quint@topaz.ARPA (Amqueue) (06/06/85)
In article <841@ccice5.UUCP> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: >> The more successful role-models that young girls have while growing up, >> the healthier their outlook on life will be, I think. And the more >> informed choices they'll be able to make later on. >> > >My only experience with Madonna is her videos (which, in my humble opinion, >stink). I don't have a daughter, but if I did I don't think I would want >her to have a "slut-like" role model. It's not her "wierdness" (I love >Cyndi Lauper) but it's the blatent sexuallity. I thought the whole point >of the "womens movement" was to get them off of their backs and into the >board rooms? Teaching young women to be "sex-kittens" isn't going to do >that. The point of the women's movement was to get people to see that women weren't *ONLY* sex kittens. What is wrong with blatant sexuality? It can be fun, in teh right setting. The Board Room is not a good setting for it. But if all a young girl sees is The Board Room, then how is she going to be able to deal with whatever emotions and sexuality she has or comes in contactr with as an adolescent? Teaching them only one way of being, be it sexy or professional, is not going to produce a person capable of dealing with the ENTIRE real world. /amqueue
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (06/10/85)
> What is wrong with blatant sexuality? It can > be fun, in teh right setting. The Board Room is not a good setting for > it. But if all a young girl sees is The Board Room, then how is she > going to be able to deal with whatever emotions and sexuality she has > or comes in contactr with as an adolescent? Teaching them only one way > of being, be it sexy or professional, is not going to produce a person > capable of dealing with the ENTIRE real world. > > /amqueue If our mass-media did not suffer from a glut of dumb, sex-kittens.. If our male-dominated society did not perceive women as sexual toys.. If male peer group attitudes were not so appalling ugly.. If TV's cheap money-making stereotypical mindfuck were somehow balanced by an intelligent humanistic viewpoint.. If our society were not so unfairly controlled by Men of Greed and Stupidity who have everything to gain by maintaining traditional attitudes... ..then Madonna's `sexyness' might not be so offensive. -michael
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (06/10/85)
In article <1625@reed.UUCP> ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) writes: >> >> The more successful role-models that young girls have while growing up, >> >two-dimensional, blatantly sexual being. How is a person like >Madonna going to help an adolescent develop a balanced >character?? ...etc. This may be a dumb question (and I'm not just responding to Ellen, but to all the "role-model" stuff I've been reading lately), but what is the theory that says people have to have role-models, and how valid is the theory? This is a real question, since my education is lacking in psychology/sociology. It seems to me that anybody who would really use somebody like Madonna (or G. Gordon Liddy, for men) as a role-model would not use a better model even if they WERE available. From my personal experience, the only "role-models" I have are negative examples ("If I ever start talking like G. Gordon Liddy, please slap me several times-- hard." :-). Can anyone enlighten me? -- - joel "vo" plutchak {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster "Take what I say in a different way and it's easy to say that this is all confusion."
robertp@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (06/10/85)
In article <1625@reed.UUCP>, ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) writes: > THAT'S EXACTLY THE PROBLEM WITH MADONNA! She is *nothing* but a > two-dimensional, blatantly sexual being. How is a person like > Madonna going to help an adolescent develop a balanced > character?? > Ellen Eades Yeah, we got trouble my friends, Right here, I say, trouble right here in River City... How soon we forget. This 'role-model' talk is just the kind of thing that made us gag when WE were younger. Only then it was a different set of musicians. "How is a person like Madonna going to help an adolescent develop a balanced character??" How is this question relevant? Do you believe that demon rock and roll distorts the empty, pliable minds of today's youth? That teenage girls would live up to Victorian standards of purity except for the "Material Girl" video? Have we time-warped back to 1963? -- -- Robert Plamondon {ucbvax!dual!turtlevax,ihnp4!resonex}!weitek!robertp
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/11/85)
> > rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: > > >> The more successful role-models that young girls have while growing up, > > >> the healthier their outlook on life will be, I think. And the more > > >> informed choices they'll be able to make later on. > > > > What is wrong with blatant sexuality? It can > > be fun, in teh right setting. The Board Room is not a good setting for > > it. But if all a young girl sees is The Board Room, then how is she > > going to be able to deal with whatever emotions and sexuality she has > > or comes in contactr with as an adolescent? Teaching them only one way > > of being, be it sexy or professional, is not going to produce a person > > capable of dealing with the ENTIRE real world. > > > > /amqueue > > THAT'S EXACTLY THE PROBLEM WITH MADONNA! She is *nothing* but a > two-dimensional, blatantly sexual being. How is a person like > Madonna going to help an adolescent develop a balanced > character?? Madonna completely denies any sense of ethical or > even serious thought; she appears to be a creature of impulse > and passion, devoid of any kind of thoughtfulness. Adolescents > do not usually pick "features" from several different role > models to emulate (Let's see, I'm going to have Mr. Spock's > brain and dress like Yeoman Rand and fence like Mr. Sulu). They > choose one or more very similar models and imitate them > completely, from dress to walk to slang (Examples: the Beatle > haircuts of the early '60s, the black lace training bras of > today). I am all for sexuality in its place; but Madonna > brings sexuality into very inappropriate places, like elementary > schools. > Pardon the flames, but I just can't *stand* that bimbo... > > Ellen Eades Ellen, I *never* thought I would ever see a posting from you that I could *completely* agree with. I do now. Clayton Cramer
chris@pyuxc.UUCP (R. Hollenbeck) (06/12/85)
One of the postings on this topic claimed that Madonna's image is fabricated by the (presumably male-dominated) music industry. I replied in an earlier posting that everything I've read about her indicates that that isn't so. After thinking about it, I realized that's probably why she's so threatening, because she CHOOSES to act that way, and portray herself that way, and makes no apologies for it. How much easier it would be if we could simply blame Madonna on the sexist record industry.
