Kim Kardashian

The Inner Twerkings of Miley’s Madness

This post is pure speculation,  I have no real proof to suggest anything I’m going to ramble on about here is true but it may be something worth thinking about. At any given time, there is usually one celebrity making all the headlines, the one you can’t go anywhere without having a conversation about them, I’m talking Lady Gaga after she wore her meat dress, Kanye interrupting Taylor Swift at the VMAs but who would have thought innocent-faced, Miley Cyrus would ever reach the required height of relevance to make such a huge impact? Well, she has and while most are labelling her a ‘whore’ among other things, there is a just a chance that she may really be a marketing genius.

Scantily clad… Miley has become quite attached to skimpy clothes and sexual grinding.

In case you live under a rock, country darling Miley Cyrus has recently transformed in to a mega slut, think Draco Malfoy in a strip club. It all started with her single “We Can’t Stop”, exploring the sinister themes of a drug party rather than the cute on-goings of Tennessee hoedowns like her previous singles. The video was the most controversial with Miley writhing around barely clothed, making out with dolls, licking men’s torsos and twerking like she’d been tasered. That was stir enough but Cyrus managed to exceed her antics when she then twerked right in the lap of Robin Thicke at the MTV Video Music Awards. She also showed the world that she had a rare disease called ‘restless tongue syndrome’. Anyhow, interest continued to generate and she once again kept her momentum of craziness going by appearing in her latest music video for follow-up single, ‘Wrecking Ball’ entirely naked on an actual wrecking ball and by practically fornicating with a sledgehammer. She claims that this is purely artistic but you would have to be a moron to have seen that video and think she’s not trying to promote her sexuality.  You’re probably wondering where I’m getting with this but if you think about it; sex sells.

Hammer time… Miley claims this is artistic.

Miley acting promiscuously in her weird videos generates interests, which generates more views which generates more publicity and before you know it, Sly little Miley or Sliley as I’m now dubbing her, has her first UK number-one single. Pretty clever right? She follows her madness up quickly with her stint at the VMAs, everyone’s left talking about Miley and we’re waiting for what she’ll do next. She releases ‘Wrecking Ball’ accompanied by another equally controversial video and subsequently she breaks the record for most views on Vevo within 24 hours. And you can bet that ‘Wrecking Ball’ will be another top 5 hit globally. Why has she done this? Probably because it’s worked. Crazy behaviour gets noticed. Just think about how irrelevant Amanda Bynes was 12 months ago and now she’s arguably been the most talked about celebrity of 2013. But what I’d bet is that this is an ingenious plan by Miley to simply distance herself from her Hannah Montana days. She tried and failed to do that with “Can’t Be Tamed” but this time has thrown out all the stops to ensure she will no longer be seen as a kid. Here’s the checklist; 1) she’s singing about drugs, 2) she’s provocatively licking and flirting with literally any object she can find, 3) she’s changer her image so people know she is different now and 4) she’s declared ownership of a slutty dance move that is easy to replicate and already popular. In fact, that last point is her biggest triumph. Twerking is all the rage in clubs, on Twitter, on Vine and when ever anyone hears that word they think; Miley Cyrus – which is probably why she’s been trending on Twitter in some medium for the last two weeks.

If what I’m suggesting is correct, you really have to give Miley credit, she’s done a remarkable job of making herself relevant when in reality she’s not the best singer nor the most distinguishable popstar of this generation but if she can make some money and herself a success from these eccentric escapades than more power to her; Twerk, Miley. Twerk, twerk! On the other hand, if she has just gone a little bit insane and actually thinks her behaviour is normal and appropriate, maybe we should get her some help and perhaps get Billy Ray on the Jeremy Kyle show.

Other Celebrity publicity stunts that have worked out

  • Mariah Carey scored a platinum-selling single with the only slightly above average, ‘Obsessed’ by targeting Eminem in her video.
  • Lady Gaga cemented her reputation as ‘quirky’ and ‘off the wall’ by wearing a dress made of meat – it didn’t harm her album sales either.
  • Swapping spit seemed to bolster sales for both Britney Spears and Madonna.
  • Any number of female celebrities have increased their sex appeal by coming out as ‘bisexual’.
  • Kim Kardashian masterfully handled the fallout of her sex tape to become one of the world’s most famous names (well her mother did).

