Imagine confessing to something like highly controversial
and then packaging that defense as this upbeat
summer anthem and just while watching it climb
the billboard charts while the public streams
it by the millions. It's wild. You're basically
taking a massive public relations crisis and
trying to you know, turn it into club entertainment.
Exactly. So today we're doing a deep dive into
a single primary source, which is a Wikipedia
article about the 2015 song stimulated by the
American rapper Tyga. Yeah, and it might sound
like a highly specific pop culture footnote at
first. glance, right? Like just a rap song from
roughly a decade ago that had its moment in the
news cycle and then kind of faded out. But the
mission for you, as you listen today, is to see
how analyzing this one seemingly simple pop song
reveals these, I mean, these massive twisting
complexities about media consumption. Oh, absolutely.
Media consumption, celebrity public relations,
and retrospective accountability. Yeah. Cool
to look at how a piece of pop culture acts as
a literal time capsule, because it captures the
controversy of 2015, but it also captures how
a narrative can completely collapse when new
facts emerge years later. Yeah, this is really
a case study in how artists attempt to use their
platforms to directly respond to public scrutiny.
It's about the machinery of the music industry.
You know, more importantly, how historical context
can drastically change the meaning of the media
we just casually consume every day. Well, OK,
let's unpack this. We have to start with the
catalyst. Like, why does the song even exist
in the first place? Let's jump back to the cultural
landscape of 2015. Right, 2015. Tyga releases
a mixtape, and the title itself is just this
giant defensive posture. It's called Fouquat,
they talk about. And Stimulated is the fifth
single pushed from that project. Yeah, and the
context of that mixtape title is really really
the key to everything that follows. So 2015,
Tyga was 25 years old. Right. And the previous
year, intense rumors had started swirling about
a romantic relationship between him and Kylie
Jenner, who, and this is the crucial part, was
a minor at the time. Right. So the public scrutiny
is just mounting. And then Tyga publicly confirms
their romantic relationship the very moment she
turns 18. Which is the... Legal age of consent
in the state of California exact with the absolute
millisecond it became Legally permissible to
announce they went public and the reaction wasn't
you know celebration it was intense discomfort.
Oh, massive negative publicity surrounding this
age gap. Yeah, people were actively questioning
the timeline. So Tyga's response to all this
heat isn't like a notes app apology. He doesn't
sit down for a tough interview with a journalist
to clear the air. He releases a song. A song,
yeah. And to me, this feels like an attempt to
hijack the emotional narrative. It's like issuing
a musical press release mixed with a legal defense.
Because if you put out a written press release,
people pick apart the sentences logically, right?
Right, they analyze it. But if you put out a
song with a catchy beat, you're hoping people
just nod their heads and absorb the defense passively.
Why choose a song to address this rather than
a traditional statement? Like, what does it say
about trying to control the narrative? Well,
what's fascinating here is the sheer utility
of music as a PR shield. Yeah. Because when you
issue a traditional PR statement, you're inviting
a debate on equal footing. You're acknowledging
that you owe the public an explanation. Right.
You're stepping into the courtroom, basically.
Exactly. But music bypasses that logical critical
part of the brain and goes straight for an atmospheric
response. By making his defense a song, Tyga
is using the medium to simultaneously dismiss
his critics as just, you know, haters. Which
fits perfectly into that hip hop bravado archetype.
Completely. It fits that archetype while aggressively
flaunting the relationship now that Jenner has
hit that legal age threshold. The subtext of
releasing a track instead of a statement is essentially,
I'm not on trial, I'm putting on a show. And
monetizing the controversy while he does it?
Oh, absolutely. He's framing it as entertainment,
not an evasion of accountability. Which brings
us to the actual sound of the song, the content
of this musical press release. Yeah, this is
where it gets crazy. Because we have to look
at the mechanics of how a song like this is put
together because the irony of the production
choices is just staggering. You're talking about
the sample used for the beat. I am. The track
is produced by someone named Krakow. and they
decide to build the instrumental around a recognizable
sample. And the sample they choose to loop in
the background of a song explicitly defending
a 25 -year -old's relationship with a newly 18
-year -old girl is a 1990s electronic track by
the artist Robert Miles. Right. A track that
is literally titled Children. Yeah. I mean, the
sheer audacity of that choice. requires us to
pause and really think about the studio environment.
