Just seen Billie Eilish report on news. What a load of bollocks...

[ssd]

Honestly it must he a total head nip being young these days. 19 yr olds telling us not to body shame then appearing in vogue in a corset. But said 19 yr old being an expert in telling us how to feel, and of course that stupid trendy word 'empowerment ' used as much as possible. Maybe it was the same in my day, but then social media wasnt about to give eedgits a platform to be an expert on everything. Pop stars always got too much attention, but now with sm it must be increased tenfold.
Thank fuck I'm old and middle aged.

There are women on these forums who can't stand up to their own husbands, yet you expect a 19 year old to stand up to the entire music industry?

Good point. Ultimately we don't know whether Billie Eilish loved the idea of posing in a corset or felt like the young woman in the awful description from Marie Claire upthread. But anyone who is really that surprised by the pressure and sexualisation in that article is a bit naïve imo. And whatever the circumstances in this case, our response to this kind of thing should not be disappointment at a possibly vulnerable 19yo for 'selling out'.

@noblegiraffe

It's a bit depressing that 'choosing to wear what I want' for so many young women appears to be 'choosing to pose in underwear'.

It's not female empowerment if what you are doing is exactly what men would like to see, even if you say it's your choice.

Exactly my point in the previous thread. It's not empowerment, that's just the word thrown around to make it seem OK that a young woman is posing in underwear for the world. Nothing new about women getting half naked. Infact it's totally predictable.

I think part of the issue is the idea that she, or anyone else, has this 'true side' and that such a side should be part and parcel of her public image for others to consume, that we're owed that.

Sense of self isn't static. I mean, I was still me before I wore a head covering, during, and after I chose to stop. There were social factors involved, but not always the ones people assume. Changing doesn't mean things that came before are fake and I don't think it should be assumed that we're owed a celebrity's entire self or what we see is ever the whole picture.

As someone who could so very easily have wandered down to the local drug dealers, funded and legitimised by well-off groups to terrorise many local British estates, I’m not buying it any more. There are other choices.

I agree there are other choices, even though they may be far more difficult to do without solid social support -- much like when I've seen teens (and even younger) getting involved with the local drug dealers, there is part of me that is disappointed that that choice has been made I guess in part because I stood up to that and was able to get out with some support from others, but I point my anger and accusations of a lack of inegrity at those maintaining the systems that failed them and continue to push people into making those choices, and those who have power within the system.

Time and again that contractual obligations can get some wealthy women in tied up far more than the money they've made can get them out of -- Kesha was a very public example of that, as have many others. Yes, sometimes questionable choices are made, but going on about them not sticking to their guns and needing to make better choices has never helped people actually make better choices. The environment and those running it should be the ones challenged. It should be that it's bollocks that the music industry and media keeping pushing for this as the height of what ~female empowerment~ is, not that some see appeal in it.

What was being described was not particularly victimised, yet it’s made out to be. It’s encouraging a whole new culture built on victim hood as some kind of badge of specialness. It’s becoming as compulsory for females - females particularly - in the public eye to have a string of mental health issues, that can (and is) encouraging their young followers to adopt them as a trendy fashion, as it is for them to strip off. As I said, all of them new Marilyn Munros to be sold in this so-called“music” industry.

I'd just like to see the news, actually. You know, REAL news.. I've given up on the chatty nicey smugness of BBC & Sky & gone to RT. Whatever you think of it, at least it gives you REAL world news.. I used to check msn online as I logged in to my emails, and most of their bullet points were about folk I'd never heard of in my LIFE..who was pregnant, who was divorcing.. some Z list celebs, I suppose..

@MayYouLiveInInterestingTimes

What was being described was not particularly victimised, yet it’s made out to be. It’s encouraging a whole new culture built on victim hood as some kind of badge of specialness. It’s becoming as compulsory for females - females particularly - in the public eye to have a string of mental health issues, that can (and is) encouraging their young followers to adopt them as a trendy fashion, as it is for them to strip off. As I said, all of them new Marilyn Munros to be sold in this so-called“music” industry.

She was abused as a child(whatever form that took). That "victimy" enough for you?

She had Tourettes and depression long before she was famous. What's your answer? Hide it? Pretend the tics were never there? She admitted it AFTER fans made a big deal of it, pointing them out,making compilations of them and what not.

Should people that aren't NT and /or have issues with their mental health be out of the public eye? Or just hide it and pretend it's not there? Or that it doesn't affect them in any way shape or form and it's all sunshine and rainbows?

