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

[salty like sodium 1,659]

28 minutes ago, Bedazzler said:

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?

You're comparing an image released by a woman in an age of post-feminist discourse filled with alternating viewpoints and narratives around feminist ideas, values and strengths, to images released 50-100 years ago designed by men for other men in a pre-feminism world. The creator, target audience, and intent are totally different and you know it. For a woman to feature a man in an artwork without putting him in is a way to dehumanize and trivialize the man. If she really wanted you to put yourself in a man's shoes she would have tied a leash around her neck and knelt towards the camera to give you a "POV" shot. But she didn't do that – she is looking at you, the viewer, and the man behind her is just some other random man who is there to prove a point. He is definitely not intended for you to imagine yourself in their shoes, since she is already looking at YOU on the cover.

You automatically assume this is intended to draw in straight male audiences when her music, especially in the lyrics, is very obviously designed with female and gay male audiences in mind. The reason she made this image is extremely clear when you put your outrage aside for two minutes and start thinking rationally about what she stands to gain from making an image like this and if you read pretty much any of my other posts in the topic you'll probably understand what the thinking was behind this – but I'm not going to rewrite this a tenth time because I've already said it so many times before. 

Edited Saturday at 02:52 PM by salty like sodium

[GAYHEMikey 7,829]

I do think it has its intentions and plays with gender roles/sexualizing people. But the marketing is also a factor. I mean we are here discussing it. It works. People talk about it. I don’t follow her but I know about this album release because of the cover. Marketing at its best.  

[mightyriverz 2,579]

why is this even controversial? lol y'all are the same who thirst over hairy armpits, shut up

[faysalaaa 4,248]

7 hours ago, Bedazzler said:

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.

So we agree women are allowed to power play the submissive role in bed, but you think they should not express it publicly, because it might get a sexist audience.

Do you not see how its sexist to tell women they shouldnt express their sexuality in public because society will exploit it? Shouldnt the criticism be directed at sexists who exploit womens sexuality?

Based on your argument, we should also tell feminine Gays to not act feminine in public, because society will be disgusted by Gay people after seeing feminine men, and it will stereotype Gay people.

We need to allow people to have full freedom without allowing our fears to limit peoples freedoms. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and people have alot of good intentions thats messing up the world.

Edited Saturday at 09:55 PM by faysalaaa

[Bedazzler 15]

2 hours ago, faysalaaa said:

So we agree women are allowed to power play the submissive role in bed, but you think they should not expressed publicly, because it might get a sexist audience.

Do you not see how its sexist to tell women they shouldnt express their sexuality in public because society will exploit it? Shouldnt the criticism be directed at sexists who exploit womens sexuality?

Based on your argument, we should also tell feminine Gays to not act feminine, because society will be disgusted by Gay people after seeing a feminine man and will stereotype Gay people.

We need to allow people to have full freedom without allowing our fears to limit peoples freedoms. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and people have alot of good intentions thats messing up the world.

Shes allowed to do whatever she wants to (thanks to feminism), but in this day and age where women are losing their basic rights it's tone deaf, dog whistling and deserves criticism

I criticize them all the time, but i don't have a platform like for example a #1 popstar 

Feminine gays comparison make no sense in this context, a more pertinent one would be *rump voter gays, it's their right to vote for whoever they want but umm.

But whatever, i'm no longer gonna argue, if you want to, go search for more intersectional opinions yourself.

[faysalaaa 4,248]

1 hour ago, Bedazzler said:

Shes allowed to do whatever she wants to (thanks to feminism), but in this day and age where women are losing their basic rights it's tone deaf, dog whistling and deserves criticism

I criticize them all the time, but i don't have a platform like for example a #1 popstar 

Feminine gays comparison make no sense in this context, a more pertinent one would be *rump voter gays, it's their right to vote for whoever they want but umm.

But whatever, i'm no longer gonna argue, if you want to, go search for more intersectional opinions yourself.

A Gay Trump supporter is taking action in doing something bad, while Sabrina is expressing her submissive side, and you agreed with me that being sexually submissive is not wrong. So how is expressing your submissive side in public like being a Gay Trump supporter? 

I think you are trying to read Sabrina's mind and intentions, when I think thats invalid information, and the message of her music is clearly to mock society.

Whats intersectional opinions?