Please. Because in the music industry, clearing
a sample is a process. It requires lawyers. It
requires paperwork. It's not just clicking a
button on a laptop. Exactly. It requires multiple
adults signing off on a creative direction. This
wasn't an accident. See, that's my big question
here. I look at that production choice, and I
have to wonder, was this deliberate provocation,
like an arrogant troll of the media? or just
incredible tone deafness by everyone in the room.
Honestly, it functions as a toxic mix of both.
On one hand, it could be read as a cheeky, provocative
nod to the very criticism he's receiving. almost
mocking the media for treating her like a child.
Like, oh, you think she's a child. Here's a sample
called children. Right. But on the other hand,
it shows a complete lack of self -awareness regarding
how that would actually land with the general
public. Because he's addressing the criticism
directly in the lyrics, too. Right, the lyrics.
He raps, they say she young. I should have waited.
She a big girl dog when she stimulated. He acknowledges
the public's timeline. and then immediately dismisses
the moral concern with a purely sexual justification.
And the critics did not let that slide. The sources
we're looking at show that the critical backlash
to this was swift and it was absolutely brutal.
Brutal is the right word. The media did not just
nod along to the beat. Ebony Magazine didn't
mince words. They dubbed, stimulated, the worst
song anyone has ever created. Not just that year,
the worst song ever. Yeah, you also had Vibe
Magazine calling it cringe -worthy, but the most
piercing analysis actually came from Casey Lewis
writing for Teen Vogue. Yes, Teen Vogue was all
over this. They really were. She pointed out
that... Tyga was basically justifying and heavily
glorifying a relationship with an underage girl
that had just barely crossed the threshold of
legality. Like by minutes. Right. The consensus
among these major publications was that this
wasn't a love song and it wasn't just a bad rap
song. It was widely viewed as glorifying statutory
rape. Teen Vogue specifically noted that the
lyrics alone would land you a week's worth of
detention if you said them in a high school hallway.
But they were pointing to a subtext that was
much darker than just crude lyrics. They were
calling out the fundamental power dynamic. If
we connect this to the bigger picture, this critical
response from 2015 is a prime example of media
literacy in action. How so? Well, it shows how
journalists and the public can serve as a real
-time moral barometer against celebrity spin.
Tyga's PR strategy relied on packaging this narrative
in a slick, professionally -produced hip -hop
track, expecting the culture's love of celebrity
spectacle to outweigh its moral compass. Right,
just dazzle them with the beat. Exactly. But
the critics refused to engage with it purely
as a piece of music. They engaged with it as
a moral document. They essentially rejected the
reality he was trying to construct. But, you
know, artists at that level rarely just fold
when their reviews are bad. Ever. The critical
reception is terrible. The public is visibly
grossed out, so the strategy has to pivot. If
the audio defense isn't working, he has to make
them look at a visual defense. The music video.
Exactly. We move from what is said in the lyrics
to what is shown on screen. Two weeks later,
on August 31, 2015, the official music video
drops. And this is where the visual narrative
attempts to legitimize the relationship in a
way the audio completely failed to do. The music
video is just a fascinating piece of visual PR.
Because seeing is supposedly believing, right?
The video opens in this gorgeous, sprawling,
oceanside mansion. You've got Tyga sitting on
a couch, pen in hand, writing lyrics on a piece
of paper. He is heavily playing the role of the
serious, contemplative, established artist. Right.
Very mature. But the arrival of Kylie Jenner
is what is so heavily and intentionally stylized.
We really have to look closely at the wardrobe
choices here, because in a music video, styling
is communication. It's a visual language. Oh,
it is a relentless barrage of luxury signaling.
Yes. She pulls up in a bright green Bentley.
She's wearing a green bomber jacket, a white
top, ripped jeans. But then look at the hyper
-specific accessories the styling team put on
her. It's also calculated. Pink Christian Louboutin
heels, a Birkin bag, a gold watch, heavy jewelry.
