Should Rihanna Pay Too?

Earlier, I was watching TV when a Cover Girl cosmetics commercial came on the screen. There was Rihanna, looking easy, breezy, and beautiful. I started thinking about the endorsements Chris Brown lost after the allegations that he had beaten Rihanna during an argument. In light of the recent news that not only has she been in seclusion with Chris Brown at one of Diddy’s residences, but she has forgiven him to boot, I began to wonder… should she lose her endorsements too?

I think it’s a question worth pondering.

Apparently this was taken a few days ago on Diddy's property.

We obviously put a lot of consideration into how we charge and sentence our criminals. We admit that not all crimes are equal. Certain crimes warrant longer sentences than others, and past offenses and other circumstances are often taken into consideration. Once someone has been convicted though, and it’s important to note that Chris Brown has not, we all know that serving one’s time isn’t always the end of it.

When someone breaks the law, and then serves their time, they expect further social stigma. These people may have difficulty getting jobs, fitting back into society, and even resuming their place amongst their own family and friends. Making poor choices becomes apart of their persona, and they lose the trust of those around them; family and strangers alike. Their image is tarnished.

Isn’t this why companies that had previously employed Chris Brown as a spokesperson dropped him after the incident? He no longer fits the image they’re trying to display.

So, what does that say about Rihanna? What happend to her was awful, and she is the victim. But if we’re willing to accept the loss of endorsements as part of Chris Brown’s punishment per the standard above (he no longer portrays the desirable image), then why not apply that Rihanna? What kind of message/image is she sending to young girls when she forgives her abuser a few short weeks after he attacks her?

I suppose you could argue that Chris Brown broke the law, and she didn’t, but assuming charges are filed, and he is punished within the legal system, shouldn’t that take care of that part of it? Obviously, we expect public figures, and Regular Joes too, but mostly public figures, to pay above and beyond. It seems we’re not satisfied until they’re brought down a peg or two. Even when people don’t break the law!

An actor on Grey’s Anatomy made a homophobic remark and viewers were demanding not only his job, but that sponsors of the show split if he weren’t punished to their satisfaction.

Let’s look at Michael Vick. A few weeks ago, it was reported that he would be doing a public service announcement for PETA once he has served his time. When he asked if, in turn, PETA would put in a good word for him should he try to return to the NFL, they countered that they would only do so if he submitted to a psychological evaluation. It seems his sanity wasn’t in question if he were spreading their message, and in a sense further paying penance, but when he wanted something from them…

I think the message is pretty clear; if you don’t live up to our expectations, if you don’t behave in a matter we agree with, and even if you’ve done your time and paid your debt to society, we have the right to further up the ante and hit you in the pocketbook even harder.

I’m not one of those parents that believe we should hold celebrities accountable for what our children do. Kali can like who she wants to, but it’s my job to make sure she understands that someone who can sing, dance, rap, or swim well isn’t someone who should serve as their guide for life. Not all parents are like me though, and not all parents like me have kids that will listen. With that in mind, should Rihanna lose her endorsements for going back with someone who alledgedly beat her? Can they cite, “We don’t want someone who displays that kind of message to represent us?”

What do you think?