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

[Bronco 10,092]

3 minutes ago, andy232000 said:

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. 

All the adjustments you suggested were about either removing the present act of submission, or reversing the role Sabrina takes. That fundamentally changes it.  

Proposing she's holding her hair herself - completely removes the everpresent theme in Sabrina's works of letting herself fall for **** men and being taken advantage of by ****bois. It removes the man entirely. 

Having the roles inverted changes the dynamics of the imagery and the messaging. 

Changing her expression or arming her - again changes it from a focus on her own acts of submission to **** men. 

And all 3 rely on the assumption that a woman appearing in the submissive position by her own choice in her own art is an inherently bad thing. Which is fundamentally incompatible with sexual liberation. It perpetuates the idea that no form of submission is good - which dilutes the focus on those forced into doing so and ultimately makes it harder to help people. 

[RenegAde 18,965]

8 minutes ago, Bronco said:

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.

This poorly exceluted cover sure aint the right place to start the learning process

9 minutes ago, Bronco said:

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. 

Im not dismissing her creative agency im pointing out the primary money factor that you are ignoring.

 

11 minutes ago, Bronco said:

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. 

True. But something about potraying oneself as a dog especially given the social and historical context makes me uncomfortable and im not the only one.

[andy232000 11,235]

5 minutes ago, Bronco said:

All the adjustments you suggested were about either removing the present act of submission, or reversing the role Sabrina takes. That fundamentally changes it.  

Proposing she's holding her hair herself - completely removes the everpresent theme in Sabrina's works of letting herself fall for **** men and being taken advantage of by ****bois. It removes the man entirely. 

Having the roles inverted changes the dynamics of the imagery and the messaging. 

Changing her expression or arming her - again changes it from a focus on her own acts of submission to **** men. 

And all 3 rely on the assumption that a woman appearing in the submissive position by her own choice in her own art is an inherently bad thing. Which is fundamentally incompatible with sexual liberation. It perpetuates the idea that no form of submission is good - which dilutes the focus on those forced into doing so and ultimately makes it harder to help people. 

Let’s agree to disagree then. Cause I do think that a highly commercialized piece of work where a woman reproduces a submissive pose without a clear visual indicator of satire is allowed to be criticized for potential perpetration of women’s domestic roles. Will it “set back feminism” no, it’s not that serious. Could it, at the same time, muddy the commentary she’s trying to make, hence be counterproductive? I think it’s possible.

Its a very complex discussion that will ultimately never get a black and white answer. 

[RenegAde 18,965]

1 hour ago, faysalaaa said:

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.

I respect people freedoms but when you commercialise your art, property or even your body there is a piece of your freedom of expression that you have to give up.

[Bronco 10,092]

5 minutes ago, RenegAde said:

This poorly exceluted cover sure aint the right place to start the learning process

If you wait for perfection, it will never come. 

5 minutes ago, RenegAde said:

Im not dismissing her creative agency im pointing out the primary money factor that you are ignoring.

I have never denied this is a commercial pop album. 
But you have explicitly said that her creative agency is irrelevant:

1 hour 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.

 And you justified it on the basis that we should capitulate to unfriendly groups rather than oppose them. 

5 minutes ago, RenegAde said:

True. But something about potraying oneself as a dog especially given the social and historical context makes me uncomfortable and im not the only one.

And you are all allowed to be uncomfortable. 
But don't let that discomfort hurt people. 
As someone who is actively involved in Kink communities - the single biggest factor the allows bad actors to take advantage of people seeking out consensual submission is the stigma around kink.

The stigma makes it harder for people to get access to supportive information about how to engage in safe, sane & consensual behaviours. Because that stigma makes people afraid of being open and honest about their desires. 
And this is why submissive newcomers to the world of kink end up being easy pickings for abusers - because they don't know what constitutes safe and healthy practice and they are isolated from communities that can support them by stigma. 

So long as the act of submission is stigmatised and made the focus of critique rather than focusing on the importance of education and consent in ALL sexual relationships and practices then the harm will be continued. 

I am in no way saying everyone needs to go home today and whip their boyfriend. I'm just saying stop focusing on the act and focus on the context of that act. 
The issue isn't a woman taking a submissive role by choice. The issue is the forcing of submission on women and removing their ability to consent or advocate for themselves. 

[faysalaaa 4,219]

3 minutes ago, RenegAde said:

I respect people freedoms but when you commercialise your art, property or even your body there is a piece of your freedom of expression that you have to give up.

I completely disagree with this! This kind of argument allows Christians to ban Gaga because she has satanic and LGBTQ+ images, and Gaga needs to give up that freedom of expression because commercializing satanism and Gayness in problematic.

[LadyEnigma 1,164]

The whole debate ab this album and the cover + Sabrina being overly sexual is reminding me of LDRs QFTC lowkey lmao, for me personally I clocked in as a Sabrina fan at Skinny Dipping and have liked everything since EICS but! I hate that she’s kinda riding on what S&S did w Manchild and the risqué aesthetic I’d prefer if she overhauled the sound at least (and maybe she did and Manchild is a transition idk) MORAL OF WHAT IM TRYNA SAY IS the girl is having fun let her bc genuinely this isn’t hurting anybody. ADDING if you are uncomfortable valid but that’s got nothing to do w her and consensual artwork of a consensual act THAT ISNT EVEN EXPLICIT mind you.

