Discussion in 'Community' started by Darth Tunes, Aug 25, 2013.
I've always thought they would make a great couple.
What, are we all Star Trek fanboys now?
Miley kinda looked like Gary Busey in those stills.
That's too hot for the JCC.
Yeah, I was going to reply with something more in depth, but here:
Granted, wannasee is pretty much the board contrarian, but still.
In a sort of related note, I rather enjoyed Gaga's performance. I didn't watch the VMAs but I went to youtube to find it and I think she looked good. Perhaps is the makeup, and she seems to have put on some weight but that looks good too.
yeah, i still believe behaving like a **** is bad. I'm old-fashioned like that.
How should women "behave," wannasee?
yes please tell us
not like ****s, harpua and tom
Or they can behave like ****s if they want, but then people are going to notice and say, "hey, you are behaving like a ****."
I'm beginning to believe that wannasee is actually a scientist from the 50's that invented time travel and accidently traveled to 2007 only to be trapped here until he can find a way back. So kind of a misogynistic Scott Bacula from Quantum Leap.
Cant copy and paste the meme right now, and its slightly old, but to sum up the double standard of stage vs. reality: Miley Cyrus was engaged to her boyfriend of several years, and gets called all sorts of synonyms for "loose woman." Meanwhile, another female musician "hooks up" with like a dozen different guys in the same timeframe but doesnt wear short shorts or shake her hiney onstage, so she gets called "girl next door" and "wholesome."
I don't think people are commenting on her personal life, just on her ****ty performance.
Sigh. Guys -- the four letter word you're using is on the disallowed word list. C'mon.
And for the record, the whole thing about ****-shaming (at least, the way I perceive it) is that somehow her behavior on stage gets extended into some sort of commentary on her personal life. And wannasee, they ARE commenting on her personal life: just look at news and commentary transcripts. You're also backpedaling a lot if you're pretending that calling a person a **** isn't commentary on their personal lives, as if you knew the first thing about it.
I do think her performance was disgraceful, but then I think a lot of performances are like that (as demonstrated in this very thread) so... yeah? And it's entirely possible to separate a performance from a person's behavior in real life: what, are we going to start calling out actors and actresses for having lots of sex scenes in movies now? The stage or the screen isn't real life, yeesh.
well then the outrage is truly baffling. women dancing provocatively in their underwear has been a staple of american entertainment for like a hundred years. suddenly miley does it and you can't restrain yourself from pointing and shouting "****"?
attack the performance for it's racist undertones, critique it for how bizarre and awkward it was, but acting like it crossed some line of sexual indecency is ridiculous.
edit: sorry jello, just saw your post.
Now we just need a version with Nic Cage in a bear suit...
Just googled this Robin Thicke character....he's Alan Thicke's son.
So....I guess that means....he got diff'rent strokes from Miley? Eh? Eh?
I didn't call her a ****. i called her a **.
And i wasn't using ** in the sense that she has a lot of sexual partners, since I neither know nor care about that aspect of her life. I was using it in the sense that she was behaving provocatively in a public, which is commonly described as "being a **."
so that's not a commentary on her personal life, just a commentary on her behavior in that moment.
(Context: there were a bunch of ^those in wannasee's post above but now he decided to edit them out)
yeah, i noticed that too
Speaking of which...
I sort of see your point there. On the other hand, though, wannasee's reaction is not at all typical of the broader discourse, so I don't see how you can lump everyone else in as somehow represented by him.
Reviewing the Cyrus's lyrics on this, erm, series of noises that she makes, she describes her own actions as something out of "a strip club." It's not really clear why. It doesn't rhyme with anything, nor is the song particularly melodic anyway. Instead, just like this performance, she herself chose to emphasize hyper-sexuality. Importantly, she is no more framing it as a normal or acceptable part of human behavior than are the people criticizing her. She highlights the very worst associations possible, which short of outright prostitution and pornography, are the three major expressions of sexuality that cross pretty frankly into exploitation and objectification.
It becomes a sort of double-talk to both invite and object to the application of these cultural signifiers. I simply see no evidence that she wants to recast or reinterpret the common meaning of all this. You give her too much credit.
EDIT: Also, it's worth commenting a bit further. Some people have noted that while the particular performance may have been objectionable, it was also "just an act." There is some merit to this, but again, not half as much as those individuals are granting it. For while intention is important, some acts are grotesque or objectionable enough that they shouldn't be performed, sincerely or not. It is not, for instance, acceptable to use racial or gender slurs at any point. Using them because you "just want to make the other person mad" but are "not truly racist" is an unworkable formulation. if she didn't really mean this, good for her. It doesn't change the fact that what she actually did was problematic.