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (06/13/85)
> > rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: > > >> The more successful role-models that young girls have while growing up, > > >> the healthier their outlook on life will be, I think. And the more > > >> informed choices they'll be able to make later on. > > > Pardon the flames, but I just can't *stand* that bimbo... > > Ellen Eades I did not! I agree, to a good deal, with you. Please don't put me on the pro-Madonna side. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
jcjeff@ihlpg.UUCP (Richard Jeffreys) (06/13/85)
> One of the postings on this topic claimed that Madonna's > image is fabricated by the (presumably male-dominated) music > industry. I replied in an earlier posting that everything > I've read about her indicates that that isn't so. > After thinking about it, I realized that's probably why she's > so threatening, because she CHOOSES to act that way, and > portray herself that way, and makes no apologies for it. > How much easier it would be if we could simply blame Madonna > on the sexist record industry. > R. Hollenbeck. If Madonna had not *chosen* to portray herself in the way she does; would she have recieved as much attention in the music industry (and on the net)??? Would her records have sold as much as they have done if nobody knew what she looked like, or the way in which she acts and dresses??? The same could be asked of Cyndi Lauper or Boy George. I think not. To make it in the music industry you need a lot more than a good song. These days one needs to be noticed, and the more outrageous one is, the more one is noticed. Sure you don't have to be outrageous to be successful, but it does help. Madonna is in the music industry just to make money. I guess she's doing a good job, everybody seems to of heard of Madonna and her records do sell well. Would you like the amount of money she earns in a year???? :-) -- [ Hey when I get it right; will you tell me please; I wanna know - Joan Armatrading ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ || From the keys of Richard Jeffreys ( British Citizen Overseas ) || || employed by North American Philips Corporation || || @ AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, Illinois || ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ || General disclaimer about anything and everything that I may have typed || ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jbuck@epicen.UUCP (Joe Buck) (06/13/85)
> From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) > Date: 10 Jun 85 17:14:57 GMT > > > What is wrong with blatant sexuality? It can > > be fun, in teh right setting. The Board Room is not a good setting for > > it. But if all a young girl sees is The Board Room, then how is she > > going to be able to deal with whatever emotions and sexuality she has > > or comes in contactr with as an adolescent? Teaching them only one way > > of being, be it sexy or professional, is not going to produce a person > > capable of dealing with the ENTIRE real world. > > > > /amqueue > > If our mass-media did not suffer from a glut of dumb, sex-kittens.. > If our male-dominated society did not perceive women as sexual toys.. > If male peer group attitudes were not so appalling ugly.. > If TV's cheap money-making stereotypical mindfuck were somehow balanced by > an intelligent humanistic viewpoint.. > If our society were not so unfairly controlled by > Men of Greed and Stupidity who have everything to gain by > maintaining traditional attitudes... > ..then Madonna's `sexyness' might not be so offensive. > -michael The problem with Madonna is not her sexuality per se. It is her particular way of expressing it. It's not on her terms, but on someone else's (adolescent males, mostly). Michael, if it weren't for those problems you mention, Madonna wouldn't exist. There would be no market for her. And her sexiness is not what is offensive. There's no contradiction between sexuality and feminism. Listen to Chrissie Hynde, for example. Her lyrics are more explicitly sexual than Madonna's. But it's on her terms; she doesn't make herself into someone else's toy. She's talking about her own sexual feelings, rather than just trying to inspire them in someone else for monetary gain (though Chrissie Hynde is certainly capable of inspiring such feelings with her voice alone, without the bumping and grinding). That's what the objection to Madonna should be. Watch the talk about role models. We should all remember the arguments we had with our parents. But if we have to put it that way, adolescents should learn that sexuality shouldn't require us (men or women) to become objects or use each other as objects. And we shouldn't rebel against sexuality; only against sexism. -- Joe Buck Entropic Processing, Inc. (epi) {ucbvax,ihnp4}!dual!epicen!jbuck
geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (06/13/85)
In article <653@pyuxc.UUCP> chris@pyuxc.UUCP (R. Hollenbeck) writes: >One of the postings on this topic claimed that Madonna's >image is fabricated by the (presumably male-dominated) music >industry. I replied in an earlier posting that everything >I've read about her indicates that that isn't so. >After thinking about it, I realized that's probably why she's >so threatening, because she CHOOSES to act that way, and >portray herself that way, and makes no apologies for it. >How much easier it would be if we could simply blame Madonna >on the sexist record industry. If I could be rich and famous for doing what Madonna does, I'd do it too (unfortunately, I would probably just make people ill!). In today's popular market (which has an attention span of about 3.45 microseconds) hype is all. She is selling records. A lot more than if she were the shy, retiring, non-controversial type. More power to her (I even actually liked a couple of her songs. I was amazed. I 'actively dislike' most of them.) geoff sherwood
cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (06/16/85)
Is Madonna only a "one-dimensional blatantly sexual being" ? I would say she
is exploitive, independent, amoral, anti-authority, shrewd, self-confident,
culturally aware (CF the imagery in the "virgin" video to that in "Une Semaine
de Bonte" by the dadaist collagist Max Ernst), and highly intelligent. Her
sexuality is SO blatant that it's a PARODY of blatant sexuality. Can't you
tell? By mixing external blatant feminine sexuality with clearly masculine
levels of self-confidence, she explodes a cultural tendency to make feminine
sexuality something to be ashamed of, covered up and subordinated to male
sexuality. I think what frightens parents more than her sexuality is her
anarchistic, amoral, anti-authority attitude...the will to make chumps out
of yuppies, suburbanites and the moral majority. I think what frightens
parents more than her sexuality is the nihilism behind her attitude (i.e. don't
take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive anyway). I don't
think that she is necessarily a bad influence--I mean, if a young woman is
more seriously influenced by Madonna than her own parents, then I hardly think
that Madonna is to blame.
omigod, it's THAT
Cheryl Stewart
--
There's one kind of favor I'll ask of you:
Just see that my grave is kept clean.gnome@olivee.UUCP (Gary Traveis) (06/18/85)
> > One of the postings on this topic claimed that Madonna's > > image is fabricated by the (presumably male-dominated) music > > industry. I replied in an earlier posting that everything > > I've read about her indicates that that isn't so. > > R. Hollenbeck. > > If Madonna had not *chosen* to portray herself in the way she does; would she > have recieved as much attention in the music industry (and on the net)??? Her actions and looks may not be fabricated, but by any definition, she is definately a "synthetic hit" - just like the AM-radio barfs the ARCHIES way back when. Take away the hype and ad-money and Madonna would collapse into her own belly-button like a black hole. When she first hit MTV, everyone thought that it was some kind of joke - or that she had won some contest to get on the air, but the joke paid off! Ask any DJ! She's the most laughable thing on the play-list, but they keep playing her songs because the radio-doc's say that they should (market research). Yeh, she's a role model - actually a roll model (the kind with perforations every 4 inches or so..). And let's not forget what she's done for business at the various Thrift Shops around the country. Thanks to Madonna, trash is finally getting to be vogue! Gary
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (06/18/85)
> > Teaching them only one way > > of being, be it sexy or professional, is not going to produce a person > > capable of dealing with the ENTIRE real world. > > > > /amqueue > > THAT'S EXACTLY THE PROBLEM WITH MADONNA! She is *nothing* but a > two-dimensional, blatantly sexual being. How is a person like > Madonna going to help an adolescent develop a balanced > character?? Madonna completely denies any sense of ethical or > even serious thought; she appears to be a creature of impulse > and passion, devoid of any kind of thoughtfulness. Adolescents > do not usually pick "features" from several different role > models to emulate (Let's see, I'm going to have Mr. Spock's > brain and dress like Yeoman Rand and fence like Mr. Sulu). They > choose one or more very similar models and imitate them > completely, from dress to walk to slang (Examples: the Beatle > haircuts of the early '60s, the black lace training bras of > today). I am all for sexuality in its place; but Madonna > brings sexuality into very