Rihanna has one again been cussed out in the media, this time for being a "toxic role model for her army of young fans". Citing the Umbrella singer's use of drugs, the rekindling of her relationship with abuser Chris brown, and her dress sense, columnist Liz Jones took to her platform at the Daily Now, I'm not one to listen to Liz Jones at the best of times- I think she writes to troll- but this article was something else, even by her standards! When a supposedly educated individual can write the sentence, "She (Rihanna) promotes... the sort of fashion sense on stage that surely invites rape at worst, disrespect at least", you have to question if this individual is a sandwich short of a picnic. Since when did rape become the fault of the victim?
But what about some parity. Surely if women should be acting as role models for young girls, then their male counterparts should have the same consideration for the boys of today? Well, according to Liz, they needn't worry about it because, "young women are far more impressionable than young men". Really? That's not how I remember it! So being well behaved and "good" should only be practised by the female entertainers of this world? Sexist much? If these two statements alone don't make you question the sanity of this woman, I recommend you subscribe to her posts because you've found a (rare) friend in Liz!
But what really makes this whole piece obsolete from the outset is that Rihanna has never said she is a role model to anyone. Sure, the very fact that she is young, beautiful and successful is going to make people look up to her, but that doesn't automatically make it her responsibility to live her life to any standards but her own. It would be a totally different story if Rihanna was out there selling herself as a paragon of virtue, but she isn't. In fact she seems to try her darndest to rebel against that very idea. I for one am more concerned about the parents/guardians letting their child(ren) learn their values from someone in the entertainment world. Let's have an article about that Liz!
Update: And while I was writing this, Rihanna posted this to her Instagram :
LOL!!!! My money got a bad habit of pissing people off!! If you sincerely wanna help little girls more than their own parents do, here's a toxic tip: don't be amateur with your articles, you sound bitter! What's all this about hair and nails and costumes and tattoos?? ....That s**t ain't clever!!! That shit ain't journalism! That's a sad sloppy menopausal mess!!! Nobody over here acts like they're perfect! I don't pretend that I'm like you, i just live... My life!! And I don't know why y'all still act so surprised by any of it!! "Role Model" is not a position or title that I have ever campaigned for, so chill wit dat! I got my own fucked up shit to work on, I'll never portray that as perfect, but for right now it's ME!! Call it what ya want!! Toxic was cute, Poisonous Pop Princess had a nice ring to it, just a lil wordy! And P.S. my first American Vogue cover was in 2011...APRIL!!! #ElizabethAnnJonesSource:Instagram
Thoughts?
I think people need to stop expecting celebrities to be role models and raise and teach their kids. I personally don't care what Rihanna does, that's her life. She shouldn't have to keep it tame because some parents can't keep their kids from acting like her.
ReplyDeleteHow sad it is that parents rely on celebrities to raise their kids. But on the other hand it's just a plain fact that some young girls look up to Rihanna and what she does affects them. She didn't take on the title 'role model' but it'd be ignorant of her to feel like she has no social responsibility and that her actions don't affect her fans.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, and there's no such thing as 'inviting rape.' So sad that a woman wrote that and believes that it could be in any way a woman's fault for being raped.
It is a crying shame that as soon as a person gets famous they have to care about their image to the point that they can't live their life normally as they would prior to them being famous, without people saying "he/she is a bad role model." I also know that was a run-on sentence, but my point is that, I don't value any celebrities to the point that I actively look up to them. They are just people in high places who output content of some kind.
ReplyDeleteIf parents can't learn this and instill it in their children, there is no point in them having kids.... -_-.... Humanity and its insanity....
That writer sounds like as big a dipstick as her subject. Personally I think you are raising your child badly if it goes looking for role models elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteI also think Rihanna is a despicable and nasty person. Role model or not. Like she says herself " it's ME" . that's who she is. Whether you choose that as your role model depends on again, how poorly you are raised. To not only need a role model but to pick that...that would be a double whammy of poor parenting imo
While I agree with many of the earlier responses that not every celebrity has to be a role model but I completly disagree with many of the previous comments in that there is nothing wrong with children looking up to celebrities and the idea that its bad parenting for a kid to look up to people or view them as a role model is slightly absurd.
ReplyDeleteExactly what I wanted to say. She never said that she wanted young girls to consider her a role model or that she even is a role model, but for her to try to ignore the fact that a lot of girls consider her to be one is just plain delusional. I'm not saying she should make those strict rules for her life to have a decent public image that portrays her as a good role model, but, at least, she should not do the things that leave a bad impression on girls in public like drugs, the overtly-sexual image, etc. Do them as much as you want, but you don't have to Instagram them, we don't have to see that.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, RiRi, keep it to yourself and recognize the (unintentional) influence you have on some people. That's just my opinion.
I don't see what's wrong with looking up to a celebrity tbh.. .as long as there is some good parenting that teaches the kid what's right and what's wrong though.
ReplyDeleteUsed to be parents were a child's role model and then it grows up and no longer needs a role model but becomes his or her own person. After dealing with the shit your intended role models either on purpose or accidentally also instilled in you, that is. ;-)
ReplyDeleteI completly agree
ReplyDeleteTo look up to means to view with respect and admiration, A role model is a person you desire to emulate, follow in their footsteps, be like.
ReplyDeleteYes, I know. But there's no flawless person or a person who makes no mistakes, so when you look up to someone, you (should) recognize their mistakes and limitations while appreciating their strengths which inspire you and make you want to be like them while not repeating their mistakes.
ReplyDeleteI never said parents should not or are not role models to kids as well but they can have more than one role model. Also I have to disagree with the idea role models are a new thing speaking from American history there has always been role models that were not the parents. And I think that for me its a quality about the role model that I try to emulate and really carry for through out life.