And then later in the video, she actually changes
into this very structured blue jumpsuit with
a textured coat. And every single one of those
items is a deliberate choice by a styling team
designed to scream established adult. You don't
put a teenager in a Birkin bag and Louboutins
unless you are trying to project a specific aura
of maturity and wealth. And here's where it gets
really interesting to me. A Birkin bag, Louboutins,
a Bentley. These aren't just expensive items.
They're signifiers of mature adult wealth. They
feel like props in a play about adulthood. That's
exactly what they are. It honestly feels like
a kid wearing their parents' oversized business
suit to look grown up for a presentation. Because
despite all these adult props aggressively trying
to sell the idea that she is a mature woman,
how do they actually interact in the video? Well,
they meet on a balcony, they kiss, and then...
He gives her a piggyback ride. A piggyback ride.
The tension between these aggressive adult symbols
of extreme wealth and the profoundly childish
playground act of a piggyback ride is staggering.
It really is. It completely undermines the she's
a big girl defense from the lyrics. The visual
of a 25 -year -old giving an 18 -year -old a
piggyback ride while she holds a Birkin bag just
accidentally broadcasts the exact immaturity
the video was trying to hide. It visually highlights
the exact power dynamic and age gap that people
were criticizing. It's a fascinating failure
of visual PR. Truly. But what is equally telling
about this music video isn't just what happens
in it, but its lifespan. Right. Because it was
heavily promoted and released on YouTube in 2015.
But by 2018, it was quietly deleted from his
official channel. Scrubbing it from YouTube three
years later feels like a panicked PR move. It's
almost like the label or his management realized
the video was basically video evidence of a highly
problematic era, right? It speaks entirely to
how digital footprints are managed when public
sentiment or personal brands start to evolve.
By 2018, the relationship was over. Right. Both
of their careers had moved into very different,
highly lucrative phases. Attempting to scrub
this video from the internet, is an act of historical
revisionism. It's a PR team, realizing that a
primary source they spent money to create is
actually a massive liability to future endorsements
and public image. It forces you to think about
what it means when an artist tries to unpublish
their own defense. They're literally trying to
edit the public record. But as we know, the internet
is written in ink. Always. Even if the official
video is pulled, the data, the metadata, and
the charts remain. Because here is the uncomfortable
truth about 2015. Despite the terrible reviews,
despite the disturbing subtext that Teen Vogue
called out, the song was commercially successful.
It really was. It peaked at number three on the
US Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart, which means
it was bubbling right below the main Billboard
chart, showing massive consumer interest. And
it hit number 41 on the Hot R &B Hip -Hop Songs
chart. Millions of people did consume it. Which
tells us a lot about the mechanics of controversy
in the streaming era. Controversy generates clicks.
Morbid curiosity drives streams. The chart's
success doesn't validate the morality of the
song. It just proves the sheer efficiency of
the spectacle. The music industry machinery worked
exactly as designed, turning public discomfort
into chart data. OK, so that is the 2015 time
capsule. We have the defensive song, the ironic
sample, the luxury prop music video, the critical
backlash, and the eventual deletion. Yeah. If
the story ended there, it would just be an uncomfortable,
slightly gross footnote in pop culture history.
A 25 -year -old waiting by the clock for a girl
to turn 18, heavily criticized, but technically
legally sound of the state of California. But
the story doesn't end in 2015. And the Wikipedia
article doesn't end there either. No, it doesn't.
We arrive at the crucial twist in the source
material. We move from 2015 to the year 2024.
Nine years later, new information drops that
completely reframes every single thing we just
analyzed about that song and that PR strategy.
The 2024 bombshell. And the source of this new
information is what makes it so undeniably significant.
We aren't talking about Internet rumors here.
No, it didn't come from a tabloid. It didn't
come from an anonymous rival rapper trying to
start a feud. The confirmations came from Tyga's
own inner circle. His own team. Specifically,
his longtime manager and co -founder of his own
label, Last Kings, a man named Terrell Meeks.
And he was joined by other close associates,
Heather Sanders and a TDE affiliate named Smack.
We really have to emphasize who these people
are. These are the people who were in the room.
