Previous post
Were you lucky enough to catch Miley Cyrus’ cringe-worthy performance at the MTV Video Music Awards this weekend? If you missed it, go ahead and check it out here. You might want to keep a bottle of bleach nearby.
Get More:
2013 VMA, Artists.MTV, Music, Miley Cyrus
If you felt disgusted, horrified, or embarrassed for Miley, then fear not: you aren’t alone. Virtually everyone who watched that monstrosity felt the same way. The reaction was instantaneous, loud, and overwhelmingly negative.
Clearly, this means that every feminazi in existence must crawl out from underneath their rock to defend her find another excuse to whine hysterically about PATRIARCHY and SLUT SHAMING. Because that’s what happened, y’all. America’s prudes just couldn’t handle a woman expressing her sexuality on stage!
From Jezebel:
For anyone paying attention to Miley’s Twitter presence for the past week or so (she’s been hyping the VMAs like crazy), or anything at all that she’s done lately, her performance shouldn’t have come as a surprise. But outside of Miley, no one should be surprised that the sexuality of a young girl managed to outshine Kanye West singing a song about lynchings, Drake doing his Drake thing, NSYNC reuniting, Katy Perry pretending to be Million Dollar Baby and even Lady Gaga, a woman who traditionally does the outshining as reigning Queen of the Weird. The VMAs have a long and prestigious history of women doing crazy sexual things onstage, more so than any other awards show, perhaps because it’s not really an awards show but a spectacle. Madonna, Britney Spears, Madonna and Britney Spears — the VMAs is an event where everyone feels like they should push the envelope, and sex is the best way to do that.
… Cyrus’s performance was shocking, but for reasons not being discussed. It was jarring because, as opposed to the random, half-nude models we’re used to seeing prance around Robin Thicke, we were watching a 20-year-old woman — a household name, someone we “know” — play the object in Thicke’s sexy sex dream. And as was the case during the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake Super Bowl fiasco of 2004, the focus has been on Miley’s performance choices and not Thicke’s compliance in them. While criticizing a woman for her actions might imply that she’s being given an agency that has been long denied, it’s not. It’s holding her to a standard not required of her companion, who got to sit back and enjoy the young ass shoved in his face. Whether Cyrus was doing it somewhat ironically (she didn’t exactly look sexy most of the time; the tongue wagging and pigtail buns were almost comical) doesn’t seem to matter. Her lack of clothes and movements spoke stronger than anything else.
Yes, yes, I know you want it—to feel scandalized. But may I offer an alternative, one that may be less immediately exciting but ultimately more fulfilling? Try not caring. Step back and really look at the performance. If it were anywhere but the VMAs, we would not be that interested in a mediocre pop star in a beige bathing suit rattling her butt at Alan Thicke’s son in an inept attempt at eroticism. We certainly wouldn’t call it “X-rated.” If you want to see something actually sexy, try porn. Or HBO. Or just wander into any dance club in any major city and see people who can dance better than Cyrus and actually make it hot.
It seems that we still can’t handle what it’s like for a young woman to be able to perform, as she chooses, without layering in a heavy helping of insults as well. While Cyrus was condemned for grinding on Thicke, very little criticism has been laid on the singer himself for his role in the performance. The nastiest of the comments have implied that Cyrus is somehow diseased because of her preferred dance methods.
It’s impossible to consider her performance without noting the following: 1) a 36-year-old Robin Thicke, standing onstage while Cyrus gyrated around him; and 2) the use of women as props and accessories, a habit that practically defines music industry productions. Usually, though, the people using women thus are men. At the VMAs, Cyrus expressed her celebrity and power pretty much the way the most visible and prominent men in her industry do. And while she deserves some criticism for her performance, the kind she’s likely to get is deeply linked to her gender.
… Girls and women who too brazenly display power, and are unself-conscious or unapologetic about it, disturb people. When famous women get too big for their, admittedly sometimes really small, britches, our culture likes to make sure that what’s inside that often “pretty head” is seen as crazy.
Dear Society,
If you think a woman in a tan vinyl bra and underwear, grabbing her crotch and grinding up on a dance partner is raunchy, trashy, and offensive but you don’t think her dance partner is raunchy, trashy, or offensive as he sings a song about “blurred” lines of consent and propagating rape culture, then you may want to reevaluate your acceptance of double standards and your belief in stereotypes about how men vs. women “should” and are “allowed” to behave.