Edited Friday at 08:01 PM by LadyEnigma

[RenegAde 18,965]

11 minutes ago, faysalaaa said:

I completely disagree with this! This kind of argument allows Christians to ban Gaga because she has satanic and LGBTQ+ images, and Gaga needs to give up that freedom of expression because commercializing satanism and Gayness in problematic.

Im not saying christians have the right to ban anything, thats just opressive governments missusing their power for things that dont matter. but if you are commercialising your art you do have to be careful what you put out in the name artistic expression and thats a fact even gaga had to learn the hard way with DWYW.

Also, Its interesting how you didnt  use islam to buttress this point, remember burqa?

Edited Friday at 08:10 PM by RenegAde

[faysalaaa 4,219]

6 minutes ago, RenegAde said:

Im not saying christians have the right to ban anything, thats just opressive governments missusing their power for things that dont matter. but if you are commercialising your art you do have to be careful what you put out in the name artistic expression and thats a fact even gaga had to learn the hard way with DWYW.

Also, Its interesting how you didnt  use islam to buttress this point, remember burqa?

Because Gaga using other cultures in her art is different from a woman using her own sexuality in art. And I also support artists using other cultures in their art, and I dont think it has to be respectful or educated.

I know your not saying Christians have the right to ban, but your arguments can be used by Christians to also say Gaga cant express her art. Your own argument can easily be used against you

Edited Friday at 08:16 PM by faysalaaa

[bionic 48,900]

on the flip her career didn't skyrocket until she basically turned her public image into a human sex doll so

[popkulture 141]

It's trying to be satire but misses the mark entirely and is instead a cheap and reductive way to stir up controversy. 

[RenegAde 18,965]

13 minutes ago, Bronco said:

If you wait for perfection, it will never come. 

I have never denied this is a commercial pop album. 
But you have explicitly said that her creative agency is irrelevant:

 And you justified it on the basis that we should capitulate to unfriendly groups rather than oppose them. 

And you are all allowed to be uncomfortable. 
But don't let that discomfort hurt people. 
As someone who is actively involved in Kink communities - the single biggest factor the allows bad actors to take advantage of people seeking out consensual submission is the stigma around kink.

The stigma makes it harder for people to get access to supportive information about how to engage in safe, sane & consensual behaviours. Because that stigma makes people afraid of being open and honest about their desires. 
And this is why submissive newcomers to the world of kink end up being easy pickings for abusers - because they don't know what constitutes safe and healthy practice and they are isolated from communities that can support them by stigma. 

So long as the act of submission is stigmatised and made the focus of critique rather than focusing on the importance of education and consent in ALL sexual relationships and practices then the harm will be continued. 

I am in no way saying everyone needs to go home today and whip their boyfriend. I'm just saying stop focusing on the act and focus on the context of that act. 
The issue isn't a woman taking a submissive role by choice. The issue is the forcing of submission on women and removing their ability to consent or advocate for themselves. 

Why is it that whenever you engage someone with opposing  views instead of you tackling what they actually said you summerize their words into generally disagreeable points to you and argue them all by yourself and just keep going on and on.

How can you claim that i completely dismissed her creative agency when i even stated that i would love to hear the direction the accompanying music takes?. I also didnt say we should capitulate unfriendly groups, i said its important to be careful what we commercialise

she is a creative in a commercial field and part of her creative agency is subsumed into the primary goal of making money, fame or notoriety so its not just about her sexual expression just for thr sake of it.

 

[Taumaturg0 466]

2 hours ago, RenegAde said:

 

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. 

So how do you feel about pup play... because there's not much difference

[RenegAde 18,965]

17 minutes ago, faysalaaa said:

Because Gaga using other cultures in her art is different from a woman using her own sexuality in art. And I also support artists using other cultures in their art, and I dont think it has to be respectful or educated.

I know your not saying Christians have the right to ban, but your arguments can be used by Christians to also say Gaga cant express her art. Your own argument can easily be used against you

Its very easy for people to weaponize completely logical and valid arguments to push their own religious or cultural veiws on others, we see it all the time.

I just think with Sabrina people are having a hard time believing her creative direction  and understanding her motive which is understandable as she has not done the best job expressing. That why i want to hear the music.

Also why are you still using just christians ? Muslims too, burqa hello?

 

 

 

[Bronco 10,092]

12 minutes ago, RenegAde said:

Why is it that whenever you engage someone with opposing  views instead of you tackling what they actually said you summerize their words into generally disagreeable points to you and argue them all by yourself and just keep going on and on.

How can you claim that i completely dismissed her creative agency when i even stated that i would love to hear the direction the accompanying music takes?. I also didnt say we should capitulate unfriendly groups, i said its important to be careful what we commercialise

she is a creative in a commercial field and part of her creative agency is subsumed into the primary goal of making money, fame or notoriety so its not just about her sexual expression just for thr sake of it.

 

I quoted you verbatim. 

If you don't like how people interpret what you write. Then look at how to convey your thoughts.