Saturday, June 7, 2014

Naked Rihanna: Feminist Icon

Recently, a singer named Rihanna showed up at an awards show wearing next-to-nothing. As you no doubt know, she was wearing a see-through dress that exposed her upper torso.

Before you knew it, the battle lines were drawn. On one side feminists insisted that Rihanna was making a statement about female empowerment and sexual self-confidence. On the other side scolds declared that Rihanna was pulling a Miley Cyrus and selling her sex.

Feminists cheered; others jeered.

In the past feminists insisted that women be recognized for their minds, not their bodies. Feminists who denounced the beauty myth charged it with exploiting female sexuality.

Now, feminists seem to want girls and women to be confident about their sexuality, and, to their minds, that means exposing it in public… as much as they like, when they like, as they like.

If Rihanna’s bare breasts were a feminist statement, wouldn’t complete nudity be a more powerful feminist statement? Why stop with the top?

In any case, Jezebelle Erin Gloria Ryan looks at half-naked Rihanna and sees a:

…beautiful woman confidently parading nearly naked in public.

On the contrary, I would suggest that a woman who parades around nearly naked lacks confidence in her sexuality. A woman who has confidence in her sexiness does not need to show it to everyone.

Very few women want to be sexy for the general public. They want to be sexy for one man.

Every man knows that a woman who exhibits herself to all men is not especially interested in any one man in particular.

In Rihanna’s exhibitionism, Ryan also sees a woman who is:

… publicly enjoying being sexy…

Surely, there is nothing wrong with a woman enjoying being sexy and there is nothing wrong with a woman dressing up to enhance her sex appeal.

But, when did it become good to enjoy one’s sexuality in public? Perhaps there’s a reason why women always talk about “intimacy.” Could it be that they believe that sex is best enjoyed in private?

Obviously, celebrities can get away with blatant exhibitionism. They are in the business of provoking attention. Unfortunately or not, even for them, the exercise will probably impact their future relationships.

In a world where people are judged by the content of their character, exhibitionism has consequences. Anyone who is willing to accept the consequences is free to do as she pleases.

And yet, she is not free to denounce anyone who would judge her ill for her antics. After all, other people have the right to their own judgments.

Then again, feminists like Ryan are not dealing with people as they are or the world as it is. They are projecting a utopia—or dystopia—where the opinions of men do not count and where women do not become wives or girlfriends. In a world where women are perfectly autonomous and independent, they can do as they please, when they please, how they please, with whom they please.

If they can make some money doing so, that is their prerogative. Perhaps it will soothe the pain they will inevitably feel when they understand that they have announced that they are willing to be treated as sexual objects.

More naked means more available, but it does not necessarily mean sexier. For women, true sexiness exists in an interplay between concealment and exposure.

According to Ryan, anyone who speaks ill of Rihanna’s exposed breasts is engaged in the equivalent of slut-shaming… and we know how bad that is.

Being a celebrity, Rihanna is not really a role model. At best, she is a living Venus de Milo, a goddess for our decadent times.

In many ways, the worship of Rihanna, like the worship of pagan deities like Venus or Aphrodite is a form of idolatry.

If feminism began by insisting that women be judged by their minds… to the point where many young feminists in the 1970s went out of their way to appear less attractive… it has morphed into a pagan cult to Aphrodite.

It feels like a desperate attempt to regain something that was lost. Is it the price women are paying for denouncing the feminine mystique?

Those who worship at the altar of the goddess of sensuality are probably not very confident in their own sexuality. And yet, doing so through idolatry will also make sensuality the meaning and purpose of their life.

Celebrities exist in an alternate universe where different rules pertain. Some young girls take cues from celebrity dress and behavior, but most do not want to grow up to be Miley Cyrus. Surely, their mothers do not want them to do so.

And it seems to be true, as Ryan reports that young women are behaving more, not less responsibly when it comes to sex. She concludes that Rihanna and Miley Cyrus have not corrupted the youth of America.

And yet, for all I know, girls behave more responsibly because everyone is increasingly aware of the dangers in a hookup culture that uses women as what used to be called sexual objects.

With this awareness have surely come more than a few heart-to-heart mother/daughter talks about the perils of hooking up.

Perhaps it all means that the influence of feminism is waning.



6 comments:

Sam L. said...

