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

[Jawline4dayz 292]

I think it’s cute pic tbh BUT not for an album cover. Maybe a poster but this doesn’t scream iconic album cover to me. lol but maybe it’ll grow on me? I’m open. I’m also a little drunk bahahahaha 

[Awrah999 4,279]

It’s asinine…call it whatever else you want 

[RenegAde 18,976]

3 hours ago, salty like sodium said:

that's such a lazy reply just because you didn't have any clap back to say to what I just wrote to you, just grasping at any excuse to not have to address what I was actually saying.  I was giving you the benefit of the doubt until now but I clearly see now that I was wasting my time. 

Im not here to one-up you, neither do i feel the need to dignify every random comment with a proper response especially from someone who feels the need to drag in comments i made to others rather than focus on our actual conversation. it stops being productive and starts feeling more like a pile on.

Also, saying you were “giving me the benefit of the doubt” really comes across as self-important.  you’re not conducting yourself like a fair or neutral participant let alone a mod.

You inserted yourself into the conversation that was already winding down just to rehash points that had already been addressed, I don’t have the bandwidth to walk you through it and keep reiterating my points. Im sure I've adressed the things you wrote in one of my previous posts so pick any one that suits you and move on. 

Edited Saturday at 04:32 AM by RenegAde

[salty like sodium 1,658]

36 minutes ago, RenegAde said:

Im not here to one-up you, neither do i feel the need to dignify every random comment with a proper response especially from someone who feels the need to drag in comments i made to others rather than focus on our actual conversation. it stops being productive and starts feeling more like a pile on.

Also, saying you were “giving me the benefit of the doubt” really comes across as self-important.  you’re not conducting yourself like a fair or neutral participant let alone a mod.

You inserted yourself into the conversation that was already winding down just to rehash points that had already been addressed, I don’t have the bandwidth to walk you through it and keep reiterating my points. Im sure I've adressed the things you wrote in one of my previous posts so pick any one that suits you and move on. 

just to clarify, i am not a mod 

Edited Saturday at 05:04 AM by salty like sodium

[RenegAde 18,976]

4 minutes ago, salty like sodium said:

just to clarify, i am not a mod 

That explains a lot. Was beginning to worry about the standards

[salty like sodium 1,658]

19 minutes ago, RenegAde said:

That explains a lot. Was beginning to worry about the standards

that'd hurt more if it had come from someone who knew how to distinguish a mod from a non-mod. enjoy your day  

Edited Saturday at 05:33 AM by salty like sodium

[Ivy 12,375]

2 hours ago, salty like sodium said:

but she's not catering to men though? her core audience are women and gays.  she doesn't make music for straight guys... i know that the whole industry revolves around "sex sells" but realistically straight men do not listen to sabrina carpenter's music (minus a few exceptions).

I feel like dazed summarized the situation really well: https://www.instagram.com/p/DK2LN48KxCl/?img_index=1

I'm actually not talking about her audience, I just mean the visual has a man in it and the text is "man's best friend" with the dog added, which could be taken as meaning her having the loyalty to men as a dog has, or serving the man and being submissive or stuff like that 

The past ones of Christina etc that are mentioned in the dazed post are sexual (more than this) but they don't have something this one has, which is an idea of a dog serving it's master

The lyrics of manchild don't really make it that much more clear either because basically she's saying I'm forced to always be taking care of these childish men, but also she says "I like my men all incompetent" which is kinda saying she likes it that way

But anyways like I said, I don't think it would even be talked about that much normally, it's kinda cute and playful and with manchild the lyrics are relatable. It's just the timing of it is sensitive

Also now that I think about it more, I would think conservatives wouldn't have that much problem with this imagery? Because it kinda goes along with conservative ideals of a woman's role and it's not super sexual. So that makes sense also that it's more progressive women that are having a problem with it

[salty like sodium 1,658]

11 minutes ago, Ivy said:

I'm actually not talking about her audience, I just mean the visual has a man in it and the text is "man's best friend" with the dog added, which could be taken as meaning her having the loyalty to men as a dog has, or serving the man and being submissive or stuff like that 

The past ones of Christina etc that are mentioned in the dazed post are sexual (more than this) but they don't have something this one has, which is an idea of a dog serving it's master

The lyrics of manchild don't really make it that much more clear either because basically she's saying I'm forced to always be taking care of these childish men, but also she says "I like my men all incompetent" which is kinda saying she likes it that way

