What to Do When You Need $100, Fast

Photo by CafeCredit

by Kristin Wong

A new poll from Bloomberg suggests that almost half of Americans would have a hard time affording a $100 emergency, like a speeding ticket, medical bill, or other unexpected expense. Consider the idea that maybe this says less about the financial habits of Americans than it does our garbage economy.

Stop Blaming It All on Bad Money Habits

People are quick to judge when it comes to just about everything, but money seems to kill empathy faster than any other topic. Have massive student loan debt? You were stupid for going to college. Can’t afford your medical bills? Shouldn’t have bought an iPhone. Don’t have a job? Youmust be lazy.

None of that could possibly have anything to do with the fact that, for years now, wage growth has been stagnant and the job market has been unstable—when asked how they get paid, a quarter of those polled said, “it depends on the week.”

Bloomberg’s poll also found that 28% of respondents were worried about being able to pay for a mere $10 emergency. At this point, are we seriously still going to blame avocado toast?

That said, if you’re one of the many who struggles to afford a $100 emergency, you need an emergency fund more than anyone. The trouble is, people blame your bad financial habits, which is completely discouraging and likely only makes you want to give up altogether—don’t! Here’s some judgment-free info on what you can do when you’re strapped for cash and an emergency arises.

Let’s say you do get a speeding ticket and you have absolutely nothing saved. This is typically when people make desperate decisions that can push them into a downward spiral of debt, which typically leads to more desperate decisions and more debt.

Here are the worst options for financing an emergency:

  • Payday loans: With sky-high fees and interest rates, payday loans are a notorious debt trap and probably the last place you want to turn, especially if your income varies on a weekly basis. One late payment and you’re screwed.
  • Debt settlement: This isn’t always a debt trap, but it certainly can be. ClearPoint Credit Counseling Solutions explains that this is “a form of debt relief that is considered by financial experts to be extremely dangerous.” Debt settlement usually includes fees and rigid contracts—if you miss a payment, you could lose all of your money, and none of it will go toward your debt.
  • High-interest credit cards: This is probably a slightly better, less predatory option than the above, but only slightly. Miss a payment and you’re on the hook for fees and interest. That said, some credit card companies are willing to work with you and might lower your monthly minimum so you can at least avoid a late payment fee.

And here are some better alternatives:

  • Peer-to-peer lending: Sites like LendingClub and Prosper connect borrowers to regular people who loan their money so they can earn interest on it. As NerdWallet explains, your loan is funded by individual investors and the interest rate is determined by how much risk they’re willing to accept. The lender handles the paperwork and payments.
  • Credit union loans: Many credit unions offer short-term loans specifically designed to help people going through a rough patch. The terms are usually a hell of a lot better than payday loans and they consider applicants with poor credit, too. “Credit union lending has traditionally been at the heart of the credit union movement,” Samantha Paxson, Chief Marketing and Experience Officer at CO-OP Financial Services, told us in an email. “Individual credit unions offer loans at lower rates than banks because they are member-owned—people helping people; interest rates are lower because that is the motive, not profit.”
  • Small Dollar Loans: Through the FDIC’s Small Dollar Loan program, some banks offer “affordable” small loans to customers in a bind. NerdWallet explains more here, but generally, “affordable” means interest rates can’t be higher than 36%, which is still a lot, but it’s much less than the 200% interest rate (considering the fees they charge) you’ll get with a payday loan.

Seriously, if nothing else, just stay away from payday loans.

Why You Need an Emergency Fund

Ultimately, of course, you need an emergency fund. This is easier said than done, but consider this: an emergency fund gives you power and control over not only your finances but many other aspects of your life, too. (Here’s some recommended reading: A Story of a Fuck Off Fund.) When you have that money saved, you’re less likely to make rash and desperate choices. For once, you’ll have some breathing room in your life.

If you have to build an emergency fund from scratch, it’s best to start small. (Here’s how I did it. I’m not saying what worked for me will absolutely work for everyone else, but it may help.)

Most experts recommend saving between three to six months’ worth of living expenses, but if you’re struggling just to get by, this probably seems like a pipe dream. Instead, make that $100 your goal and look for ways to save a few bucks here and there, wherever you can find the cash. It might mean picking up overtime, selling some stuff, or looking for ways to save on each and every one of your monthly bills.