Sincerely,
Dr. Jill
Naturally, the feminazis immediately lash out at the male “participating” in Miley Cyrus’ slutfest. But how much did he really participate? Watch the performance again. That appeared to be a man thinking, “Why did I agree to this?”, not “This is awesome, man!!” He didn’t touch her, not even when she wrapped herself around him. He barely interacted with her. That’s probably because he, like the rest of us, isn’t blind and could see what a hot mess Miley Cyrus was. I’m sure he also was none too pleased over her butchering his song as well. And that’s why Robin Thicke isn’t getting included in the “slut shaming”. He seemed to be making a rather valiant effort to distance himself from the hot mess.
But what about Miley herself?
As much as the feminazis want to turn everything into the evil patriarchy trying to keep the little women down, that isn’t what happened here. What happened was that a 20-year-old girl gave a performance that could best be described as notably unsexy. It was embarrassing, awkward, and sad. People aren’t talking about Miley Cyrus because she was “owning her sexuality”. It wasn’t because she was being too erotic or sensual. It was because the performance was awful. This wasn’t an example of a young woman owning her sexuality. It was a young woman looking incredibly ridiculous in front of millions of people, seemingly without having any clue how dumb she looked.
For comparison’s sake, let’s flash back to the 2000 VMAs. Britney Spears gave what is now one of the most famous performances ever. And that did cause a ton of attention and controversy, because she was genuinely sexy. But she was sexy without looking nearly as trashy or sad or pathetic. Miley couldn’t achieve what Britney did.
Miley Cyrus did not sing or dance well in that performance. She didn’t look all that great, either. Sexy? Not in the least. That’s why just about every celebrity reaction shot during Miley’s performance showed everyone sitting there, stone-faced, probably wondering what the hell they were watching. It was bad.
And yet, because she was trying to look sexy, we’re supposed to applaud it in the name of celebrating women’s sexuality, or something? No one should criticize how awful that performance was? Evidently, the world should keep its collective mouth shut and ignore that Miley Cyrus just made an utter fool out of herself, because if a woman is showing her sexuality — or attempting to, anyway — then no one can say anything bad about it.
The deeper meaning is even worse. We’re now expected to applaud women acting like trashy whores in front of millions because “men do it!”. Rather than empowering women to be better than lowlife males who objectify women in their music, women should sink down to their level and be just as trashy, disgusting, and sick. And this is supposed to be called feminism? Please. It’s not feminist to cheer on a woman for debasing herself as low as she possibly can. It doesn’t help women. Yet the feminazis are urging us to stop with the “slut-shaming” and applaud a woman accepting her sexuality, or whatever. Miley Cyrus looked trashy and sad at the VMAs, and that isn’t something to celebrate. We’re being told that we should no longer have any morals whatsoever, to hold women to no standards, that all behavior — no matter how lewd or crass or disgusting — is acceptable. Thankfully, the outrage over Miley Cyrus’ pathetic performance shows that most of the country, at least, has still not sunk to the low the feminazis are trying to drag us to. Thank God.
Mother says: Yes YES YES !
A.Men says: miley looked like a 9 year old girl…. The opposite of sexy.
I wanted to vomit.
Catherine Wilkinson says: I think it’s so important to show feminazi response to these…events. While I’m as sick of looking at articles about this as the next person, I think it’s vital we SHOW America, especially young America, as much as we can, what a true modern day “feminist” thinks. So good for you, Cassy!
Dejah says: My man asks me all the time when he sees or hears of things like this happening, “Baby, WTF happened to women?”
I agree. When did me showing my tits and grinding on some dude in public become an expression of my power as a woman? Raising daughters today must be hard for liberals, what with trying to explain how being a slut is as important as the right to vote.
I don’t know what happened to women…..
Kate says: bwahahahahahah! ^5.
Jennifer says: Amen Dejah!! I have to say we should shame this kind of behavior. Miley is sending a dangerous message to young girls that women are only powerful as sex objects. I prefer to have young girls look at women like Condi Rice as role models. “Hmm should I aspire to be a sex object or should I aspire to be a well educated, classy lady who is admired??”-it should be an easy answer. As my mother asked me at what became the end of my modeling career “Do you want to be known for your looks or your smarts?”. No contest, smarts won out!