ReplyDeleteYou misunderstood my comment. The point was that to look up to someone is not the same as wanting to follow in their footsteps. You are mixing up the two.
ReplyDeleteAha, you are defending the concept of other people as role models because you have other people as role models. I am the opposite. :-)
ReplyDeleteI think also, like Ahmed, you are confusing role model for a person you look up to.
Oh now I get what you want to say :) But still whether it's looking up to a celebrity or considering them your role model, the same concept applies. Parents should have a role in teaching their kids what's right and what's wrong so that they look up to someone worthy of being looked up to or consider someone a role model who's actually worthy of being considered that. That's my point.
ReplyDeleteYeah though mine are not celebrity. I think that we have to different connotations mine is someone who people look up to, sometimes emulate, and at times imitate.
ReplyDeleteI got your point, I disagree with it. :-)
ReplyDeleteThe only part I agree with is that parents should teach their child their concepts of right and wrong.
Not getting what you mean William.
ReplyDeleteWhat I was saying was we have two different oppinions on the word then I explained my opinion on the word
ReplyDeleteAha. I don't hold much of personal opinions on words tbh. I believe in the purpose and use of dictionaries. Otherwise communication gets hampered by such discussions as we are engaged in right now before we even get to the actual subject. But I get you now and like I said, you and Ahmed are mixing two different concepts.
ReplyDeleteDo you guys personally also make no distinction?
Do you always want to emulate who you admire and respect? Or are there also people you admire and respect yet have no desire to emulate?
Well the thing I said was link to the dictionary and I assure you the two concepts are much closer and at certain times interchangeable. But I never said everytime someone looks up to someone they are their role models. I was not mixing two different concepts because one is part of the other. I think you are viewing role model as complete emulation but someone doesn't have to completly emulate a person for them to be their role model it can just be a quality.
ReplyDeleteif one is emulating just the one quality, can a random person who has that particular quality really be called a role model? Isn't it more the quality you are emulating and wouldn't at that point every person who has that quality become your role model? But what if that persons other qualities happen to be things you'd rather die than emulate? Is that Person still a role model in your mind?
ReplyDeleteDo you see how it gets confusing when you start calling people role models?
We just need to treat people for what they are. In this case, they're singers, entertainers. Nothing more. The problem is we put these people on pedestals and expect them to be perfect. Guess what, nobody's perfect. I've said this and I'll say it again, we are never entitled to someone's behavior. We don't get to choose what they do, what they say, who they date, whether they kiss babies and pose for pictures... nothing. What we get to choose is to buy their records, go to their concerts, and throw cash at them. If you don't like what they're doing, stop buying their records. Take them or leave them. If enough people stop buying their stuff and we stop putting them on a pedestal, they'll go away you won't have to worry about anybody looking up to them.
ReplyDeleteif you see a quality in a person and emulate that quality of the person yeah it can be considered emulating that person. And yes it can still be considered a role model despite there being qualities they dislike. And I don't see complication unless one makes it that way. And I saw those and used that in my previous comments my dictionary and buisnessdictionary.com goes even further and links them to someone looked up to which is also included in my previous comments. Were you trying to say that to 'look up to someone is not part of them being their role model?
ReplyDeleteNo, I was trying to say that to look up to someone is not interchangeable with the concept role model.
ReplyDeleteOf course there are overlaps but the subject was role models and suddenly people start using " to look up to" .
To me ..there are people I look up to as in admire and respect but they are not role models to me. Rather the other way round, I admire and respect them for being who I am already trying to be before I even heard of said person.
I said they are sometimes interchangeable. The last part goes back to different in conitation if role model means someone you emilate and you emilate does that not meet the definition what is left is personal opinion on the word.
ReplyDeleteRihanna proclaims to be a "Christian." Yet with every move she makes and word she speaks she denounces and shows her hatred for the same God she claims to worship. She is by biblical definition a whore. Every human being on this planet has an obligation to live their life according to the standard of God. Rihanna doesn't use her God given position to teach fear or obedience to God. She teaches people to be rebels. She will have to give an account of every single thing she's doing here on Earth and then she will be thrown into hell. God only loves his elect people on this planet (he said we will know who they are - and she is not one of them) and it is a very small group of people. God hates the rest! (Psalms 5:5 Psalms 11:5 God said he hates Esau, ect.). He created them specifically to hate and destroy (Romans 9). Rihanna is a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction used by God to lead all the other vessels of wrath into hell. Rihanna wil serve as an everlasting testament to the righteousness and power of God in hell. Along with every other celebrity on the face of this planet (as none of them teach fear or obedience). "The smoke from their suffering shall ascend upwards towards heaven to be in the presence of the Lord Christ and his Saints and his angels forever and ever." Christ only died for his sheep! "No man can come to me but for the father that hath chosen him." "I pray not for this world but for them which thou hast given me for they are thine." So allow me to do what she should be doing....Fear and obey God. "Let us hear the conclusion of the matter: the whole duty of man is to fear and obey God." Disobedience = you hate God. Christ is Lord.
ReplyDeleteGod hates idols. Teach your kids to fear & obey God - not celebrities.
I'm Muslim, not even from the same belief, and
ReplyDeleteLOL........
ReplyDeleteHUH? yes, that's what I said all the time..a role model is someone you want to emulate. Someone you " look up to" is someone you admire and respect. " to look up to" doesn't always mean you want to emulate. A role model always means you want to emulate.
ReplyDeleteTo put it in the kindest way I can...fick off with your preaching dude!
ReplyDeleteYou want to proclaim self professed " christians" aren't christians by your definition, okay. But I draw the line at you claiming your fantasy character nobody has ever, in spite of thousands of years of trying, managed to prove exists, has any authority over me.
