Pink covers the January issue of Cosmopolitan to support her latest album. I don’t write or think about Pink that much anymore – I don’t dislike her and I haven’t canceled her, but I’ve found some of her public comments about sexuality and nudity problematic in the past few years. No one is perfect and no one has the perfect message on feminism and sexuality, of course. I think what I dislike about Pink is how strident she is about her opinions on how to define feminism when really she’s Not-That-Kind-Of-Girling other women, and policing what other women do with their bodies. I bring this up because Pink shared some dating advice she gave to her 6-year-old daughter in Cosmo. Some highlights:
The advice she gave to her daughter: “She said to me the other day, ‘How many boys can I have at once?’ And I said, ‘Excuse me?’ I said, ‘Probably none of them because they won’t deserve you. They have to be kind, respectful, they have to be chivalrous, they have to be good to their moms, they have to be good looking, they have to be funny.'”
A famous woman I admire: “Ellen DeGeneres” Because: “She always leads with kindness.”
One thing people get wrong about me: “That I’m angry.”
A fictional character I identify with: “Angelina Jolie in Girl, Interrupted.” Because: “I’m batsh*t.”
My hopes for all womankind: “Equality, safety & respect.”
How I’d describe these duet partners in one word:
Christina Aguilera: “Forgiven” + Kenny Chesney: “Charming”
Nate Ruess: “(Pain-in-the-a**) voice!” + India.Arie: “F**kin awesome”
Sia: “Looney tunes” + Eminem: “Genius”
I get that it’s the kind of loving advice a mom would give to her 6-year-old daughter. The answer might have been different if the daughter was 18 years old, and the answer could have been “how many boys can you have at once? As many as you want, because you get to say what happens with your body…” and then lead into a conversation about respect, consent, love, reproductive and sexual freedom and more. Here’s hoping.
Cover courtesy of Cosmo, additional photo courtesy of Getty.
He has to be good-looking? This from a woman who’s always going on about how looks don’t matter and how awful it is when someone talks about hers.
Also Christina Aguliera’s forgiven? For what? Pink just shaded her for years because she asked for and got the best part of that Lady Marmalade song, then worked with a writer Pink also worked with. It was pure petty BS on Pink’s part. Aguilera didn’t do a thing to her.
Yeah, the “has to be good-looking” part is kind of an appalling message to send to a child.
Also, yes Pink, people think you’re angry, because you make enraged Billy Idol faces at every opportunity.
Why is it an appalling message? She isn’t saying that her daughter should only pick attractive friends but attraction is hugely important in a relationship. I know many people who’ve picked ‘nice, safe partners’ but there is no attraction and both parties suffer in the relationship.
I think we’re talking about different things. She’s saying the potential guy has to be good-looking. Conventional good looks are not the only thing that attracts people. People can be intriguing, sexy, mysterious, charismatic, charming, and many other things which attract others, but don’t necessarily have anything to do with the symmetry of their features (good looks). Being with someone who has other indelible, but attractive qualities doesn’t mean you’re settling for a chemistry free relationship. Personality counts for a lot.
‘Good-looking’ is quite subjective though. We might universally agree that certain traits are attractive but people have wildly divergent tastes. For example, I think the actress who plays Morgana in Merlin is one of the most beautiful women I’ve ever since. My boyfriend doesn’t even look twice. He likes Mila Kunis and Rhonda Roussey.
It’s not wrong for people to be attracted to their romantic partner. That doesn’t mean that their partner will be ‘conventionally attractive’ and even if they are, there’s nothing wrong with that either.
But, Suki, she didn’t say ‘your partner has to be attractive to you’ she said ‘good-looking.’ I feel like you’re arguing something different than what she said. And, if she had used the word attractive, it would be less problematic, IMO.
ETA – what mp said below!
Hahaha, I so agree with the “rage-face” comment!!! It’s annoying and she’s been doing it at least fifteen years now.
I took this comment not as aesthetics like a print model. More… they take care of themselves and have that inner glow that radiates into physical attraction. Really. It was a beautiful and thoughtful answer on the spot. No issues with this story.
Also… studies have shown personality can make a person appear appreciably more physically attractive or vice versa.
Because Tommy Lee is so “good looking”. Sorry , but this feels PR to me and not genuine. Pink wrote a song called “stupid girls”. Not angry? Yeesh.
Well yeah.
WE don’t know what she meant by that. To me, Pink’s husband is not that handsome. Maybe she meant it like “pick someone you are attracted to”.
People with “Mediocre” (what does that even mean) looks often look way better than genetically pretty ones when they work out, take care of themselves, groom and wear tasteful clothes.
Maybe she meant that it has to be someone who takes care of their looks.
Overall, I find Pink talks about her daughter too much. All of her stories about the daughter always in the end come to “look at what a fabulous mother I am”.
