TD3 said:

its TRUE!!! PEOPLE act like its the greatest thing in the world. I don't understand why all music is about is sex. There is more to life then that!!!

Well all i can say is lay the blame where it is due....Madonna,Janet,Prince etc...regardless of the talent ANYTIME i see one of these male or female singers who push sex first and foremost, their IDOL growing up was Madonna,Janet,Prince etc...

And also its easy marketing for labels, Music labels not are nothing more than MEDIA outlets, so they control the image, the magazines you will see and the videos, so deal with it, thats the game. So like Blaque said, If u aint feelin it, instead posting a rant on it, find the nearest club and support a local act, cause im tired of going to a club and seeing a cat that can play and about 5 people in the crowd and then some dancehall guy comes out with the booty girls and hes slapping their asses and the club is quickly filled, so someone is supporting.
[Edited 12/21/09 16:59pm]

meow85 said:

Robin could spank me.

Carry on.

Paris9748430 said:

No.

Janet revealed her body more in the early 00'. She wasn't as revealing in 90's.

midiscover said:

What year did Love Will Never Do come out???

Exactly. That was in what, 89,90???

What decade did she put out Anytime, Anyplace???

That's what I thought.

Was it in the 2000's when she made the I Get Lonely video with her cleavage up to her neck???

I didn't think so.

Paris9748430 said:

She was wearing a spaghetti strap tank and mom jeans in LWND(WY)

Of course her music has ALWAYS been sexual even before Control. But people started talking in '01 for some reason.

She was fully clothed in IGl unless you consider her girls being perky as overly sexual

Put your hands back in your pockets sis

You're saying Janet revealed a lot of skin in the 90's when she didn't. Besides her Rolling Stone and janet. cover.

midiscover said:

Thank You! My point exactly. And you're the Janet expert mdiscover.

Paris9748430 said:

It's cool. Thanks.

But "Creep?" I thought they were wearing over-sized jeans, large shirts, etc, in that video? Maybe I'm thinking of one of their earlier videos. I need to go visit YouTube, lol.

WaterInYourBath said:

They show torsos.

And they didn't have the feel of forced sexuality like some other females I won't mention.

Actually, this was the most revealing Janet was in the 90's

Vendetta1 said:

You haven't STOPPED mentioning them!!!

Paris9748430 said:

Last I checked, I didn't name a single woman on this thread.

Thanks for playing.

Vendetta1 said:

Exactly. Just like I remembered, the only thing bare was their WAISTS, lol, and under loose/baggy clothing. Nothing like today, lol.



And those feminine girls were HUGE then, without being half-naked. I was little, but I remember them vividly, and all of my young male cousins loved them, and some of my teenage female cousins at the time were wearing big jeans and cut t-shirts like them, or like Janet. I'm not saying we need to start that particular baggy trend again, but my point is that the good ones don't need to strip.

WaterInYourBath said:

This!

That's why I loved the 90's! Artists didn't feel the need to over-expose their selves in order to let us know they're sexual. That's why Paris39438473974 is a lie. Janet never had her p**** hanging out or anything. In fact the first time she showed her legs in public was in the mid '00's. Janet just flaunted her midriff and hard abs.

WaterInYourBath said:

Nobody NEEDS Strip.

If Beyonce or Rhianna makes the choice to be more sexual or show more skin. Who the hell are we to say they shouldn't?

It's a Free Country.

What the hell is the point of this thread? Other than to act like an Old Coot saying "Why can't things be like they were in the Good 'Old Days"???

I can't believe people here are actually being Nostalgic about the '90s. Like it was some sacred time of innocence!!!

Nothing is like you remembered it!!!

Paris9748430 said:

I've been called "Old School" since I was about 7, so I know I'm nostalgic. I wish I had a time-traveling Delorean so I could go visit the 70s, lol.

But I'm not trying to sound like an old lady who was a teenager in the 40s. All I'm saying is, we have examples of famous female singers in the past who wore stuff like Motown-type long gowns, military uniforms, overalls/jumpsuits, or even business apparel onstage and still were more successful [in terms of sales/popularity] than the ones who "showed more skin." That's just history.

Lest we idealize and romanticize the '90s, let's not forget there were acts like Madonna and Adina Howard who provided the sleaze factor on the female-artist front by "pushing the envelope" and often equating feminism/sexual progress with being overtly sexual. They weren't being exploited by men, they'd say, they were just exploring sexuality as if it were some unexplored, final frontier.

The difference between then and now is that artists who went the Madonna and Howard route were in the minority.

Nowadays, you have "mainstream" pop acts stripping for magazines, walking around without real clothing on and dominating the news headlines: Britney, Rihanna, Christina, Beyonce and their ilk have -- by being younger and targeting younger audiences -- lowered the age at which those images became accessible to teen-targeted acts.

Miley Cyrus dancing near a pole is a disgrace. Next time I see her dad in Pancake Pantry, I'm going to tell him so.

WaterInYourBath said:

That's was a different time period. You know damn well that aren't buying music anymore period.

Those acts aren't more successful because they "showed less skin". It's because most people are downloading music.

I would definitely say Destiny's Child was more successful than En Vogue. TLC maybe not, but definitely En Vogue.

So, to say that those groups sold more albums because they wore less clothing is a little disingenuous.

