to promote the music up front, and you don’t really have much opportunity to show character development or portray every character as a unique snowflake of humanity. You might as well criticize a billboard for its lack of plot.
And this really puzzles me:
So, women are empowered to do whatever they want with their lives, as long as it doesn’t make featherlou feel ooky? And here I thought feminism was about women doing what they want without having to give a rat’s ass what other people think…
If you don’t like it, fine, don’t watch it, campaign against it, whatever. But the “degrading” label doesn’t apply just because seeing it makes you uncomfortable.
I haven’t read all the responses here but here’s my take on it, which will probably be very unpopular.
If the booty calls and the booty makes money, the I say do it.
What? So the women in these videos look like a bunch of hoochies. So they look really stupid up there in their tiny little panties or swim suits. It doesn’t affect you nor any other woman I know. They’re fucking videos.
In addition, they aren’t be “objectified” by this. They CHOOSE to do this. Not any different than a porno video, these women CHOOSE to show their ass and their cooch to the world. I find nothing wrong with that as a woman. If some chick wants to show her “goods” to the world then I am all for it. Just like I am all for a women that CHOOSES to engage in the practice of prostitution. It is her body and her choice. She gets paid for it just like many men get paid to use their bodies…
Let’s see. Male revues (sp) at clubs where women go gaga over men stripping to their g-string and shoving dollars in them.
I see no problem at all. If a woman is willingly shaking her coochie in front of the camera, what exactly is the problem here?
I find this whole idea of “women’s liberation” to be disturbing. If a woman CHOOSES to strut her stuff then I am all for it. If a woman wants to “sell” her body then I am all for it. If I had such a body, I probably would do the same.
I don’t see the problem. A woman tends to be associated with sexual over-tones. A woman is also the one that gives and sustains life. A woman in a video shaking her cooch is not objectified, she is mearly celebrated in my opinion. We are the sexual side, we are what makes the world turn, we are that which is everything sexual. We make the world turn. Why not embrace that.
Call me silly, call me stupid, whatever but being a woman is a wonderful thing and a video on MTV will not make me think less of humanity.
I concede that there is a certain amount of attraction, turn-on factor, whatever, of women to male skin. My point is that this attraction is much smaller than the attraction that men hold for female skin. Do you agree? Or do you think that the level of attraction is the same?
**
Well, you can call it whatever you like - “selling,” “turning on” - or whatever, but women just aren’t terribly interested in music videos with scantily-clad men. Not to the same extent as the reverse, anyway.
I had always assumed the people in said videos were, in fact, shallow and concerned more with appearences than anything else.
In fact, I thought that was the entire point behind current hip-hop. When this stuff started 15-20 years ago, the “rappers” were making an interesting new sound, getting their feet in the door for a new market and letting an audience (whether it be inner-city kids or “thugs” or whomever) know that there are artists who understand where they were coming from.
In the '90s, and today all I see is one rapper talking about expensive cars, drugs and women. If they ever talk about anything else, I’ve never heard it.
Most people have become downright desensitized to it because it’s so, to use Wabbits word, meaningless.
“We got a lotta money and chick, yeah yeah!!”
Whoopty-fucking-doo.
I’m a white guy in my mid-20s and I make barely enough to support my family. What the hell do I care if some drug-running rapper dances around with a bunch of hot chicks.
Good for him, but doesn’t mean a damn to real people.
Most of the videos which show women in sexual situations don’t bother me.
There is one video which comes to mind which offends me, Last Dance With Mary Jane - Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers - which shows Tom Petty dancing with a dead girl who is dressed in formal wear (creepy).
Honey, I believe that was Kim Basinger. And I believe that was done very well from a metaphoric standpoint, as the song was about trying to quit smoking week.
Er, Mary Jane as in Marijuana? I suppose I can understand the message they were trying to convey. The video itself still gives my the willies. Thanks for the info though Gorgon Heap.
Let me clarify something else- I am a guy, I like hip-hop music, I am exactly who the videos should be targeting. Most bands I enjoy don’t use the booty shakin’ video dancers, but I have heard songs I like, then seen the video for the song and decided not to buy the album. How is that good advertising.