Robin H says: So if this performance was so great according to the feminazi’s, where does Miley have to go from here? I guess the next step is a total porn video to advance her “career?” Is nothing short of that just “not accepting” women? It was an awful performance, and while I blame Miley for most of it (she could have said no) I do also blame the whole production staff, choreographers, etc, for the awfulness as well. Some time during rehearsals SOMEONE could have stepped up and said something. But I guess since they all live in the same bubble, it’s hard for them to see what we see.
Jen says: Since the feminazi’s have supported this behavior as some kind of sexual freedom/empowering expression that they believe is equal to a man(maybe that explains why they were pretty much silent regarding Filner-how can you condemn him and support Miley at the same time?,) one cannot expect anything else out of them.
I believe the feminazi’s became irrelevant some time ago to the general population. Where their importance still lies is in acadamia, education, and government-especially at the regulatory level. Which of course, still makes them very dangerous and as pleasant as a kitchen cabinet full of cockroaches.
Think about their loyalties…they support Hillary Clinton’s decision to stay with a philandering rapist simply because it helps her stay in politics(would Hillary even be known anywhere in the USA outside of Arkansas if it weren’t for Bill?) So what if he constantly chases tail to the point of physically forcing some(Juanita Broderick), he had power that she could ride coattails on.
Rush read a column today from a UNC professor who was returning fire to a fellow professor who had called for his termination from the university because he defined marriage between a man and woman.
Read the column at this link. It lists ten different “feminazi” courses and events provided at UNC and other universities that the author cites as being not only destructive to young women’s personal development, but illustrates why Hollywood and Miley Cyrus’ blatantly overt sexual perversion act was created and performed on a decidedly young person’s channel.
http://clashdaily.com/2013/08/an-embarrassment-to-higher-education/
When I read those “defenses”, it occurs to me that the modern feminist argument is this:
“It’s perfectly ok for a woman to define herself solely by sexual “value” as long as SHE’S the one deciding what the price is.”
It makes me think of something my Criminal Law/Criminal Procedure professor once said that has always stuck with me. “You cannot consent to assault.”
But apparently you CAN devalue yourself, and set the bar of expectation low for ALL women, as long as you can do it yourself.
My response: I don’t want to be expected to respect you for your ass, because some day, it will start to sag. I want to respect you because of the intangibles that make you who you are. Now please, put a shirt on.
Catherine Wilkinson says: and pants. Put your pants on, Sweet Moses!
Bilbo Baggins says: LOL. All you conservative cunts need to pull your heads out of your asses and get a fucking life.
Kate says: Wow. We’re so wounded by that! LOL. THIS ^^^ coming from a liberal freak who refuses to use his own name.
The word “cunt” is not Kryptonite. Nice try “Bilbo”.
Catherine Wilkinson says: Back to Twitter, Mr. Baggins…you’re unable to elaborate more than 140 characters.
upinak says: A Hobbit…
A small stature of a man with a wide girth of chest, and MOOBS. Oh yes, I think you would look sexy standing at my counter, fixing the food of breakfast, tea, lunch, supper and the like.
Remember mr. baggins, Bilbo in the book was a slight man who was a tad on the heavy side. 😉
Mike Wainright says: “LOL All us liberal cunts need to pull our heads out of our asses and get a fucking life.”
–Bilbo Baggins
There fixed it for you. It now reflects reality.
david7134 says: I dated in the 60’s. At that time, we opened all doors for women, pulled out their chairs and, despite TV to the contrary, we honored them as co-workeres and students. We did resent the random woman using her sex to score better grades, but felt that was part of life. In medical school, all women were treated as equals, as long as they did equal work (some didn’t, but some men didn’t and they were sent to Vietnam and died). Then women burned their bras. We thought that was great and could not really understand why they would be doing something that men truely desired. But things got worse in the 70’s and the 80’s and suddenly women were not referred to as ladies, but as whores. In the 60’s, you felt like you had truly reached heaven if a lady kissed you good night. That was the stuff of dreams. Now, a woman is expected to pay for her portion of a date and have sex to boot. Things have changed, is change good?
Joe says: I’m going to assume that your question is rhetorical. The answer is very clear to thinking individuals.