Just FYI to anybody reading the above shit. This same person posted the following on other sites...
ReplyDelete" A fagot is a bundle of sticks used to fuel a flame. Homosexuals will be
thrown into hell and fuel its fires. Using a dictionary does indeed help"
And "God causes cancer. If she repents perhaps he will have mercy on her and cure her. It is a punishment for disobedience"
He gave a nice effort. I applaud him for making me laugh. Those are the type of Christians I don't like...the ones that throw their religion on you...and expect you to bow.... I'm a christian myself but a christian know they can drive another away....Defeats the purpose of the religion in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteAnd I just noticed I clicked the wrong thingy....Let me thumbs this fool down. I'm no fan of anyone who uses religion as a threatening propaganda. How I managed to thumbs him up I don't know.
ReplyDeleteLOL He and religious folk (of any religion) like him piss me off BlackRobin.
ReplyDeleteBut just to be clear, generally I do not have a problem with religious people. Some of my favorite people in the world are christians and my favorite guy in the world is an orthodox jew actually.
If you were really Christian you would know that God doesn't hate anyone and that Christians don't denounce people to hell.
ReplyDeletei'm as Christian as the next guy (really am) but the fact of the matter is that religion didn't really need to be brought into this :|
Why was this voted down will always remain a mystery to me...
ReplyDeleteIts is people Truth that give Christians a bad name.... I actually know people like him in real life too and I go all in on them when they start up their mess. I am no fan of having to go their but that is one way to get me hot. lol
ReplyDeleteIt takes a lot to get me hot, and I am one who loves mythology and studying religion. I try to be open minded about all religion (Though I blow off many concepts) because there are some religious concepts that are happen to be useful. It just really makes me mad when people think they get the right to demand damnation of others....lol
He is using propaganda... He obviously doesn't know that damnation of another by another Christian is actually a sin...LMAO... Oh well...Lets let him enjoy the uproar he caused because he did it for the attention were giving him now.
ReplyDeleteAaaw allow me to demystify. :-)
ReplyDeleteI voted that down because first off all as a muslim you actually believe in pretty much the same book as christians do. Second off ....you cannot go and tell that idiot how to properly define christian anymore than he can.
If only I could believe that he is just trolling. But I fear, judging by his profile and comment history...this dude actually believes what he posts.
ReplyDeleteVery well put Joel! Kudos
ReplyDeleteIf he is being utterly honest, I don't know what to say. I'd just have too look at him like some type of oddity, to start....lol In real life, he'd be one of those people you awkwardly agree with when they say something off the wall and you don't wanna seem like a jerk so you just smile, nod and say "ahhh huh" and hope that they leave. lol
ReplyDelete"I voted that down because first off all as a muslim you actually believe in pretty much the same book as christians do" As a muslim who's knowledgeable of both religions, I can say that we're not really in the same book. Once upon a time, we were, before saints started removing verses in the Bible and adding things that weren't originally there. And since then, our religions became different.
ReplyDelete"Second off ....you cannot go and tell that idiot how to properly define christian anymore than he can" Yes, I can. And that's the problem. When a Muslim understands the purpose and basis of your religion more than that guy does and he calls himself a Christian, then he's got a problem. Christianity was never about damning people and God "hating" some.
Congrats, you just made the same mistake Truth did. You think you have the ultimate and definitive definition of what christianity is. That's great Ahmed! Finally all christian sects can unite. They can call it Ahmedism
ReplyDeleteAnd " saints started removing verses" Huh?
You may think there's a bif difference. Much like protestants think there's is a big difference between them and catholics but fact is...you all base your beliefs on the same original text called the torah. You just had to make small adjustments so you could fit into to belief system as the original pretty much excludes all non descendants of the twelve tribes.
Or in real life he is a member of the Westboro baptist church and pickets funerals and such.
ReplyDeleteToo much ignorance in this post, sorry, but it's true. Qur'an wasn't based on Torah. It was mentioned in Torah that there will be a prophet called Muhammad and there was an order to believe in him. The same was mentioned in the Bible. Because Judaism, Christendom and Islam are all religions released by Allah (God) in Islamic belief. Judaism and Christianity were released to humanity before Islam because Islam was not suitable for people at that time. Humanity needed to progress in terms of science, thinking and experience before Islam could suit them. The original Judaism and Christianity had much less details than Islam because so many ideas and actions weren't conceived of yet.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes of course so many things have been changed from the original Bible, so many things were removed and other things were added that there are no similar versions of the Bible anymore.
"Congrats, you just made the same mistake Truth did. You think you have the ultimate and definitive definition of what christianity is. That's great Ahmed! Finally all christian sects can unite. They can call it Ahmedism"
LOL, as if the difference between all the christian sects was the way they define Christianity. They define Christianity, the main, original purpose and basis of the religion, exactly the same way. The difference is in the way they interpret some verses in the Bible and in some details regarding Jesus' life.
And yes, I can define Christianity...the original one I mean. When it was only one Bible that contained the true story of Jesus and his true sayings. It was a religion of peace just like all other Abrahamic religions.
Wow Ahmed meet Truth. Truth meet Ahmed. You guys are peas in a pod. A severely delusional pod.
ReplyDeleteThere's no delusion here. You don't have to agree and tbh all the delusion I've been spotting was in your 9and Truth's) comments.
ReplyDeleteBut, anyway, I'd like to tell you: Thank you so much, I've been shining like a glow stick in a Taylor Swift concert from the continuous praise you've been telling me lately.