She is probably doing just fine as a mother, don’t get me wrong. But I feel like the kids privacy has been compromised for a while now (look at Pink talking about her daughter’s “ugly problem” at an awards show. To me that’s a no.)
@klo: Overall, I find Pink talks about her daughter too much. All of her stories about the daughter always in the end come to “look at what a fabulous mother I am”.
That’s exactly what irritates me about Pink too!! Im also really trying to play out a scenario where a SIX year old would ask her mother that question and I don’t believe it
This. I’m starting to wonder if pink is either asking her daughter leading questions so that she can then answer them and talk about her answers in interviews or if she’s just making these stories about her daughter up as a way to bring the conversation around to feminist issues and questions so that she can tell us all what she thinks about a certain topic women face.
Regarding Christina Aguilera: you guys seriously don’t remember what started their feud??
Christina started a fight in a club & threw punches at Pink.
90s pop star lore.
Oh god the good old days.
Er, no, that didn’t start it. That happened like 5 years after Pink first started dragging Aguilera. In that time she called Aguilera trailer trash, a spoilt brat, used a lot of slut-shaming language, implied she got the Lady Marmalade part Pink wanted because she was sleeping with a label manager, tried to start a whole drama with Linda Perry and stop her working with Aguilera again…it was crazy. Hardly surprising Aguilera had had enough.
“…trailer trash, a spoilt brat, used a lot of slut-shaming language, implied she got the Lady Marmalade part Pink wanted because she was sleeping with a label manager, tried to start a whole drama with Linda Perry and stop her working with Aguilera again…it was crazy. Hardly surprising Aguilera had had enough.”
Yikes! I found out about some of that drama by peeking at older celebrity gossip sites, but definitely not all of it. No idea things got that nasty. This was clearly not a one-sided feud. Hopefully, in light of recent events, famous women (and men) may do a little bit better about things like that moving forward. At least these two buried the hatchet.
I don’t have a problem with that line, honestly. Girls are fed a narrative that states their sexuality is secondary to a man’s and criticized for their “superficial vanity.” Men are allowed to be ugly and lovable. Women are not. I am fine with a mother telling a daughter to go after somebody attractive if the core of the message is “You have a right to pursue a man that you find good looking. You are not superficial for thinking sexual attraction is an important part of the package.”
Wouldn’t it be better if she said something like, you need to be attracted to your partner? I thinks that’s different than saying you need to be with someone good looking.
I think her daughter is six and the nuances of adult sexual attraction will likely be lost on her for a few more years.
I also wouldn’t even think to advise my daughter “good looking”, to tell you the truth. There’s got to be the sexual spark, but good looking sounds so….shallow and conventional.
Eh, 99% of the qualities she listed are agreeably fantastic. One comes down to questionable choice of words. How do we all know she meant Western/Hollywood/insert-culture-here standard “good looking” and not “attractive to you”? Based on her persona, life choices, and past interviews, we could make an educated guess that she meant “attractive to you”. We don’t even know exactly what she said to her daughter – she had to paraphrase to keep the answer digestible. You know, these people giving interviews aren’t wordsmiths. Maybe try and see where they are coming from rather than parsing their words?
Meh on the good-looking comment. She was making fun of herself trying to describe a guy that doesn’t exist because she can’t imagine her daughter growing older and getting into romance. It was cute and harmless. Pink is pretty clear on where she stands with respect to superficial qualities.
She identifies with Lisa in Girl Interrupted? What?
Am I the only one who thought that was kind of weird?
No – I found it weird as well. Lisa was crazy to a T..
Nope, I find it troubling to identify with someone suffering from a personality disorder who tormented another patient.
To me it looks like she is trying to be so different, so punk, that’s why she is saying all these things, which is kinda sad right?
Yes! I want to tell her to relax.
Oh com’n. Marla from Fight Club is one one of my favourite onscreen characters ever. That doesn’t mean I wanna take up chain smoking, or start crashing other people’s rehab meetings or f*ck a guy with obvious emotional and mental problems.
What she probably identifies with is Lisa ability to not give af. It’s very freeing in a way that attitude but I doubt Pink would want to be Lisa.
Except she said she’s batshit herself.
Bottom line for me is I appreciate this coverage as I learned more about Pink & I can see she’s a creative artist more than a life coach 👍
Right. Lisa was diagnosed as a sociopath…so not only is she glamourizing mental illness, but she’s confusing them with personality disorders.
She’s very strange.
Yea…I don’t care if she’s sharing strange stuff about herself…but, she should leave her daughter out of it. I don’t find it cute or endearing…just odd. Let the girl have privacy with her “talks” with her mother.
I wouldn’t have offered up quotes from my 6-year-olds (when they were that age) for public consumption. That’s just me.
Now there’s some advice, date a guy that is good looking. To top that she identifies with a fictional character who is a sociopath incapable of leaving a mental institution. If I could advise Pink, I’d say keep your thoughts to yourself and sing. Good luck to Willow.