I look at the title of this thread, and to me there needs to be a distinction between female singers "acting" sexy and those being sexy. Madonna definitely pushed the envelope with her raunchiness, but it was a natural extension of her personality, so you could reasonably assume that she was being sexy. Of course that assumes that sexiness is something that naturally exudes from a person.

Christina Aguilera also turned up the raunch factor when she released Stripped, but she could also express raw sexuality while glamming it up on her Back To Basics album. So one could reasonably claim that she was being sexy.

Beyonce may have been half naked most of this decade, but she has always presented herself in a classy manner, so one can say that she is being sexy.

But as for others, it's more obvious that their sexuality is contrived, phony, or forced, not only on us as listeners and viewers, but the artists themselves. I would say that Mariah Carey, circa her Daydream and Butterfly days, was revealing her naturally sexy self, but since then she has mostly been "acting" sexy. Britney Spears has been "acting" sexy ever since she released ...Baby One More Time, but all of it seems forced and artificially packaged. And lesser female artists have basically been pushed by their handlers to flaunt a sexual image, even if it doesn't fit their personality or style.

meow85 said:

Sex is everywhere, sure. But it's hardly just in music, sex is all over any kind of advertising. If people would stop buying into it, we'd see a decline in it, for sure. My solution is to simply turn my back on it.

It's also worth noting it's not just women, either. Take a look at the way the Twilight boys are marketed, bare chests, sex tape rumours everywhere. And of course the Jonas Bros blabbering on about their purity rings only helps to bring more sexual attention towards them (why is virginity an issue for them in the first place? They're singers, not priests!).

People focus a lot of attention on women and sexuality without so much a second glance towards men and sexuality.

meow85 said:

I'm just as tired of the male side of it, too.

I'm also tired of the whining people do about it.

it's not sex that's selling. it's the illusion of sex that is selling.

the illusion that you will be able to date that hot singer, look like that hot singer, be friends with that hot singer, have a life like that hot singer and so on. this will continue as long as women feed into the bullshit. the bullshit that men feed them.

BenaimanBawkah said:

It's very easy to ignore it, if people want to.

To me, making a thread about it would just annoy me even more! Focus on what you DO like!

Can we at least agree that "females" arent the only ones selling the sex? I mean come on now, whats Robin Thicke selling? Whats Usher selling? Whats Pretty Ricky selling? Whats Day 26 selling? What were groups like 112 and NEXT selling in the 90's? And lets not forget the fact that they used the image plus the sexy women in their videos, and we didnt seem to mind that? So in reality what the hell is the difference from Robin Thicke in a video making it with his wife as opposed to Lil Wayne in the Mrs Officer video with Model Tammy Torres? No difference selling the same thing. SEX. And if a female artist did that shit in a video with a model she'd be a ho, of course unless it was one of the ICONS we give a pass to

lastdecember said:

They are selling swagger and machismo!!! The idea is that these men Get Sex but don't Sell Sex, hell they don't pay for it neither. I get what you're saying but come on...you don't see Robin Thicke shaking his ass in the camera and walking around in bikini briefs. Usher, 112 and NEXT, they keep their clothes on and run the old "Player/Superfly/MackDaddy/Rescuer" game on the viewers. You walk away thinking these guys are hip hop versions of Cary Grant. Robin Thicke (again) looks very in love with his wife co-star and the lyrics match the set up. Lil Wayne just looks like he picked up some Ho and then dropped her off at the end of the video.

I don't remember Usher having his clothes on alot

DesireeNevermind said:

Well thats why theres a double standard, because if a female singer was doing the same thing in a video, we wouldnt be regarding it as "swagger" or being a strong female, we call her a ho. Just like we call "strong" females bitches and "strong" males, assertive? Usher NExt 112 Pretty Ricky are just man whores, to put it simply, its bull to say its swagger for them, but if a female group had a video and we saw the shit that was in a 112 video or Next Video with them on guys, sorry but the take would be different, there in is the issue. But in the end, sex always sells, male female, its the reason the industry is still standing, and lets be real, female artists carry the industry, and why do you think GUYS watch rap or rb videos??? To see Ushers new suit? To see Lil Wayne's new sneakers?

purplesweat said:

EXACTLY.

DesireeNevermind said:

Oh yeah. Blame it on the men. It's not like any of this is voluntary at all. I've already gone into detail about the double standard in the music industry. A guy acts like a slut, wearing little to no clothing, it's FINE, BECAUSE HE'S HOT. But a woman does it, and she's a WHORE BEING FED BULLSHIT BY MEN.

Narrowmindedness much?

lastdecember said:

It's optional with male artists. But for female artists who want to occupy a certain level of prominence, the clothes coming off seems downright mandatory.

People keep referencing the Chili Peppers "nude" shots and miss the point -- those were comical pictures. Their nude routines were gags. When Ciara's nude or Beyonce's doing lapdance routines to black actors at the BET Awards, something's wrong. It's a different standard for men, and definitely optional.

BenaimanBawkah said:

Ignorance much? Just who do you think is running the music industry? The CEOs are mostly men, the producers are mostly men, the vid directors are mostly men, the image makers are mostly men and it's the same in Hollywood. Shit just read the insert of any CD from a top selling female artist and you will see a lot more men names than women names except in the "thanks to family and friends" paragraph. And who are you calling a whore? And who says the male singer who exposes his skin is always Hot? Your narrow mind keeps getting more and more narrow.