ClumsyMonkey.net

yeah, which britney is.

xxsweet_kittiexx wrote:i just watched a documentary on nude art. it was really interesting and on TVO. you shouldnt be ashamed to be yourself. go nude!

There's a huge difference between nude art and dressing skanky while prancing around on stage or wearing your thong outside your pants in your videos .. no you shouldn't be ashamed to be yourself .. you should be ashamed of using your body to sell your records though .. you can be sexy fully clothed .. dressing like a skank draws people away from your voice for example and down to your body .. they're doing that cuz they aren't talented so they have to draw attention to themselves somehow .. that's sad. I'd rather not see people 'go nude' ... that'd be mildly disgusting

leave something for the imagination

what i will say, though, is that my girlfriend just bought "stripped" and frankly, the liner notes turn me on a great deal.

although she is pretty hot, I'm proud to say i've never actually looked inside the album

well then man, you just haven't lived.

my cousin has it. why did xtina have to moon the camera in one of the shots. that was just uncalled for.

I've asked kids at school. Even kids with (IMO) bad taste in music know who Yoko Ono is.

There's no excuse for Britney. She's just dumb.

says you emily!

Ahree wrote:I'm sorry, but I'm even younger, and even I knew/know who Yoko Ono is, and have known for quite awhile.

Not knowing the Beatles + Yoko Ono story is just being...very, very stupid.

thanks for calling me very, very stupid.

the only thing i know about yoko ono is that she was naked on that album cover and it was gross.

i'm hoping it was says me. and you didnt know that, jeff? well considering brits in the music business i think she has a higher responsibility to know music history.

i didn't know that.

i'm going to be in the music industry.

that's a shame

no you are not going to be in the music industry

he is the music industry.

how can you be his groupie and say that, sweetkittie?? that's blasphemous.

last several posts=confusion

primetimefool wrote:ugh.

to call someone like christina aguilera a "skank" or a "ho" or what-the-fuck ever is such bullshit. there is no such thing a "slut" or any of it's other synonyms.

Hmm. A "slut" is a woman who is sexually promiscuous. So, yes, there are such things as "sluts" out there. I don't know what the hell you think the word means, but you're wrong.

primetimefool wrote:she may suck, but i don't see why so many people are offended by her fucking image. who gives a fuck how she dresses or what her songs are about? personally i think it's great. she's paving the way for girls to become sexually liberated and stop letting a bunch of reactionary, patriarchal ass fucks hold them down with bullshit like "slut".

1. She actually has a voice. Yet she's chosen to go the route of selling an image, rather than actual music. So that peeves fans of actual music. And yes, it's an image. What's the underlying message of Dirrty? "Hey, be slutty." That's it. No depth, no real meaning, no point, no value.
2. She's desperatly trying to become Madonna. However, she's failing to not that Madonna became Madonna by actually being herself, and that Madonna occasionally had a point to the whoring.
3. There is a difference between "sexually liberated" and "gyrating against random guys while the sprinklers go off and airing it on Mtv." Sexual liberation is, by defintion, the ability to say yes OR NO to sex, and it's your own choice. Ms. Aguilera is pushing the "yes" side of that a bit too much for it to be "liberating." She's forcing herself, and as she is a role model, others, into slutting themselves out just so they can feel in control.

Narbus I agree with you. Christina does have a great voice and she is very talented.....but she throws it away with her skanky image. Dirrty is a raunchy video that made me laugh when i saw it. If that's the ideal of feminism, (apparently getting gangbanged a lot and looking really sweaty and greasy) than just look at porn for further evidence of women showing their sexuality. The image they have is embarassing. It DEMEANS women as sex objects so that it will make her seem more alluring. Sex does sell unfortunately and she plays the angle perfectly. That's why like Chantal Kreviazuk......because she is pretty darn good looking to me, but its her integrity and honesty in her music that keeps her original. She actually sounds like she is being herself. Christina sounds like she is being what the label wants her to be.........a dirty slut with a great voice......I guess everyone can tell that I really don't like Britney, Christina, and any other clone that will soon make her way into the industry.