“Shut up & sing.”
I seem to recall the Dixie Chicks being told that…
Sometimes with some/most of the celebs with inflated egos that seem to think their words are superior to ours somehow, I stand by my words to her had I chance to do so……stick to your day job.
When did she say she wasn’t sticking to her day job?
If I read this article correctly it was an interview…she was asked questions & she answered them…with her opinions…..which she is allowed to have & express.
Look, I think Pink has issues, definitely. Girl is full of drama & don’t need people Like that in my life!
Like you, I also can’t stand celebrities who think they can tell us normal people how to live, think, speak, vote, etc. I don’t need their advice.
Pink wasn’t telling people how to live, think, etc. I take issue with people being unable to share their opinions, especially when asked. The whole tone of this post today is bizarre, to me.
Here’s what I stand by: freedom of speech.
More important than ever.
I agree Annika. Guess we, I anyway, come on here to read what’s up and post my opinions. I’ve always been a fan of hers, but don’t care about her personal life or opinions. But as you say, as much as the current administration wants to stifle our words and to dictate words we can say, I should applaud anyone who has the platform to do so. So Pink, talk away!!!!!
@Nancy:
Amen, sista!
Just came to say I really hate the bullsh!t they put on Cosmo covers. “Easy mind trick that attracts love”… what?? “Why you feel cray before Leak Weak and how to chill”??? Excuse me? Could you not just say “How to calm anxiety before your menstrual cycle”? Last week I saw a Cosmo in the store that said some crap like “What his Likes reveal about his feelings.” Barf. Can we stop?? Cosmo perpetuates oppressive ideals and is problematic af.
Cosmo has always been awful. Its headlines have always been over the top and eye roll inducing to me. I’m actually surprised it’s still around, tbh.
Shambles: Thank you! “Cray before Leak Week” made me cringe and feel physically ill. Cosmo needs to be cancelled.
Cosmo belongs in the graveyard where crappy magazines are laid to rest. She can be reunited with Mademoiselle, Cosmogirl, Jane, Mirabella, Working Woman, Self, Teen, YM, and Playgirl.
I thought Mademoiselle was downright wholesome compared to Cosmo. It was one of my favorites back in the day, the next step up from Seventeen, lol.
@Esmom: Mademoiselle was quite genteel, as I recall! I’m nostalgic for the glory days of Cosmo under the helm of Helen Gurley Brown. It wasn’t Playgirl Jr., as it is today. Oh sure, it had its share of fluff, but there were long, interesting articles, and many thoughtful pieces.
Whatever happened to copy, anyway? Most fashion mags have become picture books. I’ve been reading Allure since its premiere issue and the thing used to be packed with articles and info. Now it’s all giant graphics and 2-page spreads just to introduce an article, which is rarely more than a page, and not terribly interesting or informative. You can skim though an issue in 15 minutes, tops. Zzzzz…
I loved Jane!! I might not like it now, but as a teenager, it was a nice antidote to all the magazines that were trying to reduce my self-esteem.
You sure you don’t want more articles on 50 Impractical How To Please Your Man? And What Does His Sleep Style say about your relationship?
It’s ironic that my parents were super worried about exposure to porn, but Cosmo is what taught me that female sexual performance should be centred around the mans pleasure.
Exactly, that’s the problem. For a women’s magazine, Cosmo is sexist af.
It’s always been bullshite. Barf is right.
I stopped reading when one of the writers told a reader that she should expect her boyfriend to cheat and that they should be supportive of it.
I wish people would stop quoting their children. Your kid listens to you, idolizes you, and regurgitates what you say to impress you. That’s the mechanism of learning. It’s no more impressive than what other children are doing and since, in this case, the kid seems to think boyfriends are objects to be acquired, you probably shouldn’t brag about her.
“since, in this case, the kid seems to think boyfriends are objects to be acquired, you probably shouldn’t brag about her.”
That’s a pretty harsh way to talk about a 6-year-old. Damn.
@Shambles haha thanks your comment made me laugh. I read it in a “Daria” voice.
Nic, she is 6 – how would you like her to think about boyfriends? Better for her to think they are objects than something much deeper. She is a child – this is how they think. My daughter is 10 and thinks a boyfriend is a “boy who is her friend” and nothing else. She also thinks she needs lots of friends, which I make clear it doesn’t matter how many friends you have, as long as you have 1 really good friend that you trust. I am grateful my kiddo still has that innocence. As Willow grows older I’m sure her parents will help her realize that boyfriends are not objects to collect as you put it. Let that child be a child in all her innocence.
@Dr. Mama – Please be careful with emphasizing that your child should always have 1 super close friend because not everyone has that in their lifetime, and sometimes the friends die. I would hate to see how lost a child would be if they think that they must have 1 really great friend and something happened to that friend.
