I don’t want to start coming off as obsessive in my reality-based defenses of Taylor Swift; when folks respond to my posts by reiterating their interpretations and refusing to even acknowledge evidence that contradicts it, I doubt much can be achieved. But Erika’s (who doesn’t have any particular liking of Swift’s music, I understand) Taylor Swift post is very well worth reading, so I’m going to shut up and let you carry on with that:
[Taylor Swift’s] two most well-known videos presented (a) a desexualized white-dress-wearing girl winning a boy away from a heel-wearing short-skirt-loving devil in a red dress
ARGH. WHAT. NO. YOU. YOU ARE THE ONE PERPETUATING THE STEREOTYPE. YOU ARE THE ONE PERPETUATING THE STEREOTYPE BY BUYING, WHOLEHEARTEDLY, INTO THE IDEA THAT A GIRL WITH A WHITE DRESS WHO APPEARS “SHY” AND “WOBBLY” IS NECESSARILY BEING PRESENTED AS DESEXUALIZED WHILE A GIRL IN A SHORT SKIRT WHO APPEARS AGGRESSIVE IS NECESSARILY BEING PRESENTED AS A SEXUAL “DEVIL.”
Because nowhere, not in the song, not in the video, does Taylor state that white dress and wobbly shyness = asexual while red dress and aggression = sexual. In fact, what actually happens in the song and in the video is the girl in the white dress wanting the boy. Wanting him not as a friend, but as a boyfriend. Wanting not to keep him as an asexual toy she can play with and hide under her bed — it’s aggressive, short-skirt-wearing Ke$ha who wants to do that! — but to replace the aggressive, short-skirt-wearing girl as his girlfriend. Which means wanting, presumably, to have sex with him at some point. You got that? The story the song and the video tell is not a story of an asexual girl and a sexual girl, but of two sexualized girls. The girl in the red dress and the girl in the white dress are both being presented as sexual. SHOCKER.
Also, if you missed it, Erika was excellent on the same subject matter here.