For you older folks out there, that is a line from the song Don't Cha by a group called the Pussycat Dolls. How does this 42 year old man know this? Well, he heard the line in a beer commercial and it got him to thinking, and so he just "googled" it.
While I had heard of the group, I couldn't have told you one thing about them until just now. Going over to their website, they are a group of remarkably attractive young women - who are dressed up like whores. This is in line with the lyrics, as in the world of the hip, "freak" carries a very strong sexual connotation. Essentially, the song I've featured is a song about a girl telling a man that he wishes his girlfriend was a lot more starkly and aggressively sexual. Thinking back to when I was 15 or so, this message would have separated me from the price of a record (I know - back then, kiddies, we listened to records and CDs were something you got at the bank). No doubt about it, at that age a "freak" would have been right in line with my desires.
On the other hand, I'm 42 now and such a woman would be tiresome and boring. So, why bring all of this up?
Because this group, Pussycat Dolls, is clearly yet another in that long line of manufactured musical groups - groups which have very attractive members and songs with very catchy lyrics and tunes. Relentlessly marketed, such groups make millions for the recording corporations. Others in this genre were the Spice Girls and Backstreet Boys. These are not groups which really grow up organically and then start putting out music which eventually catches everyone's attention - groups like the Beatles or Nirvana...no, these groups are carefully scripted to make a huge impact, sell a very large amount of product, and fade away in a year or two. Some times individual members of these groups go on to have solo careers, but the main fact of the group is that it is made up - phony; a mere money-machine for large corporations. There is nothing particularly wrong with the concept - but there is something extraordinarily wrong with a corporation cold-bloodedly marketing such a nauseating message to America's youth.
As I said, back in my youth, I would have eaten this sort of thing up - hot looking chicks dressed up in brazen sexuality and singing songs suggestive of a willingness to get horizontal; oh, yeah! At 15, however, I was not in full possession of a mature mind able to easily separate out fact from fantasy - at that age, I was reliant upon adults to understand that there are things they shouldn't do to an impressionable mind, lest such an immature mind take the message at face value and go out and try to live an impossible, and possibly deadly (in the larger, theological sense of the word), life. Kids today are no less reliant than I was back then - but now, even more so than back then, the adults aren't minding the store - they are, instead, either cowering in fear of being thought old fashioned, or eagerly raking in the bucks off of teen foolishness.
I would like to ask the corporate bosses what they are thinking when they look at this garbage and say, "its a great idea". But, then again, I would probably be disgusted by the answer, so perhaps we'll leave that question unasked. But that still leaves us with the problem of corporations ruthlessly exploiting the immaturity of the young...convincing them that what they want is what the corporations are peddling (please don't ever try to sell me on the notion that teens are naturally rebellious...I was entirely servile in mind as a teen; desperate to not do anything "uncool"; the rebelliousness of youth is, also, manufactured - cooked up in corporate boardrooms and then marketed to the kiddies until they think that being cool requires a rejection of parental values...and, by the way, can you please shell out for the music and clothes assigned?). The only answer is for we, the adults, to stand up and say "no". No, you can't do this - make your money some other way (perhaps by putting out good music? Just a thought...).
Unless and until we do stand up, what will happen is an increasingly degraded youth culture as each generation is convinced to be even more depraved than the last in order to be cool. Keep in mind that the manufactured band, The Monkees, was once cutting edge and is now old fashioned. Unless you want being a "freak" to be dull, and something even more freaky to be normalised, then we'd all better think hard on this subject, and act swiftly.
Posted by Mark Noonan at May 30, 2007 08:24 AM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
"On the other hand, I'm 42 now and such a woman would be tiresome and boring."
I think we get into more trouble with this kind of expression. There is an attraction/sexuality factor here, and this isn't, in itself, boring, and telling people it is makes them believe we're not being honest, with ourselves or them. What is a true expression is that most people don't want to live with a woman whose only gift is being a freak. We want someone to stimulate us intellectually, aesthetically, and affectionately, and we want someone we can trust.