Ideally, you’ll keep your emergency fund in a separate savings account so you can’t touch it, and while some banks require a minimum balance to keep your account open, many of them don’t. A few of those include: Ally, Discover Bank, and Synchrony. Best of all, those banks don’t charge monthly fees.

http://twocents.lifehacker.com/what-to-do-when-you-need-100-fast-1795373661

WIKK WEB GURU

How to Practice Right Speech Anywhere, Anytime, and With Anyone

How to Practice Right Speech Anywhere, Anytime, and With Anyone
Photo by RKTKN | https://tricy.cl/2pM0T4X

And why right speech begins with good listening

By Krishnan Venkatesh

Mastering our minds begins with mastering our mouths. We spend the first 10 years of our lives learning “elementary right speech”: how to interact politely, respectfully, and inoffensively; when to speak, when not to speak. Then we spend another decade learning to express more complex feelings and ideas to others. We might call this intermediate right speech, although what we study even on these two preliminary levels is bottomless. Even something as simple as when to speak and when not to speak can’t be determined by a formula; it is a skill refined over a lifetime.

If you want to stop suffering, the Buddha taught, there is an eightfold path of practice to that end: right view, right motivation, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. While the word right: carries connotations of orthodox correctness, it is a misleading translation of the Pali word samma, which means perfected, completed, or consummated. The eight limbs of the path are not eight steps to be taken consecutively, but are to be worked on simultaneously. Like the eight branches to one trunk or eight tributaries flowing into one river, each is essential to the elimination of suffering. Of these limbs, none seem plainer than “right speech” or samma-vaca, yet samma-vaca is a powerful practice, and one that we can do anywhere, anytime, and with anyone.

“And what is samma-vaca?” asks the Buddha in The Discourse on Mindfulness Meditation. “Refraining from lying, divisive speech, harsh speech, and meaningless speech.”

The process of learning to improve ourselves through language can be thought of as advanced right speech. In this practice, we become more consciously skilled with our words, aware of the effects they can have on ourselves and others, and alert to the ways that our thoughts and statements can grow into habits. We avoid speech that makes us “impure”—confused, muddy, self-evading, and unable to separate truth from untruth.

Impurity, according to the Buddha, can come about in four ways. The first is telling falsehoods, by which we deliberately relax our commitment to truth and eventually even become so tied to subtly evolved fictions that we can no longer notice when we might be fooling ourselves. The second is saying things that are certain to cause strife, contention, and bad feeling, thus destroying social harmony by creating a miasma of mistrust and at the same time turning ourselves into someone who delights in dragging other people down. The third way is uttering words designed to hurt and upset, which sows internal strife in those around us and undermines their capacity for contentment. And the fourth destructive way may be the hardest for a modern person to understand: filling precious silence with babble that matters to no one, just to hear our own voices or to cover over a silence in which anxiety might arise. (Accustomed as we are to the sounds of entertainment and commentary, silence can disturb us; we find it awkward.) The effect of these together is unproductive emotional entanglement and mental confusion.

In contrast, when we learn to be more disciplined and scrupulous with our words, we find ourselves becoming better people. In The Discourse on Mindfulness Meditation, the Buddha says: “And how is one made pure in four ways by verbal action? There is the case where a certain person, abandoning false speech, abstains from false speech.”

This is the rare person who can always be counted on to be truthful and honest; who never speaks in such a way as to cause discord and is both good at and enjoys making friendships; someone whom people routinely seek out because of her sincerity, kindness, good nature, and encouragement; and one who is always to the point and worth listening to. This is an image of a wonderful, lovable human being—the kind of person we would want for a friend, and also the one that we aspire to become.

The beauty of such a path is that it can be practiced. At the beginning of each day, we can articulate to ourselves an intention to work on the four aspects of samma-vaca with the particular people and situations we come across. Before we go to sleep, we can reflect on our conversations, evaluate in detail whether we succeeded or not, and then decide what we need to do to improve. It is the conscious application of our reflective intelligence that makes this a practice and not just the spontaneous play of natural gifts. Did I tell the truth? Was I right to tell my friend X what my other friend Y had said about him? Did I hurt W’s feelings and make it harder for him to speak with me? Did I just waste an hour chatting about politics on Facebook?

