Why dress like this?

[Spidergirl8]

I feel very depressed that more and more female celebrities decide to dress like this. These celebrities, like it or not, are role models for many girls and I feel it sets a very scary tone for what young girls may aspire too.

I do believe everyone has freedom of choice and can wear what they want, but I think that more often than not, this type of outfit is done as a publicity stunt.

Am I being too harsh, or does anyone agree?

Yes Spider and Yonic, I agree with you there. A man in equivalent clothes is either seen as camp, or a bit leftfield and avant-garde, whereas for a woman to be showing a lot of flesh doesn't cause anyone to bat an eyelid.

Just perpetuates the media inspired image of woman as 'angel' or 'vamp'. Just look at the rape threats and aggression on social media against any women who tries to challenge this view....
I just hope I am able to equip my daughters with the strength of character to be themselves as they turn into young women.

Taylor Swift, who is definitely more successful than Miley (and probably Rihanna, certainly will be through writing credits) has changed her image from country music teen but still dresses quite modestly

As did/do say Emmylou Harris or Joni Mitchell or Gillian Welch or Maria McKee or Linda Ronstadt or Stevie Nicks or Natalie Merchant or Adele or Dido or Anais Mitchell or Laura Veirs and I could go on and on. None of these are slebworthy and few of them are as famous as these 2.

They are all talented women who have long and successful careers in music without flashing flesh. Surely the real issue is that neither Cyrus nor Rihanna think (or possibly know) their musical talents are enough or not enough for the level of fame /money they want.

Yes Phaedra. I don't think Rihanna is trying to convince anyone that she is the new Joni Mitchell, they are different types of famous person. I don't think Rihanna is fooled or fooling anyone, she knows that she is the vehicle for pop songs written by other people, releases an album every year (or did until recently), she makes her money in other ways, like touring, endorsements. Rihanna likes the fame and attention and people looking at her and courts all of that. Adele doesn't seem to like it so she keeps out of the limelight and releases a record a few years. I don't think either choice is bad, per se, they have different types of career.

I think Taylor Swift is probably as famous a Miley - she is huge worldwide, I believe her last tour sold out in the UK (or at least sold very well), her albums and singles do as well if not better than Miley's, she makes the gossip magazines and teen magazines and women's magazines and even newspapers, she goes on chat shows. But we don't remember her publicity as much, partly because her clothes are not quite as shocking.

I don't think either choice is bad, per se, they have different types of career.

Exactly. Different types of career. I think it's pretty pathetic for people to post on here all hand-wringing and "oh woe, a woman can't succeed unless she makes herself a sex object. "

Well isn't that lovely? I thought it was the feminists on here who had the monopoly on being rude and dismissive.

Well if you don't think women are pressured to look a certain way, what can I say?

I don't think it is particularly empowering or helpful to anyone assume artists like Cyrus are being forced to act and dress the way she does.

There are comments on here about women forced to be sex objects in the music industry (I'm paraphrasing but one comment in particular read as Cyrus had been sold into slavery rather than the calculating and astute person I'm prepared to assume she is)

Briar well you could start with the assumption Cyrus and Rhianna actually have a brain and a backbone.

Interesting:

How popstars have changes since their first album

I just think that it is a shame for women that the music business and consumers only seems interested in overtly sexualised pop stars. I don't blame the women, it is just a crap culture. I think women had it better in the 1980s and 1990s when they were not treated so much as sex objects. I'm starting to think that women are getting less respect these days.

I think you have a very narrow view of the music industry. There is an awful lot more to contemporary music than packaged MTV popstars.

There are plenty of women making interesting music and who are appreciated for their music. They might not be raking in the money the way Cyrus and Rhianna is but there's more to being an artist than cash.

I'm just reflecting what appears on my TV and commercial radio stations, Phaedra. I don't doubt that there are other female artists out there. It is a shame that popular culture doesn't attach much value to them.

I don't think things are worse now than they were before. The sexualisation of women (sometimes to the point of misogyny) has always been around in pop music.

In the noughties we had the Pussycat Dolls marketing themselves as modern burlesque; many singers and pop groups posed for FHM; we had TaTu pretending to be fake teen Russian lesbians in school uniforms, Britney, Madonna and Christina Aguilera kissing on stage, Christina performing in leather chaps and small knickers; Kylie relaunched her career purely with her arse...

In the nineties, we had the advent of Britney (16 years ago!), doing more of the titillating school uniform thing; Janet Jackson posed for an album cover topless but for a man posing her breasts, and Madonna released a book called "Sex" and had the whole erotica era. The Spice Girls were around, but Geri started out as a topless model to try to get noticed. The biggest girl band of the 90s was TLC and they were very sexual, not so much in clothes but definitely in content. Salt N Pepa were around with songs like "Push it" and "let's talk about sex".

In the 80s, Sam Fox released a (quite excellent, but that is by the by) record. Sabrina released "Boys Boys Boys", and in the video she is bouncing around in a swimming pool and her top falls so that you can actually see her nipples.

In the 70s, Donna Summer made a hit out of making orgasm sounds. Sometimes the women weren't even the singers but still their bodies were used to sell records - Pan's People anyone? (I've posted a couple of very unwholesome videos of theirs on another thread). Many a 1970s compilation record would have an inexplicable photo of a pretty girl, sometimes scantily clad or topless.

