Does Sex Sell in Pop Culture?

Remove all ads!

Okay, let's move away from the politics for a change.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

I don't really see any problem with it. Like it said in the article;

And not to sound insensitive, but relating evrything to 9/11 is getting old. The world is not going to hell because of what happened. Sheesh.

 

I'm quite happy that the lesbo-trick pulled with Madonna didn't pay really off for Spears. Actually, if she wouldn't have pulled that trick, I think she'd be completly vanished by now. Well, maybe not, but her sells and radio presence would be lower. Behind Spears meat, there's not much to find.

Further I think there is a natural limit on the pieces of cloth you can drop. So the beneficial sells effect had to shrink anyway, as there not much left to reveal. So sex doesn't sell infinitely. Yet those easy leasure clips won't disappear. And if there's actually something behind it, it's alright with me. I just don't like to be confused, is this the music or the porn channel ?

That's certainly true.

The biggest airplay in Europe had last year "feel" and "white flag", said the radio. Dido is clear, Williams is a peculiar clown. That would fit the description in my view. And dio has this certain sex-appeal. Yet, Dido is a sight for sore eyes.

 

Yeah, but I still love to see her writhing around in a nightie in that 'wake me up' video.

The title of the article is deceptive. Of course sex sells. 9/11 or no 9/11, global thermonuclear war or no global thermonuclear war, sex will always sell. What we're talking about, for the most part, is why sales are falling for Spears' and Aguilera's albums even though they're packaging themselves in...well, less and less.

Maybe it's got something to do with the fact that their music sucks.

A refreshing and welcome change of subject matter, incidentally...

 

Sex sells. Always has, always will. Now where are those Atomic Kittens??

 

Yes but then you should work in modeling or in porn industry, not in music.

 

Who says you can't do both?

 

Tell me how many of those who sell their body in the music bussines have talent in music as well. I don't think that they are more than ten persons in the whole world (from the modern ones only Shakira comes to mind ).

 

I don't think sex normally sells, well, in Italy and France perhaps where the people are ... well, the cliché is clear anyway ... must be the climate or the food.

But I cannot possibly imagine that sex sells in the US though. Because of the culture - it's a country so puritan by tradition ...

 

Female pop stars must have a great body and look sexy and they have to show some flesh ;d

 

@ BOC

10 Musicians/Performers Who Became Famous by Selling Sex and Talent in Tandem

1. Madonna
2. Elvis
3. Kiss
4. Led Zeppelin (tell me Robert Plant didn't sell sex)
5. Ted Nugent
6. Aerosmith
7. The Rolling Stones
8. David Bowie
9. Marylin Manson
10. Marylin Monroe

Just off the top of my head, and all of whom were famous long before MTV (well, except Manson).

 

The stress would be on tandem

 

@Death Rabbit

I have many objections as far as the talent of Madonna is concerned. As for the others on your list, being sexy/beautiful or trying to shock the audience and selling your body is two completely different things. Debbie Harris, Joan Jett, Belinda Carlisle were beautiful and sexy women and this was a plus for their success but they didn't sell their body, they were selling their music and that what the artists of your list are/were doing. Anyway I can't imagine who would want to buy the body of Mick Jagger or Steven Tyler .

 

Let us be crystal clear: sex sells. Sex is the oldest mechandise in this world. The marketing of sex is the oldest profession in this world. Look: this world is all about sex, anyway.

Having thus fully unveiled the utmost pointlessnes of this discussion, we can now continue in the name of spam

As I said in the beginning, sex sells and it's inevitable that it will sell. In all shapes and degrees, from flirtatious smiling to to on-stage live porn. Most notably people who are lacking in other regards will offer sex, since that's what essentially all people can offer. It's also convinient because many recipients can hardly process any other input. It just comes down to err... accessibility. Broader band makes better transfer and better transfer makes better traffic, and better traffic makes better profit, if you know what I mean

Now, there are two ways: give generously, so everyone knows he can get some, and he will; or give reluctantly in hard-earned portions so everyone would endeavour to ascend to the ranks of the chosen. The former is an economical tiger selling electronics at dumping prices, the latter is like the diamond cartel. They make similar profit in opposite ways.

However, there's always a risk that the former will become like fastfood - cheap, quick and crappy, and the former will be virtually replaced by fakes. Therefore, they have to shift their methods from time to time.

Thus, for example, Britney is now adrift at the Slutty Sea, and Madonna has recently dressed. Essentially: what Madonna puts on, Britney puts away.

Such is the law of the market.

On a different note, practically no one is fully free from that. Dressing and making up for business appointments. Seating attractive negotiators at the table. Dressing female staff in ultrashort minis, or tight corset-like jackets... You get it.

 

@ Ragusa

I don't think the U.S. is as puritan in their values as many seem to think. Those that are generally include people who are in their 40's or older, and these aren't the people that Pink, Spears, etc. are marketing their product for. The people buying their stuff are in their teens, 20's and 30's, and as a whole are far more difficult to describe as puritan than the rest of the population.

 

@ Ragusa:

American puritanism is pure myth. Yes, occasionally you come across an Ashcroft type, but remember that the American pornography industry (which is becoming more and more mainstream) is bigger than most countries' economies.

 

I think he was being sarcastic...

 

Actually, Belinda Carlisle did make a nude photo spread for playboy. Not that it was any good for her comeback. Or my eyes, for that matter. To much silicone...

And Debbie Harry used her "sexiness" as well. She just didn't take her clothes of.

The matter is: What comes first? Talent or Looks? In the case of women with relatively little musical talent like Madonna, Britney Spears or other, similar "pop tarts", they have no choice if they (or their management) want to be successful.
The same counts for men, by the way.

Other people with more talent like Debbie Harry (to stick with this example), Anastacia or Nelly Furtado use their looks and charisma to enhance themselves.

It just comes down to the old strategy: If you don't have any talent, create an - preferably shocking - image. For example, no-one wanted to hear the music of an very average metal band named 'Slipknot'. After the members covered their faces with masks and did some revolting things, they were suddenly 'cool'.


Ah well, rant over.

 

Ah, a little correction: Debbie Harry actually does pose nude and by nude I don't mean topless. You have too much faith in her conduct, I believe