But anyways like I said, I don't think it would even be talked about that much normally, it's kinda cute and playful and with manchild the lyrics are relatable. It's just the timing of it is sensitive

Also now that I think about it more, I would think conservatives wouldn't have that much problem with this imagery? Because it kinda goes along with conservative ideals of a woman's role and it's not super sexual. So that makes sense also that it's more progressive women that are having a problem with it

I get it, I still find it subversive for a few reasons I outlined earlier:

1) The man is an object in this image. He has no face, just a hand really, and she isn't even looking at him because he doesn't matter. What matters is the camera (viewer/audience), and the fact Sabrina is smiling at us makes it into some sort of an "inside joke".

2) For me the comparison to the dog is the most ambiguous part but I find it clever because it's totally intentional and there are so many layers and ways of unpacking that that it lends itself to dozens of discourses and think-pieces – which is absolutely what their goal was. They wanted the album cover to shock people, cause conversations, and get her name trending to create hype around the inevitable interview explaining the concept and the music itself/tour. My personal interpretation is that the dog is considered "man's best friend" and Sabrina's statement is that men treat their pets better than their girls. I find it subversive as well because many sexist men refer to girls as "b*tches", essentially female dogs. So the underlying message, for me, is: "men treat their dogs better than their b*tches, and it's not ok". The way she's smirking at the camera kind of hints towards that level of provocation too: she wants the viewer to be outraged. "Do you still find me sexy now, huh? Or is this finally too degrading for you?" feels like what she's trying to say with her expression. Like I said, there are many layers and I think it's fantastic that such a simple image can hold so much meaning in itself.

3) I don't think this has anything to do with her own loyalty to men or desire to serve them. As I said above, the Man Child video shows very clearly that she is empowered and in control: she seduces men, gets bored of them, murders them when she's done (instead of dumping them lol) then moves on. She is painting herself as the mastermind, the femme fatale, the true threat – the men are her victims. That feeds into why this image is subversive, because she seems to be in a position of weakness, and submission – but as her smirk implies and foreshadows, she does so willingly because she has some tricks up her sleeve and ultimately she is in control. She is the main focus after all: centered in the image, looking at the camera. Like I said above, the man is just a prop, hidden in the background, unseen, except for his hand, because ultimately, he is nobody and she is the main character of the story.

4) Beyond that, the lyrics to Man Child tie into constant recurring themes in her songs, where she admits to dating dumb/useless/trashy/careless/foolish/reckless men and either begs them to change for her, asks them why they're so dumb, or states her annoyance with them. This is ultimately the "package" that she has marketed herself as: this pretty blonde who looks dumb and ditzy but dates even dumber men and grows bored of them because they always end up disappointing her. The album cover fits within that narrative world she has created, and can be interpreted as an extension of her musical themes so far. As you said it yourself, by saying she likes her men incompetent, she is expressing her own agency and control over the situation: she could choose to date other types of men, but ultimately, these are the ones she finds most fun and satisfying so she wastes her time on them because the high is worth the pain (as TS would say).

Ultimately it's talked about precisely because it's NOT sexy actually, imo, and because Sabrina is currently one of the "it girls". She's not in lingerie, there's no real sexual undertones or overtones in the actual imagery itself, which makes the image more uncomfortable since the domination and submission roles are expressed outside of the confines of what is usually understood to be s*xual play. By having both characters be fully dressed up, the power dynamic is focused more on the emotional relationship between these characters rather than a sensual/physical one. This creates a depth of meaning that challenges audiences more than just a kinky picture would (Chappell Roan's My Kink is Karma video is more provocative in many ways but because it's much less ambiguous and more playful, and also more tied to s*xual roles, people don't really mind it as much).

Actually conservatives tend to think women should be wearing an apron in a kitchen imo, or cleaning the floor haha. I think this is both too risqué for the conservatives and the progressives which is why I ultimately love this image because it's controversial to all groups and that leads to the richest conversations.

Thanks for coming to my Ted talk. 

[faysalaaa 4,232]

4 hours ago, Bedazzler said:

People defending this are giving me the ick! For it to be satire it can't look exactly like the thing it is satirizing, it would have to make men feel uncomfortable. 