inappropriate places, like elementary > schools. > Pardon the flames, but I just can't *stand* that bimbo... > > Ellen Eades I agree completely. But have you listened to her song "Material Girl"? The message in that song is even worse than that implied by her one-dimensional sexual image. (I won't even give her two dimensions, as Ellen did.) I've tried listening to it as a satire, but it doesn't wash. She's really saying that she doesn't give a shit for boys without money, and that she's justified in using her sexuality to get material wealth. Shallowness seems to be in these days. Cyndi Lauper sings "Girls Just Want To Have Fun" and is largely responsible for the comeback of professional wrestling. Mr. T is everyone's hero because he has big muscles, wears a mohawk and lots of jewelry, and says things like "I pity the fool who ...". Television shows like "Night Rider" (aka "My Brother The Car") are popular. Ronald Reagan is elected by a landslide... Madonna is just a part of this. If you find her more offensive than the rest of it, don't worry. Just wait about a year, and she will be out. "Thriller" sold more copies than any record before or since. Where is Michael Jackson now? I worry more about the love for mindlessness in our culture than I do about specific manifestations of this (like Madonna). It's true that popular entertainment is usually shallow, but we seem to be hitting a low point these days. I suppose I should tie this into net.women. The issues raised by feminism require thought and introspection. Feminism and all intellectual movements are in for a rough time if this trend toward shallowness continues. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
todd@SCINEWS.UUCP (Todd Jones) (06/19/85)
> > One of the postings on this topic claimed that Madonna's > > image is fabricated by the (presumably male-dominated) music > > industry. I replied in an earlier posting that everything > > I've read about her indicates that that isn't so. > > After thinking about it, I realized that's probably why she's > > so threatening, because she CHOOSES to act that way, and > > portray herself that way, and makes no apologies for it. > > How much easier it would be if we could simply blame Madonna > > on the sexist record industry. > > R. Hollenbeck. > > If Madonna had not *chosen* to portray herself in the way she does; would she > have recieved as much attention in the music industry (and on the net)??? Why are you so sure she is in charge of her image? Sounds like a pretty naive assumption to me! > Would her records have sold as much as they have done if nobody knew what > asked of Cyndi Lauper or Boy George. I think that is generally true. George and Cynthia are equally mindless. > > I think not. > > To make it in the music industry you need a lot more than a good song. These > days one needs to be noticed, and the more outrageous one is, the more one is > noticed. Sure you don't have to be outrageous to be successful, but it does > help. > > Madonna is in the music industry just to make money. > Madonna is in the music industry just to make money for the music industry. > I guess she's doing a good job, everybody seems to of heard of Madonna and > her records do sell well. Would you like the amount of money she earns in a > year???? :-) HEEEEELLLLLL YES! > -- > [ Hey when I get it right; > will you tell me please; Joan Armatrading! Now there's a woman who is in charge of her craft. This probably explains why she is: 1) Not a millionaire 2) Still popular. Where is Madonna going to be in 1990? > I wanna know - Joan Armatrading ] > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > || From the keys of Richard Jeffreys ( British Citizen Overseas ) || > || employed by North American Philips Corporation || > || @ AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, Illinois || > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > || General disclaimer about anything and everything that I may have typed || > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (06/21/85)
>I agree completely. But have you listened to her song "Material Girl"? >The message in that song is even worse than that implied by her one-dimensional >sexual image. (I won't even give her two dimensions, as Ellen did.) I've tried >listening to it as a satire, but it doesn't wash. She's really saying that she >doesn't give a shit for boys without money, and that she's justified in using >her sexuality to get material wealth. This is a toughie, but I'll try. Doing something for its own sake rather than for monetary gain, if that something is generally admirable in the first place, is fine and good. So going off to contemplate your navel in Kathmandu is just as valid a pursuit as hacking on robots in your basement. Many people rebel against a materialist culture by finding ways of not