I haven't seen the video in question but I suspect that's not a gun signal he's making with his hand but is probably a gang sign. Which I think is appropriate. Sex is not a bad thing. Dehumanizing sexuallity is. I'm not a Brittany fan but I don't think she's really guilty of anything wrong. If sex weren't such a taboo Houston wouldn't be so littered with strip clubs. It's repressed sexuality needing to manifest which makes BS, and her tease image so compelling. I'm rambling. Gang violence is a bad thing however and shouldn't be celebrated. Thats what I was getting at, which is kind of the reverse of the original point, which is, why is it so ok to celebrate guns and gun culture, and the violence they inspire, while a womans sexuality is thought nasty or slutty?
Where did you download the video from? I sure as hell ain't gonna watch any more MTV crap just to see this video.
Vote for which of the following scenarios you seriously think is true: Brit(t)ney Spears wakes up in the morning and: 1) Says to herself, "I've got a video to do today. I think I'll make myself look as slutty as possible because after all, I'm a slut, and that's just the way things are. I'm a ****-tease. The end. Where are my crotchless panties?" -or- 2) She wakes up, knowing she has a video/appearance to do, and therefore must get in touch with her 'people' at her record company, who will tell her what to wear for what video she is to be doing. The record company also tells her how to dance and how to act for her video. As much as I like to fantasize about scenario #1, I'm not an idiot. Therefore, I know that scenario #2 is the correct answer. I can't believe some of you. Why call the girl a slut? The only people concerned with her "purity and virginity" are parents and perverts, who fuel the media's attention to the subject. I've never liked Britney, Christina, the BackDoor Boys, or N' Sync. I've hated their image and their 'music' from the get-go. Then I read an article about Justin whats-his-name telling Britney to take more control of her image and to make more aggressive music and to break out of her teenie-bopper image. She has definitely done just that, and I applaud her for it. I still don't like any of the boy bands or Britney or Christina. But after reading that article, I DO have more respect for them now.
For me, the problem with the Britney Spears and Christina Aguilara's of the world is a combination of three things: <b>1. The music industry (dominated by male executives) would rather promote a female artist's body than her music or voice.</b> Let's face it. Britney is not exactly making earth-shattering art here. Neither was Madonna. Neither are any of the other pop diva's. Their popularity is based on their looks, not their talent. How many female "musicians" do you see out there in comparison to males? It's got to be like a 50 to 1 ratio. Is that for lack of musicians? Some perhaps but not to the degree with which we see it. There some extremely talented female guitarists, bassists, drummers and other instrumental musicians. When is the last time you read about a great female drummer without her looks being interjected? Nearly every article you read about a female musican/singer/artist or everything you see is about what they are wearing, what they look like, how sexy they are. That is because the music industry knows it is easier and safer (for them) to market a singer on her looks. Does anyone here think that half of the male artists out there would get ANY shot at all if they had to survive on their looks? Didn't think so. <b>2. In order to get any attention from the music community, a woman must be attractive.</b> Ask any record company person and they'll tell you the first thing people ask about any female musician who is unsigned is "what does she look like?" They actually try to keep females off of instruments so they can spend more time in front of the audience. There are far more talented female artists who's looks don't rate high on the scale - Indigo Girls, Suzanne Vega, Shawn Colvin (she had a hit until people saw how she looked), kd lang... Hell, even Paula Cole was called "sexy" until, OH MY GOD, she has armpit hair! <b>3. If kids emulate them, the parents are responsible for that behavior, not the artist.</b> It is not the responsibility of the music industry to raise your child. If people buy music or watch videos because a young girl is sexy, that isn't the fault of the girl. She is what she is and does what she does because it does sell. I'm not saying I think it is the most honorable thing in the world to do, but if you are worried about your kids being influenced, turn off the tv.
Well, exactly. For that, she became not only unsexy but retroactively unsexy. I mean, ugh. She's now known as Paul Cole, I believe. Played in the XFL last year.
Really, I don't know how y'all even watched that video, I tried but that song is so repulsive I couldn't last more than 15 seconds tops. And that was with the mute button, even with no sound the putridness of that song shine through. It is, in my opinion, the <b>Worst. Song. Ever</b>
I agree. And I like some of her other stuff...but I about swallowed my tongue when i first heard "I'm a Slave 4 U"
I agree with most of what you said except here. Britany is not just on TV. She is everywhere. Parents can't control that. Her audience ranges from 5-25. Maybe after 16 or so a girl can determine if she wants to be known as a slut, but it would not be ok for my 14 year old daughter to start dressing as a slut because its the "in" thing to do and everyone else in school is doing it. Britany IS a role model and she chooses to be. She is targeting this audience. Someone compared her to Charles Barkley. Charles Barkley does not get money for his performance or how many people attend. People choose him to be their role model, he doesn't choose them.
What is great art? Is it it being ugly? Is is great lyrics? Is it looking pretty? What is it? I sure as hell don't know, but I think that when when someone makes you feel something with that they've created you would have to consider it. Brit has everyone's attention. Not just one person. Not just just thousands. She has a large percentage of the population's attention. They either love her or hate her. That's called making people feel something. She has our attention. What's not great about that. Why is that not great art?
It is the parents responsibility, not Brittney Spears. If you don't like your kids listening to the crap she puts out, then take some FRICKEN responsibilty for raising your own kid, and don't let them listen to it. DaDakota - proud father...and active parent.
Just because she has people feeling something doesn't make it great art. There are plenty of artists who make or did make people feel something during their careers. Vanilla Ice had people talking at his peak but now just about everybody has either dissed him or forgotten about him. So since he made people feel something and still does make certain people feel something would you call his music great?