They were the architects of the infrastructure
around Tyga during that specific era. Banner
Circle. Exactly. They managed the schedules,
the tours, the logistics. And what they revealed
on the record is staggering. They confirmed that
the relationship absolutely did not begin in
2014 when she was 16, which was what the public
had largely suspected. According to his own management,
Tyga began seeing Kylie Jenner when she was 14
years old. He was 21. Let that sink in based
on the lyrical analysis we just did of Stimulated.
Yeah. The entire public premise of the song,
the core thesis of his musical defense was, I
waited until she was 18. The 2024 revelations
prove that the foundational claim of the song
was entirely fabricated. But it gets so much
darker when you look at the mechanics of how
they pulled this off. Yeah, this part is, it's
really tough to hear. Terrell Meeks and Smack
didn't just confirm the ages, they confirmed
the logistics of how the entourage maintained
this relationship. When Kylie turned 16, they
admitted that they would specifically book flights
to foreign countries, places like Europe or the
Caribbean, where the age of consent was 16 or
lower, just so Tyga could legally have sexual
relations with her. The level of calculation
required to execute that is chilling. You have
to think about the machinery of a celebrity entourage.
You have a team of adults managers, assistants,
label executives looking at a map of international
consent laws to find a geographical loophole.
They're booking international flights, organizing
passports, and managing the travel of a minor,
all to bypass statutory laws that make this behavior
a felony in their home state of California. So
what does this all mean? We look back at that
2015 song, that musical press release with the
Robert Miles sample and the Birkin bags. It wasn't
just a gross defense of a legal age gap. It was
a highly produced, charted, monetized cover -up
of a crime. It was a decoy. This raises an important
question for anyone consuming media today. What
is the difference between being technically legal
via international loopholes and the ethical reality
of a situation? That's the core of it. Right.
In 2015, Tyga's entire PR defense rested on the
technical legality of her 18th birthday in California.
But the 2024 revelations from his own team shatter
that technicality. It reveals an organized, well
-funded evasion of the law facilitated by an
entire industry infrastructure. It completely
vindicates the critics from 2015, too. Completely.
Casey Lewis at Teen Vogue, who wrote about the
unsettling subtext, wasn't just being a prudish
critic complaining about crude rap lyrics. She
and the other critics were intuitively picking
up on a dark reality that wouldn't be factually
confirmed for almost a decade. They felt the
lie in the music. Absolutely. The critics saw
the truth through the fog of luxury cars, expensive
styling, and catchy beats. They recognized that
the props in that music video were a distraction.
The 2024 revelations proved that the real -time
moral barometer of the public was incredibly
accurate, even when the artist was spending millions
of dollars to tell them they were wrong. So,
to bring this all together for you listening,
we started with a Wikipedia page about a poorly
received, somewhat forgotten rap song from 2015.
But look at the incredible journey this single
piece of media took us on. It showed us how artists
try to use art and music as a literal shield
against accountability. It showed us the intense
tension between visual markers of wealth and
actual human maturity. And most importantly,
it showed us how the truth can take nearly a
decade to finally catch up to the PR spin. It
proves why we have to constantly look critically
at the media we are handed. The narrative you
are being sold, even if it has a great beat,
even if it has a multi -million dollar music
video featuring mansions by the ocean, and even
if it charts on billboard, might just be a highly
coordinated smoke screen designed by a team of
professionals to hide something entirely different.
You can never just take the pop culture spectacle
at face value. You always have to ask what kind
of logistics and machinery are operating just
out of frame. And if you want one final thought
to mull over regarding how the internet eventually
catalogs the truth, if you scroll to the absolute
bottom of that Wikipedia page for Stimulated,
a song that successfully charted, a song that
had a highly produced video on YouTube, a song
packaged, marketed, and sold as mainstream pop
entertainment, You will find the metadata categories
that Wikipedia editors use to organize the site's
information. Right. And quietly, right there
at the very bottom, after all the chart data
and production credits, the song is retroactively
filed under a very specific category, Songs About
Pedophilia. Wow. That is a chilling reclassification.
It really is. What does it say about our culture
and the machinery of the music industry? that
a piece of content, now permanently categorized
that way, was once casually consumed, streamed,
and defended as just another summer single. It's
something to deeply consider the next time a
controversial pop culture moment tries to aggressively
tell you its own story.