[Tap]

why all the disparaging comments associated with femininity tho

[Tha1ChiefRocka]

I'm, uh, I'm glad I stayed away from this one. I guess.

Saying as though the definition of pornography is something that is made purely for sexual arousal, not artistic value, then a lot of music would not fit that definition, case closed. However, if an artist's attire, attitude, etc. are meant to provoke lust, and only lust, and it has nothing to do with the artistic value of their music or character, then I could see it fit a definition of being pornographic. That does not happen very often though, and I can't remember the last time any music gave me a boner, so I can't say I've had to avoid anything for being overtly sexual before.

[Hayden]

A better question would be whether or not we dismiss a certain artist's talent based on how they look. I find that many people (perhaps not on here) regard those who are 'more attractive' as people who are incapable at having any other talent at all, particularly (women) in the film industry. Has there ever been an artist you're all like 'they're too attractive/sexual to be considered cool'?

There have definitely been cases in recent memory where the artistic quality of overtly sexual material has come up... when Elfriede Jelinek won the Nobel there was an uproar. I find no issue in oversexualization in the music industry as long as the music's good. Someone like Prince definitely comes to mind, perhaps Iggy Pop, Mick Jagger, etc...


And Britney's definitely had more misses than hits, but Toxic's still a banger.
_________________
Doubles & Conch

[RockyRaccoon]

[Fischman]

[RockyRaccoon]