Also the fact that her team deliberately had this intention is much worse, right now her fans are belittling DV victims on social media and inc*ls are saying that if the feminists dislike it they are fans.

The purity discouse too is unhinged, accusing woke women of being conservative, when there is nothing more conservative than a woman being subjugated by a man for likes and views.

Are you saying woman who sexually enjoy being submissive in a power dynamic play that is consensual are all subjugated by men?

Edited Saturday at 06:02 AM by faysalaaa

[Taumaturg0 467]

9 hours ago, salty like sodium said:

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.

 

You couldn't have said it better. And I'm also a casual listener at most, but the satire is so obvius that the outrage seems to come from a place of either hating on a young artist, plain internalized misoginy/ conservative views or an excess of political correctness

Edited Saturday at 07:00 AM by Taumaturg0

[salty like sodium 1,658]

 

5 hours ago, Bedazzler said:

The purity discouse too is unhinged, accusing woke women of being conservative, when there is nothing more conservative than a woman being subjugated by a man for likes and views.

I'm confused by whether we're even looking at the same picture? At what point is she being "subjugated by a man"? What I see is a woman who is prominently featured in the middle of a photograph, and is using a man as a prop to convey a specific message she wanted to tell. The man absolutely has no importance in this photograph – you don't even see his face, he's basically just some random extra that was hired for a photoshoot and is essentially treated like an object or a prop. That's the whole point. Both in-character and out of character, he could not matter less in this specific context. It's subversive precisely because even though she is on her knees and has a man holding her hair, she is the focus, she is smiling at the audience, she knows she holds power over the situation. If this was a male singer's album cover, it would be a different story. If the man's face were visible, it would be a different story. But as it stands, the man is barely present in the picture, because he does not matter – and in doing so, it very much puts her in a position of power, as the subject, as all eyes, all focus, all attention is directed at her. Even the man is focused on her: his foot points towards her, his body inclination as well. Presumably, he is looking at her. But she isn't even looking at him, because he is irrelevant and does not matter. The reading that she is "subjugated by a man" is the weakest interpretation I have ever read about this image considering the fact that the man is literally used as a device and an object to tell a story and has no actual agency or value in the picture beyond whatever the artist (Sabrina) intended for him to be.

24 minutes ago, Taumaturg0 said:

You couldn't have said it better. And I'm also a casual listener at most, but the satire is so obvius that the outrage seems to come from a place of either hating on a young artist, plain internalized misoginy/ conservative views or an excess of political correctness

Yeah it's honestly making me want to stan her more tbh? I'm glad someone else gets it.

Edited Saturday at 07:19 AM by salty like sodium

[meltedplastic 194]

madonna didnt do the sex book for people to still find this stuff still sexist

[4th Time Around 4,455]

The cover is in poor taste, especially in the current climate but I'm not gonna sit around having some meltdown when Sabrina is clearly in control of the visuals she wants to push and submission is a perfectly valid kink which the cover represents.

My issue with Sabrina is that she is already becoming a parody of herself and I find her horny antics are getting stale fast and don't have any real artistic value behind them. I think she is going to be one of those flash in the pan popstars unless something changes. Also, why is everyone freaking out about this cover instead of the fact that she is obsessed with making Lolita a thing? She keeps referencing it in photoshoots and on the limited edition of her vinyl as well as weird lyrics in her live shows about looking like a kid.

 

 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 09:16 AM by 4th Time Around

[whyl 128]

It gives both

[Bedazzler 15]

10 hours ago, salty like sodium said:

except she's not being subjugated by a man? the man is 100% the prop/object in this picture. the only part of his body you see is his hand, not even his face, because he doesn't matter. he matters so little, in fact, that she's looking at you, the viewer, not the man.

Be fr, in most of those vintage "ads" the man is faceless too. Also, ever heard of straight corn? Yup, also faceless. It serves for the purpose of the man watching it to picture themselves in their place. And well, in SC case it was her choice, but what for?

8 hours ago, faysalaaa said:

Are you saying woman who sexually enjoy being submissive in a power dynamic play that is consensual are all subjugated by men?

There comes the bigger issue, it's not some funny sh*t she said in a podcast about her personal preferences, it's an imagery curated to sell a product and reach a new (and questionable) audience.

Also her fans can just say they enjoy it despite it being problematic. Yall don't have to accuse the people pointing the shadiness of being internalized misogynistics or smth.