participating in it -- even if the only thing they actually DO is politely excuse themselves from a conversation when it becomes one of those "my [dog, salary, *thing*, house, whatever] is bigger than yours" conversations. Other people openly mock this attitude by participating in it with just enough facetiousness to make the rest squirm, but not enough to make them offended. I still think that Madonna is making fun of gold-digging by portraying it as the stupid, shallow pursuit it is. And now for another anecdote. When I was one and twenty, I dated this guy who was immensely witty, incredibly well-read, highly articulate and very creative--he had written for many publications, had originated a series of hysterically funny cartoons, and translated both Sanskrit and Hebrew texts in his scholarly research. He had a good job with an insurance firm, and I was happy as a clam with my status as a graduate student. He just assumed from his experience in graduate school in the Humanities, that being in graduate school meant that your parents were well-off, as his and all his friends' were. I wasn't aware of his assumption or of his background until (a few weeks into the relationship) we started talking about our parents-- the subject had never come up before, yet when it became clear that my parents were *horrors* working-class people, he acted as though he had "found me out" and that I had been keeping this from him in order to somehow take advantage of him. But then he decided that he could offer me more advantages than I could ever hope to gain on my own, and expected me to just *jump* at his offer to take me back to England with him. It didn't occur to him that I had a career in progress (apparently in the humanities, graduate school is something you do for fun, and to prove that your parents can afford it or something--I don't know.) I think our last conversation ended something like this (on the phone): him: (in a genteel but slightly snide Cambridge accent) ...there will always be something working-class about you.." me: (like a true New Yorker) Oh, yeah? Well you're the upper-class twit of the year! (click) In this case, the materialism and class-consciousness was *his* problem, and he could not believe that someone would willingly suffer poverty for the sake of science or independence--or in my case just for the sake of contrary cussedness. I think next time, though, taking a cue from Madonna, I WILL take advantage of a guy like this. Thanks, Madonna! Now I know that it's OK to exploit twits. Cheryl -- "...a lot of people don't have much food on the table, but they got a lot of forks and knives, and they gotta cut something." --Bob Dylan
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (06/21/85)
In article <492@rtech.UUCP>, jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: [About anti-Madonna flame] > I agree completely. But have you listened to her song "Material > Girl"? The message in that song is even worse than that implied by > her one-dimensional sexual image. (I won't even give her two > dimensions, as Ellen did.) I've tried listening to it as a satire, > but it doesn't wash. She's really saying that she doesn't give a > shit for boys without money, and that she's justified in using her > sexuality to get material wealth. You clearly haven't seen the video. The video interleaves the "Material Girl" dance number with a subplot that completely denies the message of the song. > I worry more about the love for mindlessness in our culture than I do > about specific manifestations of this (like Madonna). It's true that > popular entertainment is usually shallow, but we seem to be hitting a low > point these days. The real low point is in people's ability to recognize normalcy. Madonna is unusually shallow? What about Helen Kane, with her smash single "I wanta be loved by you" in 1928 -- the original "boop-oop-a-doop" song? Not to mention Mae West in the '30s and '40s. Today's music is shallow? Has everyone forgotten disco? *** "And one fine night They leave the pool hall, Heading for the dance at the armory. Libertine men, SCARLET WOMEN, And RAGTIME! SHAMELESS MUSIC That will grab your son, Your daughter, In the arms of a jungle, Animal instinct: Mass hysteria!" -- Prof. Harold Hill, "Trouble" From "The Music Man" -- -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
lmv@houxa.UUCP (L.VANDERBILT) (06/21/85)
jcjeff@ihlpg.UUCP (Richard Jeffreys) writes: > Madonna is in the music industry just to make money. this is not true according to an article i read on her, she just wants to be FAMOUS and doesn't care about money at all. she still lives in the same apt. she always did in new york, and according to the article hasn't spent any of her money on mansions, yachts, etc... and doesn't even care about the money, just that she becomes FAMOUS.
