J-Lo's "empowering" objectification of men in new song

speedboatchase

Remember last year how everyone was appalled by the music video for Blurred Lines? The video featured Robin Thicke, Pharrell and TI fully clothed and surrounded by scantily clad (in another version of the video, naked) female models. The video was lambasted for being sleazy objectification.

Flash forward to J-Lo's new music video, which has an opening in which various treatments for the video are suggested to the singer, whereupon she decides that she wants to objectify men in her video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4oiEhf9M04

Cue a video in which a clothed J-Lo is surrounded by men in speedos or underwear and in which guy's speedos are pulled down, exposing their asses, they are fondled throughout the video and in one case, a guy's speedos are pulled from the front and champagne is poured inside his crotch. Bear in mind that not a single female model in the Blurred Lines video was even fondled.

So what are the responses to this blatant objectification of men? "Empowerment", "Fun", Cheeky".

At least TIME had some sense, writing: "If she and her girlfriends are upset enough about women being objectified in music videos to make a whole video skewering that tradition, why respond by objectifying other people?"

boogle

The video is sleazy and patronising. That's from a female point of view. I think Blurred Lines was more uncomfortable viewing for me because of the visual combined with those lyrics (kinda sexually aggressive). The Jlo video is degrading, but I don't get the same undercurrent from it. She should rightly be criticised for it though. Don't try to claim you're all about empowerment for women, while at the same time being happy to degrade men in order to show your "power".

PucaMama

boogle wrote: »

The video is sleazy and patronising. That's from a female point of view.

same here

dyigirl4help

Who or what is *J-Lo*, sounds like a weight loss supplement you would find at an overpriced *health foods store*. And as for the video, I am sorry but I won't click it. I do not watch television because my mind needs a rest from the constant bombardment via plutocratic foreboding. I prefer a good read and a glass of tea without sugar, never cared for it anyway. Probably why I never had a cavity in my life either.

beks101

I think it's just generally a sh1t video and J-Lo and those two sidekicks of hers come across as a bit dim in that stupid little video preamble they do.

GalwayGuy2

Why do people always get these violent undercurrents when males are being sexual?

It's the same with porn. If a man's in the same room with a woman there seems to be a mentality that there's 9 times more of a chance of there being an attack.

On the video: Meh, sexy men. Who cares.

boogle

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Why do people always get these violent undercurrents when males are being sexual?

It's the same with porn. If a man's in the same room with a woman there seems to be a mentality that there's 9 times more of a chance of there being an attack.

I didn't say violent, I said aggressive.

"I hate these blurred lines
I know you want it
I know you want it
I know you want it"

"I'll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two"


In my opinion there's a difference between the above, and "males being sexual" as you put it.

But his thread is not about this, so...

newmug

I can never understand the hullabaloo over the blurred lines song. ^^^ See the words above? Newsflash people! That's the way men think! Its just laddish lyrics.

boogle

newmug wrote: »

I can never understand the hullabaloo over the blurred lines song. ^^^ See the words above? Newsflash people! That's the way men think! Its just laddish lyrics.

So is it ok to sing those thoughts in a pop song for everyone to hear on the radio?

The audience for that has to be considered

newmug

boogle wrote: »

So is it ok to sing those thoughts in a pop song for everyone to hear on the radio?

The audience for that has to be considered

Meh. That's up to the censorship office, or whatever its called these days. They should just play it after 10pm, or bleep out offensive parts like they do with Kanye West. But this whole feigned "OMG did you hear what he just said?" thing is either faux pro-feminism to look cool, or its pure and utter naivety.


Re the J-Lo video above, again, meh. As a man, I don't feel the slightest bit offended, its just a music video, designed to make money for miss Lopez. Nothing more, nothing less. If anything, I think she lets herself down slightly.

boogle

A person doesn't have to be offended to find fault with something. Don't assume I'm sitting here dabbing my forehead with a hankie. Taking issue with Blurred Lines is not "trying to look cool", nor is it naivety. (Believe me, plenty of filthy stuff swirls around my brain on a daily basis). People who respond " Meh" to everything are, in my opinion, the ones who are trying to look cool.

Bottom line, tripe like this (I'm including Thicke and Lopez here) should be called out. It's disingenuous, clichéd and lazy.

AlanS181824

The song and the video are just for fun, same with Blurred Lines, I have no idea why people seem to get so worked up about it. It's a video for a song, no ones asking you to watch it.

boogle

Again, you don't have to be worked up about something to disagree with it. Some people are assuming a depth of feeling that just isn't there.

chu trumann

boogle wrote: »

Some people are assuming a depth of feeling that just isn't there.

Too true man, too true...

speedboatchase

OP here. I'm not offended by this video; I'm offended by the double standards of how "awful", "sleazy", "demeaning" etc the Blurred Lines video was referred to by the mass media, yet if you flip genders, not only it is deemed OK or inoffensive, it's considered empowering and feminist by some. Society needs to reach some sort of a consensus on whether or not objectification is wrong or if its fine for consenting adults, and then apply that rule to both sides.

boogle

speedboatchase wrote: »

OP here. I'm not offended by this video; I'm offended by the double standards of how "awful", "sleazy", "demeaning" etc the Blurred Lines video was referred to by the mass media, yet if you flip genders, not only it is deemed OK or inoffensive, it's considered empowering and feminist by some. Society needs to reach some sort of a consensus on whether or not objectification is wrong or if its fine for consenting adults, and then apply that rule to both sides.

There's the problem. Society is far too diverse for a consensus to be reached. From one point of view, it's nice to look at nearly naked, beautiful men and women. It's aesthetically pleasing! It's too easy. The attempt to politicise the issue and draw gender lines will always play second fiddle to baser instincts.

