Camila Cabello felt ‘Sexualized’ in Fifth Harmony

[StrawberryBlond 13,286]

I'd also like to add that what's happening to Camila is just like what happened to many other girl groups before her - someone is identified as 'the pretty one' and given lots of opportunities, some of them solo. Before they know it, they're feeling like they need to quit the band or the band decides to split for the sake of the solo career of one of them. It happened to The Pussycat Dolls (Nicole Scherzinger), Girls Aloud (Cheryl Cole), Destiny's Child to an extent (Beyonce and Kelly). Many more, but those are the big names. It happens to boybands too - NSYNC (Justin Timberlake), One Direction (Harry and Zayn). Someone, or possibly two, get labelled as the hottest one and it all snowballs from there. Sometimes it works, sometimes it's it's a grand disaster. Camila's likely fallen for the hype around her and where it goes now is anyone's guess.

19 hours ago, Werk said:

Forgive my limited knowledge about her but she was sexualised the most during Ten right? And then she talked about this in The Sting? Also what year was the FHM photoshoot? I knew she was young but I had no idea she was THAT young omfg. 

Interesting article: http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/06/gabriella-cilmi-i-was-furious-when-i-saw-fhm-photoshoot-4174673/

Yes, she was allowed to be herself for her debut, 16 years old and in tshirts and leggings. She sang mature songs, some which sounded sexual (Awkward Game is amazing but a bit adult for a 16 year old) but were classy. Because she sang in such a mature voice and naturally looked older than she was, however, it was understandable that her label would want to try a more sexual image next time. I mean, I get it. She's young, hot and sexy. But that doesn't mean she wants to have an image that suggests she's nothing but that. She did the FHM shoot when she was 18, like the article says. Don't know what international laws are, but in the UK, you could do topless shoots at 16 at the time, though the law has now changed (for newspaper page 3 modelling, anyway). So, she was legal, but only just. The pictures were sexual, though not explicit, she did have her hand covering a side boob topless shot. But for someone who had never done anything like this before and had never projected a sexual image, it was too much. It was pure exploitation. She managed to get voted into the 100 Sexiest list that year but that was all she got out of it, she hardly gained any male fans from this. She hated every minute of it but the things she was likely forced to say in the accompanying interview (with pulled quotes like: "I love my body, I'm Italian, we're raised to be proud of our bodies") and her comehither expressions would fool you into thinking she liked it. So, yeah, her label dropped her when they realised this new image and music change wasn't selling and she had to go independent. The songs from her 2013 album, The Sting, delve into the heartbreak of it all and as you've seen in those videos I posted, the lyrics are very revealing. I think "If the devil were a woman, I wouldn't have to run away, if the devil were a woman, maybe she'd understand me," is such a darkly beautiful line, one I feel so many women can relate to. Certainly makes you think more about Illuminati conspiracy theories and artists selling their soul.

That was a very good article. I love this quote: "‘The idea that it’s empowering to wear a short skirt and pose in men’s magazines – what a load of crap,’ says Cilmi. ‘If you’re not happy doing it, how can it be empowering? If you’re doing it for publicity, you won’t be happy in the end.’" I've been saying this in response to the sexualisation of females in our culture. We're told that doing this makes us happy and empowered but the reality is that it makes lots of us feel even worse. And also, a man's idea of appealing sexuality tends to be very different to a woman's. Men tend to prefer overt explicitness, women tend to prefer a classy sensuality.

[LDGA 1,260]

She sexualized herself, from the 5 she always was the most... ehh you know, she has that factor that makes her, **** i would explain this better in spanish. But my point is that she sexualized herself.

[Werk 13,165]

4 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I'd also like to add that what's happening to Camila is just like what happened to many other girl groups before her - someone is identified as 'the pretty one' and given lots of opportunities, some of them solo. Before they know it, they're feeling like they need to quit the band or the band decides to split for the sake of the solo career of one of them. It happened to The Pussycat Dolls (Nicole Scherzinger), Girls Aloud (Cheryl Cole), Destiny's Child to an extent (Beyonce and Kelly). Many more, but those are the big names. It happens to boybands too - NSYNC (Justin Timberlake), One Direction (Harry and Zayn). Someone, or possibly two, get labelled as the hottest one and it all snowballs from there. Sometimes it works, sometimes it's it's a grand disaster. Camila's likely fallen for the hype around her and where it goes now is anyone's guess.

