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

[salty like sodium 1,659]

2 hours ago, faysalaaa said:

I sometimes can be conservative leaning, but I have to put my feelings and fears aside in order to respect peoples freedom.

off-topic but you've grown so much in a year or two and I'm so proud of how far you've come. 

[RenegAde 18,982]

4 minutes ago, Taumaturg0 said:

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

I know and and although I’ve never experimented personally, i think it looks hot sometimes and other time it makes me cringe.  Context matters a lot with anything BDSM related to me. May be im just inexperienced 

[RenegAde 18,982]

6 minutes ago, Bronco said:

I quoted you verbatim. 

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

You quoted me then summerized my message into your own words then disagreed with yourself. Dont do that.

[salty like sodium 1,659]

1 hour 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.

that's exactly the reason why she did it – to create conversations and have people reflect and ask questions. What was her intention? Why did she do this? Is it uncomfortable? Why? Gender dynamics, power dynamics and identity are so embedded in society that we sometimes take things for granted. The album cover's objective is precisely to challenge assumptions and force difficult questions into people's minds. At the core of the image is her statement that men treat her worse than they treat their pets, which is a searing commentary on sexism and misogyny and a very clever one at that. This image isn't supposed to be "sexy". It's supposed to be shocking, provoking, even uncomfortable. That's 100% the effect they were going for and it clearly worked since, like you said, it made people uncomfortable.

1 hour 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'm not sure this makes much sense to me – freedom of expression is just that, freedom of expression. Did I enjoy watching Nicki Minaj twerk in a thong to Anaconda? No, I really didn't. Was she free to express herself that way? Yes, she was. Did I watch it? Once, and then I moved on. No one is forcing you to watch this image, listen to this music, or buy it. Sabrina does not owe you anything. You don't owe her your time, your attention or your money. She is exercising her freedom of expression within the parameters society have deemed it acceptable: not doing anything illegal in the imagery at all.

[Bronco 10,170]

2 minutes ago, RenegAde said:

You quoted me then summerized my message into your own words then disagreed with yourself. Dont do that.

So there is this thing called written word. 

What happens when you convey something in the written word is the reader of that then takes those words and interprets the meaning of them through their understanding of the written word. 

If people aren't reading what you write, and interpreting it how you intended it. Then it is an issue of communication. 

You took someone's comments on her artistry and said "I don't think it's about that, it's about this". And then complained when I disagreed with that. 

And then rather than just agree to disagree, you decided to try and come at me. And for some reason expected me to not clock it. 

Feel free to quote this and respond. I know you will. I won't be engaging with you further since you can't handle someone disagreeing with you in a civil conversation. 

[RenegAde 18,982]

1 minute ago, salty like sodium said:

that's exactly the reason why she did it – to create conversations and have people reflect and ask questions. What was her intention? Why did she do this? Is it uncomfortable? Why? Gender dynamics, power dynamics and identity are so embedded in society that we sometimes take things for granted. The album cover's objective is precisely to challenge assumptions and force difficult questions into people's minds. At the core of the image is her statement that men treat her worse than they treat their pets, which is a searing commentary on sexism and misogyny and a very clever one at that. This image isn't supposed to be "sexy". It's supposed to be shocking, provoking, even uncomfortable. That's 100% the effect they were going for and it clearly worked since, like you said, it made people uncomfortable.

I get that but people are acting like peoples reaction are completely irrational or indicative of some right wing propaganda or some internalised or reverse misogyny when the cover is just doing what its supposed to do, get people talking. The issue with that is people are having a hard time understanding her motive because theres no full music yet to build on and believing her creative direction because we've seen people use sentive issues just to make money.

 

4 minutes ago, salty like sodium said:

I'm not sure this makes much sense to me – freedom of expression is just that, freedom of expression. Did I enjoy watching Nicki Minaj twerk in a thong to Anaconda? No, I really didn't. Was she free to express herself that way? Yes, she was. Did I watch it? Once, and then I moved on. No one is forcing you to watch this image, listen to this music, or buy it. Sabrina does not owe you anything. You don't owe her your time, your attention or your money. She is exercising her freedom of expression within the parameters society have deemed it acceptable: not doing anything illegal in the imagery at all.

Are we all going to pretend like artists can just express themselves however they like and still sell their music  and expect no backlash because its legal?

[faysalaaa 4,253]

20 minutes ago, salty like sodium said:

off-topic but you've grown so much in a year or two and I'm so proud of how far you've come. 

Thank you  I always believed in full freedom, but I just changed the way I express myself, and im happy its working with everyone here. Thank you for making me feel welcomed, I always felt disliked here  

By the way, in my country, im seen an extreme radical progressive, but in the American context, they view me as conservative. So its always confusing how I want to label myself here lol

Edited Friday at 09:09 PM by faysalaaa

[faysalaaa 4,253]

9 minutes ago, RenegAde said:

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

Do you really think I dont want to use Muslims as an example because im a Muslim? Using a Christian example on a American forum felt easier, but I dont mind using Muslims as the bad example. Also, when I say Christians, it also applies to all conservative religions.

[RenegAde 18,982]

7 minutes ago, Bronco said:

So there is this thing called written word. 

What happens when you convey something in the written word is the reader of that then takes those words and interprets the meaning of them through their understanding of the written word. 

If people aren't reading what you write, and interpreting it how you intended it. Then it is an issue of communication. 

You took someone's comments on her artistry and said "I don't think it's about that, it's about this". And then complained when I disagreed with that. 

And then rather than just agree to disagree, you decided to try and come at me. And for some reason expected me to not clock it. 

Feel free to quote this and respond. I know you will. I won't be engaging with you further since you can't handle someone disagreeing with you in a civil conversation. 

