Ariana Grande speaks out about objectification after fan encounter

[Molis]

She is a doughnut licker.

[Endus]

I feel that you do not seem to get that this "objectification" is her job.

Not even a little bit, no. She's a singer. An artist.

Her job is her physical appearance and her status as a sex symbol, that is how she makes her money.

And, to be clear, even if someone's job revolves around their appearance, that does not in any way justify objectifying them. Your argument is essentially no different from that of rapists who claim "she was asking for it, dressing all slutty". It's completely wrongheaded; you're normalizing objectification of women.

That would be a model. She is a singer. Looks support the marketing of her music, but the music is the main objective in her career.

Even models, I'd argue, primarily serve as clothing racks, not sex symbols.

Or you're treating them like a stranger who just so happens to look good. You've no obligation to care about the personality or dignity of a random stranger. Even less so of a pretentious celebrity.

Again, this is pretending that objectification is "normal" or "okay". It isn't. The second two sentences contradict the first.

[Kathandira]

Even models, I'd argue, primarily serve as clothing racks, not sex symbols.

Depends on the model, but in general I agree.

You can't have an unsexy woman modeling lingerie, it wouldn't appeal nearly as much as it does with Victoria Secrets sort of women. There is no denying that sex sells. But when that person who is marketing it as a model is not at work, they are just a human being, and should be treated as a human being.

[nextormento]

Not even a little bit, no. She's a singer. An artist.

Her product is her persona, not just her songs.
Icons are objects.
If you take issue with that market existing, go ahead, but the interpretation is entirely correct: she is willingly and knowingly exploiting that aspect of culture for a profit.

[Endus]

Her product is her persona, not just her songs.
Icons are objects.

Normalizing objectification like that isn't a defense of the practice.

She's not objectifying herself, by presenting a sexy look and such. That would entail her denying her own personal identity, which she's not doing.

The whole argument you're making is just the modern expression of the age-old misogyny that women primarily exist to be sexual objects for men. You act like it's "okay" because a particular woman is expressing her sexuality. That's not how anything works.

It's the kissing cousin of the "she dressed slutty, so she WANTED me to rape her" garbage. Same basic justification, for both behaviours.

[Kathandira]

Calling someone in her situation "sexy" isn't objectification. That's not "normalizing" or "defending" anything, you're just flat out wrong on the usage of the word.

"I see you, I see you hittin that"

He didn't say she was sexy, he was congratulating him on fucking her. As if she is a trophy to be won. An object.

[Kathandira]

Not to mention that when you don't even actually know someone, it's hard to claim to be super attracted to their personality or something. Finding a complete stranger attractive pretty much puts nothing on the table but physical appearance because that's all you know at that moment. People claiming that this is somehow wrong because you're not considering their hopes and dreams and wishes and aspirations and such are being completely absurd for the sake of some virtue signaling.

If he addressed her and said, you look great or something to the effect, that is different. However he addressed only Mac, and said "I see you, I see you hittin that" Which is putting her in the position of an object for sex.

Imagine this was your wife, and some random dude walked up and shook your hand for fucking her. How would you feel? How do you think your wife would feel?

- - - Updated - - -

Not to mention that when you don't even actually know someone, it's hard to claim to be super attracted to their personality or something. Finding a complete stranger attractive pretty much puts nothing on the table but physical appearance because that's all you know at that moment. People claiming that this is somehow wrong because you're not considering their hopes and dreams and wishes and aspirations and such are being completely absurd for the sake of some virtue signaling.

- - - Updated - - -



A total stranger said something rude to a couple. That's the story.

Everything else is you trying to create a shitstorm for the sake of it, including completely fabricating your own context and intent to frame the situation in.

What do you think "I see you, I see you hittin that" means?

[Kathandira]

A total stranger said something rude to a couple. That's the story.

As to this, it certain is the story. But it is not just 1 person. The topic is that this happens more than once in a blue moon, which is what she is speaking out about.

[Zyky]

If this sort of thing happens all the time then why do I never see it happening out in the real world?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/e...nter/95910524/

Basically I got "oh boo hoo, the attention of the media isn't on me, so I'm gonna start something to make it all about me."

[Endus]

You're being ridiculous for the sake of it now.

Calling someone in her situation "sexy" isn't objectification. That's not "normalizing" or "defending" anything, you're just flat out wrong on the usage of the word.

That's not the argument I'm making, at all.

