Poll: Is Sabrina C.'s new album cover satire or not?

[andy232000 11,249]

17 minutes ago, high culture said:

What I really dislike about the "feminist" take on this is that they are completely leaving out of the conversation agency, consent, and kink.. They are basically arguing that Sabrina as a grown 26 year old woman cannot consent to having her hair pulled or is not allowed to be interested in exploring power dynamics. While the feminism I grew up with I believe would argue that having the power to explore this is the result of years of feminist activism. 

100% agree, but the cover as a standalone piece is absolutely not communicating consensual kink power play. If consent was obvious, this cover would be controversial for other reasons (like being too explicit maybe). This is a very complex topic, truly.  

[salty like sodium 1,659]

I don't find this image sexy at all – if she wanted sexy, her deluxe vinyl covers for Short n' sweet were risqué and sexy. If she was in lingerie, it'd be a different story, but here she's wearing a pretty modest black dress and shoes too. The cover is very much symbolic and meant to start conversations, rather than just be a "sexy picture" – there are thousands of other ideas, concepts and poses she could've gone for if she wanted it to be sexy. She purposefully chose this because she knew it would cause a commotion and have people talking over it. The album title also is another clue: "man's best friend". This is usually a term used to describe dogs, and my guess is that her thesis for this album is that men treat their dogs better than their b*tches.  I'm not a massive Sabrina fan but she's clever enough to have ideas beyond just wanting to look sexy, and this clearly is more than just a desire to be sexy imo.

She's gen-z, they grew up with Lana Del Rey and her controversial takes on womanhood etc. She knows exactly what kind of a debate she's starting with this picture and it was 100% her intention imo.

What's sexist is people who doubt that a young woman is capable of having complex and clever subversive creative ideas when facing evidence of said complex, clever and creative ideas. 

Edited Friday at 06:27 PM by salty like sodium

[Lil1th 435]

52 minutes ago, faysalaaa said:

Which is interesting because most people who are criticizing her are Progressive Gen Z and Feminists! Im so confused how they out of all people are being sex negative and using misogynistic religious talking points. 

I'm gen z, and it's not entirely new, I've also seen it with millennials right now so I don't really agree with some people putting it all on one generation, this has been a common thing for decades with many feminists that if you dress or act sexual you are automatically degrading other women. 

It used to be kind of a cliche about how some feminists have internalized misogyny and negativity toward women being sexual, usually it's accompanied by eras of oppression of women, just like in the 70s and 80s this was a common opinion towards women who dressed revealing or were sexual (dolly parton, cher, madonna, even pamela anderson in the 90s.) now it's just being amplified even more by algorithms and social media, luckily I've seen many gen z fighting against it so I still have hope lol.  

 

Edited Friday at 06:27 PM by Lil1th

[salty like sodium 1,659]

3 minutes ago, Lil1th said:

I'm gen z, and it's not entirely new, I've also seen it with millennials right now so I don't really agree with some people putting it all on one generation, this has been a common thing for decades with many feminists that if you dress or act sexual you are automatically degrading other women. 

It used to be kind of a cliche about how some feminists have internalized misogyny and negativity toward women being sexual, usually it's accompanied by eras of oppression of women, just like in the 70s and 80s this was a common theme towards women who dressed revealing or were sexual (dolly parton, cher, madonna, even pamela anderson in the 90s.) now it's just being amplified even more by algorithms and social media, luckily I've seen many gen z fighting against it so I still have hope lol.  

 

I think Faysala's point was more that in an era where Gen-Z worship singers like Addison Rae who literally performs her concerts in lingerie and also Tate McRae and Ava Max who practically look like erotic actresses in their music videos, the expectation is that Gen Z audiences would be more open-minded and receptive to female expressions of sexuality, rather than the opposite.

Edited Friday at 06:29 PM by salty like sodium

[Bronco 10,158]

16 minutes ago, RenegAde said:

This album cover was publicized for commercial purposes first and foremost . I dont think its about her own sexual expression, its about being careful of the visuals that are being commercialised for money and how it can be potentially interpreted by unfriendly groups or young minds especially without the context of the accompanying music.

I think she's missed the mark with the message she was going for. But it is wrong to say its not about her own sexual expression - she writes her own music and references her own life, she's creatively involved in her album campaigns etc. This isnt just a record label stunt with a singer being given random songs thrown together and pushed out onto the charts.

I firmly disagree with your reasoning about potential interpretation by bad actors and young people. 

Starting with young people - it is the responsibility of parents to manage what they are exposed to. And this constant focus ever since the 80s on attacking adults making adult music has just completely stunted parental responsibility and its actively harming young people. And its this removal of focus on good parenting on the debate around explicit lyrics/content in music and film etc that meant we were asleep at the wheel with social media and prioritised profit over safeguarding.