I'm just so disheartened that this shit is being pushed as empowerment. It's just women being manipulated into thinking they are making these decisions themselves, or to think that other women make these decisions themselves. Apparently now it's empowering to be a sex worker, pole dancer, porn star . No, it's just doing what women have been forced to do for generations, but now we have to believe they are choosing it themselves because they are so liberated.

Yeah, I don't blame Eilish herself at all, it must be hideous being in that industry, especially at a young age.

But I still can't help that such a dramatic change in style isn't entirely authentic.

It's one thing for a young popstar appearing in a magazine in uncomfortable sexy wear, we have seen it a million times before. But when that girl has previously had a very different style it gives it a 'well this must be her choice, she has chosen to wear unsexy clothes before, so she must be choosing to wear this now' vibe. When we know from a million examples before that when it comes to young people in the music industry, particularly young women, 'choice' is not really a thing.

I also sometimes think that industry men people exploit young artists genuine desire to take a different direction/explore their sexuality and egg them on. Miley Cyrus had grown up as a wholesome popstar and its not surprising that she wanted to go in a different direction in her late teens. Enter stage left, fucking perverts like Terry 'how about you, naked, on a wrecking ball' Richardson who are only too happy to be there to film and photograph Miley with no clothes on as she 'explores this new side of herself'.

The sexual object as empowering thing is lame. I kind of wish they'd just own it, I will make more money if I sell my image as a sex object so I'm going to do that, rather than this empowerment garbage.

But then young women do of course want to be considered desirable, and can become confused into looking for that kind of affirmation from the public.

I do wonder though what girls like my daughter, who admired her precisely because she didn't seem to buy into all of that and was really about the music, will think, I think dd will be surprised. I am less surprised as she already deliberately pushes a lot of the socially correct buttons in her songs. Back in the day, Madonna made a splash by talking about masturbation and wanting to meet the pope, not it's about you play the right cards in the oppression hierarchy. Times change.

I expected her to go more Sia, less Kardashian. Shame really.

Sia,really shes even less of a role model.Shes disablist.

This is the thing,you equate women who take their clothes off as being easy and immoral.

And claiming someone like Sia to be a better role model.

Im sorry shes not.

It's as though all those exposes about abuse in the music industry and the fashion industry didn't happen. Imagine if Vogue actually felt it had a duty of care to models and cover stars; and instead of pushing underwear front pages, they had a cover shot of her doing what she does best ie singing, songwriting.

Attack the system, not the person.

Is it a shame the industry sexualises young women and girls so much? Yes.

Are young women who don't want to hide their bodies inside baggy tents for ever sluts or weak or betrayers of feminism? NO!

It's very disappointing to read so many comments implying that if a sexually abused child prefers wearing baggy clothes that cover and hide her entire body, that she's never allowed to wear anything different even once she's an adult: never allowed to grow. Never allowed to change. Never allowed to try to develop a more positive relationship with her body.

How many of us women, at 14, awkwardly hid our changing bodies in giant baggy t-shirts? Do many of you still dress that way at 30, 40, 50? I certainly don't.

Vogue is a fashion magazine though.
Shes barely going to be on the cover in her oversized clothes.

@Letsgetreadytocrumble

Yeah, I don't blame Eilish herself at all, it must be hideous being in that industry, especially at a young age.

But I still can't help that such a dramatic change in style isn't entirely authentic.

It's one thing for a young popstar appearing in a magazine in uncomfortable sexy wear, we have seen it a million times before. But when that girl has previously had a very different style it gives it a 'well this must be her choice, she has chosen to wear unsexy clothes before, so she must be choosing to wear this now' vibe. When we know from a million examples before that when it comes to young people in the music industry, particularly young women, 'choice' is not really a thing.

I also sometimes think that industry men people exploit young artists genuine desire to take a different direction/explore their sexuality and egg them on. Miley Cyrus had grown up as a wholesome popstar and its not surprising that she wanted to go in a different direction in her late teens. Enter stage left, fucking perverts like Terry 'how about you, naked, on a wrecking ball' Richardson who are only too happy to be there to film and photograph Miley with no clothes on as she 'explores this new side of herself'.

I bet there was a lot of egging on.

They're commenting on you anyways, why not do what you want to do .. wink wink.

They're body shaming you when they don't even know what you look like.

You can't even wear a bikini or a vest, they've put you in a box and telling you off for normal stuff, might as well go completely the other way.

They name call girls in certain outfits as easy,sluts etc. Own it instead.

You've been hiding yourself and it didn't work. Be yourself. Free yourself. Take control.

Drip. Drip . Drip . Fucking drip. Coupled with growing up, changing your views, becoming sexually active etc.

We've got your back, we support you.

It's your right. It's your freedom. It's your body.