I say this as one of my exes lost his best friend when we all were in our early 20’s. He had known him forever and was lost without him. (The guy was diabetic and pushed it, knowing that he needed to eat. He was driving his father’s truck back to the company when he fell into a diabetic coma and crashed and was killed.) And I’ve known others whose childhood best friends didn’t make it to adulthood.
It’s good to teach your child to be social, for sure, but also teach him or her to be independent and to know that they can make it in this world with or without close friends. I say this as a tremendous introvert who has been solo most of my life regarding friendships. (I have some friends now, but every “best” female friend that I’ve ever had has stabbed me in the back, including cheating on my boyfriends and an ex-fiance. His cheating is why I broke up with him.)
Just my two cents.
I have a suspicion that you may be seriously overestimating the mental and psychological complexities of a six year old there, my dude.
I’m not seeing where the ‘they’re objects to be acquired’ angle is coming from either. “I HAVE ( )” or “My ( )” is just how relationships are described. It’s not even a put-down.
Small memory tweaking through of Pink when she was first hitting it big as a young girl…she had problem with her parents of some sort, can’t remember specifics. It occurred to me that if her mom isn’t in the picture then Pink may be insecure and unsure about her parenting. Which, on top of telling herself she’s batshit, might be a valid concern and explain all this talk and over sharing she does.
I feel for her but hope she stops talking about her kids this openly. Not good for the kid.
Soooo sick of her trademark “snarl” face, grow up and smile like a normal person on a magazine cover, you’re giving me indigestion. The only thing worse is Miley Cyrus always sticking her tongue out.
I know, it’s terrible and so predictable. You’d think she’d want to try something new at some point. Or that a photographer would encourage her to.
I’ve mentioned that on several threads of Pink. The face, ugh. She’s no young rocker anymore, let it go Alecia……and yes Miley, your tongue is gross hanging out of your mouth.
Yes, stop it!
I don’t see how Pink said anything wrong with her comments. This is the wish list for most normal people…that there partner is attractive (to them), kind, respectful, makes them laugh. Pink is so alternative that I am sure she will encourage her daughters own perception of what attractive is to her. At least she isn’t saying, ‘settle for what you get.’
It amazes me how the tone of the CB story drives the comments. I’d bet several of the same commenters now writing how horrible the things Pink said are thought she was the coolest thing ever in a past positive post about her. SMH.
Pink answered appropriately for a coversation with a 6-year-old, but the post was about what she should have said to an 18-year-old. I’m confused by that.
I thought i was the only one, glad to hear other people found that weird too. I don’t even like Pink but damn, let’s jump on her bc she might or might not give her daughter the correct (to whom?) advice when she’s 18. Ok. Sure Jan.
Thank you. I noticed that as well. This interview is printed. Pink is one of the most tongue-in-cheek women out there. I hardly think her cute little conversation to Willow should be taken as a sociological study. If you really want to do that, I think it’d be better to start from her empowering speech where she told Willow that beauty comes in all sizes, shapes, packages and whatnot.
As for the comments about her « face »…it’ Cosmo. Hardly requires Mona Lisa posing. If she wants to make that face, more power to her I guess.
I don’t particularly like Pink, I don’t hate her, just find her mildly prudish and slut shamey and she rubs me wrong. I like her songs though.
Anyhow, this is the first article that was even somewhat negative, so I definitely notice the change in comment tone.
But I’m under my breath chortling and feeling mildly vindicated about it as I find her problematic while everyone else seems to love the stuffing out of her.
I know what you mean. Normally Pink is one of the few female pop stars/celebrities who can do no wrong. Discussions about her EVERYWHERE tend to be positive (toward her) but almost always tinged with some Not That Kind of Girl-ing toward other women in the music industry who are different ages, have different body-types, present as more unapologetically feminine, or are of different racial/ethnic backgrounds than Pink. So it is a change to see people being mostly critical of her for once. I think people are just jumping on her for the wrong thing this time around though.
You spoke my mind.
Yeah, it is interesting re: tone of comments.
Some days, the negativity of the comments section gets me down. It seems that women celebs are picked a part for the smallest things and comments become a battle of the harshest take. Positivity has been missing from the site recently.
Agreed. I came here a while ago for the Trump snark, but the group think in the comments is getting to a disturbing level. It’s like everyone is trying to “out woke” each other and let us know a) white women are awful or b) I’m the the exception to the awful white lady rule.
“It’s like everyone is trying to “out woke” each other…” YAS.
Yes!
Also, put me down as totally fine with what Pink told her daughter. It’s not “slut shaming” (so over that phrase) to not tell your child to have “as many” as she wants. If her son wanted to know how many wives he should have, would we be cool with “as many as you want”? Not me.
