I am feeling a strange sense of deja vu. Over a year ago I wrote a piece for the Huffington Post entitled, Those Bad Breasts. It was a story of news program that included a live self-breast exam in honor of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Needless to say, a woman's breasts - even within the context of a medical piece - were deemed offensive, especially by parents.
So here we are, back again, to debate whether or not it's acceptable for our children to see breasts - oh wait, we're not even talking about breasts, we're talking about cleavage. To be specific, we're talking about Katy Perry's cleavage and whether or not Elmo should be dancing next to it.
Yesterday, Sesame Street decided to pull their premiere musical number with Katy because of the comments they received after a clip had been released.
This morning I showed my son (who is five) the clip. I asked him why people might be upset with the video. He shrugged and said, "probably because of here," and pointed to skin below his neck. "Her breasts, I think. Even though you don't see them."
"That's right," I told him. "How do you feel about seeing part of her breasts?"
"I don't care about it. It's just a body part," he replied. "And even if I see it, I don't care about it."
He's right. It's a body part. And it's not like viewers saw nipple or areolae, viewers saw cleavage.
To parents who are concerned about their children: Guess what? They've seen breasts before. They only react when you react. They only develop a complex when you give it to them.
To the parent who commented on the video and said he was concerned that his son would get an erection from the video: Guess what? He's gotten erections before and not because of anything deliberately sexual. He got them in utero. He gets them in the morning. And he might get them watching Katy Perry or he might just get them from watching Cookie Monster. Cleavage has nothing to do with it.
Sesame Street has pulled a musical number with a celebrity once before: Chris Brown, Rihanna's abusive boyfriend. It pains me to think that the curves of a woman's body are as problematic as an abusive partner. It's detestable. We owe it to our children to do better.
In the end, for me, my only problem with Katy's dress is that it's ugly.
(This is cross-posted on DodsonandRoss.com)
Follow Dr. Logan Levkoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LoganLevkoff
Educating our children to make smart sexual decisions that honor their self-respect and their souls leads them to make inherently better decisions about who they have sex with. Encouraging them to understand that time, even as a teen, doesn't end in the very next second further helps them to understand the value of considering their actions. Open conversations about our own life experiences and the mistakes we've made help our children to consider their own actions with more information and more intellect than if they are uneducated and uninformed. I hardly see where a pre-schooler can grasp these concepts or the controversy around a performer who purposefully tried to get attention for it's breasts. I say "evolve or perish," and acknowledging the powerful hold our sexuality holds over us and encouraging our kids to do so as well seems, to me, to be the best way to prepare them for the future. Katy Perry as "lesson plan" frankly is not evolved. Sorry, I know you mean well but it sounds like you equate failing children with not being sexually explicit and/or using sexual imagery. Please explain the difference.
First of all, my name is Dr. Logan Levkoff, not Dr. Laura. Dr. Laura was kicked off the radio for bigotry. Clearly, she is not me. Second, I never said that our celebrities weren't manufactured. Their images are created and shaped for mass audience appeal and money making dollars. So be it. Pandora's Box has been opened and I find it more useful to discuss and debate than ban. Let me be clear: the majority of negative comments made about Katy appearing on Sesame Street had NOTHING to do with her image and quite a bit to do with her breasts. The spokesperson from Sesame Street (and Elmo) implied that they may work with her again this morning on GMA. You can disagree with me all you want, but our children deserve more from us. When we actually talk to them and answer their questions instead of sticking our heads in the sand or banning something, they benefit. Instead, we try to shield them within our own homes but leave everyone else - media, friends, other parents - to educate them. And how do I know this? Because I teach hundreds of children, teens, and parents every month. I wholeheartedly support media literacy - and that includes talking about manufactured celebrities.
Like yourself, I'm not willing to concede to ban on media as most traditional feminists would argue either. I too think we can learn from what we see, helping our children think critically. I've lived and worked in the homes of many families prior to having my own so I too have spent up close time with other children and parents.
I am simply not convinced that a performer that distills every reprehensible thing about the age of The Hills into her act is part of a teachable moment beacuse of her dress nor has this event been a Pandora's box. That gives her far too much credit which has been my argument against both sides of this debate all along.
Perry is neither worthy of sympathy OR empathy from women (especially mothers) who have erroneously coloured her in as a "victim". You are correct though in hindsight, there IS a lesson here which is to show children how vapid Katy Perry is. Not because of her body but because of how exploitative she is about it. And that a hypocritical woman who courts the media with sexed up children's imagery and regressive adolescent antics tried to use Sesame Street to further her family values credibility and failed at having it both ways. THAT to me is the lesson. To paint Perry as a poor victim of "breastphobia" IS to fail our children.
