![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
80s music and consent culture
Obviously, I've been spending a lot of time recently thinking about #metoo, the attempt to deal with the universality of predatory men, and consent culture generally. And, driving just now, because I hadn't downloaded any podcasts, I was listening to 80s music.
The three songs in a row I heard were "Jessie's Girl", "I Know What Boys Like", and "Johnny, Are You Queer?" (which I wasn't as familiar with; I suspect it didn't get as much airplay...) all about not having sex, for different reasons, all of which have things to say about how we Gen-X'ers grew up and what we learned about consent.
"Jessie's Girl" is about a guy who considers women to be a thing you possess, rather than entirely people with agency. He believes, wrongly, that women are programmable -- do the right things better than other people, and the women love you instead of them. This is the PUA culture concept, which the narrator buys into. But it's not clear to me if we, the audience, are supposed to buy into that idea or not: certainly, it's not working, but are we, the audience, supposed to take away from that that the singer simply isn't good at it, or that his fundamental premise is wrong? I certainly got the former message, and took away that, if you know the right things to do, you get the girl, which is a concept focused on the centrality of the men's action, rather than the women's. Nonetheless, it's clear that he doesn't feel that he has a right to have her react; only a right to attempt to get a reaction.
"I Know What Boys Like" is, in a sense, the obverse of the same message. The singer enjoys being attractive and unavailable. Her enjoyment is in seducing and then disappointing and frustrating men. What does that say about consent? There is a message that this is her right: the men she seduces nonetheless don't have a right to her body. On the other hand, she's kind of being a jerk, too. Are we supposed to be on her side, or feel that what she's doing is wrong? Me, I get the message that she's allowed to do this. She has the choice to consent to what she wants, to the degree she wants, and the fact that she initiates some interactions don't obligate her to do others.
The third one, "Johnny, Are You Queer?", is another message from the point of view of a woman, and I think I'd put "Oh Mickey" in the same category. Those are women who are attempting to seduce a men, WANTING to have an actual romantic/sexual relationship, (unlike the singer of "I Know What Boys Like"), but are themselves being frustrated by a lack of response. In "Johnny, Are You Queer?", she has a potential reason why he's not responding. I didn't get a sense of judgment from the song suggesting that it was a bad thing if he was -- just that he needs to come clean about where they stand, and it was unfair to keep her hanging if she had no chance. So, in that case, you have a woman who has agency, but is also looking for consent.
Weirdly, "Oh Micky" is kind of weirder about consent. The singer of THAT song is pressuring the man who clearly isn't into it. And it's a remake of a song, "Oh Kitty" where the sexes are reversed, which makes the dubious interaction even more clear -- the male singer of that song is feeling entitled to sex, which she is denying.
And it's weird that I can hear that clearly when it's a man singing about a woman, but it's not as obvious when a woman is singing about a man.
I have no conclusions here about what the messages are, or what I internalized from them. They're just things I'm thinking about.
The three songs in a row I heard were "Jessie's Girl", "I Know What Boys Like", and "Johnny, Are You Queer?" (which I wasn't as familiar with; I suspect it didn't get as much airplay...) all about not having sex, for different reasons, all of which have things to say about how we Gen-X'ers grew up and what we learned about consent.
"Jessie's Girl" is about a guy who considers women to be a thing you possess, rather than entirely people with agency. He believes, wrongly, that women are programmable -- do the right things better than other people, and the women love you instead of them. This is the PUA culture concept, which the narrator buys into. But it's not clear to me if we, the audience, are supposed to buy into that idea or not: certainly, it's not working, but are we, the audience, supposed to take away from that that the singer simply isn't good at it, or that his fundamental premise is wrong? I certainly got the former message, and took away that, if you know the right things to do, you get the girl, which is a concept focused on the centrality of the men's action, rather than the women's. Nonetheless, it's clear that he doesn't feel that he has a right to have her react; only a right to attempt to get a reaction.
"I Know What Boys Like" is, in a sense, the obverse of the same message. The singer enjoys being attractive and unavailable. Her enjoyment is in seducing and then disappointing and frustrating men. What does that say about consent? There is a message that this is her right: the men she seduces nonetheless don't have a right to her body. On the other hand, she's kind of being a jerk, too. Are we supposed to be on her side, or feel that what she's doing is wrong? Me, I get the message that she's allowed to do this. She has the choice to consent to what she wants, to the degree she wants, and the fact that she initiates some interactions don't obligate her to do others.
The third one, "Johnny, Are You Queer?", is another message from the point of view of a woman, and I think I'd put "Oh Mickey" in the same category. Those are women who are attempting to seduce a men, WANTING to have an actual romantic/sexual relationship, (unlike the singer of "I Know What Boys Like"), but are themselves being frustrated by a lack of response. In "Johnny, Are You Queer?", she has a potential reason why he's not responding. I didn't get a sense of judgment from the song suggesting that it was a bad thing if he was -- just that he needs to come clean about where they stand, and it was unfair to keep her hanging if she had no chance. So, in that case, you have a woman who has agency, but is also looking for consent.
Weirdly, "Oh Micky" is kind of weirder about consent. The singer of THAT song is pressuring the man who clearly isn't into it. And it's a remake of a song, "Oh Kitty" where the sexes are reversed, which makes the dubious interaction even more clear -- the male singer of that song is feeling entitled to sex, which she is denying.
And it's weird that I can hear that clearly when it's a man singing about a woman, but it's not as obvious when a woman is singing about a man.
I have no conclusions here about what the messages are, or what I internalized from them. They're just things I'm thinking about.