Annie Lennox calls for pop video ratings


Recommended Posts

Annie Lennox calls for pop video ratings

 

Pop star Annie Lennox has described the sexualised imagery of modern pop videos as "dark" and "pornographic".

 

"I'm all for freedom of expression," she told BBC Radio 5 live, "but this is clearly one step beyond, and it's clearly into the realm of porn."

 

"How do you stop your kids being exposed to it? It's so powerful. You don't want to see your seven-year-old girls twerking all over the place."

 

The singer has called for pop videos to be rated in the same way as films.

 

She previously wrote on her Facebook page that if a pop star created "a soft porn video or highly sexualised live performance, then it needs to qualify as such and be X-rated for adults only".

 

She told 5 live pressure from parents could help to establish "very clear boundaries" on acceptable standards in videos.

 

Her comments fuelled a debate started by Miley Cyrus's performance at the MTV awards last month, in which she danced provocatively with singer Robin Thicke and made suggestive gestures with a foam finger.

 

That performance, and a similarly risque video for her single Wrecking Ball, prompted Sinead O'Connor to write an open letter to the pop star, warning her not to be exploited by the music business.

 

Artists such as Britney Spears, Nicki Minaj, Lady Gaga and Rihanna have also been criticised for explicit performances and costumes in the past.

 

Lennox did not single out any one performer for criticism - referring instead to a "recent spate of overtly sexualised performances and videos" in her Facebook statement.

 

"I have nothing against these artists," she told 5 live's Anna Foster. "I was never bashing them.

 

"There's nothing wrong with sexuality and sensuality and I think these artists are beautiful. And, in many ways, what they do is fantastic, but it needs to be age-appropriate.

 

"These guys have young fan bases and they are being barraged with it.

 

"I don't think there's one parent of young boys and girls in this country that would honestly, comfortably say they were fine with seeing their kids being exposed to that kind of thing."

 

"I think this debate is about getting the voice of reason back there to say 'look, we want to protect our kids.'"

 

Source: BBC News

Artists such as Britney Spears, Nicki Minaj, Lady Gaga and Rihanna have also been criticised for explicit performances and costumes in the past.

 

Lennox did not single out any one performer for criticism - referring instead to a "recent spate of overtly sexualised performances and videos" in her Facebook statement.

 

"I have nothing against these artists," she told 5 live's Anna Foster. "I was never bashing them.

 

"There's nothing wrong with sexuality and sensuality and I think these artists are beautiful. And, in many ways, what they do is fantastic, but it needs to be age-appropriate.

 

"These guys have young fan bases and they are being barraged with it.

 

"I don't think there's one parent of young boys and girls in this country that would honestly, comfortably say they were fine with seeing their kids being exposed to that kind of thing."

 

"I think this debate is about getting the voice of reason back there to say 'look, we want to protect our kids.'"

 

Source: BBC News

 

 Britney Spears - not too bad, but a bit skanky, Nicki Minaj - NO!, Lady Gaga - NO! and Rihanna -not bad looking, but a bit skanky

She's not wrong.

About ratings, she is spot on.  For the rest, please see above. :)

Britney Spears - not too bad, but a bit skanky, Nicki Minaj - NO!, Lady Gaga - NO! and Rihanna -not bad looking, but a bit skanky

 

Firstly, beauty is subjective.  Secondly, I believe everyone has beautiful traits and it's not always about physical appearance.

My biggest concern is this.  Parents should be more active in their kids upbringing.  My dad was my role model, not some TV character or singer.  But more often than not, it seems kids are being raised on a diet of media.  Hannah Montana, and Miley Cyrus - Disney made the two very much interchangeable (that's the premise of the show).  You get t-shirts, pencil cases, TV-shows, albums.  How does the kid differentiate between the two?  Look, Hannah Montana is rubbing that man's winky, and now she's naked on industrial machinery.  The same person that had previously been on TV in a very accessible way.

 

Disney are still running the damned show FFS!

Firstly, beauty is subjective.  Secondly, I believe everyone has beautiful traits and it's not always about physical appearance.

 

Firstly - agreed.

 

Secondly - Not sure about that, and yes it isn't always about physical appearance.  If it was, I wouldn't know about most of the music I listen to. :laugh:

My biggest concern is this.  Parents should be more active in their kids upbringing.  My dad was my role model, not some TV character or singer.  But more often than not, it seems kids are being raised on a diet of media.  Hannah Montana, and Miley Cyrus - Disney made the two very much interchangeable (that's the premise of the show).  You get t-shirts, pencil cases, TV-shows, albums.  How does the kid differentiate between the two?  Look, Hannah Montana is rubbing that man's winky, and now she's naked on industrial machinery.  The same person that had previously been on TV in a very accessible way.

 

Disney are still running the damned show FFS!

I don't agree with it either and most likely I get exactly where you're coming from. The difficult part is getting the people who don't to understand the tangible affects of this on us, our kids, society, where it will bring us next...

