Bieber's "Boyfriend" isn't dangerous

Justin Bieber’s latest hit, “Boyfriend,” is hot and problematic, sure.

The latest teaser for the upcoming music video features Bieber gazing straight into his audience’s eyes while disembodied hands vicariously fulfill the wishes of so many Beliebers.

My fellow columnist Sam Ostrowski cites this video’s overt sexualization of Bieber as irresponsible and dangerous for the singer’s largely tween fanbase. The short-lived Tumblr “Dirty Bieber Secrets” provides plenty of erotic examples of how libidinous tweens and their online imposters can desire Bieber. I understand why this is shocking to some readers, but I don’t think it’s dangerous.

Maybe it’s hard for me to think something as stupidly cute as “Boyfriend” can be dangerous to children’s sexuality. Then again, why is sexuality dangerous for tweens?

Sam references “foot fetishes” and S&M fantasies featuring Bieber as potential harmful effects of “Boyfriend.” Why?

I can’t think of anything inherently wrong with foot fetishes or S&M practice other than the fact they signify you as a pervert to a sizable population of America.

Why is loss of innocence such an evil? What is that innocence supposed to accomplish in the first place? To ensure we all grow up straight, normal and marriable?

Sam’s afraid “young people are trained to just want sex without even knowing what it truly is.”

First, I have to wonder what sex truly is. Second, aren’t tweens already conditioned to believe sex is what happens between man and wife? Third, I’m more afraid young people are trained to just want a boyfriend without knowing what else they could want.
 
Shouldn’t we be dissecting the dangers of a song that could be titled, “Compulsory Matrimony for the Tweenage Soul”?

The lyrics, “I’d never let you go/I’d keep you on my arm, girl/You’d never be alone,” while typical for hegemonic pop music, alarm me more than a few hands on Bieber’s body.

Sam also feels “Boyfriend” threatens to “make sex something that is no big issue among young people.” I’m more afraid the censorship of sexuality for tweens is making a potent facet of young people’s lives invisible. Sex should be an even bigger issue for young people.

Most sex education programs ignore the fact that sex can be pleasurable in addition to procreative. Most sex education programs only teach heterosexual mechanics, without a word about non-dominant sexualities or asexuality.

Videos such as “Boyfriend” at least make sex something tangible to tweens, even if it’s a typically misogynist and white-bread sexuality.

“Boyfriend” also raises a question of race.

In what is teased to be an all-white video, Bieber’s use of terms laden with racial overtones is problematic. Biebs appropriates “swag” as “swaggie” in the same stanza he deploys Gucci Mane’s ice-cold “burr.” Is it supposed to just be cute?

I won’t trivialize these criticisms with an account of the song’s grammatical violence against the subjunctive.

Finally, I want everyone to understand that I love “Boyfriend.” It’s probably the best song of the young year. Bieber’s lower register is emerging as a real tour de force, and his falsetto is still beautiful.

As a professor of mine likes to quote, “Can’t I love what I criticize?”

­— ptbeane@indiana.edu