The cookie controversy

A photo of K-pop girl group NewJeans /Courtesy of ADOR

By Scott Shepherd

The past few weeks have seen a controversy erupt surrounding the newly-debuted K-pop group NewJeans, most of whose members are under 19 (the age of consent in Korea), with complaints that the lyrics of their song "cookie" have sexual undertones.

It's important to note at the outset that none of this is the fault of the group members. They are simply teenagers who are probably, like most K-pop artists, bound by contract to sing and dance in whatever way their agency tells them to. They bear no blame.

As the Korea Times reported last week, the company's defense focused on the word "cookie" which apparently is used as sexual slang in some parts of the world. I confess that I had never heard the word used in this way, and I presume that most of the song's listeners hadn't either.

And reading the long response from ADOR, the agency of NewJeans, it seems that they also had no idea that the word is sometimes used in this way. It clearly bothered them: they state that they consulted "English professors, professional interpreters, translators and native speakers", who suggested that the understanding of the word "cookie" as sexual slang "isn't a commonplace interpretation."

I completely agree. I have never heard or read that word used in a sexual way.

However, the company is missing the point. Literary texts often focus on a concept or word and employ that as a metaphor; and, of course, sometimes that metaphor is sexual. This is true for literature in general, but it is especially the case with songs, and more especially pop songs ― and even more especially with K-pop songs.

And if a text employs a sexual metaphor, it doesn't really matter whether that word is commonly used in the same way elsewhere. You don't necessarily need to research the use of the word flea in Early Modern England to see that John Donne's poem contains sexual imagery, just as you don't need to look anything up about the word milkshake to understand that the 2003 song by Kelis is about more than cold beverages.

In the same way, when a member of a K-pop girl group sings "Made a little cookie / Come and take a lookie … Come get some" or "That's how you like it, ain't that right?" or "Bet you want some", it's hardly a surprise that people interpret these lines as having sexual connotations.

Defenders of the song have argued that the Korean lyrics are less suggestive than the English translation. I'm not convinced. But even if they are, the company's own translation of the Korean parts into English is full of innuendo. And if we can ignore that too, the English parts of the song are still loaded enough to make it a problem: "If you want it, you can get it" and "Take it, don't break it, I wanna see you taste it" are hardly innocent lines.

Even if we accept that the label honestly seems to have had no idea the lyrics were suggestive, they've reacted poorly to the criticism. Rather than actually considering whether their song really does have sexual undertones, they've done a Trump, brushing off legitimate concerns and targeting their critics instead.

In the company's official response, it accuses the song's critics of stirring up "controversy for its own sake but under the deceptive guise of protecting minors." It even goes further by actually suggesting that the detractors are themselves the problem: "we're worried whether we'll be able to deal with each and every harmful interpretation with malicious intent behind it for that reason. After all, a toxic perspective can take something harmless and see it as something that's anything but."

It's sad that this kind of aggressive response seems to be the new way to deal with faux pas in public. Accepting criticism is always hard, especially if said criticism is harsh or overly personal. But the company is stooping pretty low by suggesting that people expressing concerns have a "toxic perspective" or "malicious intent".

So, apart from its statement, what can the company do in response? There are, I suppose, two options. One choice is just to keep going as they are and continue clinging to their claim that there's nothing sexual in the lyrics. It's possible that they really do believe their own claims and that they see this whole hullabaloo as entirely unfair to them.

But I want to be really clear: the company is wrong. This song does have sexual undertones.

This is my professional opinion as someone with no dog in the fight and as someone who has studied and taught English for my whole career, and indeed as a holder of three degrees in English Literature, including a PhD. Perhaps the reference to my CV sounds pompous, but since the label has specifically appealed to the authority of unnamed English professors, I want it on record that I disagree with their assessments.

The company's other option, and the right thing for them to do, is to take down the video and remove it from the group's repertoire. Of course, this would be a hugely expensive and painful move for the company: the song is very popular, and the music video on YouTube has already garnered 10 million views in a little over a week. More than that, some may see the act of taking down the song as an implicit acknowledgment that they had inadvertently sexualized minors. This would of course be a terrible thing for anyone, and it's hardly a surprise that the company has fought back so strongly against the accusations.

But they can still save face: all they need to do is write another statement along the same lines as the first, explaining that they had no ill intentions and blaming the issue on the interpretation of a few malignant listeners; they can say that they withdrew the song "to avoid distraction" or "to prevent the misinterpretations of our detractors" or something along those lines. It would be so easy. The financial aspect is of course more painful, but that should not be a consideration when we're talking about the possible sexualization of underage girls.

However, it's also clear that the issue is not just confined to this one song. The conflicts around "Cookie" bring up much bigger questions about the sexualization and exploitation of young people in K-pop. In fact, part of ADOR's defense is that "other teenage groups have similar lineups" of young girls as if this is any kind of justification.

I am making no allegations against ADOR in particular, but within the K-pop industry as a whole, there is a common and extremely disturbing blurring of lines when it comes to the sexualization of the stars. Adults are often infantilized by wearing (sexualized) school uniforms, and conversely, underage teenagers often wear clothes and makeup that make them appear far older than they are. Moreover, the objectification of K-pop singers, whether they are teenagers or young adults, is a moral and cultural problem that needs to be rectified. K-pop singers and wannabes are humans after all.

I do hope that ADOR has the courage and integrity to do the right thing and take down the song. I also hope that this is a catalyst that leads to a wider change in K-pop, bringing about clearer boundaries and more protections for everyone working in the industry, and especially for the children and teenagers.

Dr. Scott Shepherd is a British-American academic. He has taught in universities in the U.K. and Korea, and is currently an assistant professor of English at Chongshin University in Seoul. The views expressed in the article are the author's own and do not reflect the editorial direction of The Korea Times.