(note also the double standard of when men are called-out for being douches for this very behaviour)
Perhaps many vociferous commentators on this site will think it’s perfectly normal and healthy to have multiple simultaneous partners and one night stands, but i’ve never known a woman or man personally with much self esteem or personal dignity who used that approach or derived any real happiness from it. My friend’s transgender daughter went through that phase and the outcome was self evident. Like most people, what she really wants is love. Empty sex isn’t leading to that.
Think of the young people who think you have to engage in sex, have to do it early, with as many people as possible and there is something wrong if they don’t. If they aren’t doing all of these things, they aren’t “body positive”. Those are the messages the culture they live in are giving them. Young women are reporting now that they feel coerced into performing oral sex because they don’t want to have intercourse. The implication is that there is something wrong with them if they are uncomfortable with casual sex.
The kind of frankly stupid suggestions in this article for what parents should tell children aren’t helping. To give a young child the advice of “as many as you want” without way more context is to do harm. Pink’s answer made a lot more sense for her daughter’s integrity and ultimate happiness. And I would say the same thing to my son. Every person is entitled to dignity and respect. I don’t see those values underlying what is essentially a use them and discard them mentality about future partners.
@Marianne: You’ll stop hearing about slut-shaming when it stops happening. Perhaps instead of whining about how tired you are of hearing (mostly) women and girls discuss a problem that’s a part of the inequality and violence faced by them as a group, you could make the choice to stop being a part of this problem? The ladies who complain about being tired of hearing about slut-shaming are usually the ones who don’t want to stop being complicit in it because they’re still deluded into believing that they benefit from it, as you’ve demonstrated here.
Many (myself included) are actually ‘cool with’ others having as many or as few ‘boyfriends’ or ‘girlfriends’ as they like in their lifetimes- provided that it’s all consensual and abuse-free, a person who only agreed to a monogamous relationship isn’t getting cheated on, and the person is treating everybody with basic respect as human beings. That applies to both men and women, so no double standard there. Also, since it’s the 21st century, can we stop pretending that people only either save themselves and get a happily ever after, or have nothing but what you call ’empty sex’ all their lives and never know love? Those Evangelical Christian pamphlets are getting us nowhere. Sex and love are both things humans can want. Not everyone wants both of those things at the same time, from the same person, all the time.
There are at least 2 likely reasons why you don’t feel that anyone you’ve ever met who’s ever had any sex you view as sinful has self-respect or personal dignity. 1.) Not everybody shares everything about their sexual history with you. This probably isn’t just because you’re not an open-minded, tolerant person whom people trust they can discuss such matters with without you viewing them as inferior to you, but because not everybody shares everything with everybody anyway. The reality is there’s probably at least one person you’ve come across in your long, long lifetime who does have self-respect and personal dignity but has secretly had sex you don’t like (or more of it than you have/ than you think they should have) without disclosing that to you. 2.) Your idea of what it means to have self-respect and personal dignity already excludes people doing things with their bodies that you don’t personally approve of. This is a bias that’s especially easy for people exposed to a society of religious patriarchy and rape culture to fall into. There are homophobes who will swear up and down that they’ve never known a person who’s dated, wedded, or bedded members of the same sex and also had personal dignity, self-respect, or normal mental health. There are religious people who will swear up and down that every woman they’ve ever known who didn’t wait until marriage who didn’t regret it terribly, didn’t feel like a dirty or used object because of it, and whose soul was not destroyed- destroyed I tell you!- by the ‘sin’. They’ll say the same thing about abortion too. And guess what? Most of these bigots honestly do believe what they’re saying. Projection is one hell of a drug.
BTW, ‘sex positive’ (you accidentally said body-positive) has nothing to do with telling people they have to be having sex by a certain time, with at least a certain amount of people. This argument is often a strawman built up by people who want to pretend ‘Now the Good Girls are the ones being Persecuted by those Satanic liberal jezebels!’ because what they really want is to continue slut-shaming and victim-blaming women without criticism. (See also: Heterophobia). Coercion, on the other hand, definitely does, and always has, existed. But that’s another part of patriarchy and rape culture, not sex-positive feminism- and is the complete opposite of the message you’re railing against. If we’re being honest, there are far more tales of girls being treated like there’s something wrong with them for what they do sexually than there are of girls being treated like there’s something wrong with them for wanting to make the choices that are considered the ‘classiest/most ‘moral’. You even provided an example of it here- describing those whose sexuality you dissaprove of as used, discarded objects devoid of integrity, self-respect, happiness, and personal dignity.
@ Otaku Fairy
Your comment prompted a rather long response from me. It’s not necessarily to you or about your comment, although some is. As I started writing, it crystalised for me some concerns that have been brewing a long time about what I am reading on this site.
There is a lot of hypocrisy in our society. Both conservatives and liberals engage in it. Most don’t recognize it. We are all very good at self deception. Perhaps it’s a survival mechanism?
What I find disappointing is how quickly the most purportedly “tolerant” people police the viewpoints of those who don’t agree with them. It’s the new McCarthyism. Indeed, it’s my view that there is more oppressive judgment from those who most vociferously preach tolerance than the converse. That is my experience.