Sorry Ahmed but it has nothing to do with agreeing or not. That whole bit you posted was just a combination of ignorance, historical inaccuracies and interpretations that play extremely loose and fast with the original texts.
ReplyDeleteIf you feel praised by me, either I was not clear or you misunderstood. I argued, at times I laughed at your arguments but at no time did I intend to praise anything you posted.
I was saying the ignorance was in yours. Keep trying though :D
ReplyDeleteAs the great Whitney Houston once sang...
ReplyDelete"Everybody's searching for a hero
People need someone to look up to
I never found anyone who fulfilled my needs
A lonely place to be
And so I learned to depend on me"
"That whole bit you posted was just a combination of ignorance,
ReplyDeletehistorical inaccuracies and interpretations that play extremely loose
and fast with the original texts."
I don't see that to be perfectly honest with you. And when someone is unable to continue an argument with me, I consider his resigning comment praise.
"Claiming someone else's sexual orientation is against your religion, is like being angry at someone for eating a donut because you're on a diet"
ReplyDeleteI don't blame her for living her life... I'm just wondering who would pick this idiot as their role model. There are much better singers, dancers out there. People now... *sigh*
ReplyDeleteI truly believe that she's talented but she keeps waiting that talent on Cockiness-like songs. So much wasted potential imo.
ReplyDeleteShe HAD potential. She decided not to show it. I shall class her as no potential. At least, not anymore.
ReplyDeleteDon't even begin with Diamonds and Stay, those are the songs she magically released as singles when people get bored of her normal dance club pop tunes? (which, actually, diamonds is still kind of, VERY annoying)
I list her as a lost cause. Classy reply to that Liz woman too, Rihanna! (as if!)
I don't really like Diamonds (Stay is OK though) and she went back to dance songs anyway. She released Right Now as a single, but after she made David Guetta feature. She's trying hard I see.
ReplyDeleteI still believe that she has potential despite all the crap she's been releasing. Maybe it'll show in her 30s.
Good luck on waiting,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUTDSr3Vtoo
Just the title, not the entire song's lyrics.
I'm not a fan (stan) of Rihanna, so I'm not waiting for anything. I just hope that sometime she'll show that potential.
ReplyDeleteNever said you were. :)
ReplyDeleteAnd I'll say it again, "Good luck on waiting" with that hope of yours that sometime she'll show that potential.
Yeah, hopefully :)
ReplyDeleteI met those "lovely" folks once, that was the closest time in my life I was willing to take an assault charge and face the consequences :)
ReplyDeleteYou can consider it whatever you want. What it actually is...that is a whole other matter. But you preferring your imaginings over reality would be a very fitting final statement to your argumentation. I'd go with that if I were you. :-)
ReplyDeleteJoke dude!
ReplyDeleteI never met one, but I met a southern white pastor (Yes race was important), and GAWD, I have never been so unnerved and agitated in my life... I...lost...my...cool....All I'm gonna say.
ReplyDeleteI hear ya Serendipity ( and BlackRobin)! :-)
ReplyDeleteBelieve what you want to believe whether that's about my argument or the existence of God. We'll see whether my imaginings turned out to be are imaginings or reality someday :)
ReplyDeleteShame! You should have taken my advice. It would have been such a good finish.
ReplyDeleteOh, maybe next time...probably not though. Keep trying :)
ReplyDeleteanyone who chooses rihanna as their role model should really reconsider their life...
ReplyDeletei dislike rihanna as a person and just as a figure in pop culture but she has the choice to live her life the way she wants
the media shouldn't be blaming pop stars for corrupting children - its the parents job to discipline their kids and even then i honestly think that kids will be kids and even with good parenting - it does not mean that they will make bad choices along the way
but if were talking about pop stars here (beyonce, gaga, adele, taylor swift etc...) then rihanna is probably the worst role model
i mean the girl has a bad attitude always getting into fights on twitter blah blah blah stuff like that - she and nicki minaj are two worst role models when we are talking strictly pop stars
Why are you even here? Exactly? This is not a religious blog, nor has it ever been. The very reason people exists is to create a diverse idea of what is and what isn't. I, for example, am an atheist, and find your arguments completely useless as you're pretty much quoting a book I don't adhere to and never will. Rihanna may not be a role model, but I would never attack her for her religious beliefs. In fact, I would never attack people for their religious beliefs until they idiotically begin espousing them onto people who don't want to hear them. This is my way of saying: PLEASE LEAVE, YOU'RE WASTING SPACE.
ReplyDeletea lot of people are already scrutinizing you and i think your views are not going to change so im not even gonna waste my breath on you but i just wanna quote to you something from hoyt in trueblood: "now how can you do this(being a hater) and still call yourself a christian?" then the guy replied "i am a christian, goddamm it" hoyt replied "and i am clearly more of a christian than you, because i got love in my heart, and you got nothin' but hate."
ReplyDeletei don't think youths should consider women in their 20's or even early 30's a role model as they are still trying to figure their lives out they are still young going through a lot of changes though im sure there are some who are in that age category already who are mature and wise, it will be best if youths should view those who are in the late 30's, 40's and up as a role model like: angelina jolie, hillary clinton, margaret thatcher, tyra banks, Oprah and many more. Now the problem with this women are they are too old and somehow, young girls may not relate to unlike the women in their 20's. so my advice for young girls is to have multiple role model for instance have oprah and hillary and also Jessie J? Emma watson, Jennifer lawrence and also Michelle Obama? there is no perfect role model because there is no perfect person so you have to have many. and also try to reflect about yourself so you can be a better person. these kids better stop worshiping those who are not role model eligible and think about their options or at least i wish their parents introduce someone they can really look up to.
ReplyDelete"If you were really Christian you would know that God doesn't hate anyone and that Christians don't denounce people to hell."