Yes, she was allowed to be herself for her debut, 16 years old and in tshirts and leggings. She sang mature songs, some which sounded sexual (Awkward Game is amazing but a bit adult for a 16 year old) but were classy. Because she sang in such a mature voice and naturally looked older than she was, however, it was understandable that her label would want to try a more sexual image next time. I mean, I get it. She's young, hot and sexy. But that doesn't mean she wants to have an image that suggests she's nothing but that. She did the FHM shoot when she was 18, like the article says. Don't know what international laws are, but in the UK, you could do topless shoots at 16 at the time, though the law has now changed (for newspaper page 3 modelling, anyway). So, she was legal, but only just. The pictures were sexual, though not explicit, she did have her hand covering a side boob topless shot. But for someone who had never done anything like this before and had never projected a sexual image, it was too much. It was pure exploitation. She managed to get voted into the 100 Sexiest list that year but that was all she got out of it, she hardly gained any male fans from this. She hated every minute of it but the things she was likely forced to say in the accompanying interview (with pulled quotes like: "I love my body, I'm Italian, we're raised to be proud of our bodies") and her comehither expressions would fool you into thinking she liked it. So, yeah, her label dropped her when they realised this new image and music change wasn't selling and she had to go independent. The songs from her 2013 album, The Sting, delve into the heartbreak of it all and as you've seen in those videos I posted, the lyrics are very revealing. I think "If the devil were a woman, I wouldn't have to run away, if the devil were a woman, maybe she'd understand me," is such a darkly beautiful line, one I feel so many women can relate to. Certainly makes you think more about Illuminati conspiracy theories and artists selling their soul.

That was a very good article. I love this quote: "‘The idea that it’s empowering to wear a short skirt and pose in men’s magazines – what a load of crap,’ says Cilmi. ‘If you’re not happy doing it, how can it be empowering? If you’re doing it for publicity, you won’t be happy in the end.’" I've been saying this in response to the sexualisation of females in our culture. We're told that doing this makes us happy and empowered but the reality is that it makes lots of us feel even worse. And also, a man's idea of appealing sexuality tends to be very different to a woman's. Men tend to prefer overt explicitness, women tend to prefer a classy sensuality.

Thank you! And it's a huge shame that she was forced to be like this during Ten. I mean not only was she fully sexualized in "On a Mission" but the mv was so cringey it's just ridiculous. I feel so sorry for her and I really hate it when record labels force singers into being sexual. I'm also curious on what you're opinion on the illuminati is after you said what I bolded. I don't 100% believe in it but I don't like it when people just push in and say right away that they're not real because I feel like that isn't impossible. 

[StrawberryBlond 13,286]

19 hours ago, Werk said:

Thank you! And it's a huge shame that she was forced to be like this during Ten. I mean not only was she fully sexualized in "On a Mission" but the mv was so cringey it's just ridiculous. I feel so sorry for her and I really hate it when record labels force singers into being sexual. I'm also curious on what you're opinion on the illuminati is after you said what I bolded. I don't 100% believe in it but I don't like it when people just push in and say right away that they're not real because I feel like that isn't impossible. 

The song was supposed to be a homage to 80's music and the first time I heard it, I thought it genuinely sounded like something from that time, so yeah, a cheesy music video was the order of the day. She was also glammed up for Hearts Don't Lie, but not as bad as this. For the average popstar, it wasn't that extreme and I wouldn't think anything of it...if they'd always been like that. But for someone who had never shown any kind of overt sexuality before, you feel like she's really selling herself short. The songs weren't bad but they weren't amazing either, pure pop doesn't really suit her. Her voice is deep and soulful and she likes a bit of quirkiness in her work, this whole era was just a mask she was putting on and it shows.