If this is your response to me being misinterpreted then the disagreement wasnt hat civil to begin with. 

You can end the conversation if you want but dont try to frame me as the irrational one.

[Bronco 10,170]

Just now, RenegAde said:

If this is your response to me being misinterpreted then the disagreement wasnt hat civil to begin with. 

You can end the conversation if you want but dont try to frame me as the irrational one.

I'm not the only one who interpreted what you said differently to what you wanted to convey. And people have been agreeing with me on that interpretation and talking to you about it as well. 

As for who's irrational. You're the one who started with the attitude. If you can't handle it. Don't start it. And don't try and act like you didn't. You started going after me on a personal basis for having the audacity to disagree with you. At least go edit that post before you try and play it off. 

[salty like sodium 1,659]

1 minute ago, RenegAde said:

I get that but people are acting like peoples reaction are completely irrational or indicative of some right wing propaganda or some internalised or reverse misogyny when the cover is just doing what its supposed to do, get people talking. The issue with that is people are having a hard time understanding her motive because theres no full music yet to build on and believing her creative direction because we've seen people use sentive issues just to make money.

Right, so I think there's a few things happening here. Obviously the "progressive" interpretation (I'm using this term liberally) is that she's being subversive and that this is a powerful commentary on gender dynamics, relationship dynamics, femininity, sexuality, identity and power. This is the most likely intention on the artist's part, based on her extensive past catalog filled with songs about dating bad boys who treat her right ("I know you're not the sharpest tool in the shed", "Please don't prove I'm right", "He's good for my heart but he's bad for business".... and I'm sure there are dozens more quotes I could find if I really tried).

By extension, when someone fails to understand or uncover that layer of meaning and discourse, the people who do tend to associate that failure with a lack of "awareness", or a closed mind.

I don't think her motives are hard to understand at all personally, and I say this as someone who only casually listens to Sabrina. But from the snippets I've seen of her in interviews, from the few songs I've heard and lyrics I've caught, this is clearly a very outspoken, headstrong and independent woman. She's very much in control in her music, she knows what she's doing and saying. Even her latest song, "Man Child", basically infantalizes the men she dates by calling them sexy but dumb and comparing them to children. She's playful, she's tongue in cheek and she has created this dynamic over two albums and this new lead single now that she is basically an "innocent, good, loving girl who falls for bad, immature, stupid boys". But she always does so in a tongue and cheek way: she knows the boys are bad, pretty much from the start, but it's just so fun she just keeps putting herself through these comically bad relationships. That's the core message in her art, and when you are aware of that, it shapes the way you interpret the album cover. It's a natural progression of her thesis, which is that she's willing to bend backwards and be treated poorly by men who are inferior to her simply because she finds them cute – she's been saying that for years in her music and that is now what she's saying with this artwork, but to a more extreme level. I'm not really conveying this properly but she's absolutely in a position of power in her career and in her art, even though the image suggests otherwise. If you focus on her facial expression, however, you can start unpacking a lot in the way she looks at the camera: she's in on the "joke", she she doesn't look afraid or sad, and most importantly, she's looking at us, not the man holding her, almost as if to dare us or challenge us.  Maybe she knows people enjoy hearing about her misfortunes in love, and this is her way of asking us how far an audience is willing to go to revel in her suffering? There's a lot of ways this can be dissected, but ultimately the hypothesis it was to be "sexy" or to promote "submission to men" is the least interesting (and in my opinion, least realistic) interpretation.

11 minutes ago, RenegAde said:

Are we all going to pretend like artists can just express themselves however they like and still sell their music and expect no backlash because its legal?

For someone who complained about someone else twisting your words two posts above, you're very good at doing it to others.  But to answer your question, the reality is that there is an audience for this content and there is an audience who will like this music and buy it. Why should they be denied access to it simply because it makes you uncomfortable? No one is forcing you to watch the image, listen to the music, buy it, etc. That's the entire point of artistic expression: people put what they want out there and it finds its audience and the people who don't like it don't engage with it. Ngl, you sound just like the people who would have wanted Lady Gaga to be cancelled for releasing Born This Way because they considered the LGBT+ messaging to be "blasphemous" and sinful. 

[PartySick 157,929]

This is the most polite fight I've ever seen on this site

[salty like sodium 1,659]

9 minutes ago, faysalaaa said:

Thank you  I always believed in full freedom, but I just changed the way I express myself, and im happy its working with everyone here. Thank you for making me feel welcomed, I always felt disliked here  

By the way, in my country, im seen an extreme radical progressive, but in the American context, they view me as conservative. So its always confusing how I want to label myself here lol

I think you shifted from a place where you expressed yourself as if you were right and others were wrong to a place where you started accepting others more and I think it leads others to be more accepting of you as well. Context and delivery matter so much in discussions because ultimately the way you talk to/treat others matters just as much as what you're actually saying.

[RenegAde 18,982]

9 minutes ago, Bronco said:

I'm not the only one who interpreted what you said differently to what you wanted to convey. And people have been agreeing with me on that interpretation and talking to you about it as well. 

As for who's irrational. You're the one who started with the attitude. If you can't handle it. Don't start it. And don't try and act like you didn't. You started going after me on a personal basis for having the audacity to disagree with you. At least go edit that post before you try and play it off. 

Other people disagreed with me too  but they were able to talk about it without misrepresenting what I said or twisting the meaning. If they could do that and you couldn’t, then maybe the issue isn’t disagreement, it’s how you chose to engage.

Also, let’s be clear, I didn’t come after you personally for disagreeing. What I called out was how you kept misinterpreting my words and then building your argument off things I never actually said.

[MadArchitect 895]

katy perry level of satire, sure