My same-sex marriage speech

I was asked to do this by quite a few people actually. So theoretically, if I were to stand up in the House of Commons or House of Lords, this is what I would say;

I have always maintained that the best way to resolve an argument is to talk through both sides of it and make a decision, and that’s what I intend to do here.
I’m strongly in favour of passing the legislation that makes same-sex marriage legal but in truth, that’s irrelevant. In the next few moments, I won’t be speaking as a Liberal. I will simply be pleading my case as a human being.

The reasons for favouring this legislation are less in volume but no less in importance than those opposing it. Gay men and women across the country simply want the right to be able to stand before their loved ones and celebrate their relationship. It’s really that simple. To those, that say this right is already afforded to the gay community through means of a civil partnership, hear this; separate but equal is never equal, separate but equal is an inequality disguised as compromise.  The LGBT community of this country simply want to know that their inter-personal relationships are just as valued as any other.

They are the few but valid arguments supporting this legislation. The arguments opposing them are more numerous but dismissible. Many of these arguments are strongly linked to religion. Some theists out there are worried that the inclusion of gay couples will threaten God’s idea of marriage. Those advocates seem to have ignored much of what God said was acceptable in marriage. In fact, concubines, prostitutes, incest, rape and even kitchen condiments are all feasible in a Bible-based marriage but a relationship between two committed women for example is classified as immoral. This is not me taking a bash at religion; this is me taking a bash at religion trying to impose its views on government. Politics is a secular matter and theists have no right to assert their religious laws on the entire nation. Others claim that if this legislation passes in to law then those of a religious disposition will be forced to offer a double bed to gay couples at a bed & breakfast or to make a cake for a gay wedding, those worried about this possibility should probably find themselves another career because if you’re unable to cater for all cross-sections of society, no matter their gender, race or sexuality then public service really isn’t the place for you.
Away from religion, others are worried that this legislation will destroy the sanctity of their marriage and threaten their union. These people can be assured that allowing others the same union they have will not threaten theirs, these couples will still bicker about who gets the remote control and what to have for tea. This inclusion of gay people in to marriage will threaten heterosexual marriage much less than say Kim Kardashian’s 72-hour, just-for-fun marriage.
Some parents are also fearful of explaining to their children that two people of the same gender can be in love. Children are not naturally bigoted; if you tell them something they will accept it, these are people that believe in Santa, the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny. As a matter of fact, just this week I saw a mother post on to Twitter how she told her kids about their uncle who happened to be gay and her story went like this;
“I’ve been forced to explain homosexuality to my kids (aged 3 and 4) because their uncle is gay. This incredibly difficult and traumatic experience went as follows:

Child: Why does Uncle Bob go everywhere with Pete?
Me: Because they’re in love, just like Mummy and Daddy are.
Child: Oh. Can I have a biscuit?”

Every child is different obviously but this just isn’t an argument. A child is a parent’s responsibility. How can you ask a portion of the population to omit their human rights just to save you a potentially awkward conversation?

Then there are those who take it a step further and consider homosexuality unclean or unnatural, to those people I say this; homosexuality is commonly observed behaviour in tens of thousands of species, homophobia is only commonly observed in one. You tell me, which is unnatural.

Progressing down the line of opposition, parties like UKIP claim this isn’t the right time. Funnily enough, I agree. This legislation should have been passed sooner. How can we wait on human rights? Imagine if Rosa Parks had decided to sit at the back of the bus because it wasn’t a convenient time to make her stand that day, somebody. When will the time be? There will always be issues in this country, meaning there will always be an excuse for parties such as UKIP to set this policy aside.

My favourite argument against this legislation is that this policy of equal marriage will lead to incestuous marriages, marriages with animals etc. Simply put, that is nonsense. When women were granted the right to vote, it didn’t go to dogs afterwards. A goldfish can’t sign a marriage licence. This is no slope and it isn’t slippery.

Those opposed to this legislation, and this may be controversial, needn’t be considered anything else but homophobes. If you want to deny someone equal rights because of their sexuality under any of the aforementioned sub-arguments then that is homophobia. That is hate against love. This legislation isn’t about gay rights; it’s about human rights that have been denied to people of a certain predisposition for too long.