It's not about thinking she's sexy. It's about treating her as a sexual object because you think she's sexy. So you act as if she's a trophy to be won, or which her current BF "won" as in this example, or you act as if her wishes don't matter because she's there for you to use as you wish, or what have you. It's not about the "find sexy" part, it's about the "and thus ignore their humanity and treat them as an object" part.

[Kathandira]

Because he was already talking to Mac and was a fan of his.

Still not sure why "how conversation works" is confusing for people.

I was raised with manners, so I find it quite interesting, and often uncalled for when people have absolutely none.

[Deleted]

Not even a little bit, no. She's a singer. An artist.

Again, this is pretending that objectification is "normal" or "okay". It isn't. The second two sentences contradict the first.

That is subject to your moral compass. The phrase 'that piece of ass' comes to mind.

When you sell your appearance/body to people who only know you for that , that is what you become. And then you add a culture where people freely let you know what they think and you get a situation where a person who only knows you as 'that' tells you.

But feel free to attempt to Ban people speaking their minds, i await the outcome.

[Kathandira]

You mean people are often rude?

Man, you'd better get that fact out to the media, this is bigger than any of us now.

So fuck it? Why try to incite awareness and change?

[nextormento]

Normalizing objectification like that isn't a defense of the practice.

She's not objectifying herself, by presenting a sexy look and such. That would entail her denying her own personal identity, which she's not doing.

Your interpretation that it is inquestionably "bad" is problematic in itself, for it segregates half of the feminist perspective on their existential struggle. But that's beyond the point.

Objectivization doesn't need a defense. It's something that happens.
Something some people fight when it lands disproportionately on specific traits or demographics.
Some other people, like Ariana Grande, don't fight it: they exploit it.
Objectification doesn't require it fit every Nussbaum criteria. Any of them does the trick. Specifically, she willingly and knowingly sells her likeliness to the highest bidder, like any actor does: her persona is a commodity.
She's not doing that through sexy looks. That is largely irrelevant. It's her branding herself as an icon what makes her persona an object. It's not denying identity, but crafting it into a symbol.

[petej0]

Imagine this was your wife, and some random dude walked up and shook your hand for fucking her. How would you feel? How do you think your wife would feel?

It is definitely disrespectful, nobody is really claiming that, I dont think.

Normalizing objectification like that isn't a defense of the practice.

She's not objectifying herself, by presenting a sexy look and such. That would entail her denying her own personal identity, which she's not doing.

The whole argument you're making is just the modern expression of the age-old misogyny that women primarily exist to be sexual objects for men. You act like it's "okay" because a particular woman is expressing her sexuality. That's not how anything works.

It's the kissing cousin of the "she dressed slutty, so she WANTED me to rape her" garbage. Same basic justification, for both behaviours.

If she wore skimpy outfits as a normal course, that being her personal identity, then I would agree with you. However she purposely sells herself as an object of desire on her album covers, videos, concerts and magazine spreads. She wants to be seen as a sexual object of desire and then when it works how can she get upset?

[Kathandira]

And that's you completely inventing a metric fuckton of context and mixing in a can full of buzzwords just to support your argument.

It's an awkward fan talking to a celebrity and making dumb comments. Not some senator passing legislation.

- - - Updated - - -



Awareness that being rude is shitty?

Wow, that's another bombshell. Are you sure we should release this information to the public?

What seems like a no brainer to you, is obviously not even on others radar. I can say being rude is not right, and you can agree. But there are people like the dude in the story who doesn't seem to understand it. There are people in this very thread that don't understand it. So yeah, it is worthy of discussion and worth being taught to people. Just sitting back and accepting it is quite sheepish.

[Endus]

If she wore skimpy outfits as a normal course, that being her personal identity, then I would agree with you. However she purposely sells herself as an object of desire on her album covers, videos, concerts and magazine spreads. She wants to be seen as a sexual object of desire and then when it works how can she get upset?

Why do you think this is a defense here, but wouldn't be a defense if someone literally raped her?

Because it's the same argument, you're just using it to defend a different behaviour. If it's a meritless defense for the one, it doesn't suddenly gain merit for the other.

[Kathandira]

It is definitely disrespectful, nobody is really claiming that, I dont think.

It is being brushed off as if she deserves it, or at least she should expect it. Which I find to be quite ridiculous. I don't think anyone should accept being treated as an object, even if their fantasy persona reflects it.

But as a performer, perhaps I am a little more aware of it, and have felt it before as well. So perhaps I am on her side because we share in that.

[Exeris]

Could be an idea to confront those you have a problem with when it happens, instead of crying afterwards.

[tiptopmemer]

it's been normalized in your own head.

Just like rape culture and male privilege?