We've consistently built an anti-family societal structure in western nations that is making responsible parenting near impossible even for those who try. 

As for the bad actors. Fight them. Not doing something because they might twist it is capitulation. And capitulation means losing. 

[faysalaaa 4,233]

8 minutes ago, RenegAde said:

Nope, especially if its not being commercialised 

Also i dont have a problem with this per se . Its just execution, like the dog thing makes me uncomfortable for some reason and i also want to hear the direction the music takes also. 

Its okay if you feel uncomfortable seeing a woman acting like a dog, but all that means is this image was not meant for you, its meant for other people who dont feel uncomfortable with the image.

In my opinion, our feelings and fears should be invalid when it comes to other peoples freedom. I sometimes can be conservative leaning, but I have to put my feelings and fears aside in order to respect peoples freedom.

[Lil1th 435]

6 minutes ago, salty like sodium said:

I think Faysala's point was more that in an era where Gen-Z worship singers like Addison Rae who literally performs her concerts in lingerie and also Tate McRae and Ava Max who practically look like erotic actresses in their music videos, the expectation is that Gen Z audiences would be more open-minded and receptive to female expressions of sexuality, rather than the opposite.

Which is why I said I don't fully agree with people putting it all on gen Z when there's several factors. Also it's more because they deem Sabrina's photo to be degrading because of the hair pulling and they think abusive men will find that arousing, but my thing is, we can't control what people find attractive, and women shouldn't be expected to police their bodies in response to creepy men who will be creepy regardless if it is or isn't satire (which it is but people somehow missed it completely)

Edited Friday at 06:35 PM by Lil1th

[RenegAde 18,978]

10 minutes ago, andy232000 said:

It baffles me that people don’t understand this.

Satire or not, in its most primitive nature, she and her team decided to use woman degradation as a marketing strategy. I’m 10000% sure that they knew this would be controversial and instead of being careful about it, they saw the bad press as more press, which in the end is more money for them.

As someone who works on marketing this is just an absolute NO NO. I would’ve rather come up with a different cover that could be satire without leaning into a woman posing as a dog. Idk, have Sabrina herself holding her hair. Have the roles inverted so it’s the Man as a dog for a change, keep Sabrina in this pose but change the facial expression to anger so it’s clear she’s against it, or add a knife or a gun so it’s clear that she’ll defend herself.
 

Countless options, and they went with the cover that has no visual cue to exemplify the satire

I actually kinda like your cover better. hers kinda feels flat and incomplete yours actually tells a story. 

[faysalaaa 4,233]

8 minutes ago, Lil1th said:

I'm gen z, and it's not entirely new, I've also seen it with millennials right now so I don't really agree with some people putting it all on one generation, this has been a common thing for decades with many feminists that if you dress or act sexual you are automatically degrading other women. 

It used to be kind of a cliche about how some feminists have internalized misogyny and negativity toward women being sexual, usually it's accompanied by eras of oppression of women, just like in the 70s and 80s this was a common opinion towards women who dressed revealing or were sexual (dolly parton, cher, madonna, even pamela anderson in the 90s.) now it's just being amplified even more by algorithms and social media, luckily I've seen many gen z fighting against it so I still have hope lol.

I think most people are normies who are not educated on the subjects they claim to advocate for. So people claiming to be feminist, sex positive, and progressive know nothing about these labels. And this is why what progressives are advocating for will take hundred of years to achieve, because even they dont follow or understand what they are advocating for.

Side note: this applies to everyone, not just progressives..

[andy232000 11,249]

Just now, RenegAde said:

I actually kinda like your cover better. hers kinda feels flat and incomplete yours actually tells a story. 

I’m all for using sex to sell, but it has to be donde carefully. 

What’s more crazy is that Sabrina posted a second cover (the one with the golden retriever puppy). And that one perfectly communicated the same message. 

Blonde fur + pale blue collar (Sabrina’s color) = A representation or allusion to Sabrina herself. This + the tittle = cheeky way of saying woman are treated like dogs, hence the commentary. 

Again, she knew what she was doing. This was done to create shock, which is not bad per se, but it’s sad that they did it at the expense of women. 

[Mirrion Rizzons 10,732]

It’s bad satire 

[Bronco 10,158]

37 minutes ago, andy232000 said:

It baffles me that people don’t understand this.

Satire or not, in its most primitive nature, she and her team decided to use woman degradation as a marketing strategy. I’m 10000% sure that they knew this would be controversial and instead of being careful about it, they saw the bad press as more press, which in the end is more money for them.

As someone who works on marketing this is just an absolute NO NO. I would’ve rather come up with a different cover that could be satire without leaning into a woman posing as a dog. Idk, have Sabrina herself holding her hair. Have the roles inverted so it’s the Man as a dog for a change, keep Sabrina in this pose but change the facial expression to anger so it’s clear she’s against it, or add a knife or a gun so it’s clear that she’ll defend herself.
 

