Lady Gaga: Banned Video Glamorising Rape

Artpop Lady GagaEverybody in the world knows her name, Lady Gaga isn’t your ordinary popstar, in fact in most of her ‘artsy’ videos you see the singer wearing very little which is also a portrayal of her style in day to day life. We all know Lady Gaga likes to put on a performance but the latest news to come out was actually quite shocking and in poor taste…

It has emerged that ‘Do What U Want’ the second single from new album Art Pop featuring R Kelly was banned for glamorising rape, throughout the clip the singer is naked which comes to no surprise. R Kelly who plays a doctor is shown to reach under the operating sheet covering her whilst before she passes out. He also states “I’m putting you under, and when you wake up, you’re going to be pregnant.” if that isn’t glamorising rape then I don’t know what is.

Other controversial factors of this collaboration is the fact that Lady Gaga collaborated with R Kelly who was acquitted of Child Pornography charges in 2008 and for the video to be directed by Terry Richardson a photographer who has received many complaints by models stating his inappropriate sexual behaviour towards them. The photographer directed the video Wrecking Ball for Miley Cyrus as well as photographing her and the likes of Kate Moss.

The lyrics ‘You can’t have my heart, and you won’t use my mind but do what you want with my body’ clearly back up the accusations of rape being glamorised. Although the lyrics in my opinion are quite poor and I don’t personally like the song it still managed to reach No.1 in the UK.

Lady GagaDo you think rape was glamorised here?

Although her popularity may be declining the controversy surrounding her now might bring Lady Gaga back into the limelight, she’ll just have to be more careful when selecting ‘artsy’ projects.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/lady-gaga-r-kelly-and-terry-richardsons-scrapped-music-video-an-ad-for-rape-9551572.html

Advertisements

The Sun: Sexualised Media

Nicole NealThe Sun came to a shocking new low today with its ‘Under boob’ trend being modelled by Page 3 girl Nicole Neal, the trend like the ‘side boob’ sported by celebrities consists of part of the breast being exposed, in this case the curvature of the bottom of the breasts. The above look was described as being a festival inspired, personally I find it far too much and don’t see how anybody cause possibly leave the house so comfortably when showing off so much skin. As for ‘festival’ just because she has flowers in her hair doesn’t mean it’s a festival trend. also people usually go to festivals to see live music not women wearing very little.Miley CyrusIt come’s to no surprise that controversial stars such as Miley Cyrus is not shy of the side boob trend, especially considering that she wears very little on stage. But is the under boob and side boob really a trend that people should be following or is it just an excuse for females to be sexualized even more?

Gender inequality is certainly far from being solved when the media splashes images across the world of ‘side boobs’ and ‘under boobs’ like it’s a perfectly acceptable thing. Would you really want to see your children or relatives walking around like this because they’ve seen it in magazines or showcased by celebrities?

Considering The Sun is now linked to the breast cancer charity Coppafeel, you would think that’d be more respectful to the female body but obviously not, previously they held a contest against Ex Big Brother and Apprentice ‘star’ Luisa Zuissman and model Helen Flanagan to see who had better breasts. Is this really important and ‘news’ I think not but the paper is so misogynistic that it couldn’t possibly stoop any lower.

Helen FlanaganRather than showcasing women as just something that can be looked at The Sun should showcase talented women and show there is more to us than just breasts, rather than pitting two ‘celebrities’ together to see who has better breasts, fake vs natural, this is the kind of content you’d expect to find in lads mags, especially when they have their top lists to determine which female is sexier.  Page 3 is outdated yet they wont listen to the public and scrap it, instead it seems that more female bodies are showcased and very little news is actually reported so is this still a ‘family’ newspaper or just another lads mag that has articles in to deviate from the fact that often enough large images of bikini clad women take centre spread.

As young females grow up they shouldn’t feel like they are only worth what their body looks like, females should grow up not feeling like their body counts for everything and that boob fashion trends are the norm but with such sexualized content publically showcased then gender inequality is looking less likely.

*images from Google

Check ‘Em Tuesday Campaign Controversy

check em tuesday coverPage 3 as we all know features topless models for unnecessary purposes, boobs aren’t news and shouldn’t be featured in a ‘family’ paper, a while ago now I signed the petition to have the Page 3 content removed as well as 161, 823 more people so I am quite disgusted and concerned as to why David Dinsmore has decided to use sexualised women to promote Breast Cancer awareness.

Check ‘Em Tuesday will now run every Tuesday to remind women to check theirselves for any signs of Breast Cancer, using a popular newspaper is a great way to promote cancer awareness but using sexualised images is not the right way to go about it! Coppafeel the charity working with The Sun feel it’s the best way to alert people of the dangers rather than aimed at sufferers.

I have nothing against the charity and hope it succeeds before I am seen as being against cancer awareness, I just feel that it seems like The Sun has used a tactical move, they know about the vast amount of support for no more Page 3, even MP’s want it gone, so promoting a deadly disease to keep the content in place is a disgusting move.

check em tuesdayThe above image has been used to ‘promote’ the campaign, had you not seen it before would you be aware it’s promoting breast cancer awareness? Breast Cancer is a serious condition and I personally feel that The Sun isn’t taking it very seriously, it’s nice that they want to promote it but they are going the wrong way about it.

Go CommandoGo Commando is the male equivalent of Check ‘Em Tuesday but there was a very large difference between the promotion of both campaigns, Page 3 models were given front page and a large spread in the paper, Go Commando used ordinary men and only had a small feature in the paper, the majority of the space on those pages was covered with advertisements. What does that tell you?