Underlying all of these queries is the larger question about motivation: why did I speak, and what in me needed to say this? In thinking about these things and trying to cultivate lucidity regarding our own actions, we gradually become smarter about ourselves, more sensitive to other people, and more nuanced in our actions. When we do, we are able to, as the Buddha says: “speak words worth treasuring, seasonable, reasonable, circumscribed, connected with the goal.”…

more…

https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/practice-right-speech-anywhere-anytime-anyone/

WIKK WEB GURU

Debate: Why Are So Many Men Such Terrible Dressers?

by John McDermott

There was a time in the not-so-distant past when a man wore a crisp white shirt and neatly tailored suit to the office simply to convey that he was of a certain means and self-respect.

But, oh, how fashion standards for men have fallen since those days. Many offices now allow male employees to stroll in dressed like they’re about to hit the skate park.

Which is, in some ways, a good thing. The loosening of arbitrary social norms is almost always worthwhile. But there’s also something to be said for putting time and effort into your appearance, and the confidence and respect that come with showing your best self to the world.

So why the hell don’t more guys dress better? To solve this mystery, MEL turns to its panel of a straight woman (Tracy Moore), a straight guy (John McDermott) and a gay man (C. Brian Smith), who find that men’s aversion to fashion is rooted in homophobia and laziness.

Brian: My grandfather once told me, “No one takes a man in shorts seriously.” So I never wore them to work.

John: I like the cut of your grandfather’s jib. There are like three acceptable scenarios for a man to wear shorts: beach, working out and temperatures above 85 degrees (and even then it’s debatable).

And his comment speaks to the larger issue, which is that fashion standards for men have decreased to embarrassing levels over the past few decades, and I hate it.

Tracy: I agree the standards may have decreased, but at a time when there is more advice and guidance than ever for men making an even minimal effort.

John: Most men don’t pay attention to that, though.

I don’t date or check out men, so I’m actually curious to hear how fashionable the male populace is.

Tracy: I see dapper, well-dressed men all the time

John: But you’re a coastal elite!

Tracy: I also see guys in beefy T-shirts and cargo shorts.

Brian: I tend to overdress, likely because I’m always nervous about looking too casual. It’s a horrible look for an adult man. Like, grow up, bro.

John: I’m with you there. And yet so many guys wear the basic bro uniform (ill-fitting jeans, generic button-down or T-shirt, baseball cap, sneakers over white socks).

Brian: Let’s say you’re going to a friend’s dinner party — is there a minimum requirement for a guy?

John: No, and that’s the problem.

Tracy: Yes, men have largely been given a pass (outside of formal events) to dress however they want, with no consequences. They often dress for maximum comfort and nothing else.

John: That wasn’t always the case, though. Used to be the only time you’d see a man in a T-shirt and jeans was when he was mowing the lawn. Perhaps I’m being precious, but I feel like something has been lost.

Brian: What would be a consequence (if there was one)?

Tracy: For the most part there is none. If a guy shows up to an event underdressed, some woman might privately push him toward dressing better, or his friends who are better-dressed might mock him.

A single guy who’s out on the scene and puts zero effort into his appearance might ruin his chances with more style-conscious women. But he still might get laid.

John: Doesn’t that double standard bother you?

Tracy: It bothers me enormously that men get to look how they look, and you don’t know what a woman “really” looks like unless you’re dating her.

John: What’s the lowest level of fashionability you’ll accept in a romantic partner?

Tracy: He has to have a sense of style I don’t find hideous. Cargo shorts and a beefy T-shirt is the main offender. Also, flip-flops.

Brian: I need a guy to dress like an adult.

John: What does that even mean nowadays, though? I wore jeans, a T-shirt and hoodie to the office today (and yesterday). I’m dressed like a middle-schooler. (See my point?)

Brian: Yeah, I didn’t say anything, but I noticed.

Tracy: But the clothes actually fit you. Style isn’t about the items themselves — it’s about design, fit and fabric. You have a style that isn’t off the rack of a Costco (sorry, Brian).

Brian: Kirkland-chic?

Tracy: Anything can be pulled off if it fits you and expresses some kind of cohesive style. It’s just usually men do nothing — absolutely nothing.

Brian: Define “cohesive style.”

Tracy: Style, like being cool, is just having some original way of putting things together on your body that works. Men could just buy clothes that fit and that would be a great fucking start!…

more…

https://melmagazine.com/debate-why-are-so-many-men-such-terrible-dressers-6f32d367bc03

WIKK WEB GURU

Beethoven’s Advice on Being an Artist: His Touching Letter to a Little Girl Who Sent Him Fan Mail

“The true artist is not proud… Though he may be admired by others, he is sad not to have reached that point to which his better genius only appears as a distant, guiding sun.”