It is mistaken to suggest that there is more judgment against women for what they do sexually than there is against those who choose a different way. At least where I live (and indeed in my own experience). And certainly not on this site. This very post is an example of it. In fact, it’s a snide condemnation of what Pink said to her daughter as being insufficiently sex positive. And as a commentator has noted, the tone of the comments then follow. To be fair, of course that likely results from those who agree feeling more comfortable to do so. But I disagree with some of the notions here, and I decided it was important enough for myself, for women, (some women?) to speak out.
I’d like to add that I have felt myself refraining from sharing my views many times because of the potential response. For example, there are a number of assumptions in the comment above, some true, others not. Many insulting. I liked this site at the beginning because of the tolerance, the respectfulness, the lack of homophobia and racism in the comments. It was refreshing. But, the tone is changing. One commentator felt is was perfectly ok to say that he or she hated a whole US state. People feel it’s perfectly fine to make a lot of assumptions about people who hold more conservative viewpoints on various issues than they do. There’s rhetoric and there’s ignorance. Happily, there is still true tolerance on the site, with many looking for a more constructive way of engaging. I hope that ends up overtaking the rest.
@Marianne:
This really isn’t about being intolerant of women (or men) who want to save sexual activity for marriage or anything like that. People not being discriminated against or portrayed as inferior because of either what they do or don’t do sexually are both parts of sex-positive feminism. The celibate unmarried woman who decides to wait is neither superior nor inferior to the sexually active unmarried woman who alternates between love/relationship-only sex and experimental desire-based sex. The problem isn’t someone being clear about what they don’t want to do sexually- it’s that people with these conservative beliefs have a dangerous pattern of portraying women who aren’t as sexually conservative as inferior to women who are. And that is a pattern that you fell into with your first comment. There’s a difference between being a tolerant person who just happens to hold conservative beliefs about what she will and won’t do with her own body and is speaking out about that, and being someone who paints women who don’t live by those conservative beliefs as less than. I personally know women who hold/live by those personal beliefs but wouldn’t dream of using expressions like ‘discarded’, ‘used up’, or ‘lacking self-respect/ personal dignity/ integrity’ to describe women who choose a different path. It’s not tolerance when the discussion automatically starts with women not making one particular choice being positioned as less than. We love to make statements about women and self-respect, but want them to shut-up and keep their heads down the moment self-respect, integrity, personal dignity, respect for the dignity of others, and assertiveness manifest in any way other than ‘keeping legs closed’. Mentalities and language that dehumanize women and girls are normalized in a way that is considered less acceptable when discussing men and boys. You say that one of the things that drew you here was a lack of homophobia. How ok would you be with a man with conservative beliefs using that exact same language to describe men for sleeping with men? Or dating, marrying, or starting families with men?
Judging women as having something wrong with them for being straight and wanting to make decisions about their bodies that are traditionally considered to be ‘classier’ (like waiting until marriage/ a relationship) does happen. But to pretend that that judgment has been just as aggressive, frequent, and intense as the judgment directed at women and girls who don’t tow that line is just factually wrong. How often are honor crimes and killings committed against heterosexual women and girls because they wanted to abstain from casual sex? How often do we have girls being driven to kill themselves by people who were bullying them for being modestly-dressed, western, heterosexual virgins? Is what’s considered ‘good girl sexuality’ being used against domestic violence victims and sexual assault victims just as much as what’s considered ‘bad girl sexuality’? How often do people take a look at a ‘classy’ female celebrity believed to save sexuality for love and say things like, “Now this is why men disrespect, traffic, and abuse women?” Do rumors of celibacy, virginity, or saving sex for love get used to smear adult and underage female public figures, or is it leaked photos, rumors of ‘promiscuity’, and ‘casting couches’ that get used against them? What arguments do we see being used to attack reproductive rights? Are unmarried virgins criminalized and weaponized against women like prostitutes are? Are people mutilating the genitals of young girls because they want them to be ‘slutty’, or is it because they want them to be ‘virginal’? How often has being a straight, virginal unmarried woman been seen as something that required a trip to an asylum, conversion therapy, etc.? How often do people look at a woman’s decision to save sex for love and dress conservatively and falsely assume that sexual abuse or something else horrible is wrong with her? Or, how often do people hear such a woman come forward with a Me Too story and say something like, “Damn. Her choice can’t be anything but a symptom of that abuse- poor damaged thing, she’s just to violated to know better’?”
The fact that you (like most of us) sometimes feel the need to refrain from saying something publicly isn’t automatically an abnormal or bad thing, by the way. This ‘both sides’ argument that all beliefs, no matter how they’re expressed, what they’re rooted in, or how they impact society- warrant not only a public platform, but polite, passive acceptance is the same argument that Trump’s supporters use to martyr themselves.
