Beyonce: Sex Terrorist- by Meg Mickelsen

A recent article in the Atlantic Monthly, written by Noah Berlatsky hyperbolically exclaims, "Hating Beyonce unites all Americans." Berlatsky is referring to Bill O'Reilly's comments of shock and disapproval of Beyonce presenting herself as having sex in a limo with her husband and referring to Monica Lewinksy in her new video, Partition, and Bell Hook, feminist scholar's, disapproval of the New York Times cover featuring Beyonce, in which the singer, posing in an underwear-like garment, supposedly appears child-like and disempowered.  O'Reilly presents his opinion under the cloak of conservative family values, and Hook presents her opinion wrapped in the rebellion of stomping on the white patriarchy, but essentially their arguments are both centered around the same core fear, that Beyonce's sexualized body will negatively impact young girls.  

Clearly there is a problem with both arguments if they have become so polarized that they ultimately have ended up remarkably similar.  However, Berlatsky theorizes that the problem with each argument is not the principles represented, but each commenter's personal objectification of Beyonce.  First, both commenters profit of Beyonce's body, by making it the central prop of their arguments.  Talking about Beyonce draws an audience, especially when talking about Beyonce and sex.  Throw in words like terrorism, and attention will be showered down on one, like some holy torrential rain.  However, the biggest mistake both commenters made, was ignoring Beyonce's as an actual artist with a statement.  Her video, Partition, is quite pointed in it's view on sexualization and power.  The video opens with Beyonce, the object of desire, sitting in a traditional mansion. The traditional atmosphere suggests that the respectability itself is an inherent part of of eroticism.  The camera's view of Beyonce behind a newspaper, is an obvious satirical jibe at the prevalence of the male gaze.  Beyonce, well aware of the dynamics of slavery, then pointedly drops her napkin, and a white servant hurries to pick it up.  The rest of the video makes monogamous sex look dangerous and appealing.  Berlatsky writes, "The video is a fantasy about steamy married monogamous sex, which works deliberately to make O'Reilly's conservative values look sexy and illicit. It's also a re-imagining of black female eroticism as linked to power rather than subservience, which turns hooks's respectability politics into a self-aware sensual tease."

To me all the discussion on Beyonce is silly and blatantly self serving.  The intentions of entertainments writers in the media are often made clear by the titles of their articles, which usually are inflammatory or tantalizing in some fashion.  An obvious example is the title of this blog post, also the title of Berlatsky's article, which does not remotely summarize his or my ideas.  The game is how many clicks a writer can get; the more clicks the writer gets, the more money the writer makes.  Beyonce shows up on sites that supposedly report real news, not because pop culture is an influential force in society, but because people like Beyonce, and people who don't, like looking at her and brooding over their disapproval.  These people will click on her name.  Not to say that Pop Culture isn't important.  It is one of the most subtly influential forces of modern society, having a profound and often irreversible effect on society.  But, when the media discusses pop culture, they should discuss the actual messages of pop culture artists, not complain about their political correctness or oversexualization or any other obsessed over flaw.  As Berlatsky so eloquently quips, "If people are going to rather helplessly use her (Beyonce's) body to further their own agendas, it seems worth remembering that every body has a person attached—and that that person is not just an object of analysis and scorn, but, potentially, someone who can offer a critique herself."