Beethoven by Joseph Karl Stieler

“The Artist is no other than he who unlearns what he has learned, in order to know himself,” E.E. Cummings wrote in contemplating what it means to be an artist — a sentiment which intimates that the accumulation of learning, an inevitable byproduct of the process of growing up, takes us not closer to but further away from our creative source. Baudelaire captured this perfectly when he wrote: “Genius is nothing more nor less than childhood recovered at will.” This, perhaps, is why some of humanity’s most fertile minds have traced the origin of their creative purpose in childhood moments of epiphany — Pablo Neruda in his anecdote of the hand through the fence, Patti Smith in her encounter with the the swan, and Albert Einstein in his formative memory of the compass.

In speaking with children, therefore, one might be able to get to the heart of art most simply and directly, unobstructed by the learned assumptions with which the act of living cloaks the act of creation.

That’s precisely what Ludwig van Beethoven (December 16, 1770–March 26, 1827) did in his response to a fan letter from a little girl.

In the summer of 1812, a young aspiring pianist named Emilie sent her hero a beautiful hand-embroidered pocketbook to express her admiration for his artistic genius. Touched by the gesture, 41-year-old Beethoven wrote back, offering some simple yet profound words of encouragement and advice on the creative life — an exquisite micro-manifesto for what it means to be an artist and what art demands of those who make it.

In a letter from July 17 of that year, found in Beethoven: Letters, Journals and Conversations (public library) — which also gave us the great composer’s stirring letter to his brothers about how music saved his life — Beethoven writes to Emilie:

My dear good Emilie, my dear Friend!

[…]

Do not only practice art, but get at the very heart of it; this it deserves, for only art and science raise men to the God-head. If, my dear Emilie, you at any time wish to know something, write without hesitation to me. The true artist is not proud, he unfortunately sees that art has no limits; he feels darkly how far he is from the goal; and though he may be admired by others, he is sad not to have reached that point to which his better genius only appears as a distant, guiding sun.

Although known for his explosive anger, a bout of which reportedly caused his deafness, Beethoven was indeed a man of multitudes, capable at times of tremendous tenderness and sensitivity. It is from that soft and human place that he adds, in this letter to a little girl of meager means and no social advantage, a touching note on the artist’s responsibility to humility:

I would, perhaps, rather come to you and your people, than to many rich folk who display inward poverty. If one day I should come to [your town], I will come to you, to your house; I know no other excellencies in man than those which causes him to rank among better men; where I find this, there is my home.

If you wish, dear Emilie, to write to me, only address straight here where I shall be still for the next four weeks, or to Vienna; it is all one. Look upon me as your friend, and as the friend of your family.

Complement this particular fragment of Beethoven: Letters, Journals and Conversations with Einstein’s advice to a little girl on being a scientist, Sol LeWitt’s electrifying letter of encouragement on being an artist, and Rilke’s timeless wisdom on what it takes to create, then revisit Beethoven’s passionate love letters.

https://www.brainpickings.org/

WIKK WEB GURU

HOLLYWOOD INSIDER SPEAKS OUT, CLAIMS A GLOBAL PEDOPHILE RING CONTROLS HOLLYWOOD

by Matt Agorist, Guest, Waking Times

Jon Robberson is a 16 year veteran of Hollywood feature film, television, and commercial production. He worked behind the scenes at all of the major studios and networks, having worked on projects for such notables as Spielberg, Bruckheimer, Silver and Abrams, to name a few. He also left that scene because he says it is rife with pedophilia.

Dave Daubenmire, the host of the webcast Pass the Salt Live, interviewed Robberson this week. During the interview, the former insider spoke about an alleged global Satanic pedophile ring that controls Hollywood.

Trust us, we know how this sounds. But hear it out.

Robberson is not the first person to make these claims. As the Free Thought Project reported last year, childhood star turned adult actor Elijah Wood, also claimed Hollywood is in the midst of a massive sexual abuse scandal, which can be compared to that of Jimmy Savile in Britain.

Wood came forward in an interview to blow the lid off the dark underground world of child acting in Hollywood.

In the interview with the Sunday Times, Wood dropped a bombshell, noting how child actors were regularly “preyed upon” by industry figures.

“Clearly something major was going on in Hollywood,” said Wood. “It was all organized.”

What Wood is talking about is the rampant sexual abuse of childhood actors, which has been previously exposed by Corey Feldman as well as Corey Haim.