I guess I don’t necessarily think “good looking” is something that bad. Granted everyone’s perception of what good looking is can be very different. I talked to my 9 year old niece over Christmas and we talked about boys. I didn’t mention looks but being respectful of her as a person, respectful of her ideas, beliefs and opinions was definitely discussed. I told her the old adage ” you will pick a lot of daisies before you find your rose” just like we were told (repeatedly) growing up. She informed me of a boy who told her that she was going to be his girlfriend. She wasn’t having it and told him no and when he got mad she refused to talk to him at all for a month till he apologized. She talks to him but she won’t be told what to do either. I was so proud. She definitely gives me hope about the future.
Doesn’t everyone want a good looking partner? That is, someone that is good looking to them, not necessarily to everyone else? I agree with you that Pink said nothing wrong here.
My husband is good looking. To me. His 30 year old self was completely HOT (we’ve known each other since our 20’s, but only hooked up in our late 40’s), but growing into his 52 year old self has gone fairly well. That being said, he’s probably not everyone’s cup of tea.
It’s the prioritizing of good looking that often causes issues, and it reinfirces the importance of being attractive to the child herself rather than focusing on other attributes.
I can see how short forming “attractive to you” for a six year old would be difficult though.
It would be more problematic if our society didn’t make women’s expression of sexuality a radical endeavor. Boys grow up a in culture that tells them women are sexual objects that they are entitled to. Girls do not. Huge difference in the long term social psychological consequences of a comment like that.
I know it seems kinder to say it doesn’t matter but I have to admit my stomach flips and churns when I look at my husband at times. That isn’t to say every guy I have dated has been some smoking hot Adonis because they haven’t.
Usually, I found men like him suspicious because he takes care of himself and is well dressed.
It is a bonus but not a requirement. Good looks are a waste if the man’s personality is as appealing as a dirt sandwich.
ITA. Call me shallow but there are some physical attributes that must be present for me to be attracted to a guy. I say this with the full understanding that my idea of ‘good looking’ may not be everyone else’s cup of tea.
Agreed. It would have been a problem if physical attractiveness had been the only thing she mentioned, but it wasn’t. All the other qualities she listed had to do with the kind of people the potential boyfriends would be (she could have left out chivalrous I guess). The only issue is that not every person someone’s going to want to date is going to have all of those things at once. But that probably doesn’t all need to be explained to a 6-year-old.
I’m confused about the Nate Ruess comment. He’s a “pain in the ass voice?” He’s a pain in the ass but has such a great voice? What does it mean?
Her song with him….Just Give Me a Reason is one of my faves. Throughout this interview she sounds high, or maybe wants us to believe she’s still a cool rocker chick. She’s talking like the Mad Hatter. Whatever, Nate Ruess is one of the best things that happened to her professionally imo.
Ellen DeGeneres has had rumors for years about how rude she is. I guess she leads with kindness when the other person is famous.
That’s what I was thinking. From what I’ve read, she’s allegedly abusive. Not my idea of someone who is kind.
I have read the same things. She seems like a person who can turn it off and on. She has undoubtedly been nice to Pink, who is a celebrity, but average people?
Ellen is a jackass to regular people.
Wow. I don’t know any 6 year-olds that would ask that question unless it’s in the context of “How many boys can I have over for a play date, because they are my friends”. Huh,
Right?!! That is an unusual question for a six year old to ask ….maybe Pink is misquoting her daughter or she took the question out of context or the entire story is not being told. No way I accept her daughter meant that in a “sexual” way.
as demanding as men are T see no harm in her telling her daughter that is ok to want a man that is nice on the eyes, gimmie a break people, yall KNOW it matters!
Now this is true. Women are often socialized to be unable to ask for what they want. It’s not ‘kind’ to say nope, sorry, no uggos.
In my highly scientific research (watching 90 day fiancée and married at first sight), women will often say – I want a goofy guy – when what they mean is they want a goofy and hot guy. Then they are horridly disappointed because the studio went off of goofy.
It scares me that parity involves so much superficiality though.
Calm down about the good looks comment. I want to date someone ugly – said no one ever. Besides, what’s good looking to me maybe ugly AF to someone else and vice versa. It’s not that serious – it’s a conversation with a 6 year old.
Actually, it’s very serious. Children listen and internalize. She might forever be on a path now to grow up and find hot guys to date, rather than nice and hot guys to date.
I say this as someone who was forever emotionally scarred by being told as a child that I had “knobby knees” when I was at my great aunt’s home. My grandmother said it and everyone laughed. From that day on, I hated my legs because obviously something was wrong with them if everyone laughed at me. I stopped wearing shorts and started wearing jeans, even in the summer.
I intellectually know as an adult that they were wrong to do that, but it has taken decades for me to realize what it was that fostered my dislike of my legs. I still don’t wear shorts in public even to this day.
