I don’t agree that what Sinead did was slut-shaming, though it can be read as such, so fair enough. But I think you’re making the assumption that all decisions about how to present yourself and your body within the corporate capitalist system is the same/morally equivalent and doesn’t matter as long as it’s the woman making the choice, but that ignores the fact of pressure from outside to act in certain ways. No one is calling her a “slut” or a “prostitute”, or at least I didn’t read it that way, but Sinead is pointing out how she is being exploited for the profit of others.
I find it highly unlikely that, given the way the industry functions, that Cyrus is seriously making all her own decisions, with no input from a team of industry guys that her father probably made sure were in place as she became an adult. I don’t think she should be less sexual provocative, or dress like a matron, or shave her head like Sinead… but to think that she is somehow a completely independent actor, with no input or pressure from outside, is I think a bit naive. I also think that she might be a in a position where her financial house is secure, due to her father being a part of the business before her, many other young people come into the system with no idea how it operates, and get royally screwed. Or maybe her father is just using her to make a fast buck, too. Wouldn’t be the first time parents exploit their children for cash. I can’t say that either way, though. I’d like to think he does have her best interests at heart. The industry tends to treat artists as disposable, and gives them contracts which give them no protection, and keeps the products for sale in the hands of the corporation. The number of people who ended up in abject poverty after what seems like a long and lucrative career due to these sorts of contracts is numerous and rather legendary.
I agree its not just about women’s bodies, but all of us and our horizon of choices in the corporate/capitalist structure, which in terms of choices that matter (rather than a set of choices premade for us and sold in your local mall–how is Hot Topic different from Gap? It’s not! and We all know it). But we aren’t completely free on our choices. We don’t have real endless choices, here, but a set of choices, which are less and less depending where you fall in the privilege hierarchy.
As for AFP… I love her and am proud of how she presents herself and her art to the world. Her music means a lot to me. She does it on her own terms and I find it something to be celebrated and applauded. Yet, that doesn’t mean I don’t have a critique for her or think she’s some sort of prophet of an iron clad feminist reality. She is making truth-claims, just like the rest of us, and as such, she is open to debate–just like you and me (I do think she opens this stuff up, not to shout at us, but to open a dialogue, so I love that about her, too). My argument about Palmer is that she is buying into the post-fordist, individualists, neo-liberal new vision of capitalism–that there is no outside and it is only via individual work can one be independent (kind of Randian, but with a soft, punk ideological underbelly). Fair enough, she is working within the system for her own benefit, as are millions of others who do contract work in creative fields every day. It’s this sort of thinking that, while freeing the individual, limits the choices available to the vast majority of people–in the case of the music industry, the idea of setting up a label for work that you find important, and giving those artists a fair cut (Mute, K Records, Alternative Tentacles, etc) are quickly dwindling, after a rather high point in the mid-80s, where there was an honest to god viable alternative that knit together artists, independent merchants, and fans into a community. Not that AFP has “brought that down”… lots of other indie artists have been working this way for a while now and for good reason, as the “indie community” route has been seriously gutted since the “Nirvana boom”. This is not about Palmer, per se, but about showing how the post-90s boom put the final stake in the heart of independent music.
Addtionallly, I’d argue that AFP has been and is in a privileged position in life. I’m sure she realizes that, nor do I think that this makes her a “bad” person or whatever. As I’ve said before and again, I love and support her work and give her my money as a result. But I think it’s a fact. So was/is Cyrus, for that matter. These are bourgeoisie women, with privilege. I don’t mean this as a criticism of Palmer, really. It’s just a fact. Sinead comes from a completely different social/political/class background and had a different trajectory around her career that informs her world view. She is of working class stock and frankly, that matters. She was not given the same advantages Palmer and Cyrus had in their lives. So what tends to get glossed over is that they had access to things that Sinead and other artists did not (I could make a similar argument about, say, Kate Bush, whose background is also middle class in origin). This is probably why they see the deployment of sexuality differently, given that the exploitation of working class women’s sexuality is pretty evident. I am sure Sinead had a much closer view of the real violence done to women sexually speaking. That’s probably given her a different perspective, because she sees that as a destructive force. I’m sure that is pretty common for working class women to think. It’s not a “horizon of choice” for millions of women around the world, but a forced condition. Rightly or wrongly, Sinead has connected, in her mind, the inner workings of the music industry with women being sexually exploited. I can understand why she’d do that.
Okay… I think I’m rambling at this point. All I can say, is I don’t think all choices to present yourself in a certain way are the same and are equally defensible. I don’t think Cyrus is making her own decisions, even if she thinks she is doing so. I generally agree with Palmer, and get her point, but I think it’s off the mark. And I can understand where Sinead is coming from. I don’t think that she is “harassing” Cyrus, nor do I think she should be shamed for her choices, but that doesn’t mean we can’t say we think they are wrong and why we think they are wrong…
Does that make any sense, what so ever? I hope so… Again, I’m not discounting anything you are saying, as I see this more as a dialectal discussion of these issues. I think you are bringing up some important points. But this is how I see this debate… 
