Why Sinead O’Connor’s Letter To Miley Cyrus Is Not Slut-Shaming

posted in: Music News

The response to the open letter written by singer Sinead O’Connor to Miley Cyrus has been immense. The letter inspired many to speak out, with what seems like a majority applauding O’Connor’s message to Cyrus that she is letting herself be used by the music business, on a path to ultimate self-destruction, while perhaps deluded that she is revealing a new and empowered self. A growing and vocal segment of those responding, however, are accusing O’Connor of slut-shaming, implying that she is holding Cyrus to a traditional societal (double) standard that is outdated, arbitrary, and harmful to women.

Actual slut-shaming is indeed all of those things. But this is not that. O’Connor’s letter does not attack Cyrus for a lack of modesty, or for being sexual, or violating some accepted code of conduct.

What O’Connor did with her letter was voice her concern that Cyrus is doing the exact opposite of what she seems to believe she is doing. Rather than empowering herself with an open expression of sexuality, she is sublimating her identity and her talent by allowing herself to be pimped. O’Connor is delineating a crucial distinction between two very different things: sexual expression and sexual commerce.

Is her letter presumptuous? In a way, yes. But she didn’t pull herself into this. O’Connor exploded into the pop world at the age of 24 with her 1990 hit single and video Nothing Compares 2 U, which Cyrus has cited as an influence for her own video, Wrecking Ball. The latter video, like O’Connor’s, begins with a close-up shot of the singer’s face, but then deviates by featuring Cyrus nude, riding a swinging wrecking ball, and licking and writhing on a phallic sledgehammer. This is standard territory for director Terry Richardson, a celebrated photographer known for his images of explicit sex and drugs in an aesthetic nearly indistinguishable from hardcore pornography (high flash, minimal set dressing, unadorned and graphic subjects).

So, having been deluged by reporters as a result of the reference to her own work and identity, O’Connor had a right to respond. I am happy to hear I am somewhat of a role model for you, she writes, and I hope that because of that you will pay close attention to what I am telling you. And as a battered veteran of the music business, she offers a unique perspective: I’ve been in the business long enough to know that men are making more money than you are from you getting naked.

This is not about a young woman’s behavior or about morality. This is about a business, a media, a culture that increasingly values women for little beyond than their sexuality. O’Connor’s concern is that the Wrecking Ball video represents that same value system. In her letter, she repeatedly affirms Cyrus’ value as an artist and a talented singer, whose fans appreciate the music, and warns that the image being presented will ultimately render the music “ and the artist “ irrelevant, leaving only the sexual image in the cultural memory. The argument is not that Cyrus cannot do what she wants with her body. It’s that the exploitation of her body, by others, is going to cause her harm.

Again, O’Connor presumes a bit, including that this video was not Cyrus’ idea. Readers can decide whether they want to believe that or not. But let’s try to be honest here “ it’s a very safe presumption. Cyrus did not direct the video, Richardson did, and it’s in keeping with his body of work, not hers. It is a piece of media designed specifically to elicit a base reaction. It is designed to incite controversy. It has obviously accomplished its purpose. And that is the point “ the people who have conceived and executed this whole ‘new Miley’ campaign, which includes her performance at the VMAs, don’t care what we’re saying about it, they just care that we’re saying it. They don’t care what we think about Miley Cyrus. They just care that they have sex to sell, because it’s easy to sell. That works fine for them, but what about the person behind the product? Any aspiring pop star signs up to be, in part, a commodity. It’s part of the deal. But does she abdicate her identity and sense of self-worth because she wants to sell her music? Of course not, and O’Connor’s message is that allowing this kind of exploitation will undoubtedly have a lasting effect on that very real person, and it will not be a positive one.