ReplyDeleteThank you, thank you, thank you! I always think to myself that Jesus must be shaking his head every time he sees so-called Christians persecuting others, depriving others of civil rights, proclaiming that God hates certain groups of people, keeping money from reaching the poor... its so against everything that he taught!
There are so many better role models out there in entertainment, to consider Rihanna one is just mind blowing to me why someone would do that. Look at Demi Lovato for instance, what she's been through and how she's persevered and who and what she stands up for. Selena Gomez, Jessie J, Jennifer Hudson, Katy Perry, Taylor to a degree, Jenn Law, Natalie Portman... all off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.
ReplyDeleteAre you arguing against that to look up to someone is always interchangeable to them being a role model because that is never what I argued. My main arguement was role models aren't a sign of bad parenting. What I have said in previous comments that to look up to someone is part of them being a role model and at certain times they are interchangeable. Also I always linked it to emulation. I left of the connitation part, which I have been misspelling because I fear it is making this too complicated though this whole argument is one I believe to be connitation driven.
ReplyDeleteI think what lead to this confusion is that you started saying we have different connotations after I asked what you meant with that short comment. And the fact that you linked " to look up to" to emulating.
ReplyDeleteI presumed, since I had been talking about the difference between looking up to and role model, that you had read my definition and disagreed. Turns out we agreed all the time.I think. LOL
The linking of emulating to " look up to" makes me doubt again whether I am getting what you are saying.
I don't think I could have been much clearer than in my previous comment : Role model is always someone you want to emulate. A person you " look up to" is not always someone you want to emulate. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
The parenting issue I do firmly disagree on for sure.
Yeah I think we do agree on a lot of it the parenting thing is the noticable exception that is probably due to being brought up in two different cultures, times, and countries. The last sentence of your explination of your previous comment explains my connection between role model and a person looked up to. I think this is a good place to end this debate.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. It seems a good place to end it. :-)
ReplyDeleteRihanna baffles me, I feel her contradictory nature is just too much. She refuses to be a role model yet behaves in a manner for which she clearly knows is exceptionally influential, particularly to young impressionable fans.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure about her true motives but its clear for anyone to see that its just another case of using blunt sexuality to sell records, others have done it and with various degrees of success. Take Madonna for instance, I have used this argument before but Madonna (I feel) used her sexuality in a critical time where women felt suppressed and lacking in power compared to their male counterparts, therefor she used her sexuality to make a point and break down barriers, not just for women but for the LGBT community also. In comparison I feel Rihanna has used it based on her intoxication with the whiff of the dollar bills rolling in, it all seems very transparent. Maybe I am just getting old fashioned with age and fail to see the fun side but there is something inherently dark about Rihanna that I find quite disturbing.
Why is there preaching on this blog????????
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame that she voted you down. I often agree with a lot of Opie's comments, but definitely not this time. She just seems prejudiced and cynical against organised religion in general, and doesn't "get it" herself, ergo not understanding your comment. Understanding Christianity is not rocket science - it's about universal love. A person who calls themselves a "Christian" but doesn't understand this simple truth is taking the bible way too literally, on face value, and is not "getting it".
ReplyDeleteThose who follow Judaism, Christianity and Islam would have some understanding of each other's beliefs because the religions are related and ultimately developed from the same source. IIRC Islam refers to Christians and Jews as "people of the book". It's blatant to pretty much anyone that "Truth" does not understand Christianity, so his warped interpretation must be even more obvious to a Muslim.
Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. Abrahamic religions are about universal love and peace. It's fairly comprehensible to anyone of those religions. I don't have to be Christian to know the purpose of the religion.
ReplyDeleteUm, when I commented on that the "ps you do realize your Mohammed is one of those folks who added things that " weren't originally there" ? " part was not there. I saw it today and I'm gonna comment on it: Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) added nothing to with the Bible nor does he have anything to do with it. In Islamic belief, Allah (God) kept sending verses of Qur'an to him until the Qur'an was complete.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible was edited by devout Christians after Jesus' death who refused the idea of believing in another prophet after Jesus, which was mentioned in the original, and created the "Jesus is God" thing.
You betcha I am what you consider " cynical" about organized religion. But my comments didn't really go to that but to the history of the three monotheistic religions.
ReplyDelete" prejudiced" is not correct as it implies.... well a preconceived view.
My views come from studying the subject of religion and history. My views are conclusions based on that. :-)
Also though you are correct in theory, in reality that understanding of each others religions is often lacking.
There often is a big difference between theory and how things work out in reality.
Religions are in fact perfect examples.
The crusades, the inquisition, a lot in the old testament and the manner in which both christianity and islam have spread across the globes are hardly examples of " universal love and peace" .
Though Ahmed was giving an interpretation of christianity a large portion of christians would agree with and even try to live by, many many self professed christians do not. They believe in a vengeful god rather than a loving. And they certainly believe in doing the judging themselves rather than leave it to their god.
The point therefor was, that Ahmed cannot speak for what is a " true" christian. Nobody can really. Or as Nietzsche said " the last true christian died on the cross" :-)
And the former Ahmed is a claim you cannot prove as long as you cannot prove the existence of your god. The only fact here is that Mohammed said some stuff.
ReplyDeleteThe latter is actually factually incorrect. You obviously do not know the history of the book christians call the bible.
"And the former Ahmed is a claim you cannot prove as long as you cannot prove the existence of your god" That's why I said "in Islamic belief". Besides, the existence of God has been proved so many times tbh.