Listen, Bilbo. I get that Miley Cyrus’ sorry excuse for sexy is probably the first time you’ve seen any kind of sex-related anything since your last Friday night spent in your armchair with Showtime and a bottle of Jergens. I get that your absolute inability to land a real woman of your own contributes to your self-loathing. I even understand that you’re a poster child for projection and emotional transfer, as you attempt to shame us using words that you think will offend us because saying those words makes your little tool feel all tingly like Chris Matthews’ leg.
Here’s the problem. Liberal men like you are just a pathetic caricature of anything good and masculine in this country. Real men don’t need to call women filthy names in order to get their point across, because they have salient, logical arguments. Perhaps logic is not something you’re familiar with. That’s ok. We aren’t really familiar with small-dicked, big-mouthed, verbally abusive morons either—because we’re too busy associating with real men. Run along now. The adults are talking…and aren’t you almost out of lotion anyway?
Mike Wainright says: Liberal men like Bilbo are mere shadows of manhood. It’s sad because I think at the bottom of it, these manginas think that ‘modern women’ respect them for ‘supporting them’. They don’t understand that femnazis hate them no matter what.
But don’t worry Kit, these types and the femnazis never marry or have kids. Give it a few generations and they will breed themselves out. Let’s help them by getting our kids out of their brainwashing institutions and getting to them to conservative private schools or homeschooling etc.
NYCAccountant says: Unfortunately, you are completely wrong, Mr. Wainright. The issue is WHO follows this ideology, not how many. All you need is a handfull of truly powerful people who are hardcore liberal and they can decide the direction of an entire society. 1% controlling the other 99% is what a dollarocracy is….
Hayley says: If the roles were reversed, and it was Robin Thicke stimulating masturbating, rubbing on Miley’s crotch with a foam finger, griding into Miley, and basically performing all the raunchy/aggressive behavior Miley did we would be even MORE outraged, but everyone would be ok with calling him a Rapist, a misogynist, a molester, etc. Because let’s not forget we don’t want a double standard but we want a double standard because male behavior is deplorable but fuck you for calling out a woman for her own bad behavior.
Everyone has the right to dislike a performance. No harm there. And on that count, I actually agree with you: the performance was a dud(1). The harm comes when critics resort to sexual epithets to express their dislike, and extend their criticism beyond the performance and onto the performer. It’s one thing to say you find a performance distasteful. It’s quite another to chastise the artist for her lack of self-respect or morality.
What I see is a lot of people trying to pass off their indignant yet self-satisfied slut-shaming as though it were artistic criticism. You cannot do that. ‘Bad performance’ is not equivalent to ‘bad behavior.’
And to those of you who actually intend to pass moral judgement: before you smugly reassure yourself that you are standing up for standards of morality, remember that in 1797, the newly-invented ‘waltz’ spurred similar moral outrage. In every generation, there will be those who are disgusted and shocked by the openness and temerity of their younger cohorts. Disabuse yourself of the conceit that your particular notions of modesty or morality hold special significance.
Critique the performance all you want. Keep your bitter and hateful moralizing to yourself.
1. I actually found the sexually suggestive repartee between Cyrus and Thicke the most entertaining part of the performance, precisely because it was so clear that while she was having a blast and trying to shock, he was just going through the motions. It was hilarious!
Joe says: Bad behavior and bad performance can very easily be linked to each other, but must remain exclusive to the person in question.
Not everyone who puts on a bad performance, such as this, is generally entrenched in bad behavior. Miley Cyrus, however, is not exactly known for her artistry in the departments of wholesomeness and decency. I am referring to the fact that she has made it clear that her behavior is not limited to her performances. She is a willfully trashy individual who is proud of her indecency. Put as many candy-coatings as you want on it; this is no way for a woman to present herself.
In a later post, you said that the standards of morality vary around the world, but you’re reaching with this because it took place here, in America. In this country, and many other places, people draw their standards of morality from the Bible. Even those who do not associate themselves with the church generally view what is right and wrong from same point of view as a Christian would. It’s not indoctrination, as many would claim, but a simple and sensical way of determining what is right and wrong. Now, forgive me if I’m getting you wrong here but, if you are the type of person that would do so, please spare me the tired diatribe of militant atheism. If you attack my faith or, in this case, the moral standards of my faith, you’re only proving yourself to be as hateful as you perceive others to be, and a hypocrite, to boot.
As far as moralizing goes, I have to ask; where do you draw your standards of morality from? I don’t expect, or want, an answer. It’s just something that someone asked me when I was younger and it really made me ponder the content of my words and thoughts. My opinion was not unlike yours, in my youth.