In an episode of their reality TV show, The Two Coreys, a candid fight broke out during which Haim claimed Feldman stood by and watched as a person Feldman “still hangs out with” and is “best friends with” proceeded to “rape” the 14-year-old Haim.

“There are a lot of vipers in this industry, people who only have their own interests in mind,” continued Elijah Wood in his interview. “There is a darkness in the underbelly – if you can imagine it, it’s probably happened.”

When explaining how he was able to escape the molestation during his childhood in Hollywood, Elijah noted that he had good parents who protected him and did not let him attend these parties.

“She was far more concerned with raising me to be a good human than facilitating my career,” he said.

Wood says the abuse runs unchecked because the victims “can’t speak as loudly as people in power.”

“That’s the tragedy of attempting to reveal what is happening to innocent people,” he said. “They can be squashed but their lives have been irreparably damaged.”

 

Wood is referring to the immense power of Hollywood elites to control the narrative and quash any allegations of abuse before they even happen.

This narrative is so controlled that after Wood made these comments, the very next day the mainstream media attacked him and forced him to downplay them.

Fast forward one year and another Hollywood insider has a similar story — with a Satanic twist.

“Much of what is used in Hollywood today that would be considered Luciferian in nature really comes from a lot of the Druidic incantations, the Druidic witchcraft, the worship of Gaia, of earth, in ninth and tenth century England,” Robberson said on the webcast. “And prior to that, you can trace that through Kabbalistic witchcraft and Jewish mysticism all the way back, really, to what was going on in Babylon.”

“There is a distinct through-line from the time of when the Babylonians were sacrificing kids to Moloch in the temple at the top of the Tower of Babel,” Robberson noted, explaining the dark history of this sadistic ritual. “From the time that they attempted to slap God in the face with that stuff to Hollywood today, you could do an exhaustive study and find a distinct through-line in the practice of witchcraft.”

“There is pedophilia running rampant in Hollywood,” Robberson said. He then noted, just like Wood, that this ring preys on young children and it is made up of the “highest upper echelons of Hollywood, executive VPs of development, producers, mega-power agents and the international bankers that fund all this stuff.”

Robberson made damning claims, including pointing out that members of this depraved pedophile ring throw parties at which they drug children and film them engaged in “multi-partner homosexual [orgies], bloodletting, and animal dismemberment.”

Haim and Feldman alluded to very similar practices…

more…

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/05/19/hollywood-insider-speaks-claims-global-pedophile-ring-controls-hollywood/

WIKK WEB GURU

Bryan Cranston’s New Villain Is Almost More Selfish Than Walter White

Everybody has daydreamed about walking out on his life — driving off into the distance and leaving everything he knew behind. There’s something very cleansing about this fantasy, a comforting belief that if we could have a second crack at life, we wouldn’t screw it up the way we did the first time.

But such longing also comes with darkness — a belief that, if we did walk out, all the people around us would collapse into pieces, unable to go on without us. It’s a double delusion in which we overestimate both our ability to correct our past mistakes and our significance in the world.

This is essentially the dilemma in the new character drama Wakefield. Based on a story by Ragtime author E.L. Doctorow, the movie tells the strange story of Howard Wakefield, a big-city attorney who, just as he does every night, is taking the train home so he can be with his wife and children. But this night turns out to be different: A power outage on his train temporarily strands him and, presumably, shocks him out of his comfortable, mindless routine. And so, as Howard walks toward his house, he decides that he can’t bring himself to go inside. Instead, he sneaks away to the family’s garage, hiding out in the second-story attic. He’s not running away, exactly — he’s just taking a break. And, during this hiatus, he’s going to spy on his family through the attic window, observing how they react to his disappearance.

A lot of actors could’ve starred in Wakefield, but it’s perfect that writer-director Robin Swicord cast Bryan Cranston to portray this inscrutable man. After all, the Emmy-winning actor made his name playing a bright, seemingly ordinary guy with an ability to talk himself into doing all types of despicable things to feed his ego. Breaking Bad’s Walter White was a more extreme variation of the hubris that powers Howard’s decisions, but Cranston brings the same poisonous self-justification to both roles: He has a gift for characters who pity themselves so much they don’t realize what cretins they are.

For much of Wakefield, Howard speaks directly to the audience through voiceover, demeaning his suburban existence and rationalizing his selfishness. “They’ve hardly been abandoned,” he says callously of his wife and children, who have no idea what’s become of him. “I’m right here.” But he’s present in a way that only serves his needs. As the months go by, Howard gets more bedraggled as he lets his beard and hair grow — he’s living in the most extreme version of a man-cave ever, secure in the knowledge that his wife and daughters will never check for him up there because they considered the attic repellant.