You are welcomed to not continue the conversation if thats your choice

[StrawberryBlond 14,774]

21 hours ago, salty like sodium said:

there is nothing straightforward about this image – the fact the interpretations differ so wildly is evidence it's purposefully ambiguous to generate discourse.

for a lana del rey fan you sure missed the entire point of this image, which is both surprising and also not surprising somehow. sabrina is definitely a lana del rey listener (man child is inspired by the song nfr) and her entire brand is built upon tongue-in-cheek criticisms of the men she dates, infantilising them, demeaning them by calling them stupid, etc. the point of this cover is to highlight two things:

1) the satirical aspect is that sabrina is tongue-in-cheekily claiming she'd be willing to let a guy treat her worse than his pet if she was attracted enough to him. it's all "good fun", even if they break up she'll have a good time and write a good song or two about it to boot. that's the established dynamic and ethos she has embodied through the last few projects she worked on, and it's an inside joke with her fans: "i know this guy is trash but i just can't resist him but don't worry we'll break up eventually anyway and i'll write some good music about it, you'll see". it's telling she's looking at the fans, rather than the man, because ultimately this is a moment she is sharing with her listeners/audience, the man is just a prop to help her write more songs about the negative experience. it also feeds into a broader discussion that most women will likely understand if they engage with the artwork meaningfully, which is the extent to which women are willing to accept unacceptable behaviours from men in the name of love: the cover raises an important question: "how far is too far before i have to break things off?" so many women let men steal from them, cheat on them, lie to them, abuse them, hurt them. is the limit when they're on their knees with their hair being pulled? or is the limit before then? or after? this is another question the cover seeks to pose.

2) it's also a searing criticism of misogyny: the album is called "man's best friend", a title reserved to dogs. The commentary is clear: men treat their women worse than their pets, and she clearly has things to say about it that will likely become apparent in other tracks.

The music video for ManChild further supports this: it shows Sabrina seducing a string of questionable men, growing bored with them, then murdering them and moving on to the next one. She knows the men suck when she meets them but they seem like fun so she just goes with it, and ultimately ditches them whenever she feels like it and they end up dead when she's laughing her way into the next man's car. The entire video is focused on her own desires, and how she is in control because she decides when to start the relationships, when to end them, and how they end. And ultimately, even though the men are seedy, she's more dangerous than them so they better watch out.

Her intentions this era are very clear and I may not have been a fan of her at all but defending her vision on this topic now makes me want to become a fan of hers just for the sake of it lol.

I'm surprised so many people are determined to think this picture is a really deep think piece meant to ask important societal issues, that it's satirical and not meant to be taken literally. I think ultimately, we're giving it too much credit. To my mind, it was meant to be exactly what it is: a sexually provocative image to get attention and spoken about, even if it's negative. I'm not saying your analysis is wrong, it's very interesting, but I just think you're reading too much into it. Sabrina's music is really not deep, it's very mainstream, easy to understand and all the songs are about exes or the man she's happily with. She's not trying to change the world, just give the girls fun songs. Which is why I'm so shocked that she'd make an image that so many women won't like. 

Contrary to what you're saying here, I don't think the man is a prop at all. As a woman, that man is a very dominant, threatening force in that photo. If it weren't for him, the photo would look very different and I'd be totally fine with it. I don't think he's being mocked either. I also don't think the content of the album matters. Images and music are two different things and regardless of the music that accompanies it, the image will still exist out of context. As a woman, I get nothing but bad vibes from this photo. And as much as her fans would like to say that she's in full control of her image and isn't trying to appeal to men, the reality is, lots of young female artists are under this control. An oft forgotten singer, Gabriella Cilmi, once surprisingly did an FHM shoot and she admitted years later, after breaking apart from her label and going independent, that her label made her do that shoot and give certain answers to questions because it was decided it would help her get more male fans. This was also why she went through a big sexual rebrand with her album but when it failed, the label eventually dropped her. The most devastating line she made on her independent album, when reflecting on the whole experience was: "If the devil were a woman, I wouldn't have to run away, if the devil were a woman, maybe she'd understand me." I think every woman can resonate with those words.

18 hours 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

That reasoning is just too basic. We've heard it all before. There is no malicious intent behind any of it. For most of us, it's because we genuinely care about women's safety and portrayal in the world. Our world is shaped by what we see and the more women are overtly sexualised, the further they are dehumanised. For women, this isn't about talking points or opinions. This is our lives we're talking about. We shouldn't feel demonised for feeling concerned. 

16 hours ago, 4th Time Around said:

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.

I've noticed this too, there have been articles written about it. Actually posing like Lolita proves she knows what her image is suggesting and leaning into it. That ad-libbed line she sang in Mexico about being full grown but looking like a nina (little girl) is when I started to have huge concerns about who is managing her and what's being greenlit. I can't think why a grown woman would write such a line, would think it sounded sexy or was a flex. I don't think she has any bad intentions but I can't help but think her label is pushing her into making certain decisions that profit them. I remember years back, when Sinead O'Connor wrote that open letter to Miley Cyrus that mentioned stuff about how your label may try to encourage you to change yourself, give the public what they want, etc. and they will trick you into thinking that this is what you wanted in the first place. The fact Sabrina only blew up when she turned into a bombshell pin-up singing horny pop songs tells you everything. 

5 hours ago, faysalaaa said:

So we agree women are allowed to power play the submissive role in bed, but you think they should not express it publicly, because it might get a sexist audience.

Do you not see how its sexist to tell women they shouldnt express their sexuality in public because society will exploit it? Shouldnt the criticism be directed at sexists who exploit womens sexuality?