ReplyDelete"The latter is actually factually incorrect. You obviously do not know the history of the book christians call the bible" The history of the bible is not even factual to be perfectly honest. Its history is a collection of opinions about what happened, everybody claiming that there opinion is a fact. A lot of texts from the Bible have been removed, edited or lost, thus the existence of several versions.
no it hasn't
ReplyDeletethat WAS my point
????
ReplyDeleteOK, Bye.
And you can downvote this all night long, it is still factual. :-)
ReplyDeleteSmart move, you are out of your debt. :-)
ReplyDeleteYeah, keep believing that.
ReplyDeleteYes, it sure is smart. I love discussions, but sometimes they reach dead ends.
ReplyDeleteBy stating that nobody can speak for what a true Christian is, you yourself are also trying to define it. Yet you are openly cynical of religion and don't even care about it, let alone try to think about it deeply.
ReplyDeleteAnyone can attach the label "Christian" to themselves, it doesn't mean they really are. If you don't understand the basic tenet of universal love, and aren't working towards that, you are not a Christian and that's it.
In what way have you studied religion and history? What are your qualifications?
I bet I have thought about religion and it's history as well as it's exact purpose more deeply than you have. But seeing as you have made up your mind about what you think I know about said subjects and this is a music blog...I suggest we move on.
ReplyDeleteEspecially since I notice both you and Ahmed choose to ignore arguments made and prefer to focus on the illusion christianity is about " universal love"
And claim to be able to judge who is a " true" Scotsman...pardon christian.
I said I studied the subject. I have no official qualifications.I studied for myself. All kinds of religions. Exactly because I enjoy thinking about that subject deeply.
Do you have official qualifications? A degree in christian theology or history?
Official qualifications are not the only sign one has studied a subject. Knowledge would be another. :-)
No dude, I will leave the believing to you. I am sticking to knowing the facts, the stuff that can be independently verified. :-)
ReplyDeleteYes, and this discussion had for some time already. Which is why I was surprised you decided to start up again. But I agree let's end this here. Bye to you too. :-)
ReplyDeleteOnly just noticed that the survey results weren't on- DUH! Changed. You can now view the results here https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1r9P5GwNNPX6Zbpk5hpCuj2HmGtsL-_LAmBc-mGCgJYE/viewanalytics
ReplyDeleteI was totally going to bring up Madonna, but only touching on the somewhat shallow similarities. However, you've made me reassess that comparison. Great points.
ReplyDelete"by giving Jones the time of day, she's actually lowering herself to her level, even if was a set up", yep. I wasn't thrilled with the response either, it could have been handled a lot better. However, I wasn't surprised at all by the way Rihanna responded. It's kinda her thing and I think Liz was banking on that happening.
ReplyDelete"Its best to try to raise your child instead of blaming the world for their intolerable natures." Cosign.
ReplyDeleteThe funny thing is, I'm not sure I've ever met a parent who has blamed a star like Rihanna for the way their kids are. And you're right, there are tons of other role models out there and no one is perfect.
ReplyDelete"anyone who chooses rihanna as their role model should really reconsider their life..." lol. Truth!
ReplyDeleteWow...I never expected that sort of response but thanks for your faith-based input.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that opie, I'm all for freedom of speech, but I'm not here for hate speech.
ReplyDelete"That writer sounds like as big a dipstick as her subject." OMG, I totally misinterpreted that as being about me at first glance. LOL. Apart from that I was expecting you to go in on Rihanna- knowing how much you dislike her. But once again you've surprised me.
ReplyDelete"I don't value any celebrities to the point that I actively look up to them. They are just people in high places who output content of some kind." Totally this! I've never EVER looked up to a celebrity in that way. Even when young.
ReplyDeleteYeah, stick to "what you think is fact". I'll stick to what I know and it's called reality. Stuff that actually happened.
ReplyDeleteA fact is something which can be independently verified. So is reality.
ReplyDelete"god" does not fall under that category.
Neither does "the bible was edited after jesus' death" to edit out the coming of another prophet who was actually mentioned by name.
For one thing , my delusional friend, christians didn't even start compiling that bible until hundreds of years after the death of that jesus character. Whom btw also it cannot be verified independently if he existed nor what he supposedly said.
And again with the quote marks around your paraphrasing of my words. I asked you not to do that twice already. It's misleading dude!
ReplyDelete.Facts and reality can be independently verified.
Most of what you posted...does not fall in that category.
Sure thing DD :-)
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong lol I do think that around the Erotica era she went full force and over egged it somewhat but she had a point to make and made it! Still love that album though, think its one of her finest pieces of work. The lyrics however in certain songs such as 'Where Life Begins' are truly bombastic in their carnality haha
ReplyDeleteAgain, you are doing exactly what "truth" did..claiming you are the final authority of who is a " true" christian or not.
ReplyDeleteNope, I was by no rational account of what I wrote, trying to define what is a " true" christian.
Again you are doing exactly what both "truth" and Ahmed did..claiming you are the ultimate authority of what is a " true" christian.
I studied it for myself ( though I very briefly " officially" studied biblical hebrew).
Do you have degrees in theology and/or history?
And did you really just ask that question on the internet? Where anybody can claim any qualifications the like????
Yeah, yeah, I know, you just threw that one in as a last ditch effort.
I get it bro...you are a true christian. :-)
LoL you already have established yourself as definitely NOT a dipstick DD.
ReplyDeleteI called Rihanna despicable, nasty, and a liar. I figure I did go in on her? ;-D
I love her music but cannot purchase because of her antics.
ReplyDeleteRhianna behavior maybe the result of her upbringing. In many Caribbean communities domestic violence does not include incarceration. For many kids growing up in those circumstances the drama their experience creates PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) for most it goes untreated. The disorder will make the person excessively hostile and display inappropriate behavior without a sense of remorse. This may also be displayed in other family members and neighbors households also so they deem certain outrageous behavior as normal. Chris Brown also grew up in an abusive household which is why emotionally they feel bonded. Unfortunately, you cannot mix and shake nitroglycerin and hydrochloride and expect a good result. PS the outlandish sexual behavior may also be the result of molestation or rape, who knows!