I saw a pic that showed her back, which was much more visible than her front.

Feminists: Can't make up their minds, can they, and stick to it?

Anonymous said...

Old feminism faced a problem.

It deemed itself leftist and progressive. But in the US, leftism and progressivism must be allied with blacks who are seen as imbued with noble victim-hood.

But feminist war on 'sexism' simply didn't go well in the black community since black culture is so sexual and raunchy. Black men used machismo and sex as a weapon, and black women like to be seen as hot mamas, even 'hot hos'.

And young white people were into rock culture and rap music where guys act like macho hunks and women act like sizzling hos.
So, feminism, though leftist and progressive, was falling out of favor with the young people who were into hedonism steeped in black culture.

So, for feminism to remain relevant and cool and to have a second life, it had to be 'get down, baby'. Otherwise, it might even be accused of 'racism' for putting down popular culture that is so deeply influenced by black sexuality.

Feminism also used to be anti-porn but is no more, especially since so much of porn is homosexual and interracial, thus progressive I guess. As feminists now see porn as promoting homosexuality and race-mixing of white women and black men, they see it as a positive force.

All ideologies go through fashions.

Anonymous said...

"Being a celebrity, Rihanna is not really a role model. At best, she is a living Venus de Milo, a goddess for our decadent times.
In many ways, the worship of Rihanna, like the worship of pagan deities like Venus or Aphrodite is a form of idolatry."

Not really. True, Aphrodite was the goddess of love, but the Greeks had a sense of balance, which is why they had different gods. There was Bacchus, the god of wine and partying. But there was also Apollo, the sun god of order and reason.
Other than Aphrodite, there was Hera and Athena.
Also, Aphrodite was more than a goddess of raunchy skanky sex. She was the goddess of beauty, sensuality, seduction, etc.

So Greco paganism was different from Afro-paganism. Not all paganisms were the same. Germanic paganism was different from Persian paganism.

Rihanna and rap culture isn't so much about love, seduction, and beauty but about out-and-out debauchery, sleaze, pornographic fantasies, and animal lust.

When we look at sculptures of Aphrodite, we see her in the nude but there's also grace, poise, allure, mystery, which is why they are timeless works of art.
It's more than about lust and animal sex.

But hip hop culture is simply about people reduced to the level of animals without inhibitions. As sexual as it is, there's an element of excess that is ugly and putrid.

There's a reason why there are no sculptures of Aphrodite twerking.
But that's exactly the sort of Rihanna and her ilk do in music vidoes.

Of course, Greeks had pornography, and there lurid tales of gods. But that was not the main thrust of Greek paganism.

Besides, even the Bible has some stories of wild lovers. King Solomon, he loved womenfolk and 'he' wrote some ripe poems about them.

Jocker said...

"For women, true sexiness exists in an interplay between concealment and exposure." Of course. And every experts of coaching, and cognitive behavioral therapy understand it, because of domination of science in evidence based knowledge ;)

Stuart Schneiderman said...

Thank you, Anon, for offering some needed distinctions between different kinds of pagan idolatry.

Anonymous said...

What we are dealing with here is a lack of sophistication. Rihanna and her handlers don't have any. She flaunts herself as a raw sex object, and is surprised when she gets beaten up by her boyfriend. No perspective, no wider understanding of cause and effect. The laws of physics dictate that objects follow cause and effect... they do what they're made or caused to do. Clearly Chris Brown didn't think his raw sex object was doing what she was supposed to do. So he provided some raw corrective action. I understand that people are enraged by Brown's behavior, but I do not understand their surprise. All I heard was "But Rihanna is so beautiful, how could she let him do that to her?" Ahhh.. now we're having a conversation. But that conversation requires some deep thought, doesn't it? Thinking is hard. The next bit of pornography is readily available. What's the path of least resistance? The one most people are choosing.

Today's pop culture is raw. It's about getting excited, having an emotional/physical experience, repeat. It's no different than drugs. This consequences of this kind of raw lust and other sins are a great advertisement for religion, ethics, morality, etc. Why? Because after your orgasm, you return to the same vacant, lonely, meaningless life you had before your ecstasy. And this happens on both sides of the "experience." The receiving viewer realizes he's not with Rihanna. And the content provider Rihanna realizes she's not with anyone who loves her, either. That sucks. And it's a choice.

Tip