The sad fact is that many women face various issues when they make their sexuality known and public. That's why women in the sex industry experience higher amounts of harassment and stalking than the average woman. A woman can become nervous to make the first move because some men view a sexually confident woman as someone who's up for anything and interpret any enthusiasm as consent. Women can get sexualised even when they don't want to be but the chances increases tenfold when we choose to make our sexuality known. It's why most of us prefer to show that side of us in private with those we feel comfortable with. It keeps us safer. Unfortunately, it doesn't take much to encourage creeps and when they see a world where women are sexualising themselves excessively, they can interpret that as "this is what every woman wants" and if they deem a woman as sexual, that can go hand-in-hand with disrespecting her. Of course we can attempt to educate such men out of their sexism but some just can't and won't get it. So we need to keep ourselves safe when the ones who don't listen. This planet is not a utopia. Bad people exist. Protecting oneself from harm should be one of the more important parts of life, for women and men. 

 

Btw, @Bedazzler, is it really true what you said recently about fans laughing at women who experienced DV and incels saying they like the cover because feminists hate it? Can you give any evidence of this or is it just anecdotal? Because this is what I'm afraid would happen.

[faysalaaa 4,248]

16 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

The sad fact is that many women face various issues when they make their sexuality known and public. That's why women in the sex industry experience higher amounts of harassment and stalking than the average woman. A woman can become nervous to make the first move because some men view a sexually confident woman as someone who's up for anything and interpret any enthusiasm as consent. Women can get sexualised even when they don't want to be but the chances increases tenfold when we choose to make our sexuality known. It's why most of us prefer to show that side of us in private with those we feel comfortable with. It keeps us safer. Unfortunately, it doesn't take much to encourage creeps and when they see a world where women are sexualising themselves excessively, they can interpret that as "this is what every woman wants" and if they deem a woman as sexual, that can go hand-in-hand with disrespecting her. Of course we can attempt to educate such men out of their sexism but some just can't and won't get it. So we need to keep ourselves safe when the ones who don't listen. This planet is not a utopia. Bad people exist. Protecting oneself from harm should be one of the more important parts of life, for women and men. 

Yes I agree, but for those women who are willing to take the risk and make their sex life public, why are some progressives and feminists attacking them? lol

Edited Sunday at 07:06 PM by faysalaaa

[salty like sodium 1,659]

32 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I'm surprised so many people are determined to think this picture is a really deep think piece meant to ask important societal issues, that it's satirical and not meant to be taken literally. I think ultimately, we're giving it too much credit. To my mind, it was meant to be exactly what it is: a sexually provocative image to get attention and spoken about, even if it's negative. I'm not saying your analysis is wrong, it's very interesting, but I just think you're reading too much into it. Sabrina's music is really not deep, it's very mainstream, easy to understand and all the songs are about exes or the man she's happily with. She's not trying to change the world, just give the girls fun songs. Which is why I'm so shocked that she'd make an image that so many women won't like. 

Contrary to what you're saying here, I don't think the man is a prop at all. As a woman, that man is a very dominant, threatening force in that photo. If it weren't for him, the photo would look very different and I'd be totally fine with it. I don't think he's being mocked either. I also don't think the content of the album matters. Images and music are two different things and regardless of the music that accompanies it, the image will still exist out of context. As a woman, I get nothing but bad vibes from this photo. And as much as her fans would like to say that she's in full control of her image and isn't trying to appeal to men, the reality is, lots of young female artists are under this control. An oft forgotten singer, Gabriella Cilmi, once surprisingly did an FHM shoot and she admitted years later, after breaking apart from her label and going independent, that her label made her do that shoot and give certain answers to questions because it was decided it would help her get more male fans. This was also why she went through a big sexual rebrand with her album but when it failed, the label eventually dropped her. The most devastating line she made on her independent album, when reflecting on the whole experience was: "If the devil were a woman, I wouldn't have to run away, if the devil were a woman, maybe she'd understand me." I think every woman can resonate with those words.

That reasoning is just too basic. We've heard it all before. There is no malicious intent behind any of it. For most of us, it's because we genuinely care about women's safety and portrayal in the world. Our world is shaped by what we see and the more women are overtly sexualised, the further they are dehumanised. For women, this isn't about talking points or opinions. This is our lives we're talking about. We shouldn't feel demonised for feeling concerned. 

I've noticed this too, there have been articles written about it. Actually posing like Lolita proves she knows what her image is suggesting and leaning into it. That ad-libbed line she sang in Mexico about being full grown but looking like a nina (little girl) is when I started to have huge concerns about who is managing her and what's being greenlit. I can't think why a grown woman would write such a line, would think it sounded sexy or was a flex. I don't think she has any bad intentions but I can't help but think her label is pushing her into making certain decisions that profit them. I remember years back, when Sinead O'Connor wrote that open letter to Miley Cyrus that mentioned stuff about how your label may try to encourage you to change yourself, give the public what they want, etc. and they will trick you into thinking that this is what you wanted in the first place. The fact Sabrina only blew up when she turned into a bombshell pin-up singing horny pop songs tells you everything. 

