For the past five days I've been inundated with opinions regarding Miley Cyrus's performance-- it was out of line because she used to be Hannah Montana. It was borderline pornographic. It's not Miley we should be disgusted with, but Robin Thicke. Eventually it all turned into a steady stream of "blah-blah-blah" in my mind.
When I came home from work, checked my facebook, and saw the same article shared by five or six of my friends, I tapped into my inner passive aggressive and posted something "snarky" about it on my newsfeed. In retrospect, I was neither clever nor fair. People are entitled to post their opinions on hot topics, and I shouldn't be annoyed by this. Upon further reflection, I don't think I was really annoyed at the content of any of the articles, necessarily; I didn't read anything that I really disagreed with-- and, to be honest, after the third or fourth article I stopped reading anyway. My point, however, is that I was not annoyed by anything I saw in these articles but by what was not in these articles.
It seems like the issue has divided our population into two camps: We should be disgusted with Miley Cyrus vs We should be disgusted with Robin Thicke. What started as an issue of "modesty" (I use this word loosely, because it doesn't quite capture what the general public took issue with) turned into an issue of feminism. Bloggers are writing letters to the world's collective sons; talk show hosts are banning Hannah Montana from the TV.
But back to the title of this entry, which is (ironically) "This Post Is Not About Miley Cyrus," because, though I'm sure it seems like it is, it's not.
I didn't watch the VMA's. For those of you who also did not watch the VMA's and have (somehow) not heard about all of the to-do, here's a brief summary (and then I promise I'll go back to NOT talking about Miley Cyrus): She performed her new hit single, which is basically about partying however she wants to, alongside Robin Thicke, who performed his new hit single, which is basically about women claiming their freedom by unleashing their inner sexuality (with a few Fat Albert references scattered throughout-- you get the point). To spare you the details, to say it was graphic is an understatement. If you're tempted to look it up (as I was), don't-- it's honestly kind of gross. A foam finger was involved, as were gigantic teddy bears. Spare yourself.
The performance's response was collective awe/disgust. It literally left The Fresh Prince of Belair and his family with dropped jaws. You can imagine the backlash was pretty fierce come Monday morning. Which resulted in backlash against the backlash, cries of stifled femininity, and the obvious question, "where does Robin Thicke fit into all of this?"
Here's why this post is not about Miley Cyrus:
This is not a new issue.
For literally thousands of years, this issue has been manifesting itself in our societies. And it's neither the fault of woman, who decided whimsically to exploit her body (that's sarcastic), nor the fault of man, who decided selfishly to be sexually driven (also sarcastic).
From the beginning of time men were created with the desire to be sexually intimate. Women were created with the desire to feel emotionally intimate. (I'm not saying there's no room for variation-- that a man can't desire emotional affirmation, and that a woman can't be sexual, nor am I suggesting it's unnatural for this to happen. I'm trying to say that, on the whole, a woman longs to feel special, unique, and coveted, and that a man longs to manifest these things physically.)
Now that we've discussed the birds and the bees... let me explain why I think this is important.
Somewhere along the line, women figured out that men are sexually attracted to women, and that, when they are, they tend to give the women to whom they are attracted attention. Women, longing to be affirmed-- to feel special and coveted-- reacted to this by becoming as desirable as possible. And it's a cycle that has been spinning out of control for a very, very long time.
Have you ever noticed the advertisements featuring products that appeal to a mostly male demographic? Almost all of them feature women in sexually exploitative ways.
Have you ever noticed the advertisements featuring products that appeal to a mostly female demographic? Do they feature men in the same sexually exploitative manners? You'd think-- but they don't. They likewise feature mostly women-- not necessarily in a sexual manner, but in an overly glamorized manner-- in a way that suggests "this is the way you should look, speak, behave."
And all of it feeds into the cycle of "women look like this; men, pay attention to this."
We saw this cycle for what it was at the VMA's on Sunday night. A girl trying to be noticed, and a man giving her attention.
So, to reiterate, this post is not about the VMA's or Miley Cyrus or Robin Thicke. That's not news, and we can't understand the issue by only focusing on why women sometimes behave like Miley did, or why men pay mind to and partake in what Robin Thicke did. They're not separate issues. One does not shoulder more responsibility than the other. The issues are as entwined as the water cycle. We desperately need a drought.