I would compare it more closely to the incredibly sexist ads for video games- they are so caught up in their own little world that they don’t realise they could be reaching a larger market.
But they are involved, albeit in a passive sense, as viewers. Children are the target audience for most of these videos and they’re the ones who are absorbing the ‘lessons’ that these videos are embodying. I don’t have a problem with people working at whatever job they want to; I do have a problem with the messages that kids are learning from these things. As I said, I think market forces will take care of this eventually but I think we need to keep minimum standards in place to make sure some media exec doesn’t go overboard in his/her attempts to make a quick buck.
Sure, but if you constantly watch these female dancers you will lose your appreciation for real female beauty, much like you’ll lose your appreciation for cheesecake if you eat it all the time. The media saturates us with these images, so even if you don’t watch MTV you’re going to get a huge dose of this kind of crap. My point is that by bombarding us with these images, the media is actually decreasing our appreciation for female beauty! Most women don’t look like these ‘dancers’ (and thank the Big G for that) and are extremely beautiful due to their emotional and mental characteristics as well as their physical attributes but they go unappreciated because everyone is oogling these robotic, silicon-based women. It’d be nice (improbable, I realize, but a refreshing change) to see women on these videos that actually did something other than totter around on spike heels and cram as much silicon into their boobs as possible.
Again, we’re agreeing that legislation isn’t the answer here but I think that focusing on biological functions isn’t healthy. Sure, they’re an important part of our life but do you define who you are and how important you are by the number of times you take a dump? Why should reproduction be any different? Why study art, or history, or quantum physics if we’re only defined by our physical attributes? Might as well go back to the trees and start hurling our feces at interlopers if the only true measure of a human being is how good they look in stilleto heels or how many gold hubcaps they’ve got on their car. My .02 anyway!
But they are involved, albeit in a passive sense, as viewers. Children are the target audience for most of these videos and they’re the ones who are absorbing the ‘lessons’ that these videos are embodying. I don’t have a problem with people working at whatever job they want to; I do have a problem with the messages that kids are learning from these things. As I said, I think market forces will take care of this eventually but I think we need to keep minimum standards in place to make sure some media exec doesn’t go overboard in his/her attempts to make a quick buck.
Sure, but if you constantly watch these female dancers you will lose your appreciation for real female beauty, much like you’ll lose your appreciation for cheesecake if you eat it all the time. The media saturates us with these images, so even if you don’t watch MTV you’re going to get a huge dose of this kind of crap. My point is that by bombarding us with these images, the media is actually decreasing our appreciation for female beauty! Most women don’t look like these ‘dancers’ (and thank the Big G for that) and are extremely beautiful due to their emotional and mental characteristics as well as their physical attributes but they go unappreciated because it seems like everyone is oogling these robotic, silicon-based women. It’d be nice (improbable, I realize, but a refreshing change) to see women on these videos that actually did something other than totter around on spike heels and cram as much silicon into their boobs as possible.
Again, we’re agreeing that legislation isn’t the answer here but I think that focusing on biological functions isn’t healthy. Sure, they’re an important part of our life but do you define who you are and how important you are by the number of times you take a dump? Why should reproduction be any different? Why study art, or history, or quantum physics if we’re only defined by our physical attributes? Might as well go back to the trees and start hurling our feces at interlopers if the only true measure of a human being is how good they look in stilleto heels or how many gold hubcaps they’ve got on their car. My .02 anyway!
I’m surprised that nobody’s addressed the objectification of women as sexual objects as being a 20th-century mass-media phenomenon. Because it goes without saying, of course, that nobody was crassly displaying nude females before movies and television. All those Renaissance artists had naked women in their studios, and their patrons hung the resulting work on their walls, because they were all interested in anatomy from a biological point of view. And don’t get me started on prehistoric Earth Mother figurines…
However, we seem to be edging towards the limits of respectability here, especially when you start having kids (?!) being used in such a manner. When is it going to stop? When is this too much? I’d like to think that as a society we’d eventually say ‘this is out of hand, I’m not going to buy this product’ and these media moguls (who respect the market if nothing else) will start swinging things in the other direction. In fact, I think that might be what happens to MTV; at some point, these types of video’s will get boring and people will start reacting to other methods of advertising. No need for legislation, in other words.