The sad fact is that many women face various issues when they make their sexuality known and public. That's why women in the sex industry experience higher amounts of harassment and stalking than the average woman. A woman can become nervous to make the first move because some men view a sexually confident woman as someone who's up for anything and interpret any enthusiasm as consent. Women can get sexualised even when they don't want to be but the chances increases tenfold when we choose to make our sexuality known. It's why most of us prefer to show that side of us in private with those we feel comfortable with. It keeps us safer. Unfortunately, it doesn't take much to encourage creeps and when they see a world where women are sexualising themselves excessively, they can interpret that as "this is what every woman wants" and if they deem a woman as sexual, that can go hand-in-hand with disrespecting her. Of course we can attempt to educate such men out of their sexism but some just can't and won't get it. So we need to keep ourselves safe when the ones who don't listen. This planet is not a utopia. Bad people exist. Protecting oneself from harm should be one of the more important parts of life, for women and men. 

 

Btw, @Bedazzler, is it really true what you said recently about fans laughing at women who experienced DV and incels saying they like the cover because feminists hate it? Can you give any evidence of this or is it just anecdotal? Because this is what I'm afraid would happen.

I don't get why so many people people unilaterally decided Sabrina Carpenter can't be smart enough to conceive a provocative "image as think piece" artwork, when her entire discography is evidence that there are always additional layers to her stories and it's never that straightforward, and almost every single song she has written is filled with satire, jokes, and quirky comments that are not meant to be taken literally. One of her songs is about revelling in the fact her ex's new girlfriend will "taste" her when she kisses him. Please please please starts with a tongue in cheek joke about how she KNOWS she has good taste but finds it "ironic" none of her friends agree and all think the guys she likes are bums. Her entire schtick is that she makes bad decisions when it comes to love that she ends up regretting but since she gets over it eventually it all turns out fine, and this image fits in the context of that worldbuilding imo.

As a designer who has also worked with artists, I can guarantee you the fact that the man is faceless and only has a hand visible was intentionally designed that way. They wanted to conceal him, to dehumanize him, make him almost invisible and obstructed. There were dozens of other ways they could have done this cover: man in a fancy tux, naked Sabrina. Man in leather gear, Sabrina in leather gear, etc. But they decided to dress him all in black for a reason. I respect you find the presence of the man threatening and I understand why too, but all I'm saying is the fact he doesn't have a head and that she's not looking at him or acknowledging him is not an accident at all.

I get that you get nothing but bad vibes from the photo, just like so many women hated hearing Lana Del Rey sing songs like Cola and Ultraviolence. But there were also many women that loved those songs for their own reasons, ultimately art speaks to different people in different ways and that's what it's supposed to do too.

I also get what you're saying that labels do have control over how women look and present themselves, and society too, but I seriously doubt that her label would have wanted her to get on her knees in a full dress and have her hair pulled by men. Labels tend to hate controversy, they prefer reliable content that is safe and family-friendly because that has a wider appeal and easier to market. What's more likely is they would have preferred her to do another sexy suggestive but cute lingerie shoot (think Yours Truly by Ariana Grande) and she probably had to fight for this specific vision. Sabrina is also at a stage of her career where she's been wildly successful with the output she's made so far so she likely has more say in what she wants to do for this upcoming project.

Ultimately I think it's disingenuous (and slightly sexist) to assume that Sabrina Carpenter, as a grown woman, has no say or agency in the content she puts her name on, and that she wouldn't be capable of coming up with a concept that has deeper layers of meaning to it. She is a fan of both Taylor Swift and Lana Del Rey, two of the most ambitious and complex contemporary female songwriters out there. She understands the power of subtext, she's experienced it through their music (and more). I think people should stop assuming she is a brainless horny bimbo who has nothing to say.

[faysalaaa 4,248]

 

[StrawberryBlond 14,774]

I just wanted to say that I just noticed that she technically isn't even smiling. Her mouth is open but her lips aren't curled up at the ends, it's a look of slight surprise more than anything. From a distance, it looks like she's got watery red eyes and like her mascara is smudged. You have to get up close to see it's not that bad. The reddish filter over the whole thing creates a more dishevelled, concerning appearance. If it truly is satire, more effort could've been made to make her look more obviously happy/confident and more polished. As it is, it's giving "amateur shot photo featuring kidnap victim who's forced to look joyful to avoid a backhander."

@AyeshaErotica What do you think of the data now with another 50+ people submitting their thoughts? Certainly a lot more didn't accept it as satire than I expected. 

