This might be the first time we've debated something like this. I'll try to defend my interpretation of what the author is saying.
I actually agree with you to an extent here. In some ways the article is a little late. It should restrict itself to gangsta rap. Still, though- misogyny and homoeroticism are still present to different extents in the work of Drake and Kanye, Weezy, too. I have never really bothered listening to Tyga so I can't comment there.
I don't think it's a matter of appealing to women as much as it is a particular kind of hyper-masculine display, similar to what you see in the WWE, for example. Gangsta rap is primarily marketed to men, and yet there is more shirtless, oiled-up man posing on gangsta rap album covers than in popular rock music, which is relatively "soft" and has a more equal man-woman fanbase (Radiohead, Arctic Monkeys, Mumford and Sons, whatever.)
I don't think any kind of explicit group sex was the point here, but rather that there is a homoerotic subtext to the song insofar as the male sexual enjoyment of the female discussed in the song is specifically mediated through other men. There's "no fun" for any one dude if "everyone" (meaning all the dudes) don't get some from the woman. It's the same principle you see in other examples of men who talk about enjoying "double-teaming" women, where each man's enjoyment of the experience is compounded by the enjoyment of the other man. Frat boys or thugs talking about high-fiving each other while fukking the same girl. That is pretty homoerotic no matter how you approach it.
I don't think they're saying that gender confusion is being marketed. Rather, they're making an interesting point about a certain ideal of womanhood promoted by some gangsta rappers, which is that it is actually very similar to the ideal man. Part of it could be what was marketed at the time, for sure, but either way, that result being embraced in itself is very telling. While not inherently gay, which the article says, too, I think it certainly contributes to the kind of confusion the article describes.
I don't know. I don't really see how this isn't a wildly homoerotic line, insofar as it praises a woman lover by comparing her to a man. But even if it isn't, the subtext has the same structure as the general tendency described in the article- a male brother is "more than" a woman lover- this is just a dressed up version of "homies over hoes."
I actually agree with you to an extent here. In some ways the article is a little late. It should restrict itself to gangsta rap. Still, though- misogyny and homoeroticism are still present to different extents in the work of Drake and Kanye, Weezy, too. I have never really bothered listening to Tyga so I can't comment there.
I don't think it's a matter of appealing to women as much as it is a particular kind of hyper-masculine display, similar to what you see in the WWE, for example. Gangsta rap is primarily marketed to men, and yet there is more shirtless, oiled-up man posing on gangsta rap album covers than in popular rock music, which is relatively "soft" and has a more equal man-woman fanbase (Radiohead, Arctic Monkeys, Mumford and Sons, whatever.)
I don't think any kind of explicit group sex was the point here, but rather that there is a homoerotic subtext to the song insofar as the male sexual enjoyment of the female discussed in the song is specifically mediated through other men. There's "no fun" for any one dude if "everyone" (meaning all the dudes) don't get some from the woman. It's the same principle you see in other examples of men who talk about enjoying "double-teaming" women, where each man's enjoyment of the experience is compounded by the enjoyment of the other man. Frat boys or thugs talking about high-fiving each other while fukking the same girl. That is pretty homoerotic no matter how you approach it.
I don't think they're saying that gender confusion is being marketed. Rather, they're making an interesting point about a certain ideal of womanhood promoted by some gangsta rappers, which is that it is actually very similar to the ideal man. Part of it could be what was marketed at the time, for sure, but either way, that result being embraced in itself is very telling. While not inherently gay, which the article says, too, I think it certainly contributes to the kind of confusion the article describes.
I don't know. I don't really see how this isn't a wildly homoerotic line, insofar as it praises a woman lover by comparing her to a man. But even if it isn't, the subtext has the same structure as the general tendency described in the article- a male brother is "more than" a woman lover- this is just a dressed up version of "homies over hoes."
