My respect for Annie Lennox has just grown tenfold. One of the biggest female singers, of Eurythmics fame, has donned her fair share of PVC during her heyday. So she knows of what she speaks. And this week, via her Facebook page, she has been eloquently lamenting the spawn of overly sexualized videos and performances like this one:
"It seems obvious that certain record companies are peddling highly styled pornography with musical accompaniment. As if the tidal wave of sexualised imagery wasn’t already bombarding impressionable young girls enough…I believe in freedom of speech and expression, but the market forces don’t give a toss about the notion of boundaries."
It seems not only Sinead is sickened by young female pop stars done up like prossies on our screens for our young girls to watch. Remember how we all used to emulate Madge in her Virgin days? Well, watch out, because already the Miley MVA onesies are for sale. This Hallowe'en, tongues will be out en masse...
Lennox's problem isn't with sexuality per se, but with the lack of deference to the core audience:
"But if a performing artist has an audience of impressionable young fans and they want to present a soft porn video or highly sexualised live performance, then it needs to qualify as such and be X rated for adults only … The whole thing is about their children’s protection. Is it appropriate for seven year olds to be thrusting their pelvises like pole dancers?"
I'm sorry but this kind of exertion of sexuality is not sexy, nor is it empowering. I just don't buy it. As the article in Mommyish suggests: "Our kids don’t need to have these pop star’s vaginas shoved in their faces constantly in order to enjoy the music."
Yes, it's up to parents to control what their kids watch and listen to. But we don't have eyes behind our heads. We are not omnipresent, as much as we sometimes would like to be. We can't always be there to shield our kids. Society has to play its part, too.
We all want to be ethical parents. But in this day in age just how hard is it to lead by shining example? The answer, according to an article in New York Magazine, is harder than ever.
American Apparel. Love them or hate them, they are a certainly a cutting-edge retailer, hugely popular with young people.
When someone alerted me to a T-shirt based on artwork by Petra Collins, I must admit I was torn. After all, here is a hip Toronto-based artist working as part of an all-female online platform known as The Ardorous.
According to AA's site, Collins began merging her love of fashion and design at the age of 15 as an employee in the store. Imagine the thrill for the young entrepreneur, now 20, to find her designs "exploring female sexuality and teen girl culture" finding their way onto T-shirts.
Better still, half of the proceeds of sales go directly to artists. No sweatshops here.
On the face of it, The Ardorous screams girl power, and yet, the actual products kind of sadden me. I mean, Period Power. Seriously? At first glance the image looks, eh, like an exercise in self-pleasing. Then just grotesque.
Another features a teenage girl with the word 'LOSER' emblazed on her T-shirt. Not to mention the one which mimics the effect of a wet T-shirt...
But beyond this line, many other Tees by American Apparel are in questionable taste. Like the one of an incredibly phallic ice lolly making its way into an open mouth.
Is a T-shirt always just a T-shirt, or are some of AA's designs too risque, given the brand's niche market?
Would you let your daughter (or son) wear one of these designs? Spill it.
Printer-friendly version