Jen says: Michael,
Because for years our parents and now us have kept our moralizing to ourselves, we now have Miley Cyruses blasting all over the TV, the movies, our college campuses, teen magazines, advertising, youtube, facebook, etc.
Your lecture is the same tired argument we have been hearing for years…oh, don’t worry about it , it’s nothing, you’re just bitter and angry, etc.
Yes, my notion of modesty and morality unfortunately, does now hold special significance because it is becoming more and more rare, as superior elites as yourself foster YOUR morality(which is relevant and basically non-existant) on everyone else through the use of blanket media placement.
I will fight back against perverted elites such as yourself who have to grasp as 1797 straws from Wiki to try to make their “anything goes” attitude argument seem like it has any historical backup.
Let me guess, you are either in the entertainment industry or in psychology.
And here too we see that logical argument must take a backseat to ad hominem attacks.
I’m all for publicly shaming people who do harm to others such as despots, murderers, rapists, thieves, fraudsters, and nepostists. I do not see that is is my right though to tell another person how to express her sexuality. Most of the imagined ‘harm’ caused by public expressions of sexuality claimed by conservatives is harm they themselves inflict on others — both on those bold enough to transgress against the old social mores, and on those who defend them. Shaming just for the sake of upholding an outdated notion of sexual propriety is not just wrong; it is destructive.
It would be far more productive to employ both encouragement and shame to inspire truly moral behavior, and not just the primitive superficial markers of such. People like being able to leap to conclusions. For example, people like being able to look at a person, and imagine that they know everything they need to know about that person at a glance. Similarly, people like to imagine that they can judge the morality of a woman by how she dresses, how she expresses herself towards men, how flirtatious she is, and so on. This old-fashioned view of morality, that groups women into the Madonna or whore category based exclusively on how steadfastly she upholds the Puritan & chaste monogamist tradition, is not just unfair — it’s immoral.
To truly ascertain whether a person is good, one must forsake the simpleminded black and white view of the world, and actually get to know people. This means not judging people just based on one aspect of their personalities. A woman who expresses her sexuality openly can also be a true friend, a good mother, or a loyal partner. You just don’t know. It’s wrong leap to conclusions and to assume that based on this one aspect of her personality, you understand her character.
Nina says: I’ve known that girl has been riding for a fall since 2008 when her PARENTS let her be photographed for Vanity Fair. She was barely 16 then . . . and her PARENTS let that happen. As a friend of mine reminded us yet again . . . parenting is a verb. And so is being responsible for your own actions. She will have to own her behavior for the rest of her life. One can only hope that she will look back someday and completely regret her actions (those of the other night is just one major instance) of these last 5 or 6 years.
As for Robin Thicke . . . I heard his latest song on the radio the other day. Actually listened to the lyrics . . and about threw up. Google the lyrics but have bleach handy!! He is equally culpable in this mess. I sure as hell don’t want young men using him as a role model!
Finally, that show and that particular “performance” was completely intended to convey to its target audience (teens and young adults), that this is something that is OK to do. Its ok to dance around undressed. Its ok to imitate sex acts. Its ok to be crude and vulgar.
But guess what?? It is NOT ok, it is NOT right, and I am tired of being silent. And believe me, I didn’t even have to talk to my daughter about this. She and her friends are completely horrified and sickened by it and want nothing to do with anything MC or Robin Thicke for that matter.
Jen says: So Michael, should Miley Cyrus simply go into a classroom of 8 year olds and have sexual intercourse with their teacher on the floor in front of them should she choose to do so to express her sexuality?
I mean, where is the line for you? Or isn’t there one?
You keep trying to imply that you embrace some kind of moral standard, yet you believe that to have moral standards requires you to judge, which you then state is immoral.
So, do you have a standard? Or does it waver every day, depending on the money involved, or whatever pleasure it brings at that particular moment.
I think we can all agree that were one person actually harms another, that’s wrong. There’s our common ground. The next step is deciding what counts as harm. Beyond that, we probably have to make some concessions to the admittedly arbitrary customs of local culture, and agree to follow certain customs even if they’re not dictating right or wrong per se.
And in some countries, it’s NOT RIGHT for women to go outside without covering their bodies from head to toe, or without a male family member as chaperone.