23 hours ago, faysalaaa said:

Yes I agree, but for those women who are willing to take the risk and make their sex life public, why are some progressives and feminists attacking them? lol

I'd hardly say we're attacking them. We're just showing concern. We obviously call abusers bad people, we're not calling these women bad people. It's just that you can't really change the mind of an abuser, they're pretty much this way for life. So all we can do is suggest ways that women can avoid being prey for these types, to hopefully stop the abuse before it happens. Publicly sexual imagery everywhere can also warp developing young minds to believe that all women are like this and want this. Countless women have had men do gross things to them in bed without their permission with the defence being "I saw it in p*rn enjoying it and thought you'd like it." Of course, it's not the women engaging in this that's really the problem, it's the media and industries pushing this stuff, who we also criticise.

22 hours ago, salty like sodium said:

I don't get why so many people people unilaterally decided Sabrina Carpenter can't be smart enough to conceive a provocative "image as think piece" artwork, when her entire discography is evidence that there are always additional layers to her stories and it's never that straightforward, and almost every single song she has written is filled with satire, jokes, and quirky comments that are not meant to be taken literally. One of her songs is about revelling in the fact her ex's new girlfriend will "taste" her when she kisses him. Please please please starts with a tongue in cheek joke about how she KNOWS she has good taste but finds it "ironic" none of her friends agree and all think the guys she likes are bums. Her entire schtick is that she makes bad decisions when it comes to love that she ends up regretting but since she gets over it eventually it all turns out fine, and this image fits in the context of that worldbuilding imo.

As a designer who has also worked with artists, I can guarantee you the fact that the man is faceless and only has a hand visible was intentionally designed that way. They wanted to conceal him, to dehumanize him, make him almost invisible and obstructed. There were dozens of other ways they could have done this cover: man in a fancy tux, naked Sabrina. Man in leather gear, Sabrina in leather gear, etc. But they decided to dress him all in black for a reason. I respect you find the presence of the man threatening and I understand why too, but all I'm saying is the fact he doesn't have a head and that she's not looking at him or acknowledging him is not an accident at all.

I get that you get nothing but bad vibes from the photo, just like so many women hated hearing Lana Del Rey sing songs like Cola and Ultraviolence. But there were also many women that loved those songs for their own reasons, ultimately art speaks to different people in different ways and that's what it's supposed to do too.

I also get what you're saying that labels do have control over how women look and present themselves, and society too, but I seriously doubt that her label would have wanted her to get on her knees in a full dress and have her hair pulled by men. Labels tend to hate controversy, they prefer reliable content that is safe and family-friendly because that has a wider appeal and easier to market. What's more likely is they would have preferred her to do another sexy suggestive but cute lingerie shoot (think Yours Truly by Ariana Grande) and she probably had to fight for this specific vision. Sabrina is also at a stage of her career where she's been wildly successful with the output she's made so far so she likely has more say in what she wants to do for this upcoming project.

Ultimately I think it's disingenuous (and slightly sexist) to assume that Sabrina Carpenter, as a grown woman, has no say or agency in the content she puts her name on, and that she wouldn't be capable of coming up with a concept that has deeper layers of meaning to it. She is a fan of both Taylor Swift and Lana Del Rey, two of the most ambitious and complex contemporary female songwriters out there. She understands the power of subtext, she's experienced it through their music (and more). I think people should stop assuming she is a brainless horny bimbo who has nothing to say.

I'd love a breakdown about the meaning of the whole shoot from Sabrina herself but I don't know if we'll ever get it. I think our assumptions on its artistic direction don't amount to much when we're still woefully left in the dark about the intentions straight from the horse's mouth. Though I will say that one interesting theory floating around is that Sabrina is going to release a follow-up image taken from further back so we can see the man's face and it'll actually reveal it to be herself. Granted, that would be a subversive twist. Although I think it's unlikely as I can see from the build and the hand that this is clearly a male. The way she looks at the viewer is not so much in a "breaking the fourth wall and letting the audience know she's in on the joke" way, it reads more as "look, isn't this hot, it turns me on so much" kinda way. And of course she's the focus as she's the solo artist. The only way the artist isn't front and centre is if they choose to not be present on the cover at all. 

For what it's worth, Lana amended Cola and Ultraviolence over time. She removed "Harvey's in the sky with diamonds" in Cola and she pretty much stopped singing Ultraviolence altogether. Times have moved on and she's changed her stance on these lyrics and now realise they were problematic and were cool and edgy at the time but is now distasteful. Though I like to look at a lot of her more problematic songs as art pieces that shouldn't be life lessons.

Remember that Gaga once said the ironic thing when you get super successful is that your label wants to control you more? I don't think Sabrina releasing an album so soon after the last one is any coincidence, nor is the increasingly sexual image. She started off sexy but soft and now her Rolling Stone cover looks like something out of Playboy. I saw a comment saying that her image is that of a p*rnstar and her whole career revolves around sex now and how sad it is. This sudden 360 is usually completely supported by labels and it desensitises audiences over time so we don't bat an eye the more explicit it gets. Yes, labels like to keep things safe from a musical perspective but in terms of image, they are prepared to go more out there and indulge in the fact that in a more sexually liberated society, we accept far more sexual images than we used to. We've seen how labels have supported and encouraged the sexual image of Britney, Christina, Miley, Ariana and the list goes on. Let's not even go into the even more sexualised images of female rappers. Sex sells and labels are perfectly willing to indulge in that. But what I will say is that it can only last for so long and if these women can't diversify and prove they can go in other artistic directions and are truly talented, their stars tend to fade. 

