[Glice]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

there's a lot of tits and ass in the culture though, this board didn't invent it and/or put it out there

You know this is a weak argument.

you can't discuss britney spears in the late 90s withour remarking on her bare midriff and hip movements.

Really though? It's her weakest period, musically. If we're talking the Hit me... to Oops... period. There's a couple of great singles, but as albums they are lame as a disabled duck. I suppose you have point that, as whole albums, there's not a great deal of interest on a musical level, but why is it that people turn to sex to discuss that lameness rather than say the music's not very good? Are the Mars Volta bad because they're ugly, or bad because it's terrible music? I fucking hate their haircuts, but no-one's interested in me saying that. I know what the marketing of Britney says about Britney and culture, but the marketing is so transparent that it hardly bears commenting on. Except, time and again, that is all that is commented on.

they are inseparable.

Dislike.

beyonce's recently famous music video is all about her sexy ass-shakes. proof of that is that when 7 year olds performed said dance number recently, there was an uproar about the sexualization of little girls-- and rightly so. beyonce is sex on legs and that's how she exerts her star power. denying it is ridiculously naive.

I saw that video and I thought 'there's some children having a good time'. When Beyonce does it, my libido does say 'yes please'. When children do it, nothing of the sort. Those children aren't 'sexualized' - they probably have no idea why people get upset about it. My nieces do a lot of dances, and it's an art-form. Ok, it's an art-form that comes from adult sexual practises, but the children themselves have absolutely no idea about that. I think anyone who feels iffy about watching children dancing needs to ask themselves what that says about their own libido, rather than claim the children themselves are sexualised. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that pre-sexual children who find something interesting in a dance that adults perceive as 'sexy' shows precisely that that dance is not exclusively about sex. Of course, we have Freud to counter that, but in essence it's a misunderstanding of him (and people like Klein) to suggest that the (de facto) sexuality of children is anything like of the same order, articulation or direction as adult sexuality. I'm trying not to put words in your mouth - I don't think you think this - but there's something very sinister about precisely this mis-articulation of child sexuality.