In other countries, it’s RIGHT for a woman to be married away to an older man when she is still a child.
By all means, teach your children right from wrong. Just remember that particularly when it comes to sexual morality, the world is a complicated place. It seems a bit arrogant to believe that one particular set of notions of sexual morality are the ONLY TRUE ones.
Darren says: Michael, when you say that we are grouping a woman into the “Madonna or whore” category, this is a false dilemma fallacy. It’s not an either or thing, one extreme or the other, with nothing in between. When you say “A woman who expresses her sexuality openly can also be a true friend, a good mother, or a loyal partner,” you are right. But when they act the way Miley Cyrus did, it’s not the way the smart money bets. How many times do you have to see this play reenacted? How many Lindsey Lohans, Britney Spearses, and now Miley Cyruses do you have to see self-destruct as they simultaneously attempt to stay popular and run from a formerly wholesome, bubblegum, good girl image, before you realize that what they are really doing is debasing themselves to live down to a slutty image that has somehow been defined for them as “cool” or “edgy” or whatever?
MTV, and other outlets have sold teen rebellion as the coolest thing since the Pyramids, and one way to show your rebellious side is to take everything that is respectable, ladylike, and modest and spit on it. Show contempt for it. Just like Miley did in her performance. Cool, edgy people have no time to be bothered with such trifles as stale, outworn convention and modesty. That’s for the hoi polloi. The cool people have to stand out from the herd.
The problem is, convention isn’t just something prudes dreamed up to inflict on other people. Behaviors have consequences. Want to be a slut? Okay, you have that right. But you’ll find that along with slutty behavior and promiscuity comes STDs, unwanted pregnancies, disapprobation from others, and more crass come ons from men who judge you as easy. You can rail against this as unfair all you like, but that’s the reality. You can whine that a woman should have the right to be just as hypersexual as she wants to be without being judged. And I should have the right to walk through the South Bronx at 2am with a pocket full of money without being robbed too. Now welcome back to the real world.
Where you see a woman “expressing her sexuality,” the rest of us see an immature, overindulged girl, far less mature than she ought to be, screaming desperately for attention, and trying way, way too hard to be sexy.
I don’t cast off all cultural traditions as useless. And in any event, we have to live with them, even the ones that are outdated and largely arbitrary. The question is how slavishly we should hew to such traditions, and how much room we should allow for flexibility and freedom.
Where you might address the actual problems of STDs and teen pregnancy by slut-shaming girls who show signs of transgressive sexuality, I would instead concentrate on shaming those who do the ACTUAL harm: boys and girls who have unprotected sex, and boys and girls who treat each other dishonestly, disrespectfully, or abusively.
Thanks for the intelligent reply, by the way. I had almost given up hope of reading one! 🙂
upinak says: How is it that you talk of girls who have STD’s, unprotected sex and so on, and yet have not stated anything about men (no matter their age) acting a fool?
What can you say concerning that?
upinak says: You were talking mainly about girl/women. Boys/Man really had nothing to do with what you said other than they act badly.
FYI… you may want to keep up with your own conversations.
Darren says: What you dismiss as outdated and rather arbitrary is anything but. What is “outdated” today, may be current again tomorrow. Victorian prudishness was an overreaction away from an earlier permissiveness. The pendulum swings back and forth from one time to the next. Convention isn’t just the dead hand of the past that we can, and perhaps should discard and be free to be ourselves. It’s also the distilled experience of generations of human beings. Convention arises for a reason: behavior modification.
As I said, it’s not something that prudes created just to make sure no one else has any fun. Convention influences how people behave, and behavior, as I said, has consequences. Girls who are hypersexualized and promiscuous tend to suffer disproportionately from STDs and unwanted pregnancies — and unlike men, don’t have the option of being heels and just ducking out on the pregnancies — so convention developed that nice girls don’t do certain things, ladies don’t behave in certain ways. Attaching shamefulness to certain behaviors made them behaviors that more girls would avoid like the plague. And thus they’d be less likely to end up teenaged and pregnant, or suffering from a social disease. Did that mean they had less fun as teenagers? Possibly. It also meant, however, that they had much better lives from young adulthood onward, with more opportunities open to them.
upinak says: So Darren, are you saying that if women are more a slut, they have better lives?
Please prove that.
Darren says: How did you possibly take that away from what I wrote?