[faysalaaa 4,248]

14 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I'd hardly say we're attacking them. We're just showing concern. We obviously call abusers bad people, we're not calling these women bad people. It's just that you can't really change the mind of an abuser, they're pretty much this way for life. So all we can do is suggest ways that women can avoid being prey for these types, to hopefully stop the abuse before it happens. Publicly sexual imagery everywhere can also warp developing young minds to believe that all women are like this and want this. Countless women have had men do gross things to them in bed without their permission with the defence being "I saw it in p*rn enjoying it and thought you'd like it." Of course, it's not the women engaging in this that's really the problem, it's the media and industries pushing this stuff, who we also criticise.

Sabrina is a professional artist for years, she clearly knows the risks thats comes with being sexually famous at her job, we dont need to show her our concern. Thats like showing concern to a professional rock climber that they might fall.

[AyeshaErotica 1,662]

13 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

@AyeshaErotica What do you think of the data now with another 50+ people submitting their thoughts? Certainly a lot more didn't accept it as satire than I expected. 

 We've seen how labels have supported and encouraged the sexual image of Britney, Christina, Miley, Ariana and the list goes on. Let's not even go into the even more sexualised images of female rappers. Sex sells and labels are perfectly willing to indulge in that. B

I think that, allow me to quote the words of another user here: "the fact the interpretations differ so wildly is evidence it's purposefully ambiguous to generate discourse." And I think that probaby there is no bigger meaning behind it other than séx sells.

To me, it's not satire, but normal marketing. I don't see significant signs of satire. The only thing that would indicate satire is that when you zoom in on the image, it looks like it was shot with a 90s camera: there are pixelated sand effects in the image, which was common until the 90s, like a photocopy of older magazine pictures. Here, the image could express something like "This was so common in the 20th century." But it could also be pandering to older men by giving them this in the modern age, just like they had it back then. From an artistic perspective, it is not uncommon to opt for an older style sometimes. Lana's Summertime Sadness music video has an old-school 80s, or even 70s, effect. But it's ultimately a modern product.

I don't have a problem with the cover, though. It's a normal cover in hyperséxualized America. I only made the topic because I wondered if I was too stupid to recognize satire.

 

This here is a world-famous artwork with a bigger meaning behind it, it is not satire per se because it is supposed to "depict reality as it sometimes is":

 

 

 

 

[StrawberryBlond 14,774]

9 hours ago, AyeshaErotica said:

I think that, allow me to quote the words of another user here: "the fact the interpretations differ so wildly is evidence it's purposefully ambiguous to generate discourse." And I think that probaby there is no bigger meaning behind it other than séx sells.

To me, it's not satire, but normal marketing. I don't see significant signs of satire. The only thing that would indicate satire is that when you zoom in on the image, it looks like it was shot with a 90s camera: there are pixelated sand effects in the image, which was common until the 90s, like a photocopy of older magazine pictures. Here, the image could express something like "This was so common in the 20th century." But it could also be pandering to older men by giving them this in the modern age, just like they had it back then. From an artistic perspective, it is not uncommon to opt for an older style sometimes. Lana's Summertime Sadness music video has an old-school 80s, or even 70s, effect. But it's ultimately a modern product.

I don't have a problem with the cover, though. It's a normal cover in hyperséxualized America. I only made the topic because I wondered if I was too stupid to recognize satire.

 

This here is a world-famous artwork with a bigger meaning behind it, it is not satire per se because it is supposed to "depict reality as it sometimes is":

I'm also surprised that so many people are convinced it's a smart image with a deeper meaning and that the album's contents is going to decide if it's satirical or not. Even if the image is meant to convey the message that it's wrong to disrespect women, it's not clear at all. And the image exists and can be viewed regardless of whether you hear the music or not so the songs have no correlation to the image either. Knowledge behind the meaning of images matter. My friend took a bunch of random photos of me last year for fun and I swear, I look like a kidnap victim in half of them. In one, it looks as if someone took a photo of me sleeping without my permission (or I'm lying there dead) and in another, I look absolutely terrified, as if I'm seeing the last thing I see before I die. Yet they didn't feel like this when they got taken. These pictures, despite not even being sexual in nature, felt distinctly creepy, partly because I always view photos as if I were an outsider. You don't know what messages these photos can send to the public if put out there without explanation. So, I feel concerned to think that the developing minds of children could be viewing this and they've never seen anything like it and feel confused/scared. And for toxic men who have their thoughts about women validated. 

I've never seen this artwork. I've seen that style but not this was specifically. What's the context behind it because on it's own, I don't quite understand it.

