dsi@unccvax.UUCP (Dataspan Inc) (08/04/85)
/* Doug Alan */ > (1) That's not what the song is about. > (2) And so what if it were? I said that perpetuating the idea that > sex is taboo or wrong is bad. If Kate Bush were saying . . . (those interested in the origins of this discussion, use your 'd' key) /* end excerpt */ One who is exceptionally cynical can probably make an effective argument that 'listening to Madonna trains one in the skills required to engage in sexual manipulation, game playing, whatever.' However, I shall not use this approach. First, there seems to be a fallacy of four terms here. Even Doug would agree that when he is discussing 'sexuality' with respect to Kate Bush and with respect to Madonna (or anyone else) the essence of meaning is quite different. Please forgive me for bringing up such tripe, but the Bernesque notion of 'intimacy' and '~intimacy' is much better terminology for what is being discussed here. A few points: Either a human is sexually aware, or it is not. Nowhere have humans been taught to manage their sexual private events EXCEPT by guilt, repression (pre radio/TV); or the additional 'problem' of using one's sexual awareness as a reinforcer in the performance of essentially nonintimate/nonsexual acts. What Doug (and this writer) really finds irritating about Madonna (or more properly, the equivalence class of artists exemplified by Madonna) is NOT the perpetuation of 'bad sex' or 'taboo sex' (I think) but rather, the latter point in (1) above. Specifically, that class of 'artists' reinforce the trivialisation of SEXUALITY IN HUMAN INTIMACY. What I see as the real problem is no longer the perpetuation of 'taboo' attitudes but literally indifference. The developing human is encouraged at every turn not to deal with their kind in an intimate way, but in a nonintimately sexual way. Programme length commercials for 'the trappings of the good life' (not limited to broadcast media, either) also teach the same doctrine of nonintimate sexual, almost Pavlovian S-R behaviour as a means to an end. The consequence of all this nonintimate sexual stimulation are indifferent humans. Doug probably finds (as I do) that dealing with people who prefer 'popular song-reflecting behaviour' rather than intimacy is a real drag. This is not to say that these persons have no absolute intimate capacity. It is simply to say that people who are exposed to continuous attitudes suggesting that 'game playing' or 'trivialisation of sex' is where it's at tend to reflect that behaviour. (See 'Pornography, ________, and the Trivialisation of Rape', in the __Journal_of_Communication__ . . I think it was Winter, '82 ... for an excellent discussion of this effect). What I find particularly fascinating about Kate Bush is her capacity for communicating (as well as one could ever communicate their private events) the immediacy and fullness of her __________ (no word can adequately describe it) which is obstensibly intimate and sometimes sexually intimate. What she has done is attach her 'essence' (in the Eastern religion sense) to both lexical and musical communication. Whether or not you agree with her lexical or musical expositions, it is still richly rewarding to get even the most brief look at the ___________<2> or perhaps, the slime under one's garden rocks, etc. The dividing line of what is being discussed here really isn't at the 'good sex/bad sex' ( && -ual attitudes ) thing but what is a casual and trivial treatment of sex, and what might sometimes be sexual but is always a reflection or communication of intimacy. When Doug Alan says that 'Madonna helps perpetuate unhealty sexual attitudes,' I must concur. However, unhealthy implies that someone is suffering. It is not that Madonna in and of herself is bad, but that the entire equivalence class of this dreck (and those who are, let's face it, reinforced to behave in primarily nonintimate sexual ways) is severely limiting to the growth of humanity. I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT IS THE FACTOR, but rather, constant exposure of nonintimate sexual reinforcers does contribute to stagnation and boredom. Therefore, Doug probably (and I, definitely) have to reach for the USAir barf bag because society won't explore all the possibilites (and seems to be in a covert conspiracy to discourage every kind of intimate encounter in that which is 'entertainment'). WE'RE STILL STUCK (like a badly scratched record) ON THIS BUSINESS OF 'GOLLY GEE, IS SEX REALLY BAD???' or 'How Sex Can Be Improved in a Nonintimate Way'..... CAN'T WE MOVE ON ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?. To wrap up, this: For some individuals, music is a form of communication which is completely disjoint (indeed, it might even have its own separate consciousness) from the cognito-lexical part which we are all familiar. There may be some forms of intimate two (or multi) way contact which exist among those with exceptional musical gifts. Most of those to whom music means a great deal (such as Doug) probably have to be content with observing these musical expressions of private events. But wouldn't it be great if there was a wide variety of emotional viewpoints being expressed on many subjects in top-40, so that perhaps our successors could find something that transcends (or even augments) common sexual and intimacy notions? Or, wouldn't it be great if the vast majority could experience something other than the trivialization of sex in their ordinary musical experience. It just might be that the development of musical understanding could open up entirely new possibilities for humans. It'll never happen, though, as long as people have a continuous stream of the 'Madonna equivalence class' from which to select.