We hear frequently in this country of gay teenagers taking their own lives because they are treated like second-class citizens for being who they are. They hate themselves that much because they’re being brought up in a world, where there love is less important than their families’ or their friend’s. If we don’t allow this legislation to pass then more and more generations will grow up thinking their sexual preference means they’re worth less than everybody else. This law will change social norms and literally save lives. Change is coming, whether people like it or not. And those who oppose same-sex marriage today will forever be mocked on the wrong side of history.

The Gay Marriage Debate

One of modern day’s social taboos is the issue of gay marriage. Particularly in the Western World where homosexuality is on the whole more accepted, the idea of same-sex marriage is becoming more and more prevalent.

And to me, when weighing up the pros and cons, it’s a ‘no brainer’.

The main opposition to same-sex unions seems to derive from fierce conservatives or passionate theists. Conservatives claim that because gay couples cannot reproduce they should not be allowed to marry. Theists, particularly Christians and Muslims draw inspiration from their hate for homosexuality from ancient verses of their gods, who condemn it. Many American Christians believe that homosexuals would damage the sanctity of marriage in the eyes of God, citing it as immoral.

I wholly respect the rights of both conservative and religious groups to hold their own views but is the justification for their prejudice really there?
The extreme right wing’s main argument relies on a homosexual couple’s incapability to reproduce, however would they deny an infertile couple the opportunity to enter in to a legal union?
Religious groups also rely on God’s firm stance of heterosexual marriages only. However, God also allows marriages which constitute of incest, rape and pedophilia.

How the parties see it

Bigoted... UKIP are opposed

Bigoted… UKIP are opposed

UKIP and the BNP are the main adversaries to same-sex marriage in the UK. The Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Green party support the movement whereas the Conservatives are split. The main criticism as the picture shows above is that UKIP believes it’s bad timing. They don’t see a need for a change regardless and especially not now.

Apparently, it’s not a pressing issue in today’s politics. What could be more important than basic HUMAN (not gay) rights?

Dismantling the argument

During my time, researching the area of same-sex marriage debate, several key arguments come up and here’s my direct response to each;

1. “Being gay is not natural.”
Homosexuality is common behaviour in THOUSANDS of different species. Homophobia is only found in one, which is natural?
Also, by this logic. You should not be accessing the internet through a mobile, laptop or any other means because that too is ‘unnatural’.

2. “Adam and Eve not  Adam and Steve”
You mean that story about how a floating man in the sky created the Earth in six days which also  features a cameo by a talking snake?

3. “Heterosexual couples are the traditional definition of marriage.”
…and traditionally, blacks and women did not have equal rights either, should it still be the case?

4. “Straight marriage will lose it’s meaning.”
Yes, the sanctity of Kim Kardashian’s 72 day marriage will be destroyed.

5. “Marriage is the place for children.”
Because elderly and infertile couples are denied the right to marry too, aren’t they?

6. “Gay parents will raise gay children.”
The same way, straight parents always raise straight children.

7. “It goes against God.”
So is wearing more than one type of fabric. I respect your right to be a theist, but who are you to impose the wills of your leader on non-believers? Marriage is granted by the state, an organisation in which religion should have MINIMAL say.

8. “If gay people can get married soon paedophiles and bestialitists will have the same rights too

A gross miscalculation of change. A same-sex marriage is entered in to by two consenting adults. A child nor an animal can legally or physically consent to marrying a human being. Homosexuality is victimless.

9. “It will lead to gay adoption and children NEED both male and female parents to succeed.”
Because single parents always do such an awful job by themselves?  I find it difficult to ascertain why somebody’s genitals affects their skills as a parent and/or role model.

The main argument against gay marriage is as always God and the bible, a book written thousands of years ago when people believed the world was flat. A book that only SOME christians actually believe. Marriage is a legal right not  a religious one. Why would you deny two people happiness when you’re indirectly affected? Would you tell someone they can’t eat a doughnut just because you’re on a diet?

In hindsight, this is less of a debate than fucking obvious. The fact this is still only discussion even seems ludicrous in 2012. But for now, all I can advise the opposition is if you’re against gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person.