Cancer is deadly serious no matter what gender, age or ethnicity you are, yet The Sun seems to think that female models in their early 20’s is the way to promote it and older white males (with one exception of a 24 year old) will attract readers. In the article it has the cancer stories of the men who have suffered, and again Coppafeel features to the side of the story but to promote the symptoms of breast cancer rather than having a male guide on cancer symptoms.

If you don’t agree with Page 3 and think it is outdated then why not sign the petition? or follow the campaign on Twitter @NoMorePage3

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/david-dinsmore-take-the-bare-boobs-out-of-the-sun-nomorepage3

 

*images from Google

American Apparel: Controversal Campaigns

It’s no surprise that the store fronting mannequins with full pubic hair is a store that also printed a t-shirt of a menstruating vagina just last year, the store of course is American Apparel.

Controversy is the forte of this store, with previous advertisements bordering pornographic (photos to come shorty) Women are constantly sexualised by this brand so this latest stunt to grab attention doesn’t come as a surprise with the use of female mannequins.  The mannequins are fronting full pubic hair and realistic nipples shown in see through underwear, but what is the point to this campaign? Does it make you want to go in store? It’s certainly been a good way of publicising their selves as many stop and stare at the displays as well as talking about it worldwide.  

american-apparel mannequinsThe pubic hair campaign is for a Valentines Display, I fail to see it.

An advert which features a model wearing just sports socks with hand placements to look like masturbation is another example of an extreme advertisement they have previously used and had banned. You would think a clothes shop’s primarily focus would be to sell the clothes and not to sell sex.

american-apparel-ads-2011-mainAnother shocking advert for the company which features sheer pants showing off more pubic hair, why is this company so obsessed with pubic hair and vagina’s?  Personally I don’t find the adverts to be that clever or appealing but their sales tactics appear to be sold on controversy and shock alone.

american apparel store openingThe finally shocking advertisement is the one above which is for a store opening, funny how the store details are in small print and barely noticeable. The owner Dov Charney clear has no respect for women otherwise why would he sexualise them to such an extent just to ‘sell’ clothing although very little is worn in advertisements.  Another issue I have with all this is that the models always look quite young, sexualising young women gives off such a terrible impression, it makes them look like objects rather than human beings.

*images from Google

Miss Representation (2011)

Miss Representation is a documentary from 2011 exploring the media pressures put on young women in America, it more so talks about the limited political power that is given to women and how female power is under-represented in media influences. The documentary was quite a shock to how sexist the media actually is, it showcases women as being natural enemies to each other and generally bitchy behaviour, come on now women do get on with each other.

Jennifer Siebel Newsom narrates throughout the documentary the fears she has of her little girl growing up in the male dominated environment, if they aren’t subjecting women sexually they are undermining their intelligence. A wide range of shocking statistics are also used throughput to showcase how oblivious we may be to what is actually going on in front of our very eyes on a daily basis.

Shock Statistics

“Studies prove exposures to sexually explicit video games and music videos is linked to men’s acceptance of rape myths and sexual harassment”

“1 in 6 women are survivors of rape or attempted rape”

“It is estimated that out of the 8 million people with an eating disorder 7 of those million are women.”

“In 2011, only 11% of protagonists in films were female.”

“Women hold only 5% of clout positions in telecommunications, entertainment, publishing, and advertising”

Media influences may seem ineffective but they do shape how a society thinks, females are constantly sexualised which makes it seem that we are objects, in the popular video game Grand Theft Auto men can beat up female prostitutes and get their money back after ‘using their services’ it shows a complete lack of respect towards women and like this behaviour is acceptable and possibly even funny.

It may not be featured in the Documentary due to it being 2 years later but  Robin Thicke’s Blurred Lines is a primary example of how women are being overly sexualised constantly in the media. The models in the video are dancing around topless (explicit version) and the lyrics over exert sexual intentions and rape, the blurred line wipes out the answer no making it seem like the females are available and this is not acceptable, glorifying rape in popular culture formats will make it more accessible for audiences, women should not be portrayed as sex objects or even used just to boost a songs video hits.

Blurred LinesWith women’s small contribution to media services it means that the patriarchal society will continue to grow, males will continue to undermine a females persona and focus more on her looks, with the over exposure of slim models and celebrities and shaming those who gain weight then it will make it seem like your looks are the most important factor of life.

Jennifer Siebel Newsom illustrates that when auditioning for roles she was advised not to mention her educational achievements due to it being potentially intimidating, what’s wrong with having a degree? Women aren’t dumb which is constantly a media stereotype e.g.’dumb blondes’ but it seems that if you do have good educational traits then you are an outcast and you should focus more on your looks rather than studying. A good example of this is Mean Girls, this isn’t mentioned in the documentary btw, it’s a film that everybody has either heard of or seen, when Cady remotely shows any intelligence she is instantly looked at like she is a freak by the ‘Plastics’ but then you slowly see her consumed by the beauty obsession and bitchy personality.

If more female power was allowed in the media then changes could be made, young girls wouldn’t feel self conscious about their looks at such a young age and the ever growing increase in depression and eating disorders wouldn’t be such a high risk. Everyday females aren’t like those constantly showcased in music video’s, Miley Cyrus may walk around in next to nothing and twerk but it doesn’t mean that every girl wants to act like this.

2013 MTV Video Music Awards - ShowMore statistics and information for the documentary can be found on it’s official site, it can also be viewed on Netflix (UK)

http://film.missrepresentation.org/statistics

*images from google