[salty like sodium 1,659]

On 6/16/2025 at 3:52 AM, StrawberryBlond said:

I'd love a breakdown about the meaning of the whole shoot from Sabrina herself but I don't know if we'll ever get it. I think our assumptions on its artistic direction don't amount to much when we're still woefully left in the dark about the intentions straight from the horse's mouth. Though I will say that one interesting theory floating around is that Sabrina is going to release a follow-up image taken from further back so we can see the man's face and it'll actually reveal it to be herself. Granted, that would be a subversive twist. Although I think it's unlikely as I can see from the build and the hand that this is clearly a male. The way she looks at the viewer is not so much in a "breaking the fourth wall and letting the audience know she's in on the joke" way, it reads more as "look, isn't this hot, it turns me on so much" kinda way. And of course she's the focus as she's the solo artist. The only way the artist isn't front and centre is if they choose to not be present on the cover at all. 

For what it's worth, Lana amended Cola and Ultraviolence over time. She removed "Harvey's in the sky with diamonds" in Cola and she pretty much stopped singing Ultraviolence altogether. Times have moved on and she's changed her stance on these lyrics and now realise they were problematic and were cool and edgy at the time but is now distasteful. Though I like to look at a lot of her more problematic songs as art pieces that shouldn't be life lessons.

Remember that Gaga once said the ironic thing when you get super successful is that your label wants to control you more? I don't think Sabrina releasing an album so soon after the last one is any coincidence, nor is the increasingly sexual image. She started off sexy but soft and now her Rolling Stone cover looks like something out of Playboy. I saw a comment saying that her image is that of a p*rnstar and her whole career revolves around sex now and how sad it is. This sudden 360 is usually completely supported by labels and it desensitises audiences over time so we don't bat an eye the more explicit it gets. Yes, labels like to keep things safe from a musical perspective but in terms of image, they are prepared to go more out there and indulge in the fact that in a more sexually liberated society, we accept far more sexual images than we used to. We've seen how labels have supported and encouraged the sexual image of Britney, Christina, Miley, Ariana and the list goes on. Let's not even go into the even more sexualised images of female rappers. Sex sells and labels are perfectly willing to indulge in that. But what I will say is that it can only last for so long and if these women can't diversify and prove they can go in other artistic directions and are truly talented, their stars tend to fade. 

Firstly, I'm really appreciative and grateful that you're engaging in polite, respectful and intelligent debate. No fighting, no name-calling, no belittling or bullying, etc. It's really rare online to be able to have different opinions from someone but be able to discuss them in such a mature and open way, and I just wanted to say that I am grateful for it and to thank you for it. I especially like that even though we might disagree you're still here discussing because you're open to understanding how others think and to share your thinking too – this is what makes the world better and I'm very glad we're doing our small part by having these types of exchanges. 

With regards to the breakdown of the shoot, I'd be shocked if Sabrina never discusses it in an interview. The silence about the image, and her dropping it like this without context, was purposefully intended to generate buzz imo. She wants to see what people think, how they will react, and will then share more about her thoughts behind it. It's a common marketing strategy in music to announce something and not really explain it at first, like when Lorde said her album would be called "Virgin" and then revealed the album cover was an X-Ray of her (?) body. She then elaborated on that but not in the og announcement. 

I do think it's highly unlikely she is the man. She's like 5ft tall, and the hand feels very male, as you said. The fact she is looking at the viewer though is clearly her breaking the fourth wall, it shows an awareness that there is a camera/viewer, and that's important to factor into any interpretation of the image imo, because there is now a third party in the image: the viewer (or cameraman, depending on how you want to interpret it). It's not just man + woman anymore, there's someone else involved in the story. Also she did a Rolling Stone interview lately where she complained about people criticising her about only singing about sex then calling them out for only listening to the songs that are about sex, basically. So this could also be her way of defying and confronting the fans, saying: "this is what you expect of me. This is what you ask me to do for you". The more we talk about this and look at it, the more things there are to unpack imo and I don't think I'm just pulling these hypotheses out of thin air, the fact the image has so much room for interpretation is a sign, to me, that it's ambiguous and successful in its original aim, which was to puzzle and provoke (at least, that's my assessment on the intent, since so much of modern media relies on shock-value and viral moments). I don't necessarily get a "I'm so turned on" vibe from this image the same way you do, mainly because I feel like there are so many better ways she could have expressed that if that was the message she was going for so the fact it's more subtle and ambiguous is a clear indicator, to me, that the goal was for it to not be straightforward at all.

There are actually several ways an artist could not be the focus in a composition like this. If the man were sitting in a chair in the middle of the cover, and Sabrina were on the floor to the right, for example, it would be framed around him and centered on him. If she were turning away from the camera and was the one without a face, she also wouldn't be the focus. If she was only partially in the frame (either just her leg, or just her head), she also wouldn't be the main focus. In fact, if she were looking up at the man, he would be the focus too in a way, since our gaze would instinctively want to follow hers and it would make us question his identity and wonder about who he is. Contrary to your statement, she doesn't need to be absent from the image to not be the focus, but here, she is literally right in the middle, full-figured, and looking right at us. That's the most "in focus" someone can be on an album cover.