Countless options, and they went with the cover that has no visual cue to exemplify the satire

The issue here is that you are robbing her or any woman who chooses to be depicted in a submissive manner of personal agency and sexual liberty. 

You're demanding they follow what you insist is the correct way for them to behave and be depicted. 

And as a result of that - you actually end up in bed with the very people you want to oppose.

[RenegAde 18,978]

32 minutes ago, Bronco said:

I think she's missed the mark with the message she was going for. But it is wrong to say its not about her own sexual expression - she writes her own music and references her own life, she's creatively involved in her album campaigns etc. This isnt just a record label stunt with a singer being given random songs thrown together and pushed out onto the charts.

I firmly disagree with your reasoning about potential interpretation by bad actors and young people. 

Starting with young people - it is the responsibility of parents to manage what they are exposed to. And this constant focus ever since the 80s on attacking adults making adult music has just completely stunted parental responsibility and its actively harming young people. And its this removal of focus on good parenting on the debate around explicit lyrics/content in music and film etc that meant we were asleep at the wheel with social media and prioritised profit over safeguarding.

We've consistently built an anti-family societal structure in western nations that is making responsible parenting near impossible even for those who try. 

As for the bad actors. Fight them. Not doing something because they might twist it is capitulation. And capitulation means losing. 

1.) The primary purpose of the cover is to promote the album and make money. The fact that shes creatively involved like many artists  does not change the fact that its about commercialisation first and foremost.

2.) Im not saying adults should filter themselves to raise other peoples children right. Im saying in a case where kids happen to stumble on this cover  and her music (which they will since she has a young fanbase), i would hate for them to see a woman being depicted in that manner without context because most of them are not even old enough to understand feminity vis-à-vis sexual liberation, sexual domination vis-à-vis etc. 

I really hate to sound like that "what about the kids person" because its really out of an artists responsibility or control but its a valid concern for me because i want the children around me to  see women potrayed in better postions than what i saw grew up seeing and this goes for the unfriendly groups/bad actors

[andy232000 11,249]

32 minutes ago, Bronco said:

The issue here is that you are robbing her or any woman who chooses to be depicted in a submissive manner of personal agency and sexual liberty. 

You're demanding they follow what you insist is the correct way for them to behave and be depicted. 

And as a result of that - you actually end up in bed with the very people you want to oppose.

Not true, you can balance sex and awareness. I mentioned several tiny adjustments that could be made to the cover without totally changing it and retaining the sexual pose/nature of it. Sex sells. We know that. It’s effective and using it is not intrinsically bad. It’s just harder to work with because it requieres a balancing act depending on the purpose and consumption of it. 

[Bronco 10,158]

4 minutes ago, RenegAde said:

2.) Im not saying adults should filter themselves to raise other peoples children right. Im saying in a case where kids happen to stumble on this cover  and her music (which they will since she has a young fanbase), i would hate for them to see a woman being depicted in that manner without context because most of them are not even old enough to understand feminity vis-à-vis sexual liberation, sexual domination vis-à-vis etc. 

 

If they are so young as to not understand the concepts of domination and submission and traditional roles of men vs women - then they are too young for this cover to be an issue. 
If they are old enough to recognise the sexualised nature of this imagery - they are the right age to start learning about consent. 

Also she only has a young audience now - and I'm deliberatly discussing the now - because parents don't pay attention to what their kids look at online. Hence the trend of shocked mums and dads at her concert when she sang songs from the album the tour was for and they were all sexual. 
As for her older disney days - her last live action disney role ended in 2017, her last voice over ended in 2019. Her audience from those days have aged as well.

6 minutes ago, RenegAde said:

1.) The primary purpose of the cover is to promote the album and make money. The fact that shes creatively involved like many artists  does not change the fact that its about commercialisation first and foremost.

I don't disagree this is a commercial work. I disagree with you dismissing her ceative agency or personal agency with the imagery of her works and purely saying all that matters is the commercialisation of her music. 
It's incredibly regressive to take a stance like this simply because you dislike the imagery she's chosen to take forward. She's an adult woman, and she should be allowed the freedom to behave in a way that suits her wants and desires. 

12 minutes ago, RenegAde said:

I really hate to sound like that "what about the kids person" because its really out of an artists responsibility or control but its a valid concern for me because i want the children around me to  see women potrayed in better postions than what i saw grew up seeing and this goes for the unfriendly groups/bad actors

There is nothing inherently wrong with adult women choosing to be portrayed as submissive. Providing that they are doing so from a position of consent and are safe and sane. 
There is nothing wrong with freely given submission by an adult. Perpetuating stigma around submission only perpetuates the harm and the isolation neccessary for enforced/unconsensual submission.