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Poll: Grand Theft Auto VI price predictions, cast your vote by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe After years of waiting, Rockstar will be solidifying the launch date of Grand Theft Auto VI with the launch of pre-orders next week. While the studio has confirmed a date for this occasion, it is yet to attach a price to the highly anticipated game. So let's see what our readers think it will cost at launch. The Grand Theft Auto VI pre-orders will kick off on June 25 for digital and physical editions. Unless some last-minute changes happen, the release date will be November 19, 2026, across Xbox Series X|S and PlayStation 5. Unfortunately, there's still no information about a PC version from the developer or the publisher Take-Two. Now the question becomes, how much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost at launch? The game is predicted by some analysts to be the biggest launch of an entertainment product ever. With the amount of hype that has been built behind it and with ballooning development costs, Take-Two may price this Grand Theft Auto entry differently from other AAA titles. The current price of a AAA game is $69.99. That norm almost rose to $79.99 before calming down. But with such a massive release, Grand Theft Auto VI may be the game that pushes the boundary again. It's also possible that Take-Two keeps the price relatively low to increase the number of players that jump in early and keep them hooked on Grand Theft Auto Online to spend on microtransactions for years to come. Keep in mind that the below poll is asking for a prediction of the standard edition price, not a deluxe or any other special edition that Take-Two will introduce for additional benefits. Also, there is also the chance of the company splitting up the campaign and online portions. If you think that will happen, put your vote on what you think will be the total cost of the two. Poll Poll: How much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost? $59.99 $69.99 $79.99 $89.99 $100 or more Submit Vote If you have a very specific prediction in mind, sound off in the comments below.
    • Would you please fix your graphics. They are outdated and don't fit the article.
    • The Light of Life? We actually do glow till our Death, study finds by Sayan Sen Image by Rafael Rendon via Pexels A study by researchers at the University of Calgary has found that living organisms produce an extremely faint light known as ultraweak photon emission, and that this glow appears to drop significantly after death. The research was published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry in April 2025 and quickly drew widespread attention, leading to more than 200 news stories about the findings. Ultraweak photon emission (or UPE), sometimes called biophoton emission, refers to tiny amounts of light released by living cells as a result of normal biological activity. A photon is the basic particle of light, and researchers say every living system examined so far, including plants and animals, has been found to emit these photons. The glow is far too faint to be seen by the human eye. “I suppose it has a little to do with people being reminded of auras,” says Dr. Christoph Simon, PhD, one of the authors of the study and a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy in the Faculty of Science. “It is a fact that living beings glow. It’s a very weak glow, but it’s there and visible with very sensitive cameras.” According to the study, the light involved is extremely weak, ranging from 10 to 1,000 photons per square centimetre per second across a spectral range of 200 to 1,000 nanometres. For comparison, a nanometre is one-billionth of a metre and is commonly used to measure wavelengths of light. Detecting emissions at such low levels requires highly specialized equipment. To study the phenomenon, researchers used electron-multiplying charge-coupled device (EMCCD) and charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras. These imaging systems are designed to detect extremely small amounts of light, including individual photons, while minimizing background noise. The technology allowed researchers to capture signals that would otherwise be impossible to observe. The team worked with the Human Health Therapeutics Research Centre at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) in Ottawa to examine photon emissions in mice. Researchers took two-hour exposure images of the animals before and after death and compared the results. “We saw that the level of light that they emit – this biophoton glow – is distinctly different between living and dead animals,” says Dr. Daniel Oblak, PhD, an associate professor in Physics and Astronomy and the corresponding author of the study. The images showed a clear decrease in photon emissions after death across the entire body of each mouse. According to the researchers, this provided direct evidence that living and dead tissue produce different levels of ultraweak photon emission. “It’s a very small amount and it’s, of course, very tricky to detect,” Oblak says. The study grew out of discussions between Simon, whose research interests include quantum biology, and Oblak, whose work focuses on detecting light for quantum communication experiments. Quantum biology is a field that explores whether processes described by quantum physics, which studies matter and energy at very small scales, may also play a role in living systems. “Since I work as a quantum physicist on light detection for quantum communication, I thought that experimentally we have a lot of the tools to be able to detect the light,” Oblak explains. The researchers also investigated UPE in plants and found that the light changed in response to stress. When plants were exposed to higher temperatures or physically injured, their photon emissions increased. Chemical treatments also affected the glow. Among the substances tested, the local anesthetic benzocaine produced the strongest emission response when applied to injured plant tissue. These findings suggest that ultraweak photon emission is closely linked to biochemical and metabolic activity inside living organisms. Metabolism refers to the chemical reactions that allow cells and organisms to stay alive and function. Because these reactions change when an organism experiences stress, injury or disease, researchers believe UPE may provide a way to monitor those changes. The researchers stress that the glow is a physical and biological phenomenon, not a metaphysical one. Oblak says more research is needed to understand exactly how the light is produced and what information it may reveal about the condition of living tissue. “We must understand what that is to figure out what’s happening,” he says. “If we can understand how that relates to certain influences on the body – stress, diseases – then that could be used as a diagnostic tool.” The researchers believe the technique could eventually help scientists study health and disease without invasive procedures. Because UPE can be measured without adding dyes, markers or labels, it may offer a way to monitor whether tissue is healthy, damaged or alive. In plants, it could help researchers better understand how organisms respond to injury, heat and other forms of stress. While the work is still in its early stages, the study demonstrates that ultraweak photon emission imaging can provide a non-invasive and label-free way to observe biological activity. Researchers say the approach could become a useful tool for studying vitality, stress responses and other important processes in both animals and plants. Source: University of Calgary, ACS publication This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Damn, I loved this show back in the day.  
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      hhgygy earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      AMV earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      AMV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      512
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      82
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!