Yeah, I don't believe that the illuminati is seriously a devil-worshipping organisation that makes singers sell their soul and drink sacrificial blood from a goat's skull in their initiation or anything. I don't even believe that it necessarily even has the name 'illuminati.' But I definitely think labels tempt their artists with ideas and bait them into thinking it's for the best, get them to doubt themselves, make them insecure, like Iago in Shakespeare's Othello. Insecure artists are easier to control. That's certainly a form of brainwashing and mind control, but I don't think it's as extreme as MK Ultra or whatever conspiracy theorists come up with. It's just your basic chipping away at someone's confidence and making them think they can't get by without doing what the label wants. We've seen this happen with the Kesha case. And, fellow Britney fan here, the stuff that she's apparently talked about in her unreleased The Original Doll album and in the really spooky track, Rebellion, make you think that some really dodgy types are in the industry attempting to control artists for their own gain. But do I think there's anything satanic or supernatural about it? No. A lot of these artists are proud believers in God, for one thing. But then sometimes you see something and think...is that photoshopped? Or you hear a lyric and think...was that a metaphor or being serious? But maybe that's what they want us to believe, to keep us listening to music! There are people out there who think that the illuminati is a false rumour completely made up by the industry to encourage people to check out artists and look for hidden messages, which means they're consuming the products, regardless of their intentions in doing so. And I wouldn't put it past them! After all, if the illuminati were true, wouldn't they just order the deletion of those numerous YouTube videos and sites like VigilentCitizen to prevent their secrets getting out? That's the way I look at it.

[nattuggla 21,667]

You are so right Camila!

[Werk 13,165]

6 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

The song was supposed to be a homage to 80's music and the first time I heard it, I thought it genuinely sounded like something from that time, so yeah, a cheesy music video was the order of the day. She was also glammed up for Hearts Don't Lie, but not as bad as this. For the average popstar, it wasn't that extreme and I wouldn't think anything of it...if they'd always been like that. But for someone who had never shown any kind of overt sexuality before, you feel like she's really selling herself short. The songs weren't bad but they weren't amazing either, pure pop doesn't really suit her. Her voice is deep and soulful and she likes a bit of quirkiness in her work, this whole era was just a mask she was putting on and it shows.

Yeah, I don't believe that the illuminati is seriously a devil-worshipping organisation that makes singers sell their soul and drink sacrificial blood from a goat's skull in their initiation or anything. I don't even believe that it necessarily even has the name 'illuminati.' But I definitely think labels tempt their artists with ideas and bait them into thinking it's for the best, get them to doubt themselves, make them insecure, like Iago in Shakespeare's Othello. Insecure artists are easier to control. That's certainly a form of brainwashing and mind control, but I don't think it's as extreme as MK Ultra or whatever conspiracy theorists come up with. It's just your basic chipping away at someone's confidence and making them think they can't get by without doing what the label wants. We've seen this happen with the Kesha case. And, fellow Britney fan here, the stuff that she's apparently talked about in her unreleased The Original Doll album and in the really spooky track, Rebellion, make you think that some really dodgy types are in the industry attempting to control artists for their own gain. But do I think there's anything satanic or supernatural about it? No. A lot of these artists are proud believers in God, for one thing. But then sometimes you see something and think...is that photoshopped? Or you hear a lyric and think...was that a metaphor or being serious? But maybe that's what they want us to believe, to keep us listening to music! There are people out there who think that the illuminati is a false rumour completely made up by the industry to encourage people to check out artists and look for hidden messages, which means they're consuming the products, regardless of their intentions in doing so. And I wouldn't put it past them! After all, if the illuminati were true, wouldn't they just order the deletion of those numerous YouTube videos and sites like VigilentCitizen to prevent their secrets getting out? That's the way I look at it.

Idk how to explain what I'm thinking. Kind of like what you're saying (I think), something similar to the "illuminati" exists but it's kind of different and doesn't have that name but it's still somewhat dark and negative. I don't really know how to explain tbh but I do agree that there are some dark sh*t bts and The Original Doll always made me believe in some dark sh*t more. (Sorry for being so repetitive) 

[misunderstood 8,736]

Bullshit

[BuzzcutSeason 3,307]

I get what she's saying she was young and it wasn't her decision to do certain things. I think it makes sense but its being transferred as her trying to victimize herself. Like come on, i don't know what that leaked clip was from Lauren (The crying one) but i could see why being in a girl group could be annoying.

I think its more of her being able to control what she does, wears, etc. In the end it seems like she really just can't handle the group dynamic, not because she's above them (even though its portrayed that way) but because its not for her. Thats fine.

[Sister 9,907]

She knows that she is in the wrong profession, right.