From: owner-support-system-digest@smoe.org (support-system-digest) To: support-system-digest@smoe.org Subject: support-system-digest V5 #49 Reply-To: support-system@smoe.org Sender: owner-support-system-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-support-system-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk support-system-digest Friday, March 8 2002 Volume 05 : Number 049 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: it's official - and such a pity [fallout@purdue.edu] Re: It's official [Gabriel Peterson ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 09:06:07 -0500 (EST) From: fallout@purdue.edu Subject: Re: it's official - and such a pity > > Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. I'm no huge fan > > > of Britney or Christina but I was just overwhelmed > > > with the self-righteous hypocrisy of Miss Crow. > > Just > > > mind-boggling. > I'm sorry but I don't by the argument by Liz and > Sheryl of owning your exploitation. Owning their > exploitation just helps them sleep a little better > when they go to bed at night. Either way you slice it > the end result is a female artist on the cover of the > magazine/video/album cover half-naked. Somehow when > Liz/Madonna/Sheryl do it it is okay because they are > cynical about it? ...and later... > For some reason, when I see Sheryl with her ass cheek > hanging out of hotpants, the first words that come to > mind aren't serious artist. If anything it > marginalizes her artistry. > I'm sorry but Sheryl seems to have lowered herself to > the same role from looking at her Stuff layout. I > guess the game is skin to win and Sheryl is more than > happy to play. It's a travesty that female nudity appalls you at such a universal level. Let Sheryl Crow have her ass hang out, she deserves it. That her breasts are all up in your face in no way marginalizes her previous artistic achievements. Her boobies do not bad songs make. However, would anyone have ever bought into "Hit Me Baby One More Time" if that prudish slut in a catholic school girl outfit had come replete with stringy hair, acne, and a whole lot of back fat? The same goes of the Agulieraiera. The difference is that Sheryl Crow is a fully formed functioning adult, and its just fine with me to see her naked (and my god that mouth), it wouldn't change my opinion of her as a singer/songwriter. An occasionally naked singer/songwriter is still a singer/songwriter. As for Britney and Christina, they present a constant parade of fleshy goodies with everything they package, it's an inherent part of their character. They're socially acceptable pathways of enjoying pedophilia without the jail and such. That's why its so creepy, and exploitive, and wrong. But this probably won't change your mind, and that's a pity, because T & A is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. jeremy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 08:53:30 -0800 (PST) From: Gabriel Peterson Subject: Re: It's official I have to agree that the only thing worse than flaunting your ass-ets to push your music is to be hypocrytical about it. The fact that Sheryl Crow even interviewed with that magazine, much less did a photospread for it, makes me question her integrity. Maybe she blames the "industry" for her hairstyle when she was singing back-ups and is still holding a grudge. Gabe Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ End of support-system-digest V5 #49 ***********************************