@Realm: The great thing about freedom is that Taw is free to believe that women should go around looking like a sack of coal.

Personally I favour it, since with my Druidic cloak on I generally go unnoticed as I pervishly saunter through his Harem while he flicks through the latest offerings in the Lada Riva brocheurs.

@FD: Hmmm, where is AELK when we are having an outright conversation on a topic so ripe for her? She could almost justifiably say that she hates all of us on this one. I know she would say it anyway, but this time it would be almost justifiable.

""In Islam, the woman is not on display for merchandising - she is a thinking and valuable part of the human race who should not lower and disgrace herself by putting her worth into enhanced sexual features and movements as eye candy for those who have no interest in her worth as a human being nor her soul."

This is quite well said.
It's becoming more and more the norm that women use their bodies to sell their music.
ANd in a sense I think what they're saying is "Well, I'm not sure that people will think I'm a talented enough artist, if I don't give them a lot of eye candy they won't be interested"

What I'm trying to say, is that you don't have to be able to sing to be known as an artist.
I read in the newspaper earlier that some guy from a record company, I forget his name, wanted to offer Kate Moss a record deal and he said that he doesn't care if she can sing or not, she has the looks.

So yea, I guess these days you don't have to be able to sing to be an artist, you just have to be willing to sell with your body. pfft.

I'd say that the evidence clearly indicates that she isn't happy. And indeed, what is happiness? it strikes me that many people in this modern world mistake self-indulgence of their material desires for happiness, when of course this is merely satiation of selfish impulse, and not true happiness.

True happiness only comes through abstention from the selfish impulse... a separation of the mind from the base impellant of nature, freeing us from the slavery of our lower natures.

Edited by - Tawakalna on 11/11/2006 11:06:13 AM

@ SW yes i agree a lot of woman artists do do that sort of thing but not all. Amy Lee for example as an amazing voice, manages to sell records fairly well and does not use her body to promote, even though she really could)for those who dont know who im on about she is the singer in evanesance, also done work with some other bands including Seether)

@ Taw, again i think your mistaken i belive happiness is when you can sit and just smile for the sake of smileing, when you wake up each morning looking forward to the day and quite simply when your content with your life, yet it is dificult to judge if people are truely happy or if they are just wearing a mask and pretending.

@Realm, yes it's true not all do. It's just becoming a lot more common for it working that way.

I believe that if someone has real talent they will be able to be famous without using anything but their voice (and good lyrics)

@ SW yes, but it is a shame that there are a lot of good artists out there that dont get far because the record companys dont belive they "look the part"

Also @Taw plz dont take things ive said as an attack on you at all as it wasnt meant to be that, and it was only after re-reading it that i realised it might seem like that

that's ok, I have to put up with daily insults from the Droop-Eared Larder who's currently attempting to wind me up by using some sort of gangsta-ghetto speech

No doubt, what I say will prompt a response from a certain party.

Perhaps some here may agree with me on this.

Spears and Aguilera emphasise what is known to sell. And what it is that sells is girls as sexual objects or toys and this without respecting them as human beings.

This is what prompts me to make comments about boys being boys. Because this sells and the appeal works in in a fashion rather like a snake swallowing its own tail.

It draws the attention of the boys force feeds upon girls an awkward and coercive choice for themselves and their self-image or self-respect.

Whether this should be a reason for a woman to go in the other extreme and hide herself from the public's view is a continuation of this same discussion. I disagree with this practice. It is offensive because it is in fact simply the same expression of males' perception of women as is the case with those who criticise these performers. And that, men not being able to help themselves, it is the women who must take extreme measures to make allowance for male weaknesses to assure proper decorum in public.

While I believe that women should be modest in what they wear, as should men, I believe it is time for society to acknowledge that men need to grow up.

Aguilera's was an uninhibited dash to the blatantly sexual, almost pornographic packaging of her music.

Wow. Longest post I've ever seen AELK make. Somebody got her dander up.

---

While I believe that women should be modest in what they wear, as should men, I believe it is time for society to acknowledge that men need to grow up.

---

The jist of true, if there ever was any. Weather any will follow i, leaves much to be seen.

Well I know that Taw and FD had a lengthy and interesting conversation about modernity versus "the good old days" and this is really starting to sound a lot like that. Several of you are making comments along the lines that women selling themselves as sexual objects is something new. Cobblers! What's that phrase aoubt the oldest profession? People have been shallow and selfserving for longer than the las 20 years you know. The search for happiness is the foundation of pyilosophy. This crap about "people these days are looking for happiness in the wrong place", "women these days dont respect themselves", "kids these days...sheesh, who knows". Crap. Whether I agree that kids are rebellios, women cheap or happiness elusive is irrelivent. The point is it has nothing to do with "these days".

Sometimes the macro examples are too great for people to get their heads around, as in, there have always been wars, there have always been people willing to kill in the name of religion etc. Lets look at a micro but famous example. Recently I read some history about Dick Trupin. Realm will understand why "highway robbers", "piracy", and such like have been on my list lately. In the early 1700's, circa 1735, he was a member of a gang known as "the Gregory Gang". They broke into the abode of an old lady in a remote country setting and threatened to kill her if she did not reveal the hiding place for her silverware and cash. She, being a stubborn old type, abjectly refused. Her son arrived home mid raid and they beat him up, held a gun to his mother's head and said they'd shoot if he did not reveal the goods. Point? That happens today and we get "folk have no value for life these days!" . Really, well what was that? Respect for life or an old woman being no more valuable than her silverware? Over 300 years ago kids!

Granted if Britney and co wear less than a "harlet" of 50 years ago it is becasuse standards are dropping, or limits being pushed out, but during WW2 men did paint half naked ladies on the side of their planes and put pin-ups of lingerie clad females on their bunk-side walls. Okay today they would be wearing less, except for the equal rights and sexual discrimination laws existing today which forbit such occurences, but the principle remains that what you all portray as a modern disease is no such thing. It is the human condidion.

As for religion surpressing the human desires and covering up your women, well I know that I am bordering on a "click" and that is the last thing I want to bring back to TLR but as a Roman Catholic brought up in Ireland I could cite a few tales about the wonders of celabacy, frigidity and the brilliant side effects of sexual repression.

*Takes a breath---END RANT*

Don't we just go through cycles .. at least in Western Cultures?

I read somewhere that in the 1920s, the *Roaring Twenties* young women were more liberated relative to the generation before them and the one after them. They wore shorter skirts above their knees (although not minis or micros or ... thick belts as they may do today ) and didn't wear bras, etc. ... although that's not why they were called *Flappers*

And there was nudity in early cinematic works. Mainly female but some male nudity as well and the general public were meant to watch thos flicks.

In the late 19th Century, so-called *high* art of the day focused a rather lot of attention on themes that permitted the artist to paint naked ladies (always of a suitably younger age) in various poses, some less modest than others.

So I guess you could say the idea of sexually symbolized women is an age old theme ... hmmmmmmm. What just happened here?



Edited by - Indy11 on 11/11/2006 2:43:41 PM

man what have i created here?

Id its not really an issue that "Most" of the women are like this, any more than kids are like that, it is however, that it is in the public eye so much. And yes, I do miss the old days were women left enough clothes on to make you wonder, rather than the "Leave little to the imagination" deal. As to being old, yep, feeling it everyday, and there are always things in life that make you comfortable, I just happen to want the old comfortable things again. Mid life crises I think its called.