ReplyDeleteIt is a little trickier to gauge the origins of Madonna's behavior. She has never spoke much about her personal feelings. She is intelligent but child molestation can cause a person to become an overachiever especially if they already have a high intellectual component. I am not sure what the catalyst of her motivation is regarding her display of sexuality. She also has the issue of loosing her mother and there is no telling what happen when their maid became the step-mom (I believe I read that.)
ReplyDeleteWhat???? why do you bring child molestation into the discussion? It has nothing to do with Madonna's motivation.
ReplyDeleteMadonna's motivation isn't hard to gauge at all.
She is a woman and grew up in a certain era and is pretty intelligent. And she has spoken on the subject of women and sexuality plenty. Both in interviews and lyrically and on stage.
Please stop end the quotes thing, I've been ignoring your comments about it for so long. Quotation marks can be used to express irony. Go learn some punctuation rules.
ReplyDeleteAnd it does not fall in that category...in your opinion again.
Sorry OE, I don't know if Madonna or Rhianna were previously molested; however, the result of molestation can be the catalyst of a person being oversexed in their personality also it can make a person become an overachiever. What is known and truth about both is that Rhianna has admitted growing up in an abusive household and it has its consequences and Madonna lost her mother at an early age. If Madonna ever admitted to be molested or Rhianna I would not be surprised.
ReplyDeleteExcept those weren't meant to indicate irony. The irony was what you wrote in response to my words. Hence it was meant as a direct quote except you paraphrased. And when you paraphrase...you don't use quotation marks
ReplyDeleteand yes, I am aware you have been ignoring my request. Which is why I repeated it.
Also, really dude? You are telling me to study punctuation when I ask you to stop misquoting me by incorrect use of quotation marks?
And seriously, how desperate are you exactly??? Nope. Again a fact and reality are independently verifiable. This is not my " opinion", that is what rational people decided as the definition.
Since neither you nor anybody else can supply evidence which can be independently verified, for several of the claims you made, they do not fall in that category.
Really dude, do you think you are doing yourself or your case any good with these blatantly incorrect posts?
I can't imagine. I think you just want to have the last word in.
Well, go for it dude! My treat :-)
"I can't imagine. I think you just want to have the last word in"
ReplyDeleteMy words are very clear, understand them the way you want. Not even gonna bother tbh.
Seriously, that is almost offensive to apply such cold water psychology to people.
ReplyDeleteAs I ( and Stuey earlier) said, Madonna's sexual antics had a point and came from the position and expectations society had for/about women during that era. ( and of course simply pr)
She isn't "over sexed" and she was as far as we know not molested as a child.
Rihanna's is a whole other case. Her father was an addict.
There is no direct link between losing a parent/substance abuse and child molestation. There is a causal link the other way round but it's incorrect to assume an addict is also a child molester.
Either way, the kind of response by a child is often also dependent on the age of the child at the time of the trauma.
Like I say...you are totally applying cold water psychology.
Imagine someone would do that to you based on one little factoid from your past. How very very wrong could they be?
Dude, you are asking me to end asking you to end something while in the same breath stating you deliberately are ignoring my request.
ReplyDeleteThink about that for a sec!
You are also telling me to learn about punctuation rules because you keep applying them incorrectly?
You didn't use them there to indicate irony. You used them to indicate you were responding with irony to those words. Which would require either a quoting of those words,he rules say..you then put them in quotation marks.
OR you paraphrase the words you are about to respond with irony to. Which you would then NOT put in quotation marks.
And nope...rational people agreed that facts and reality are those things which can be independently verified!!!!!
That is therefor not my " opinion". That is a statement of fact;
Several of the claims you made nobody is/has been able to supply evidence for which can be INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED.
I personally was never taught not to, but I always thought it was illogical when I was younger....And that takes a lot because I was a dumb and unidirectional kid, only fascinated with dinosaurs and fried stuff.
ReplyDeleteRihanna has exaggerated tales from her childhood in order to add to her "bad girl" image. Her dad didn't develop an addiction until she was 14, only 2 years before she hit the big time. No doubt it was upsetting but it's not like she grew up in a crack den. She grew up in a middle class home and both her parents had well-paid jobs. One was an accountant, the other was a manager.
ReplyDeleteHowever Rihanna was badly bullied at Primary school, she said that every day she would come home traumatised. She would also bury herself in books, implying that she might have been a bit of a nerd. Bullying makes children feel weak and want revenge. I believe this is a much more likely explanation for her fake "thug" behaviour. Also, she pretty much went straight from vulnerable, meek schoolgirl to superstar. The fact that she's been famous since age 17 and working since age 15/16 means she's had no real-life experience past adolescence, which would make her immature.
I noted that she was normal until the Chris Brown incident - since then she's been hell bent on proving how badass she is. That assault must have made her feel weak, humiliated and stupid all over again, just like primary school, so she felt the need to prove how hard she is rather than looking like a victim again.
Just my guess based on observations of people.
I don't think she was, or let's say behaved, " normal" prior to the Chris Brown incident but other than that I tend to agree with you. If she really was bullied in school, that sounds like way more likely a reason for the way she acts now.