Lana has amended those songs but when they were released people still had various thoughts and she wrote them those way for specific reasons. I'm sure there are other songs in her catalogue that are similarly controversial despite not having been amended, like F*cked my way up to the top, Lolita, etc. Even Born to Die could be interpreted as an ode to suicide by the wrong critic. The point being that art speaks to different people in different ways, it always has and always will. In fact, the best art is the one that speaks to many people in many different ways: if everyone just saw and thought the same things when looking at an image, there would be no purpose for discussion, connection and interaction and society as we know it would probably collapse after a while.

I think there's also a double standard where you're choosing to look at Lana's problematic output as "art" but you're unwilling to grant Sabrina that same clemency. I'm not too sure what Sabrina has done to you to not deserve to be categorised as an artist in the same way that you obviously regard Lana Del Rey, but I think it's dismissive of her skills and ability, despite her being a very talented lyricist. In fact, the credits for her album "emails I can't send" do show she barely wrote any of the melodies or produced any of the songs, but wrote lyrics for every single song (and wrote them on her own for two of them). These were lyrics she wrote alone:

"God, I love you but you're such a dipsh*t. Please fucking fix this. 'Cause you were all I looked up too, now I can't even look at you."

These are lyrics that live in the same world as all her other lyrics, and as this album cover imo. Just like Lana had carved a lyrical world for herself filled with drunk truckers and American flags, Sabrina's world is filled with manchilds, dipsh*ts, motherf*ckers, etc.

With regards to Gaga's quote, that may have been true in the 2010s but I feel like in a post-Beyoncé and post-Taylor Swift and post-Lana Del Rey world, that's simply not true anymore. I mean if Lana's label had that much control, her career would still be filled with chart topping songs and albums. She doesn't care about chart success and has enough power now to be able to just do whatever she wants and release music how she wants and when she wants, and most importantly, the music she wants. When UV came out (or was it L4L?) there were label execs who wanted to force her to work with guys like Max Martin until those guys told them that her music was already great as is. Taylor Swift has (for better and for worse) redefined the power dynamics between established artists and labels in a way her peers are most likely all taking notes from. In the early 2010s, Beyoncé created her own record label to be able to have full artistic and creative control over her projects, and now owns the masters to all the albums she has made since 4 (2011). This also means no label is going to hold her to a release schedule or force her to scrap an album or duet with Ed Sheeran, these are all choices she has agency over. Artists are much more empowered in 2020 than in 2010, partially because social media has given them a direct connection to their fans in a way that artists pre-Instagram and Facebook didn't really have. Back then, they really did rely on label promotion and connections to radio etc. to achieve success.

Sabrina has released 6 (soon to be 7) albums in the last 10 years, so your statement that her releasing albums within a year of each other "is no coincidence" feels uninformed considering that's now the third time she's done that in her career. If she had never had such short gaps between albums before, sure. But she just happens to be prolific. 

As for the sexualisation of her image, you're also forgetting she's 26 and was a former Disney Child Star. There is kind of an inevitable phase these child stars go through where they feel a need to divorce themselves from their tween image and provoke audiences with sex appeal. I also find this album cover less sexually-charged than most of the photoshoot for Short n' Sweet, personally, mainly due to wardrobe. There's actually a vinyl variant of that one that is eerily similar to this cover, except that there's no man in it and she's wearing way less clothes. And somehow this image makes me a lot more uncomfortable because it doesn't feel like she's making any form of social statement or discourse in it. If she were wearing this outfit in the "Man's Best Friend" cover, I'd probably have a totally different understanding of the image too.

"I saw a comment saying that her image is that of a p*rnstar and her whole career revolves around sex now and how sad it is."

Like she said in Rolling Stone, that's what audiences are asking for. I suggest you read the full interview, it adds a lot of context on this specific topic.

I honestly cannot imagine a single label exec thinking this album cover was a safe choice. They likely would have preferred her alone on the floor in lingerie again. This 100% feels like an artistic choice on the artist's part to me, specifically because she's fully dressed (even wearing shoes) and the pose is so uniquely specific that it warrants some level of creativity that most label execs aren't really capable of mustering tbh. The image doesn't make people uncomfortable because it's sexual, it makes people uncomfortable because it hints at power dynamics that are pervasive and exist in our world and this mirror to society is uncomfortable. That's the opposite of sexy, and record labels don't find that easy to sell imo.

11 hours ago, AyeshaErotica said:

I think that, allow me to quote the words of another user here: "the fact the interpretations differ so wildly is evidence it's purposefully ambiguous to generate discourse."

that was me  look mom i'm famous now

11 hours ago, AyeshaErotica said:

when you zoom in on the image, it looks like it was shot with a 90s camera

to me it looks more like it was shot with an iphone and then fed through Instagram filters