In the 60s (now this is niche, but bear with me, I know more about French pop from this decade than Anglophone) you had Serge Gainsbourg who used A.N. Other woman for his hypersexual songs- Je T'aime...Moi Non Plus, more orgasmic sounds. He wrote hugely suggestive songs for very young, wholesome, looking women like France Gall (there was one about sucking lollies, when she performed people in phallic lollipop costumes danced around her). She later commented that she was mortified by this, as she had no idea that it was suggestive, and she felt betrayed by the adults around her- to be honest I am more unsettled by this kind of humiliation of a woman than Nicki Minaj consciously getting her arse out and getting paid well for it as she has the rights to the songs she is performing. The 60s also had some hugely horrible behind the scenes exploitation - Tina Turner's horrendous abuse at the hands of Ike is well known. Tammi Terrell and all number of Mowtown singers suffered similar horrors. Berry Gordy ran Mowtown and was hugely controlling of his artists, so it was no better back in the good old days.

I guess the question is are the popstars of today being exploited? Are they being subversive and provocative? Are they being artistic and expressing themselves? How autonomous are they? I think there is a bit of a problem with the representation of women in pop, as there is in all parts of our culture, but the problem is an age-old one and I worry that saying "it's so awful nowadays, it was so much better when I was young", when it wasn't much better, devalues the argument a bit.

I also think it's not at all true that the music business and consumers only seems interested in overtly sexualised pop stars. There are countless examples of sexualised ones, yes, but there are countless examples of non-sexualised ones who are having their own version of success - sometimes equally or even significantly more successful than Rihanna or Miley. It was always like this - Janet and Madonna flashed their boobs in the early 90s, Cathy Dennis and Dina Carrol didn't but still had huge success - Cathy Dennis carried on writing and penned some of the biggest hits of the last 20 years. Jesse J, her clothes are a bit revealing but she started out writing for people like Miley Cyrus, and continues to write, so her career is not just because she shows some skin.

I think it's a case that we only remember the shocking things, which means they are doing what they set out to do. It doesn't mean that everything is shocking, or a female pop artist has to shock and push the boundaries of taste and decency to be successful.

There are countless examples of sexualised ones, yes, but there are countless examples of non-sexualised ones who are having their own version of success - sometimes equally or even significantly more successful than Rihanna or Miley. Who?

Who? Well, Taylor Swift for one - she has just made the shrewd business move of removing all of her music from Spotify as she knows that people want it enough to pay for it. Her new album has just had the biggest first week US sales since an Eminem album of 12 years ago, she has tours that sell out worldwide - she is far more successful than Miley or RiRi and is not nearly as sexualised - she wears clothes that any conventional 20-something would wear.

Ellie Goulding, Adele, Emeli Sande, Jessie Ware, Katy B, Sia, Paloma Faith, Lorde, Florence and the Machine, Ella Eyre, Ella Henderson, Little Mix, Pink... there are dozens who are having success and making money without being hypersexual, but they are not necessarily on the front pages. Because they are not doing anything to court that kind of publicity. But being on the front page grinding your arse on Robin Thicke's crotch does not equal success.

The irony is not lost on me of generally gay male fashion designers 'decorating women' for male heterosexual consumption.

I think they are paid to wear these dresses. They know that sex sells and gets them media promotion. Also, general fashion seems to be quite revealing with sheer and lace.

The Caribbean culture seems very comfortable with their bodies. A lot of women I have met over there have very high body confidence. They seemed to really believe they were all beautiful. Also, carnival outfits are very revealing and warn proudly. This is a culture Rihanna was brought up in.

Do if these two don't think about why and where these cultural norms come and don't give it any thought, you can understand why they wear them.
Or they do analyse it and where them for attention, leading to financial gain.

Yes, BreakingDad, a very good point.

And the way I question it to myself is along similar lines, King

Hmmm, I am not sure women's rights are fantastic in the Caribbean- that I am sure impacts on what is 'culturally' acceptable. I do appreciate the point being made though.

Even if the objectification of women in pop music can be exampled through previous decades, which I agree it can, that doesn't make it anymore acceptable. Depressingly though, it may never change....

Yes I agree that the idea that it was always thus means it's ok. I just think saying "things are so bad these days, not like olden times" misses the point, as that argument can easily be disproved and that won't help our cause.

Yes, the Caribbean has quite a poor women's rights record. I think Rihanna addressed this in her "Man Down" video

The irony is not lost on me of generally gay male fashion designers 'decorating women' for male heterosexual consumption

I have been dying to say something like that, but could not quite articulate it!

I don't for a minute thing that Miley Cyrus is stupid or a silly little girl, but I do think her 'rebranding' was a very deliberate move to v quickly get away from the clean-cut girl-next-door, pretty-but-not-sexually-threatening image to something very very adult. I don't think she will have the same shelf-life as, say, Adele or other female stars who trade not quite as much on their looks and in a much more understated way on their sexuality or how 'available' and 'gagging for it' they appear.

Yes, I definitely don't think Miley will be still be around in 10 years, not primarily as a singer anyway. I think she will reinvent again, trying to be a credible actor.