No, I am saying that if a woman is a slut, she is more likely to become pregnant, more likely to get a social disease, more likely to be viewed in a negative light by other people, including potential mates, and more likely to suffer negative consequences down the road from all this. On the other hand, if she behaves in a way that society terms as “ladylike” many of these negative consequences can possibly be avoided, and she likelier to happier for it later on.
Sure, if she goes out and howls at the moon, she may have fun doing it. But she may end up spending the rest of her life living with the consequences.
Catherine Wilkinson says: Let’s just revisit the status of Ms. Cyrus in a years time, shall we? Moral relativity aside, let’s see the results of a young woman encouraged and applauded for acting so badly. There’s the end of the argument.
I did not applaud her, but in fact made clear that I found her performance rather insipid. Rather, I called out those who were speaking foul of Ms. Cyrus and besmirching her character. Again, there is a difference between performing badly and behaving badly — something some do not seem to have grasped.
Jen says: Michael, your character IS what you choose to present to the world. It IS how you dress,what you say, and how you behave.
All behavior occurs because of choices made from a person’s character. You present words, images, pictures, acts and deeds that demonstrate potential positve or negative consequences and you make the choice to present those items based on your character
Only very young children have no idea of negative consequences, they still have at that point pure character. The child’s character is shaped by their environment and influenced by their inherit tendencies, which their parent needs to recognize and nurture always toward potential positive consequences for themselves and as a result, others.Sometimes negative consequences can be a lesson to help the child learn that their deeds, words, etc. are also negative to others.
By the time someone is twenty, their character is now formed. It is still malleable, no one is a full human being at 20, but a strong foundation is there and it will continue to strengthen one way or the other over the decades to come.
So when we besmirch Miley’s character, it is with good reason. She is an influence on millions of young girls, first because of her Hannah Montana portrayal, and recently with her Miley Cyrus video and records. She knows this and CHOOSES to act the way she does. That speaks to her character.
The following is an excerpt from a different blog which I will link below. The writer hits it right on the head with this comment.
” I know I mentioned that a 12 year old should never have to be a role model, but as you have been very clear, you are no longer 12. You are 20. Therefore, you now have the responsibility of being a role model. So when you sing about getting a line in the bathroom, getting high on Molly, shaking it like you’re at a strip club, and doing whatever you want, you are sending the wrong message to girls everywhere. You see, you are the exception to the general rule. When you do those things, you get media attention. You get paid for club appearances. You get checks in the mail for your iTunes downloads. But when our girls do that, they get pregnant. They get addicted to heroin and end up on the streets leaving their family and friends in constant fear and grief over them. They drop out of school. They get kicked out of college and lose their scholarships. So, they really do end up shaking it at a strip club in order to pay the rent for themselves and their deadbeat boyfriends who can’t hold a job because of their alcohol dependency. You see, your music paints a false picture of what reality is. Partying and using drugs doesn’t lead to number one hits and nights filled with champagne, limo service, paparazzi attention and Snoop Dogg (lion?) calling you his homie. It leads to disaster, poverty, heartache and unfortunately for some, death”
http://iamrihanna.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/dear-miley/
Jodi G. says: BOOM ^^^
We should teach ACTUAL morality to our children, and not just teach them how to fake it and keep up appearances.
This means teaching boys, for instance, to be respectful of girls, and not to lie or pretend to be in love just to get sex. This means teaching girls to be confident and unafraid to ask for what they sexually, but also confident in drawing the line and setting limits. Above all, it means teaching boys and girls to respect themselves and one another, and to show this respect by practicing safe sex when they do decide to have sex.
You can do all of the above without slut-shaming.
Moreover, we should teach our children not to judge people by superficial things, or to make snap judgements. We should teach our children to be good judges of character by observing how people treat one another.
For example, whether a boy or girl enjoys sex is less important than whether he or his is honest, respectful, and safe. This is important both morally and from the point of view of safety. If we teach our children that appearances are all that matter, then they will learn to become good fakers, and they’ll learn first to fool us.
This conversation inspired me to adapt some of what I have written here into a longer and more coherent article:
http://blog.michael-lowry.com/2013/08/modesty-shame-sexual-propriety.html
Dani says: Thank you for writing this! I was basically going to write this on my blog,in so many of the same ways, but you put it so poignantly. I share your sentiments exactly, especially the last paragraph.
46 Comments