What's the problem with 'WAP'?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: What's the problem with 'WAP'?
Position‹4 of 4: The problem lies with the critics of WAP
Argument1 of 3›: WAP critics are body shaming women

Right wing commentators such as Ben Shapiro have used WAP to ridicule female bodies. As influential author Dr Jen Gunter notes, this is “the ultimate weapon of the patriarchy: to have women feel bad about our bodies – we are too wet, too dry."

The argument

On this view, much of the condemnation of 'WAP' amounts to body-shaming dressed up as moral concern, and that is where the real problem lies. The song and its video centre women's bodies and sexuality confidently and without apology, and a significant strand of the backlash responded by deriding those bodies and the desire they express as disgusting, dirty or shameful. Calling the artists' frank celebration of their own sexuality 'grotesque' or 'vile', proponents argue, is not a neutral aesthetic judgement but an attack on women for inhabiting and enjoying their bodies — the classic move of shaming women into covering up and quieting down. The argument holds that this shaming polices women's relationship to their own physical selves. Critics who recoil at women openly describing their arousal and displaying their bodies are, in effect, telling women that their bodies are acceptable only when modest, restrained and oriented to others' comfort rather than their own pleasure. That message — that a woman's body is a source of shame to be hidden — is one women have long been burdened with, and proponents see the 'WAP' backlash as another instance of it, reasserting control over how women may present and speak about themselves. From this standpoint, the fault is not with two women expressing sexual confidence but with critics who weaponise disgust to shame them for it. The condemnation reveals more about a discomfort with unashamed female embodiment than about the song. Because the critics of 'WAP' are body-shaming women for owning their bodies and desire, this argument holds, the problem lies with the critics rather than the song.

Premises

[P1]'WAP' centres women's bodies and sexuality confidently, and much of the backlash derided those bodies and that desire as disgusting or shameful. [P2] Calling the artists' self-expression grotesque polices women's relationship to their own bodies, demanding modesty and restraint. [P3] This reasserts the long-standing message that a woman's body is a source of shame to be hidden. [C] Therefore, because WAP's critics are body-shaming women, the problem lies with the critics rather than the song.

Counter-arguments

Critics of the song reply that not all objection is body-shaming, and treating every criticism as such shuts down legitimate debate. Sibling positions argue one can object to WAP on grounds unrelated to disgust at women's bodies — concerns about the commercialisation of sexuality, the messages marketed to young fans, or, from a feminist angle, whether equating empowerment with explicit display serves women — without shaming anyone's body. Some critics were themselves women and feminists, which complicates the 'policing women' framing. Labelling all disapproval as body-shaming, they contend, is a way of immunising the song from critique by attributing bad motives to any critic, rather than engaging the substance of what is being criticised. So the fault does not lie solely, or by definition, with the critics.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Not all criticism of WAP expresses disgust at women's bodies; objections can rest on the commercialisation of sexuality, messaging to young fans, or feminist concerns, none of which is body-shaming. [Rejecting P2] Some critics were themselves women and feminists, so 'critics policing women's bodies' mischaracterises the range of objection. [Rejecting C] Treating every objection as body-shaming immunises the song from critique by imputing bad motives, so it does not establish that the problem lies with the critics rather than the song.