Sometimes what seem like innocent comments can really turn into something big, even if a person didn’t mean it that way. Considering she was talking about whom her daughter should date, her words definitely carry weight.
Pink has never been someone I liked or disliked. I can’t remember her songs and her girl power thing leaves me cold. But at the same time, I don’t have any negative thoughts about her.
At one time I would have agreed with her attitude about nudity and feminism, but now they are more than problematic to me.
I can’t believe everyone is jumping on her for “good looking” when “chivalrous” is such an easier target for disbelief and derision.
For the record, I unapologetically love P!nk.
Nope! She’s teaching her daughter that men have to be good looking in order to date them? Canceled.
Had she said that he needs to be intelligent, I’d give her a pass, even though intelligence varies and there are some wonderful men out there who aren’t that intelligent.
LMFAO seriously???
I think it was a poor and shallow thing to say too but to “cancel” her for something that she’s in all fairness she is hardly serious about is RIDICULOUS. Her kid will like who she likes and Pink is hardly gonna tell her she has to dump him.
The silly hissy fits at celebs for the most minor reasons must be exhausting. We all say non PC stuff, don’t act like you are perfect.
I never said that I am perfect because I absolutely am not. There is more to why I am over Pink. This was the last straw.
Her child is learning from her actions and her words. Hearing that she must date good looking men isn’t something that she should be told. Things like that can be internalized and pop up later in life without knowing the cause. I just don’t agree that the only people who are dating material are the pretty ones.
Can we cancel “cancelled”? It just seems so unnecessarily dramatic.
It’s become parody now. Cancelled has been ruined and needs to go. People say stupid things, cancelling people who say stupid things means cancelling everyone.
OMG yes. Cancelled. What a poser notion. Cancel it!!!
Reminds me of the Kids in the Hall where they would look at a person from a distance and hold their thumb and forefinger in a “C” shape and say “I’m going to crush your head.”
Sure you are!
I thought about it more deeply, and this is why her statement bothers me:
It reinforces that women have virtue that only should be shared with those exceptional men
It reinforces that Pink has a say in her daughters relationships and who she shares her body with.
It reinforces that she should be highly selective and adhere to specific socialized norms.
It just smacks of the father who won’t let his darling daughter date because the boy isn’t good enough. It’s body and sexuality policing wrapped in a slightly nicer wrapper. Which Pink does all the time.
I’d prefer an answer along the lines of – as many as you want.
@ Deets , I totally agree re the boy not being good enough to date these precious girls. I’m really tired of seeing this and wonder how high maintenance and demanding these girls may turn out if they grow up believing that boys don’t ” deserve” them. Of course I don’t mean that boys can behave poorly and see girls as property but not all males are abusive entitled jerks. Those of us with sons may feel these girls don’t ” deserve” ours sons .
I need to reword if you got that from what I wrote.
My point is that parents do not get a say in their child’s body or sexual life.
“Love infuses beauty into whatever it finds appealing.”
That’s lovely 🙄
And very true, right?
Absolutely!
Eh, 99% of the qualities she listed are agreeably fantastic. One comes down to questionable choice of words. How do we all know she meant Western/Hollywood/insert-culture-here standard “good looking” and not “attractive to you”? Based on her persona, life choices, and past interviews, we could make an educated guess that she meant “attractive to you”. We don’t even know exactly what she said to her daughter – she had to paraphrase to keep the answer digestible. You know, these people giving interviews aren’t wordsmiths. Maybe try and see where they are coming from rather than parsing their words?
Wow I can’t believe people are offended by what Pink said acting like it will traumatise her daughter forever. It’s absolutely crazy. I would hate to be a celebrity in this day and age when you can barely say a word without everyone attacking every last word of it. I think this faux outrage at absolutely everything will eventually lead to a huge sense of desensitisation and then a backlash.
Ellen…kindness? She’s a mean girl who hides behind jokes.
I was raised why the, “Even if you find him ugly, give him a chance, personality wins.” So, I ended up dating guys I felt pity for. They weren’t good-looking by any stretch, but I was convinced that unattractive meant automatic good personality. EACH guy was a dick. I wish my mom had told me to go with who i found good-looking.
I found someone i was physically attracted to, and even though I’m told he isnt good-looking by “regular” standards, he IS attractive, and he has a good personality.
Yeah, I think as a young girl I believe that if a guy was unattractive or dorky, then he probably had a heart of gold and should be trusted more. Surprise! They can be jerks, they can be dangerous. The MRA movement is filled with them.
yea im so over th billy idol rage face too.
Maybe it’s an involuntary tic which occurs whenever she steps in front of a camera ? Just kidding..
I used to like her because I thought she was original, but now, connecting the dots, she’s pretty much a stereotype too. Healthier than Britney Spears, Aguilera, Jessica Simpson, but still an annoying stereotype. And damn, she did sound jealous of the “pretty women”.