Who are they to judge you? Who are they to tell you what to do?

Take back control.

We can see it much easier due to our experiences,age etc.

A lot of the comments on this thread and others (and the vest pic and the bikini pic) are contributing to the issue though.

@BorderlineHappy

Vogue is a fashion magazine though. Shes barely going to be on the cover in her oversized clothes.

Why? Because baggy or proper clothes can't be fashionable?

@BorderlineHappy

Vogue is a fashion magazine though. Shes barely going to be on the cover in her oversized clothes.

A quick Google shows she has done several Vogue covers in her oversized clothes.

@Iminaglasscaseofemotion So if you got a call from Vogue and they offered you to be front page.

I bet you wouldnt wear your normal clothes.

[quote BorderlineHappy]@Iminaglasscaseofemotion So if you got a call from Vogue and they offered you to be front page.

I bet you wouldnt wear your normal clothes.[/quote]
I bet I wouldn't wear my underwear. I would wear actual clothes though.

I think it's great that people are more aware of what goes on behind doors in these industries and the pressure performers face to look a certain way, but very disappointing and worrying that people don't want to take responsibility for the equally damaging role of the public's attitude to performers and expectations of them. Yes, the industry can be highly damaging, but so can the masses (which generally translates to huge amounts of online criticism) expecting them to be be a symbol for their causes, and role model for their kids. She is just a 19 year old changing her style, as many 19 year olds do. She is just a singer, and an ordinary human being.

she's not in underwear as worn by normal people. She is in a ridiculous, uncomfortable piece of fancy dress. I hope she is wearing it for a LOT of money and by choice. Can't blame her for not smiling tricked up like that. Vogue is a publication for fools with more money than sense, so hopefully she's milked them as much as she can.

she's perfectly decent by western standards, we allow cleavage to be seen in public.

I think in general it's only natural for parents to expect a degree of responsibility from stars if they have a large , young , following. They are the ones that pay for their records after all. Stars nowadays have media training in what and what not to say, precisely because they are influential. I'm not saying this particular instance falls in to the category of "irresponsible" - maybe "disappointing" depending on your viewpoint? Maybe not if you are young. I'll ask my 17 year old DD , who loved her previous style, what she thinks of these photos.

She added that as she gets older, people should expect her style to change. “I’m gonna be a woman. I wanna show my body," she said. "What if I wanna make a video where I wanna look desirable? Not a porno! But I know it would be a huge thing,” Eilish said. “I know people will say, ‘I’ve lost all respect for her.’ ”

October 2020. In all fairness she did warn us.

@Forwardroll

I think in general it's only natural for parents to expect a degree of responsibility from stars if they have a large , young , following. They are the ones that pay for their records after all. Stars nowadays have media training in what and what not to say, precisely because they are influential. I'm not saying this particular instance falls in to the category of "irresponsible" - maybe "disappointing" depending on your viewpoint? Maybe not if you are young. I'll ask my 17 year old DD , who loved her previous style, what she thinks of these photos.

Yes, I'd be interested what her peers say.

@Forwardroll

I think in general it's only natural for parents to expect a degree of responsibility from stars if they have a large , young , following. They are the ones that pay for their records after all. Stars nowadays have media training in what and what not to say, precisely because they are influential. I'm not saying this particular instance falls in to the category of "irresponsible" - maybe "disappointing" depending on your viewpoint? Maybe not if you are young. I'll ask my 17 year old DD , who loved her previous style, what she thinks of these photos.

That we live in a culture that expects these things of artists does not mean it is right. Your children should not be expecting role models out of singers/actors which should leave them free to be a normal person outside of their craft. If a celebrity's actions put you off them and make you want to avoid them then fair enough, but I don't think it should go along with the statement that they are wrong to live their life a certain way because they are supposed to be a role model just because their job puts them in the public eye.

This is the picture that sparked much commenting and retweeting and reposting and whatever other crap.

A normal look. Ok, nothing normal about socks and sandals ,but whatever floats her boat.

The comments were either about how hot and sexy she is or how fat and unfit she is, with some very VERY weird ones about the size of her genitalia to have a "bulge" in her shorts.

Why can't she wear normal clothes? Because when she did this happened.
There are articles titled "3 times when Billie Eilish wore tight clothes" , with pics obviously. And others in the same vein.

As misguided as it is (and definitely encouraged by the industry) I wonder if it was purposefully "big" so once it's done, people rant and rave and comment and whatever, it will eventually die down and her being in a tank top or a bikini won't cause such a fuss anymore. So she can wear what she wants, when she wants and not only "dress up" in the privacy of her own home.