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (06/25/85)
> Today's music is shallow? Has everyone forgotten disco? > -- Robert Plamondon Indeed; although there is always a subclass of popular music with social conciousness, I can't think of a time--even in the late 1960's--where the bulk of popular music wasn't shallow in this respect. But to paraphrase a line from the person under discussion: folks just wanna have fun. And why not? Music, no matter how ``deep'', has never had more than a small part of it focused on social awareness. In fact, on that scale I'd dare to say ``Material Girl'' has more social awareness than Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. The latter clearly has other kinds of depth--and I prefer it much for those reasons. But if you make social conciousness the measure of merit for music or for musicians--and this discussion seems to be doing so--you're missing the entire point. (Robert certainly pointed this out very well; I'm merely reiterating it here.) As for Madonna's ``boy toy'' *image* and the social comments she *does* make--well, that's an entirely different thing. Personally, I think she is more a reflection than the cause of certain social phenomena. She's a ``role model'', certainly, and the end result is that she reinforces a particular role for women that I abhor. But she didn't create that role--in a very real sense, it created her, and made her a star among stars. Blame it on adolescent boys (of all ages), or on our society's conditioning of women to be the ``toys'' of men. But if you're looking for root causes, you'll never find them by blaming Madonna. [Notes: 1) I don't like Madonna much, and 2) I don't like Madonna's music much.] -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (06/27/85)
> > him: (in a genteel but slightly snide Cambridge accent) ...there will > always be something working-class about you.." > > me: (like a true New Yorker) Oh, yeah? Well you're the upper-class twit > of the year! (click) > > In this case, the materialism and class-consciousness was *his* problem, and > he could not believe that someone would willingly suffer poverty for the > sake of science or independence--or in my case just for the sake of contrary > cussedness. > > I think next time, though, taking a cue from Madonna, I WILL take advantage > of a guy like this. Thanks, Madonna! Now I know that it's OK to exploit twits. > > Cheryl I hope you're joking, but just in case you aren't... I have two reactions to this. The first is that, if you take advantage of a jerk, you are hurting a human being, although it may be someone whom you feel deserves it. The second (and stronger) is that you would be demeaning yourself. In the long run, you would be hurting yourself more than the guy you would take advantage of. You are really saying here that you would be willing to put up with a bad relationship if there were enough money in it for you. Even if you would only do this for a little while, I still feel that you would be demeaning yourself. The guy would end up with less money and hurt feelings; you would end up with a diminished self-image, for how could you feel proud about acting like this? I hope you value yourself more than this. Sorry for the lecture, especially if your comments weren't meant seriously. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (06/28/85)
".... And the crowd gatherd 'round and angry young man
face down in the street with a gun in his hand...."
"The Ghetto" - Elvis Presely
jeanette l. zobjeck
ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie
================================================================================
These are my opinions!
I worked for them and I intend to enjoy them.
Handle carefully or else someone might think they are yours also.
================================================================================
~~~
(o o) *************************
|WMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWM /MWMW| * TO HELL WITH THE DOG *
|MWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMW | WMWM| * -*-*-*-*-*-*- *
_________I_I________|/_____ * WATCH OUT FOR THE *
* OWNER *
*************************iod@ihlpm.UUCP (robinson) (07/08/85)
> > > > him: (in a genteel but slightly snide Cambridge accent) ...there will > > always be something working-class about you.." > > > > me: (like a true New Yorker) Oh, yeah? Well you're the upper-class twit > > of the year! (click) > > > > In this case, the materialism and class-consciousness was *his* problem, and > > he could not believe that someone would willingly suffer poverty for the > > sake of science or independence--or in my case just for the sake of contrary > > cussedness. > > > > I think next time, though, taking a cue from Madonna, I WILL take advantage > > of a guy like this. Thanks, Madonna! Now I know that it's OK to exploit twits. > > > > Cheryl > > I hope you're joking, but just in case you aren't... > > I have two reactions to this. The first is that, if you take advantage of a > jerk, you are hurting a human being, although it may be someone whom you feel > deserves it. The second (and stronger) is that you would be demeaning > yourself. In the long run, you would be hurting yourself more than the guy > you would take advantage of. You are really saying here that you would be > willing to put up with a bad relationship if there were enough money in it > for you. Even if you would only do this for a little while, I still feel > that you would be demeaning yourself. The guy would end up with less money > and hurt feelings; you would end up with a diminished self-image, for how > could you feel proud about acting like this? I hope you value yourself > more than this. > > Sorry for the lecture, especially if your comments weren't meant seriously. > -- > Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) > aka Swazoo Koolak > > {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff > {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** It was announced today that Penthouse magazine will be doing a 17 page layout of Madonna in an upcomming issue. The pictures are suppose to be very explicit! For all of you out there who think Madonna is a role model I say your fuckin crazy.... This whore is a fuckin slut and should be banned from the music seen. What will we discover next about Madonna? Is she gay??? Did she fuck her father for kicks??? WHAT KIND OF ROLE MODEL IS THIS BITCH??????????????????? WHAT KIND OF PERSON WOULD SAY MADONNA IS A ROLE MODEL????????? LET ME HEAR WHAT THE REST OF YOU OUT THERE THINK.
cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (07/08/85)
> >It was announced today that Penthouse magazine will be doing >a 17 page layout of Madonna in an upcomming issue. The pictures >are suppose to be very explicit! For all of you out there >who think Madonna is a role model I say your fuckin crazy.... >This whore is a fuckin slut and should be banned from the >music seen. What will we discover next about Madonna? >Is she gay??? Did she fuck her father for kicks??? >WHAT KIND OF ROLE MODEL IS THIS BITCH??????????????????? >WHAT KIND OF PERSON WOULD SAY MADONNA IS A ROLE MODEL????????? >LET ME HEAR WHAT THE REST OF YOU OUT THERE THINK. 1. Obscenity is the last refuge of the inarticulate motherfucker (or father raper as the case may be). 2. The topic "Madonna as role model" came up because, to many young ladies (barf!), she already IS a role model. The discussion has focussed on whether she is or is not an appropriate role model. 3. If she's a slut for appearing in Penthouse, then you are a smutmonger for reading Penthouse, or even being remotely aware of its contents. And your speculations about her private life clearly display what a dirty little mind you have. You don't say such things about pictures of naked bush-people appearing in National Geographic, do you? 4. Learn to spell. Start with the word "misogynist". Then look it up to see what it means. 5. Why aren't you calling for Debby Harry and Grace Jones to be banned from the music scene? How about the lead singer for the Plasmatics? Oh, and don't forget Burt Reynolds--he posed for Playgirl, remember? And of course, all the women who posed for Playboy's "Girls of the Big Ten" and "Girls of the Ivy League" should be thrown out of school, irregardless of their academic standing. As a matter of fact, any woman who shows any sign of being the least bit interested in sex should be immediately discredited for anything else she may accomplish--she's obviously just a "fuckin slut", right Robinson? 6. Thank you for your enlightening insights on feminine sexuality. 7. What about _The_Cornell_Lunatic_ and their spread, "Presidents of the Ivy League" (circa 1980)? It featured Derek Bok in the buff, and Frank H. T. Rhodes stark nekkid by the pool (actually just pictures of their faces pasted onto Playgirl pictures). It was *very*, *very* funny--can you imagine D.B. hung like a horse? It was the LAUGH RIOT of campus (but I guess Boston IS famous for its cod!) Cheryl Stewart Cheryl Stewart --
geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (07/09/85)
In article <342@ihlpm.UUCP> iod@ihlpm.UUCP (robinson) writes: >It was announced today that Penthouse magazine will be doing >a 17 page layout of Madonna in an upcomming issue. The pictures >are suppose to be very explicit! For all of you out there >who think Madonna is a role model I say your fuckin crazy.... >This whore is a fuckin slut and should be banned from the >music seen. What will we discover next about Madonna? >Is she gay??? Did she fuck her father for kicks??? >WHAT KIND OF ROLE MODEL IS THIS BITCH??????????????????? >WHAT KIND OF PERSON WOULD SAY MADONNA IS A ROLE MODEL????????? >LET ME HEAR WHAT THE REST OF YOU OUT THERE THINK. All right, here it is. I think she is doing what she wants to be doing, and has a perfect right to do so. If you do not like it, don't buy her albums, don't buy the magazine, and change stations when a Madonna song comes on the radio. Its a (semi)free country and she is taking advantage of it. More power to her (even if I do dislike almost all of her songs -- obviously somebody likes them). The fact that she is posing nude implies NONE of your speculations (isn't there an old saying about filth being in the mind of the beholder?). If you don't want her as a role model, fine. She won't be yours. She's not mine, either. These are personal choices. I deplore the aspersions you cast on those for whom she is a role model. Enough. Your posting sickens me. geoff sherwood
andrew@grkermi.UUCP (Andrew W. Rogers) (07/09/85)
In article <342@ihlpm.UUCP> iod@ihlpm.UUCP (robinson) writes: >It was announced today that Penthouse magazine will be doing >a 17 page layout of Madonna in an upcomming issue. ^ Good! The more exposure (ha ha) Medusa gets, the sooner everyone will get sick of her (remember Michael Jackson?) and she'll return to obscurity. Unfortunately, I doubt that many of her fans read Penthouse. Or anything else. >The pictures are suppose to be very explicit! ^ How explicit are they, Johnny? Blowups of her Pap smear, perhaps? How many Penthouse readers are going to pay money to see someone as ugly as her, anyway? I'd rather see 17 pages of Grace Jones. Or Mother Teresa. >For all of you out there who think Madonna is a role model I say >your fuckin crazy.... ^^^^ I'm 33 and male, so she certainly isn't *my* role model... but I'd suggest you cruise your local mall and check out who the pubettes are emulating