There is a definite failure to thrive/grow in people who want to hook a partner with their sexuality, but don't have much interest outside of drinking and sexing up. In short, I wouldn't mind this sort of thing if we taught both that we should strive for something more, and if we taught that sex, drinking, gambling and taking drugs have an effect on the brain that can trick it, so we forget about the something more that makes us not just happy, but also happy about our lives at times when we're not stimulated.
Posted by: Morris at May 30, 2007 08:49 AM
Mark,
I can think of a society where this sort of trash does not fly.....it's called North Korea. Maybe we should go that route? Otherwise, in a country of 300 million people from all walks of life and backgrounds, how else do you propose we regulate "taste"? The Pussycat Dolls are not using profanity, nor are they topless or bottomless in their videos.
I say, we buy all our children a copy of The O'Reilly Factor for Kids. We won't have this Pussycat Doll problem anymore, but we'll have a big problem with kids cutting off each other's microphones.
Posted by: Martin at May 30, 2007 09:46 AM
I have liked this site and the writing is realy good. As a conservative I of course agree with most of the authors who write here.
But to see such a huge event as this amnesty disaster being ignored and commentary on the Pussycat Dolls taking its place is really rather sad.
Yes, I know the name of the blog IDs if as ProBush. But to just almost ignore the debate, things like the President's comments against many conservatives, is a sorry state of affairs.
In an ironic way, the blog's pretense in ignoring all this is similar to President Bush's whole sorry involvement in this Amnesty issue and his contempt of a large part of what's left of his base.
Posted by: Tim at May 30, 2007 12:46 PM
Love the title!
Dontcha Wish Your(not you're, keefer)Girlfriend Was Hot Like Me, By Mark Noonan.
I sense the makings of a viral youtube clip.
Cheers!
Posted by: Eric at May 30, 2007 01:12 PM
Mark -
From your post, would I be correct in saying you support unfettered free markets in all cases but those when corporations promote scantily-clad women?
You've previously said that the only proof of global warming you would accept is a "smoking gun" - ie, the predictions we're hearing today come true - because capping carbon emissions or forcing auto manufacturers to build cars with minimum fuel efficiency standards is too much of a burden for "our way of life."
But I admit, I assumed you choose to ignore warnings such as those surrounding climate because of your "free markets uber alles" perspective. Acknowledgement of problems requires either market regulation and public investments in alternatives, or immoral inaction. But in any case, how do you reconcile market nanny police with kneejerk opposition to any other kind of market regulation?
Why not focus on what the government can do to actually improve the lives of teens who listen to tripe like the Pussycat Dolls? Given your age, I think I'm safe to assume that you didn't join the Kiss Army and become a blood thirty satan worshiper like prudes of the seventies feared - and Kiss was (and is) just as much a corporate construction as much of the top 40 garbage today.
Posted by: winnowhead at May 30, 2007 03:23 PM
PussyCat Dolls = Blogs for Bush.
Same thing. Both quick to market and post Bush, B4B fades away into obscurity.
You even have the 15 year old groupie...
Keefer.
Emotionally, mentally, 15.
The class clown.
Posted by: raker13 at May 30, 2007 03:32 PM
Well, I can see that our resident intellectually stunted trolls are out. Atleast I got a good laugh out of their posts.
Posted by: kjstrouble at May 30, 2007 04:43 PM
Winnow, you lost me. Why would we want to "force auto manufacturers to build cars with minimum fuel efficiency standards"? Don't we already have too many of those?
Posted by: Retired Spook at May 30, 2007 05:02 PM
winnowhead,
KISS has nothing to do with Satan or Satan worshipping. This rumor was pushed by evangelicals in the deep south for whatever reason. They are not about being evil they are about rock and roll.
Also, they were not corporate construction. They were formed by two Jews from a middle class background (one whose mother is a Nazi concentration camp survivor). In fact, they got little respect from the music industry upon starting out. They wrote or co-wrote all of their own songs. Through their own hard work, constant touring, and desire to succeed they finally made it with release of the spectacular Alive! in 1975. Of course with their meteoric rise in popularity they had to incorporate themselves. They became multimillionares licensing their name and image. They have no coporate boss. They (Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley) are their own bosses who do everything they can to make money by cutting out the middle man whenever possible.
Posted by: Aitch at May 30, 2007 06:19 PM
winnow,
I don't think that in any of my posts you can conclude that I am in favor of unfettered free markets. I'm Catholic, remember? NOTHING can be done, properly, without careful restrictions on how it is done. I'm in favor of free markets because I know that people are inherently bad - and thus the less control any one person, or small group, has over things, the less chance I have of someone bad winding up with all or most of the power...but free markets, like freedom, must be highly restricted in certain areas if it is to be something other than evil and destructive. One of the places the free market can use a bit of restriction is when they peddle what we would have called smut 30 years ago - they shouldn't peddle it at all, but they must not peddle it to children.
But how do we do this? Well, as a free market person, once again, convinced of the inherent badness (or foolishness, if you prefer) of human beings, it wouldn't really do to pass a law against this sort of nonsense...can't be sure that some chucklehead down the road won't go on a crusade against, say, the artistic depiction of the nude human form. But we, the adults of America, do carry a great deal of authority - mostly in our ability to shut down the demand for this sort of thing - or highly restrict when and where it can be purchased. What we can do is make it more of a hassle than its worth - and then we'll have no more of it (corporations, in the aggregate, are both greedy and cowardly - this is a mix we can use to our advantge).
And you are right - KISS was a corporate construct, just like Pussycat Dolls are today...but, have you checked out KISS' material lately? Its so tame, in 2007, as to be rather boring; we all laughed when it was warned that KISS would lead to Satanism...but while the warnings then were overdrawn, the basic concept was correct...and now "bubblegum" music isn't about silly boy meets girl nonsense, but rather extreme "don't you want to f*** me?" tunes...what I'm pointing out is that there is in our corporate world a "one downsmanship"...who can get the most nauseating and then convince the kiddies that the latest depravity is the coolest thing, ever.
We talk much of protecting our children, and such talk brings a grim laugh to my heart...we're passing out condoms, and telling the kids to go ahead and "hook up" without thought for tomorrow...
Posted by: Mark Noonan at May 30, 2007 06:24 PM
Morris,
No, I'm being honest - the Pussycat Dolls, as constructed, are boring to me...and from what I can gather of their mentality, they would swiftly become rather tiresome if I were forced to be around them. I've entirely outgrown that sort of childish sexuality and have come to a mature understanding of the beauty of sex...and it has nothing to do with girls who advertise a trampoline sexual nature.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at May 30, 2007 06:28 PM
Tim,
You've been inattentive - I'm in favor of President Bush's proposal, which isn't amnesty. I'm not too interested in the debate, however, because I don't think that the reform proposal is going to get anywhere.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at May 31, 2007 01:27 AM
Spook,
Winnow, you lost me. Why would we want to "force auto manufacturers to build cars with minimum fuel efficiency standards"? Don't we already have too many of those?
Not sure I follow you, but I suppose you're looking for something since I'm a liberal. Since this isn't the point of the post I won't get into it, but certainly we as a society have the capacity and reason to set minimum efficiency standards higher than they are now.
Aitch,
KISS has nothing to do with Satan or Satan worshipping. This rumor was pushed by evangelicals in the deep south for whatever reason. They are not about being evil they are about rock and roll.
Um... that's basically my point, friend.
Mark,
I don't think that in any of my posts you can conclude that I am in favor of unfettered free markets.
No, I can't. From my perspective, I just find an extreme disconnect between the aspects of the economy you consider untouchable and those you look on in such contempt. You choose to focus on the modern day equivalent of Kiss (and no, Aitch, I am not saying it's exactly the same) instead of issues that are materially important to everyday people.
But we, the adults of America, do carry a great deal of authority - mostly in our ability to shut down the demand for this sort of thing - or highly restrict when and where it can be purchased.
Parents should certainly excercise their authority over their children, no doubt. But you can't restrict the demand. This sort of garbage is peddled because it's exactly what focus grouped teenagers say they want... and it's really not much different than what my peers listened to and watched as teens 15 years ago... and in turn those 15 years before listened to. I'm sure in such a time frame I'll find pop culture incomprehensible as well (frankly I'm pretty much there now, but I was always more of a music snob).
Point being, I don't know one strung out, nympho, or gangsta who I grew up with - but we were all warned, as you're warning now, that we'd turn out that way.
Posted by: winnowhead at May 31, 2007 03:30 AM
And, once again, a conservative mouthpiece hearkens back to the age of yore when the world was a kinder, gentler, more fully clothed place. When only wildly hormonal teenagers thought about sex, but were kept safe and morally pure by thoughtful, watchful parents who filtered their reality in just the right measure.
All of which is spouted under the guise of "protecting the children", mostly to disguise the "this shocks my meager sensibilities, and must therefor be removed from my sight" authoritarian impulses that are so prevalent in the minds of Conservative fellow travelers these days. If only you could "clean up" some of this stuff, huh, Mark? Then you wouldn't have to listen to this music, or see these scantily clad, emotionally stunted (must be true if you assumed it) women, hear these outrageously anti-American diatribes ('cause that's the real problem, not the policies), or put up with any of these dang foreigners, right? And at no time, in the midst of all this "cleaning up" would your rhetoric ever be subject to scrutiny, right?
Let me tell you, Mark, that you aren't all that far removed from the 15 year old self you say you outgrew. Maybe a little less aware.
Posted by: Officious Pedant at May 31, 2007 03:26 PM
So, what solution is proposed? Should corporations be allowed to create and market such bands? Can their music be used in ads? Do we want the government to step in and regulte it? Should people refuse to buy products promoted in such a way?
Advertisers like such songs because it's effective. If marketing wholesome images worked better, they'd do that. I seriously doubt any executive is promoting an agenda at he expense of sales.
if you don't think that corporations always have our best interests at heart, why should wegrant them the rights we do?
Posted by: someguy at May 31, 2007 03:42 PM
You seem to imply that a sexually aggressive woman has no other qualities. That because of her sexuality she cannot possess loyalty, warmth, intellect, etc.
That is simply not true. Check your Socrates.
Posted by: pm at June 1, 2007 10:23 AM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
"On the other hand, I'm 42 now and such a woman would be tiresome and boring."
I think we get into more trouble with this kind of expression. There is an attraction/sexuality factor here, and this isn't, in itself, boring, and telling people it is makes them believe we're not being honest, with ourselves or them. What is a true expression is that most people don't want to live with a woman whose only gift is being a freak. We want someone to stimulate us intellectually, aesthetically, and affectionately, and we want someone we can trust.
There is a definite failure to thrive/grow in people who want to hook a partner with their sexuality, but don't have much interest outside of drinking and sexing up. In short, I wouldn't mind this sort of thing if we taught both that we should strive for something more, and if we taught that sex, drinking, gambling and taking drugs have an effect on the brain that can trick it, so we forget about the something more that makes us not just happy, but also happy about our lives at times when we're not stimulated.
Mark,
I can think of a society where this sort of trash does not fly.....it's called North Korea. Maybe we should go that route? Otherwise, in a country of 300 million people from all walks of life and backgrounds, how else do you propose we regulate "taste"? The Pussycat Dolls are not using profanity, nor are they topless or bottomless in their videos.
I say, we buy all our children a copy of The O'Reilly Factor for Kids. We won't have this Pussycat Doll problem anymore, but we'll have a big problem with kids cutting off each other's microphones.
I have liked this site and the writing is realy good. As a conservative I of course agree with most of the authors who write here.
But to see such a huge event as this amnesty disaster being ignored and commentary on the Pussycat Dolls taking its place is really rather sad.
Yes, I know the name of the blog IDs if as ProBush. But to just almost ignore the debate, things like the President's comments against many conservatives, is a sorry state of affairs.
In an ironic way, the blog's pretense in ignoring all this is similar to President Bush's whole sorry involvement in this Amnesty issue and his contempt of a large part of what's left of his base.
Love the title!
Dontcha Wish Your(not you're, keefer)Girlfriend Was Hot Like Me, By Mark Noonan.
I sense the makings of a viral youtube clip.
Cheers!
Mark -
From your post, would I be correct in saying you support unfettered free markets in all cases but those when corporations promote scantily-clad women?
You've previously said that the only proof of global warming you would accept is a "smoking gun" - ie, the predictions we're hearing today come true - because capping carbon emissions or forcing auto manufacturers to build cars with minimum fuel efficiency standards is too much of a burden for "our way of life."
But I admit, I assumed you choose to ignore warnings such as those surrounding climate because of your "free markets uber alles" perspective. Acknowledgement of problems requires either market regulation and public investments in alternatives, or immoral inaction. But in any case, how do you reconcile market nanny police with kneejerk opposition to any other kind of market regulation?
Why not focus on what the government can do to actually improve the lives of teens who listen to tripe like the Pussycat Dolls? Given your age, I think I'm safe to assume that you didn't join the Kiss Army and become a blood thirty satan worshiper like prudes of the seventies feared - and Kiss was (and is) just as much a corporate construction as much of the top 40 garbage today.
PussyCat Dolls = Blogs for Bush.
Same thing. Both quick to market and post Bush, B4B fades away into obscurity.
You even have the 15 year old groupie...
Keefer.
Emotionally, mentally, 15.
The class clown.
Well, I can see that our resident intellectually stunted trolls are out. Atleast I got a good laugh out of their posts.
Winnow, you lost me. Why would we want to "force auto manufacturers to build cars with minimum fuel efficiency standards"? Don't we already have too many of those?
winnowhead,
KISS has nothing to do with Satan or Satan worshipping. This rumor was pushed by evangelicals in the deep south for whatever reason. They are not about being evil they are about rock and roll.
Also, they were not corporate construction. They were formed by two Jews from a middle class background (one whose mother is a Nazi concentration camp survivor). In fact, they got little respect from the music industry upon starting out. They wrote or co-wrote all of their own songs. Through their own hard work, constant touring, and desire to succeed they finally made it with release of the spectacular Alive! in 1975. Of course with their meteoric rise in popularity they had to incorporate themselves. They became multimillionares licensing their name and image. They have no coporate boss. They (Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley) are their own bosses who do everything they can to make money by cutting out the middle man whenever possible.
winnow,
I don't think that in any of my posts you can conclude that I am in favor of unfettered free markets. I'm Catholic, remember? NOTHING can be done, properly, without careful restrictions on how it is done. I'm in favor of free markets because I know that people are inherently bad - and thus the less control any one person, or small group, has over things, the less chance I have of someone bad winding up with all or most of the power...but free markets, like freedom, must be highly restricted in certain areas if it is to be something other than evil and destructive. One of the places the free market can use a bit of restriction is when they peddle what we would have called smut 30 years ago - they shouldn't peddle it at all, but they must not peddle it to children.
But how do we do this? Well, as a free market person, once again, convinced of the inherent badness (or foolishness, if you prefer) of human beings, it wouldn't really do to pass a law against this sort of nonsense...can't be sure that some chucklehead down the road won't go on a crusade against, say, the artistic depiction of the nude human form. But we, the adults of America, do carry a great deal of authority - mostly in our ability to shut down the demand for this sort of thing - or highly restrict when and where it can be purchased. What we can do is make it more of a hassle than its worth - and then we'll have no more of it (corporations, in the aggregate, are both greedy and cowardly - this is a mix we can use to our advantge).
And you are right - KISS was a corporate construct, just like Pussycat Dolls are today...but, have you checked out KISS' material lately? Its so tame, in 2007, as to be rather boring; we all laughed when it was warned that KISS would lead to Satanism...but while the warnings then were overdrawn, the basic concept was correct...and now "bubblegum" music isn't about silly boy meets girl nonsense, but rather extreme "don't you want to f*** me?" tunes...what I'm pointing out is that there is in our corporate world a "one downsmanship"...who can get the most nauseating and then convince the kiddies that the latest depravity is the coolest thing, ever.
We talk much of protecting our children, and such talk brings a grim laugh to my heart...we're passing out condoms, and telling the kids to go ahead and "hook up" without thought for tomorrow...
Morris,
No, I'm being honest - the Pussycat Dolls, as constructed, are boring to me...and from what I can gather of their mentality, they would swiftly become rather tiresome if I were forced to be around them. I've entirely outgrown that sort of childish sexuality and have come to a mature understanding of the beauty of sex...and it has nothing to do with girls who advertise a trampoline sexual nature.
Tim,
You've been inattentive - I'm in favor of President Bush's proposal, which isn't amnesty. I'm not too interested in the debate, however, because I don't think that the reform proposal is going to get anywhere.
Spook,
Not sure I follow you, but I suppose you're looking for something since I'm a liberal. Since this isn't the point of the post I won't get into it, but certainly we as a society have the capacity and reason to set minimum efficiency standards higher than they are now.
Aitch,
Um... that's basically my point, friend.
Mark,
No, I can't. From my perspective, I just find an extreme disconnect between the aspects of the economy you consider untouchable and those you look on in such contempt. You choose to focus on the modern day equivalent of Kiss (and no, Aitch, I am not saying it's exactly the same) instead of issues that are materially important to everyday people.
Parents should certainly excercise their authority over their children, no doubt. But you can't restrict the demand. This sort of garbage is peddled because it's exactly what focus grouped teenagers say they want... and it's really not much different than what my peers listened to and watched as teens 15 years ago... and in turn those 15 years before listened to. I'm sure in such a time frame I'll find pop culture incomprehensible as well (frankly I'm pretty much there now, but I was always more of a music snob).
Point being, I don't know one strung out, nympho, or gangsta who I grew up with - but we were all warned, as you're warning now, that we'd turn out that way.
And, once again, a conservative mouthpiece hearkens back to the age of yore when the world was a kinder, gentler, more fully clothed place. When only wildly hormonal teenagers thought about sex, but were kept safe and morally pure by thoughtful, watchful parents who filtered their reality in just the right measure.
All of which is spouted under the guise of "protecting the children", mostly to disguise the "this shocks my meager sensibilities, and must therefor be removed from my sight" authoritarian impulses that are so prevalent in the minds of Conservative fellow travelers these days. If only you could "clean up" some of this stuff, huh, Mark? Then you wouldn't have to listen to this music, or see these scantily clad, emotionally stunted (must be true if you assumed it) women, hear these outrageously anti-American diatribes ('cause that's the real problem, not the policies), or put up with any of these dang foreigners, right? And at no time, in the midst of all this "cleaning up" would your rhetoric ever be subject to scrutiny, right?
Let me tell you, Mark, that you aren't all that far removed from the 15 year old self you say you outgrew. Maybe a little less aware.
So, what solution is proposed? Should corporations be allowed to create and market such bands? Can their music be used in ads? Do we want the government to step in and regulte it? Should people refuse to buy products promoted in such a way?
Advertisers like such songs because it's effective. If marketing wholesome images worked better, they'd do that. I seriously doubt any executive is promoting an agenda at he expense of sales.
if you don't think that corporations always have our best interests at heart, why should wegrant them the rights we do?
You seem to imply that a sexually aggressive woman has no other qualities. That because of her sexuality she cannot possess loyalty, warmth, intellect, etc.
That is simply not true. Check your Socrates.