Initially, Howard takes sick pleasure in watching his wife Diana (Jennifer Garner) freak out about his vanishing. As we learn through flashbacks, Howard has fostered a contentious relationship with Diana over time. Where first he courted her, stealing her away from his best friend, Howard has eventually come to believe that she doesn’t love him enough. His escape is, in part, a way to punish her, and Diana’s tears and anxiety are his dark revenge on a woman he views as not sufficiently loyal.

What’s clever about Swicord’s film, however, is that we don’t really know if that’s accurate — or, frankly, if anything else Howard tells us is true or not. Diana is always viewed from afar as Howard peeps at her through windows. As a result, Wakefield can be seen as a sharp critique of an egomaniac’s worldview. Everything in this movie is filtered through his experience, his biases and his feelings. Wakefield is pure, uncut Howard — and the more time we spend with him, the more we detest him.

The movie has surprises in store for Howard, though. After a while, much to his chagrin, Diana and her daughters learn to move on. A new man comes into her life. Normalcy returns. A tougher film would’ve let Howard stew in his own resentment; he’s certainly got it coming. Instead, unfortunately, Wakefield allows him to start realizing the error of his ways. Maybe he does need these people after all. Maybe Diana really did love him if he’d ever bothered to notice.

Cranston is so perfect at playing a deluded heel that it’s disappointing to watch the character have a change of heart and stumble toward redemption. Because the bleaker message is the more interesting one: If you decide to get away from it all, maybe the only thing your absence will do is help your loved ones realize they’re better off without you.

https://melmagazine.com/bryan-cranstons-new-villain-is-almost-more-selfish-than-walter-white-731078fc13e7

WIKK WEB GURU

How the Evolution of Pop Music Explains Hookup Culture

by John McDermott

If pop music is a proxy for the culture at large, then America has truly undergone a radical cultural transformation over the past 50 years with regard to dating, love and sex.

Namely, men have collectively turned into a bunch of commitment-averse, sex-crazed Lotharios, while women remain as lovelorn as ever.

A new study published in the journal Sexuality & Culture, which bills itself as “the most exhaustive analysis of popular music lyrics conducted to date,” finds that male pop stars sang about dating in just 59 percent of songs released in the 2000s, a 10 percentage-point decrease from the 1960s.

And male pop performers became more explicitly sexual over the same period. They referenced sex in 40 percent of pop songs in the 2000s, a fivefold increase from the more sexually modest 1960s, when sex appeared in just 7 percent of pop songs.

The researchers conducted the study by analyzing the lyrics to songs that appeared on the Billboard top 100 songs of the year from 1960 to 2008. They analyzed 1,250 songs in total, and their analysis shows that pop music reflects our increasingly lax attitudes about casual sex.

“If you look at the changes from one decade to the next, you definitely see guys singing about romantic relationships less over time, and that coincides with an increase of guys singing about sex,” says Andrew Smiler, the lead author on the study and a psychotherapist in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. “As racy as Elvis was in the ‘50s and ‘60s, he really can’t hold a candle to a lot of what we see today.”

Male pop stars went from telling women “I Want to Hold Your Hand” to dropping all pretense and singing “I Wanna Fuck You.” It’s the pop music equivalent of a guy ghosting you for two months only to send an unprompted 3 a.m. “u up?” text one night.

Female pop performers are more overtly sexual now, too, albeit to a far lesser degree. Among female pop performers, the proportion of songs that reference sex was at 6 percent in the 1960s, and remained between 16 and 21 percent from 1970 to 2000—about half the rate that their male counterparts sing about sex.

“We have this longstanding double standard in the U.S. regarding men women talking about sex. While we’ve had some sexual liberation for women, there’s still some very real risk of them looking bad [for talking about sex],” Smiler adds. “Women who sing about sex are labeled ‘dirty.’”

Unlike their male pop star counterparts, female pop performers have remained just as interested in dating as they did in the ‘60s. The number of female-performed pop songs with references to dating “stayed relatively constant across five decades,” between 78 and 83 percent, according to a release about the study.

https://melmagazine.com/how-pop-music-came-to-embrace-hookup-culture-ce79e4cf5d0c

WIKK WEB GURU
%d bloggers like this: