Recently, unless you live in North Korea under a militant dictatorship, it's been inescapable to notice the growing trend for pop stars, most notably female ones, to expose more than just their hearts in song lyrics and performances.
One only has to tune into T4 or some such similar popular music drivel to see that more songstresses than not seem to be flashing every available private part for all the world to seem as often possible. Why only today, as I perused a popular entertainment website, I noticed articles on Rhianna's ‘Sexiest video to date! as she pole dances and twerks while wearing nothing but a thong’ and the annoyance of Miley Cyrus when she wasn’t allowed to go topless at the VMA awards ... because flesh coloured knickers just weren't shocking enough!
Now I like to consider myself a person of fairly liberal views, nay, beyond that, I actively encourage the open discussion, involvement and enjoyment of things of a sexual nature. God knows, I have exposed more than is deemed socially acceptable to the general public in the past on occasion, (blame wine) and despite them knowingly being in the public eye, don’t think celebrities should accept responsibility as role models. They are ‘artists’ we are consumers, if you don’t like it look away.
However, I am a little confused as to when selling music suddenly became about competing to be the dirtiest, the filthiest, the most shocking slutbag in the business.
Sex sells. I get that, but in the context of sex. Miley Cyrus gyrating semi-naked would work perfectly in a lap dancing club and I'd salute her efforts wholeheartedly, but in a video directed at teenage girls? Hmm ... I'm not so sure.
You see here's the thing. Miley Cyrus licking a pole half naked isn't even sexy!! It’s totally and utterly desperate. She should save herself the bother of stripping off and just tattoo, notice me, notice me, pleeeeassse notice me!! Across her forehead, the effect would be far more immediate and less annoying for everyone involved.
I wouldn’t mind so much if she could knock out a bloody tune, but the chick can’t even sing!
She’s famous for being in the papers daily with less and less on, more and more desperate (and that, by the way, is the difference between her and Madonna, the high priestess of controversy, OK the old voice box is a bit ropey but at least she could write a song, and played by her own set of rules.)
Pop star porn isn’t about artistic expression its about making headlines ... and money. And an artist (I use the word extremely loosely) who used to be in the Hannah Montana claiming that mock masturbation in front of an audience of 20,000 is about self expression is about as convincing as 1 Direction claiming to write their own songs. Neither are her ongoing cringe-inducing performances feminist statements (I can do what i want and fuck you all! etc etc, yawn) Contrary to that, I’d go as far as to argue that a porn star is more of a feminist than a naked songstress, at least she’s doing it with full conviction and knowing exactly the reason why.
Miley Cyrus isn’t making a statement, being artistic, creative or avant garde in any way. She is simply a puppet for the money makers, and that’s what makes the ‘sexpression’ she courts so pitiful.
I think prostitution has a place in this world (more of that later) as does nakedness, rubber knickers and masturbation against poles. But when it’s done by a pop star under the guidance of ‘mentoring’ record labels claiming to be giving the people what they want, I sigh with despair.
When latex underwear stirs a feeling of pity over lust, it’s time to rethink your marketing strategy ... now put some clothes on love, you ain’t fooling anyone.