This was going to be a damning indictment of the state of the world. A world in which young women practically prostitute themselves to achieve as many column inches as possible. I was going to say that actually, Adele managed perfectly well to capture her heartbreak in the (vaguely) similar wrecking-themed video to "Rolling in the deep" without taking her clothes off. I would have added that naturally, although Miley Cyrus is a mightily talented, confident and beautiful young woman, I would not want my daughters to watch her infamous "Wrecking ball" video. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, see it here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=My2FRPA3Gf8
Why would I condemn it? Because Miley, despite her obvious talents, deemed it necessary to appear naked in this video. She also attempts to lick a sledge hammer in a seductive manner. So no, I would really, really not want my daughters to learn that this is a healthy and respectable way to get attention. However, it then occurred to me that I would never have seen Ms Cyrus' "Wrecking ball video" had it not been for the publicity her naked stunt secured.
I like her song. A lot. On its own merit, rather than because she is naked. But her nakedness is what alerted me to its existence. So, her stunt worked. What is the good of sticking to a "no nudity" principle and never making it, never managing to share your talent with anybody other than your friends and family, and being stuck in some job you hate, while you wait for the right manager to come along and discover you? Talented or not, perhaps it is okay to use your body to promote your career? Provided you are happy with the way you do it. Also, Miley manages to conceal all the most important bits anyway, so that she entices without revealing all. As a listener to Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 programme pointed out, if Miley is enjoying her career, is in control of it, and isn't being exploited, why not have her as a role model? She needs something to stand out from all the other singers.
I think that being naked because you choose to be, is perfectly acceptable and brave. Shedding your clothes because somebody else tells you to, or because you hope to make money simply by being naked, with no other talent, is very different. The only problem is, that young consumers may not distinguish between the naked models in videos and the artists who choose to be naked. However, this is not a good enough reason to dictate what is and is not acceptable.
Another Jeremy Vine listener pointed out how important it is to have positive female role-models who are not just famous for flaunting their sexuality. As there is such a prevalence of pornography, it is important to have a role-model who is famous for something non-sexual. That it would be good to have different kinds of female role models promoted in the media. This is all true of course, but if you are trying to get people to notice your singing, it is no good forging a career in politics.
I suspect that there would have been far less of an outcry if a young male star had stripped off. I guess the argument is that men hardly ever strip off (apart from in gay and fitness magazines). But is it okay to say that women cannot choose to strip off as they add to the growing (flesh) mound of desperate hopefuls stripping off in men's magazines?
Surely the point of equality and emancipation is that women (or men) can do what we like, as long as we don't hurt anyone. Miley Cyrus seems emancipated not emaciated, so she will hopefully not make women feel that they have to achieve an unrealistic body size in order to feel attractive. What is the point of freedom, if we are only free to do what other people approve of? Miley stands for freedom (from judgement), strength and talent - what's not to like?
So, here's to the beautiful, talented and confident women and men, who choose to pursue their ambitions using everything available to them - good for you and good luck x
Why would I condemn it? Because Miley, despite her obvious talents, deemed it necessary to appear naked in this video. She also attempts to lick a sledge hammer in a seductive manner. So no, I would really, really not want my daughters to learn that this is a healthy and respectable way to get attention. However, it then occurred to me that I would never have seen Ms Cyrus' "Wrecking ball video" had it not been for the publicity her naked stunt secured.
I like her song. A lot. On its own merit, rather than because she is naked. But her nakedness is what alerted me to its existence. So, her stunt worked. What is the good of sticking to a "no nudity" principle and never making it, never managing to share your talent with anybody other than your friends and family, and being stuck in some job you hate, while you wait for the right manager to come along and discover you? Talented or not, perhaps it is okay to use your body to promote your career? Provided you are happy with the way you do it. Also, Miley manages to conceal all the most important bits anyway, so that she entices without revealing all. As a listener to Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 programme pointed out, if Miley is enjoying her career, is in control of it, and isn't being exploited, why not have her as a role model? She needs something to stand out from all the other singers.
I think that being naked because you choose to be, is perfectly acceptable and brave. Shedding your clothes because somebody else tells you to, or because you hope to make money simply by being naked, with no other talent, is very different. The only problem is, that young consumers may not distinguish between the naked models in videos and the artists who choose to be naked. However, this is not a good enough reason to dictate what is and is not acceptable.
Another Jeremy Vine listener pointed out how important it is to have positive female role-models who are not just famous for flaunting their sexuality. As there is such a prevalence of pornography, it is important to have a role-model who is famous for something non-sexual. That it would be good to have different kinds of female role models promoted in the media. This is all true of course, but if you are trying to get people to notice your singing, it is no good forging a career in politics.
I suspect that there would have been far less of an outcry if a young male star had stripped off. I guess the argument is that men hardly ever strip off (apart from in gay and fitness magazines). But is it okay to say that women cannot choose to strip off as they add to the growing (flesh) mound of desperate hopefuls stripping off in men's magazines?
Surely the point of equality and emancipation is that women (or men) can do what we like, as long as we don't hurt anyone. Miley Cyrus seems emancipated not emaciated, so she will hopefully not make women feel that they have to achieve an unrealistic body size in order to feel attractive. What is the point of freedom, if we are only free to do what other people approve of? Miley stands for freedom (from judgement), strength and talent - what's not to like?
So, here's to the beautiful, talented and confident women and men, who choose to pursue their ambitions using everything available to them - good for you and good luck x
No comments:
Post a Comment