LogFAQs > #967481219

PumpkinCoach posted...

that's not my conclusion though. i'm agreeing that a ban is impractical and arbitrary, but also that it wouldn't address the issues that often get raised. i think you can have a safe environment for minors and everyone else in the industry, but it takes work.

Yeah, it wouldn't address the roots of the issues as you'd like. But it would certainly straight up uproot them, on each environment as far as you want to go. No more minors, no more exploitation of minors. Again, not that I'm actually advocating for it, I just don't see any other solution, not to the problem as you describe it, or at least as I've been perceiving you describe it, or perhaps others describe it. I think the work you're talking about that would have to be done to get to that level of safety... is honestly overkill. Not to mention... I think it would be more work than you might think. The roots of these issues go VERY deep. And in many different directions, at that. I'm starting to wonder if you're the one that's too naive!

i can barely parse this, but what i mean is that there are issues specific to minors and ones that affect minors but also apply to adults in the industry and could be addressed together.

And there are issues that affect adults but can also apply to minors. Those are obviously specially serious. This is what I mean: I do see how New Jeans are being "sexually exploited" to really dramatize the point. But they're being sexually exploited as idols. Not as minors. Perhaps a (not so) subtle, but important distinction. The fact that they are idols who are being sexually exploited (as usual!) who happen to be minors is incidental, I really think, at least I certainly desperately want to believe so. And I can. So I will. And on top of that they're also being just regularly exploited. But they're minors, so that compounds THAT issue.

this isn't about how you or i or anyone else personally engages with newjean's material. i am not the thought police.

Well, now I'm understanding your focus is different. But this is the debate with some other people. Or closely related.

hence, a dog whistle. the presentation in the hurt mv is very sexual. i'm not talking morals, just visual literacy. most people are not going to see it that way, and more power to them. i can lay out why it's creepy and that would just be another perspective, and yeah, it's not a crime scene - like i said, i can't draw any conclusions beyond an aesthetic critique.

Mmm... but a dog whistle implies a kind of veiled intention. Again I don't mean to defend anybody... but I'm also wary of judging them. Not to mention I'm not sure who exactly should be judged in each case. Maybe everybody would share some of the blame. Which again leads me to believe there's not really much of a "blame"... it's just business as usual.

So yeah. More to the point, we just flat out disagree here. No, I know what you mean. I still think that's a choice of interpretation. In fact I'll tell you, I think you're actually mistaken here. I don't think the girls are being portrayed THAT way there. I wrote a nice paragraph but no. I'm not even going to say anything more on this.

how much agency do you think the kids are allowed in any part of newjean's presentation? though i take the point that there are presumptions about how individual performers feel in a lot of critique, but again, my focus is not on newjeans but on broader industry and cultural attitudes.

Mmm, a very good point, yours too! Again here's the thing. I don't think the industry particularly looks to exploit minors, in whichever way. I think that's just a bonus they get from many other sources, reasons. It's a bonus for them because in many ways minors are just easier to exploit. In every way. Then again... the thought must occur that they've got used to the convenience of exploiting minors, and have conditioned themselves to actively seek it. A very troubling thought... but yeah, certainly demanding a lot of consideration.