Sinead O'Connor tore up the Pope's picture on SNL Madonna's attention was siphoned from her hardcore porn book brouhaha and thus she savaged O'Connor, conveniently finding religion again, taking what would now have been called the "Fox news stance". The girl power only extended to Madonna FOR Madonna as it does for Perry via her insults about Lady Gaga. Once again Madonna like Perry is not vulgar because of her body but because she chose to exploit it and sell it without grace or humility, in the middle of a mainstream global market juggernaut with a huge fan base of under 13s. This included posing like a little sexed up Lolita (barf) when she was 34 years old for Vanity Fair. Madonna rabidly called those who did not find her attractive "repressed" and "sweeping things under the carpet."
Many women in that era felt Madonna was the "victim of breastphobia" too and "Puritanism" but my Mum saw the truth, always quick to point out this hypocrisy and to praise those performers/public figures with integrity and class. I picked up on the logic of her cultural criticisms as early as five. I've watched as the Madonna effect created more bad role models for children like Perry.
After her first R rated hit song Katy Perry could have cleaned things up and stayed famous because her corporate backing is so strong but she's became aggressively sleazier in her music and what she says and wears. I think SS did not realize that they were inadvertently contributing to her Spring break/Girl gone wild fame. Paris Hilton and the Pussycat Dolls are the same school as is Ke$ha and The Hills. Kids will get enough of that as teens and I say keep this swill at bay as long as possible.
I hope for there to be a day when these ideas are not dismissed or ignored out of hand by women who fear being tagged "Puritan" and who will one day instead choose to dismiss and ignore entertainers like these that structure their careers around negativity and the degradation of women, and by extension, men as well. Katy is the personification of the madonna/whore complex, the perpetuation of which is damaging to both genders.
The fact that Perry claims to be buxom, yet in reality has an average figure, is that she can be marketed to children. If she was truly voluptuous like say Christina Hendricks, parents would find her very off-putting, but her appearance (including her doll-face) allows her to gain acceptance as, she claims, an innocuous 'cartoon character' that nullifies the fact that she is 26 and speaks in bah bah goo goo talk. Everything this woman says is contradictory, double-talk. Those falsely touted "32DDs" are front and centre in this, the symbolic lie that unlocks her marketing strategy. I'm saddened and perplexed that you as an advocate for women has bought into it. Why?
You are clearly not wise to Katy Perry's marketing agenda aimed at teens and children, which she has been very clear. Two years ago or so, she admonished a fellow woman: "her boobies were not as big as mine, just can't mess with the "32ds' " at a breast cancer charity event. Desperate to get attention. That is very foul and culturally wrong on many levels considering many women will not only lose their " smaller boobies" but their lives. (1:30)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljP48ScSD_Q
This is about the foul reputation she brought WITH her to Sesame Street not about puritanism at all. Katy has also denigrated girls that go under the knife for having implants, while she simultaneously portrays that there is a superiority in having "large breasts". This is yet another one of Katy's catch 22 statements for young girls to ingest. I think you are seriously missing the point of why many are disgusted. She is 26 yet she speaks in baby talk. She has used children's imagery in nearly all she does including taking Candyland and making it really sleazy. Why should SS be another platform for her Girls Gone Wild spiel? Why are you defending it?
I feel bad for young girls because I think this is more powerful than the way Britney was portrayed when she was 17. Katy is the most obvious absurd fraud out there, but she pushes actually quite a sophisticated ploy.
I am not sure if you want to dress like that and go to work or school.
How is a very sexually provocative woman like Katy Perry who has even stooped to exploiting breast cancer via the link I sent you giving us a "teachable moment "? She belongs on Mtv with The Pussycat Dolls and madonna. Please explain. Thank you.
If you think it is not a big deal, why wear anything at all, let it hang out and the kids will be ok looking at that too.
she's a character and her outfit suits , according to who , do you see cleavage on princess outfits, or dora or any of the other programs targeted at 6 and under. let me get some of what you are drining for coolaid.
But I have no problem with nudity. I have written about this before. If you want to know my thoughts look no further: http://dodsonandross.com/blogs/logan-levkoff/2010/03/im-naked-mother-no-im-not-nudist-my-house-naked-isnt-big-deal
As for as do we all seek to look like lady gaga, may be not you. But you are not under 6.
And yes all the youngsters want to look like dora, abby are something like that and they relate to other appearing with their favorite characters the same way.
-- absolutely. This is the first time I've actually enjoyed Katy Perry - she's adorable when singing to a puppet and running around an animated set. She's a "character" and her outfit (yes, ugly) suits. How is she any different then the princess outfits illustrated for Disney characters/dolls? Jasmine's outfit aside from ridiculous Orientalism, was way more "scandalous."