these days. If Madonna isn't their 'role model', who is? >This whore is a fuckin slut and should be banned from the >music seen. ^^^^ There are plenty of pressure groups out there who would like to do just that - purge "bad influences" from the airwaves - and the thought that they might succeed is even more repulsive than the thought of actually listening to her. Now if you had said, "She's a hype and should be shot"... >What will we discover next about Madonna? >Is she gay??? Are you? If not, why do you care? >Did she fuck her father for kicks??? No, for money. Remember, she's a "Material Girl"! >WHAT KIND OF ROLE MODEL IS THIS BITCH??????????????????? Definitely a negative one. It's one thing when the teenies dress like her; another when they absorb their values from her songs! BTW, my six-year-old niece asked her parents what "virgin" meant, after hearing the not-so-divine Miss M. singing about resembling one... >WHAT KIND OF PERSON WOULD SAY MADONNA IS A ROLE MODEL????????? You. Look at your previous question! >LET ME HEAR WHAT THE REST OF YOU OUT THERE THINK. OK - I think she sings better than you spell! AWR
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (07/10/85)
> It was announced today that Penthouse magazine will be doing > a 17 page layout of Madonna in an upcomming issue. The pictures > are suppose to be very explicit! For all of you out there > who think Madonna is a role model I say your fuckin crazy.... > This whore is a fuckin slut and should be banned from the > music seen. What will we discover next about Madonna? > Is she gay??? Did she fuck her father for kicks??? > WHAT KIND OF ROLE MODEL IS THIS BITCH??????????????????? > WHAT KIND OF PERSON WOULD SAY MADONNA IS A ROLE MODEL????????? > LET ME HEAR WHAT THE REST OF YOU OUT THERE THINK. I think you can't spell and probably can't think. -- ____________________ Michael Lonetto Public Health Research Institute, 455 1st Ave, NY, NY 10016 (allegra!phri!lonetto) Do you think it's REAL?
chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (07/10/85)
In article <342@ihlpm.UUCP> version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site azure.UUCP version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpm.UUCP azure!teklds!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!ihlpm!iod iod@ihlpm.UUCP (robinson) writes: > >It was announced today that Penthouse magazine will be doing >a 17 page layout of Madonna in an upcomming issue. The pictures >are suppose to be very explicit! Sounds like Guccione strikes again. > For all of you out there >who think Madonna is a role model I say your fuckin crazy.... If you disagree with someones opinion then say so, *calmly*. Questioning another persons sanity only prompts others to ask the same questions of you. >This whore is a fuckin slut and should be banned from the >music seen. 1) That 'this whore is a fucking slut' is your opinion (an one that I would prefer you back up with a reasonable proof rather then inuendo) 2) That she 'should be banned from the music seen [sic]' is again your opinion. > What will we discover next about Madonna? Who cares? >Is she gay??? And what if she is? What bearing does this have to do with her being a 'slut'? I've known many gay people (male and female) who have the same percentage of slutness as the rest of the population. > Did she fuck her father for kicks??? Who knows? Who cares? >WHAT KIND OF ROLE MODEL IS THIS BITCH??????????????????? ever heard of a negative role model? (in case you hadn't, that's a role model that shows how you *shouldn't* act) >WHAT KIND OF PERSON WOULD SAY MADONNA IS A ROLE MODEL????????? The same kind of person that would say Gloria Steinem is a role model. Someone who believes that she really is a role model. >LET ME HEAR WHAT THE REST OF YOU OUT THERE THINK. I think you just did. Life, Love, Laughter, and a little garnish of kinkyness on the side. Chris Andersen -- "Roads? Where we're going we don't need any roads!"
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (07/11/85)
In article <342@ihlpm.UUCP>, iod@ihlpm.UUCP (robinson) writes: > It was announced today that Penthouse magazine will be doing > a 17 page layout of Madonna in an upcomming issue. The pictures > are suppose to be very explicit! For all of you out there > who think Madonna is a role model I say your fuckin crazy.... > This whore is a fuckin slut and should be banned from the > music seen. What will we discover next about Madonna? > Is she gay??? Did she fuck her father for kicks??? > WHAT KIND OF ROLE MODEL IS THIS BITCH??????????????????? > WHAT KIND OF PERSON WOULD SAY MADONNA IS A ROLE MODEL????????? > LET ME HEAR WHAT THE REST OF YOU OUT THERE THINK. Just when I get depressed about the low quality of net postings, another suave and urbane individual comes by to brighten up my day. Shaw would die of envy, if he weren't already dead. -- -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert