is this raising the level of dialogue? I have no idea.
Since when does Camille Paglia make it in to US Magazine at all?
That being said, I'm not sure that I agree with Camille that Paris and Britney's (inadvertently or deliberately) showing the hoi polloi their sadly unexceptional ladyparts is "degrading the entire pro-sex wing of feminism" by "cheapening their own image and obliterating all sexual mystery and glamour."
Does pro-sex feminism depend on sexual mystery and glamour? Since when? And since when do Britney and Paris have the power to denigrate pro-sex feminism? I was unaware that anyone considered them representatives of the movement.
Next week: Joan Didion interviewed by Life & Style. What?
That being said, I'm not sure that I agree with Camille that Paris and Britney's (inadvertently or deliberately) showing the hoi polloi their sadly unexceptional ladyparts is "degrading the entire pro-sex wing of feminism" by "cheapening their own image and obliterating all sexual mystery and glamour."
Does pro-sex feminism depend on sexual mystery and glamour? Since when? And since when do Britney and Paris have the power to denigrate pro-sex feminism? I was unaware that anyone considered them representatives of the movement.
Next week: Joan Didion interviewed by Life & Style. What?
posted by JenIsFamous at 12/11/2006 10:13:00 AM
4 Comments:
For a smart lady, Camille Paglia sure says some pretty fucking stupid stuff. "Pro-sex" feminism is as meaningless a redundancy as, say, "pro-commercial" capitalism, or "pro-Jewish" Zionism. The very subject of feminism concerns itself with a subset of individuals, being differentiated from the other members of the larger group, solely on the basis of who has a vagina to expose (or not) as she sees fit.
Additionally, since when does glamour (or, by implication, sexiness) require mystery? It might if you happen to be RuPaul. But unless Scarlett Johansson happens also to have a dick she's doing a better job than Paris and Britney of concealing, I think it's safe to say that anyone watching her strut down the red carpet at the annual Academy Awards is well aware of her ample, um, charms. Just as one needn't lurk in the shadows to be a grotesque, one needn't be mysterious necessarily in order to be glamorous or sexy.
Victoria's secret is out of the bag. The fact that it might also be lying on the floor, doesn't make the woman lying in my bed any less sexy.
Sorry to double dip, but I cannot help myself. As is often the case when Camille Paglia opens her piehole, there is just so much bullshit masquerading as erudition contained in that Us interview. To wit:
1) "I think that they are cheapening their own image and obliterating all sexual mystery and glamour, which are the heart of the star system.” - The heart of the star system is not sexual mystery and glamour. Rather--and with Harlan Sanders being at least one notable exception--it is overt sexuality that moves product. Remember that even the Colonel's secret recipe is finger lickin' good, and the most downloaded woman on the Internet is Cindy Margolis, whose assets are amply displayed leaving little to the imagination. The expression is "sex sells", folks, and whether it's Hollywood or Madison Avenue doing the selling, the message is not exactly a subtle one. We all get it, and we all buy it, and it's a good thing for the likes of someone like Paris Hilton that we do. Paris Hilton, you see, is too stupid and vapid to be subtle. As Ms. Paglia points out correctly, Paris Hilton is a "celebutante" famous for being nothing more than another pretty blonde with a vacant stare and nothing else to sell. Fortunately for her, Paris Hilton doesn't need anything else, and if nothing else she is at least smart enough to realize that.
2) "Madonna was able to flash her breasts and play peek-a-boo because she is an authentic, creative artist who churns out song after song, project after project. . ." - Um, again (and in a word), "Wrong!" Madonna was able to flash her breasts and play peek-a-boo because she is a woman who happens not to be, uh, Happy Rockefeller, okay? That is, she is a woman with breasts who happens to be alive. Period. As mentioned supra, the thing about breasts is that they have a not-so-subtle appeal all their own. Which is why Barbara Bush could also flash her sweater meat, and we'd take notice even if the person doing the flashing is the octogenarian famous for ghost-writing her dog's autobiography, and not the other one. In fact, many of us would take notice simply BECAUSE it's not the other one. (But that's hardly the point.) Okay? Are we clear? See, the thing about breast-flashing is that, like vehicular homicide or sectarian violence, it can sometimes leave us agape in that not-so-good way, but it also seldom goes unappreciated for what it is.
3) "A great promise was contained in the moment when Madonna kissed Britney at the MTV Awards. She in a sense was saying, 'I’m passing the torch to you.'" - More bullshit. For all we know, the "authentic" Kabbalist who displays her piety (and red bendel) for potentates, before gyrating for the delectation of the masses, might just as well have been saying, "It was great meeting you. I had a wonderful time. I'll call you!" C'mon, people! Madonna is not passing any torch to anyone; certainly not to Britney Spears. In fact, it is Britney's rival Christina Aguilera who has done more to follow in Madonna's heel prints, reinventing herself in recent months to the point of being hardly recognizable when juxtaposed against her former, decidely sluttier self.
Discuss.
Judging by Camille's latest posts on Salon.com, she seems to have gone on an irrelevancy bender. Which is a shame- because I used to really admire her.
matt penn makes some good points in a funny way but for the record danni ashe is the world's most downloaded woman not cindy margolis
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home