As for the double standards; I suppose that's as a result of societal attitudes, where men are seen as more dominant sexually.

speedboatchase

speedboatchase wrote: »

OP here. I'm not offended by this video; I'm offended by the double standards of how "awful", "sleazy", "demeaning" etc the Blurred Lines video was referred to by the mass media, yet if you flip genders, not only it is deemed OK or inoffensive, it's considered empowering and feminist by some. Society needs to reach some sort of a consensus on whether or not objectification is wrong or if its fine for consenting adults, and then apply that rule to both sides.

Yeah, there were plenty of people who had no problem with the Blurred Lines video. I don't think Ms Lopez is singing about tearing those mens' asses in two either, but I haven't watched the video so maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure there will be plenty who'll object to it, for various reasons including a double standard.

Nothing empowering about objectifying either gender, but since objectification is a subjective thing, we're not going to see 'society' agreeing on a definition anytime soon.

Hunter of Invisible Game

speedboatchase wrote: »

OP here. I'm not offended by this video; I'm offended by the double standards of how "awful", "sleazy", "demeaning" etc the Blurred Lines video was referred to by the mass media, yet if you flip genders, not only it is deemed OK or inoffensive, it's considered empowering and feminist by some. Society needs to reach some sort of a consensus on whether or not objectification is wrong or if its fine for consenting adults, and then apply that rule to both sides.

Too true but I don't see it changing anytime soon, been happening for so long.

I'm old enough to remember the following lyrics in Madonna's Justify My Love:

"Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another".

Now, pardon my ignorance, but isn't this a little rapey also? Well, going by what seems to qualify as such at least.

Course, Madonna was empowering women and their sexuality so there wasn't much complaint from feminist quarters on that occasion.

Oh an in Keisha's Blah Blah Blah we had:

Don't really care where you live at
Just turn around boy and let me hit that
Don't be a little bitch with your chit chat
Just show me where your dick's at.

I have no problem with any of these lyrics by the way. Just the double standard as ever.

evil_seed

the diet coke conundrum is what I like to call it

tsiehta

Where are the links to mass media calling it "empowering" and "feminist"?

This whole logic of "You're not allowed to be offended by any apparent objectification of your gender because I'm not offended by this particular apparent objectification of my gender" is such bullshit.

speedboatchase

tsiehta wrote: »

Where are the links to mass media calling it "empowering" and "feminist"?

This whole logic of "You're not allowed to be offended by any apparent objectification of your gender because I'm not offended by this particular apparent objectification of my gender" is such bullshit.

A few examples:

The Gloss - http://www.thegloss.com/2014/03/14/culture/jennifer-lopez-sexy-feminist-video-i-luh-you-papi/

"It’s feminism wrapped in a package of beefcake, and it’s a big, shiny dose of girl power if you listen to her message."


Huffington Post - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/17/j-lo-i-luh-ya-papi-music-video_n_4979363.html

"Jennifer Lopez's latest music video, for "I Luh Ya Papi," attempts to turn the male gaze on its head with some good, old-fashioned, equal-opportunity objectification."


Perez Hilton - http://perezhilton.com/2014-03-14-jennifer-lopez-jlo-i-luh-ya-papi-french-montana-music-video-men-objectification-sexism#.UyfxoZkjEnI
"With I Luh Ya PaPi, gurl has decided to flip the script on sexism in music videos!

"Just so there'll be no mistaking her intentions, J.Lo even begins the video by telling us exactly what she's going to do- objectify the heck out of some men!"

Greenmachine

Video is typical J-Lo tat. Not offended by the video in the slightest. There will always be some people who choose to be offended by video like this or the "blurred lines" video.

speedboatchase

Greenmachine wrote: »

Video is typical J-Lo tat. Not offended by the video in the slightest. There will always be some people who choose to be offended by video like this or the "blurred lines" video.

True, but my original point was to highlight the hypocrisy of people who were extremely offended by Blurred Lines but are actively supportive of the role-reversal objectification in J-Lo's video.

Dravokivich

They're just pop video's. What's there to get worked up about? They mean nothing and have no value at all. In 4 months time everyone would've forgotten about them if it wasn't for the shock value people seem to apply to'em.

Hazys

speedboatchase wrote: »

OP here. I'm not offended by this video; I'm offended by the double standards of how "awful", "sleazy", "demeaning" etc the Blurred Lines video was referred to by the mass media, yet if you flip genders, not only it is deemed OK or inoffensive, it's considered empowering and feminist by some. Society needs to reach some sort of a consensus on whether or not objectification is wrong or if its fine for consenting adults, and then apply that rule to both sides.

Who said the video was empowering of women? Any links? so far you are the only one saying it.

burnhardlanger

The video is an example of the producers realising that the actual song itself is poor and likely to generate little to no attention so suggested a provocative video for said poor song to generate controversy (i.e. attention). It worked for Blurred Lines. Another poor song with a controversial video.

Seriously?

Hazys wrote: »

Who said the video was empowering of women? Any links? so far you are the only one saying it.

Four posts up.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89507354&postcount=21

Seriously?

Dravokivich wrote: »

They're just pop video's. What's there to get worked up about? They mean nothing and have no value at all. In 4 months time everyone would've forgotten about them if it wasn't for the shock value people seem to apply to'em.

I think people are less worked up about the video than the reception the video has received and the perceived double standard at show.

Freedive Ireland

Class boat.

Dravokivich

Seriously? wrote: »

I think people are less worked up about the video than the reception the video has received and the perceived double standard at show.

The "double standards," is perceived from the video, any discussion or whatever against those double standards, is a result of video. A video which is just chock a block full of nothing.

speedboatchase

Hazys wrote: »

Who said the video was empowering of women? Any links? so far you are the only one saying it.

I literally left the links 4 posts before yours.