ReplyDeleteAs for her being a nerd, that usually implies higher than average intelligence. I see no sign whatsoever of that being present in Rihanna. Maybe she just liked to read Dime romance novels? ;-D
By "normal" I just meant "not pretending to be a thug" and "not making a big deal out of smoking weed like a 12 year old trying to impress her mates" :)
ReplyDeleteI actually reckon she might be somewhat intelligent, but deliberately dumbs herself down in order to play the bad gal role. The way she manipulates the media and her public image, while not genius, at least shows a high level of awareness of the fame game she's in. Her interviews when she was age about 19-20 were usually thoughtful and eloquent. Before then, she was too awkward to answer questions properly (I remember thinking way back then that she must have had a hard time at school, being that socially stiff) and age 21 onwards, she came across as too affected/arrogant.
Then again, maybe that fivehead of hers just sits in front of a vast, empty space :D
Yeah, I got what you meant with "normal" my effort went to making a distinction between being and behaving. :-)
ReplyDeleteI'm sticking to not very intelligent. Being in the fame game in and by itself already in my book doesn't rate as very intelligent. ;-)
11 US #1's speak for themselves: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The poison is working, keep it up.
ReplyDeleteGuess they do...it's all about money and fame. :-)
ReplyDeleteThis woman is one of the most overrated female artists out there today - there are far prettier and nicer ladies who are more talented and with better music, yet aren't as successful as her? People who say Christina Aguilera has a bad attitude obviously don't read more about Rihanna - and in her case there are no rumours about it like with Christina because the evidence is there in her tweets, interviews and on her Instagram. She went too far taking her anger out on the journalist but the worst thing she's said is when she hit out at a girl who used to be her fan but had an opinion against her collaborating/getting back with Chris Brown and she called the poor girl ugly - cruel, totally unnecessary and ungrateful when the girl is one of the millions (god knows why) who helped her get to the top today. Because let me assure you, it wasn't her bad attitude that got her there, it's a sex appeal and her catchy songs - nothing else.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the bad attitude comes from nothing but personal issues with herself (not that I know she has any, but I'm guessing as it seems many people who are like that do have them) but mainly her arrogance ever since she made it big (after her second album, I'd say), which she seems to think she can justify because she doesn't agree with someone else's opinion or critique of her. She needs to learn that not everyone loves her and not everyone will agree with her choices in life - sure they can't stop her but they can still voice their opinions, and she thinks she can do so too in retaliation but the way she words them is disgustingly rude - and that's for anyone, let alone a celebrity. I don't much about her family background or upbringing but that could also be a part of it too.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely agree with you there - she's got a seemingly fake gangster-like attitude and also comes across as very arrogant (she crosses the line many a time beyond just being self-confident) in the way she conducts herself over social media, in interviews, on stage and in her songs (75% of which she doesn't even write herself yet seem to fit her attitude perfectly) and it definitely all started around the time Umbrella propelled her into superstardom (god knows why because that was an awful song).
ReplyDeleteShe shouldn't worry about others opinions about her or her life choices but she does, which is why she lashes out. She seems to have insecurities which she covers up with a stinking attitude. And I agree about the role model thing for kids, but let's face it, girls under 18 are far more impressionable than boys or anyone else and they're the ones who do (for some crazy reason) look up to her.
ReplyDeleteI think she sounds (slightly) better now than she used to but her music (most of which she has no hand in writing anyway) is still generic. Her best stuff (which I'd still class as "ok" overall) was Rated R when she actually did more writing then than she had before or has since then. As a singer and dancer though, she's just average, there's nothing special about her.
ReplyDeleteTotally read your username wrong :O ;) Lmfao
ReplyDeleteYou were going so well...until that remark about Girls under 18 being " far more impressionable" . :-(
ReplyDeleteThats combined across different formats. She hasn't even had 84 singles. Kelly has had 3 #1's (A Moment Like This, MLWSWY, and Stronger). I'm a huge kelly fan, I like her better than Rihanna by a long shot, but Rihanna's formula is working for her.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I did mean more in terms of celebrity culture, pop music and the beauty and fashion industries, and as someone who worked as a youth worker and has many younger siblings and cousins of both sexes, I have come across the impact they have on young girls, whereas boys are more influenced by rap/rock music, action films and video games. However, I do believe girls do change the way they act, look and dress based on those they look up to more so than boys do (which are the points Liz mentioned in her article - not that I completely agree with or understand everything she says in it).
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't put it down to Rihanna's attitude (or "formula" as you call it) working for her - it's her pretty face, sex appeal and the commercial nature/sound of the songs she churns out with their addictive beats, catchy lyrics and usually sexually-charged videos that work for her.
ReplyDeleteI'm saying #1's are no measure for ANYthing but sales numbers. Whether you consider something " working" because it sells well...that's a whole different issue. Clearly those criticizing Rihanna are not judging by sales but by other and more varied standards. Mainly social ones.For them what Rihanna is doinf is most definitely NOT " working" .
ReplyDeleteThose are btw Billboard #1 of Kelly. Nice move to adapt your criteria.
Yes, I do understand you believe boys are less influenced. I am however not aware of any data supporting that believe. If we are going by personal observation...I see as many boys dressed and talking/moving like hip hoppers or what have you, as girls imitating pop stars.
ReplyDeleteI loved Rated R. Well, technically the non-singles and Russian Roulette.
ReplyDeleteThis all boils down to what people define as a role model. In my opinion , a role model differs in everyone's shoes. The role model doesn't necessarily have to be good . If I said that lady gaga was my role model, it means that I want to take her path in music maybe. Even though lady gaga has her own set of flaws. It all depends on who you are you know. Who you are depends on who you look up to. Rihanna is wrong in saying she didn't want to be a role model because inevitably she will be one. A role model doesn't have to be a good person . Just someone you look up to. So saying that she didn't want to be a role model is a shitty excuse for acting 'bad'.
ReplyDelete