(The reason for the asterisk is that any reply with that word in the title
or the text would otherwise be thrown out by my diligent IT system!)
1. First point. Erica Trudelle wrote:
" I guess next time I see a video with a half naked woman singing about
being rubbed while watched by 10 sweaty men, I'll sit back, smile and think
to myself, what classy woman,what a positive message, whatever it takes to
make a living, you go girl, good for you, and hope my young daughter wants
to grow up and be just like her..."
It is a problem I have been wrestling with too, as a mother of 2 boys. What
do kids perceive as "normal" when they're fed this stuff all day? And no,
my kids are not young enough any more for me to be able to monitor what they
see on TV, I can only hope I've given them enough sense of self respect and
social awareness by now to be able to distinguish the crap, but I can't help
but worry, from the overload they get day after day.
Like Erica, I'm no prude, but I'm also disappointed to see some people play
on the easiest sexual impulses to sell their "music". No, the idea is not
so new, but the package is more and more replacing the content, and the
brashness with which it's done means that it's become a race to be the most
revealing, the most shocking etc. Yes, in the sixties a singer with a cute
face may have sold more than someone less attractive and that was exploited
too, and from there on we had more and more suggestive moves and pouting
lips and the works, to a point where yes I feel a lot of these kids are
prostituting themselves with their crotch grabbing and boobs display. No
matter if they are male or female. I would use the "w" word for both,
regardless. If you want to call me a prude or censorious for saying this
well then maybe I just have to accept that, but I know I've never been known
that way. In fact years ago my (catholic) father accused me of being
sex-obsessed, which I know I wasn't either, but I think sex is just too
precious and special, like art, to turn it into such a cheap parody. And so
with all respect for the point Yael made about gender stereotypes and the
point Lori made about different ways of dressing in different cultures, and
in spite of my own desire to live and let live and be tolerant, I see it as
my duty to react against this cheap slutty trend.
In fact, I'm almost equally concerned about a different influence that my
kids (along with all of us) are subjected to, and that may be even more
controversial and almost the opposite of what I said above, but to me it's
entirely logical. This is the brainwashing that kids get from popsongs and
soaps etc about the nature of relationships. I'm probably getting into deep
water here and I may regret saying this because I won't have the time to
explain what I truly mean, but I think we are all being made to believe that
the only "correct" love relationship is one on one. If someone feels (or
expresses) love for more than one person, and it is considered more than
friendship (which I think is an artificial distinction anyway) then they are
judged as having "cheated" and the other party is made to feel betrayed and
hurt and jealous. It gets very close to what Colin said about fear. I
think jealousy is a result of fear, and it is a reaction that is "created"
by the way we have organised our society, where everything is based on the
couple relationship (which in turn goes back to the male owning the female
and wanting her to only have his offspring i.e. from his sperm).
Now I do live in the real world and I don't have all the practical solutions
to questions that may follow from this theory, only that I would like our
society and the people who influence us through the media (when they're not
bombarding us with slut products that reduce sex to just another bodily
function) to be less rigid in its judgments and conclusions of how we can
love and relate to others, and I am worried about some of the comments my
sons make about certain storylines, where they so easily identify who is the
"cheater" and who has done wrong, based entirely on the stereotypes we have
been told to follow, rather than on what the true emotions of the
individuals are.
Ah, I'd love to discuss this further, but I'm not sure I can do it properly
in writing, especially with the clock ticking behind me, so I'll leave it at
that for now.
2. Susan Guzzi wrote:
"Having been raised Catholic, 12 years of their schooling, I have serious
problems with organized
religion. Having said that I now consider myself to be an atheist.
Success! LOL!
... But seriously, Erica, I feel I live a spiritual life, granted on a
different level, I consider
myself to be a humanist. And each day I "try" to be a better human being."
and also: " So if I am wrong and there is a God in my end to judge, what I
may lack in faith hopefully will
be more than made up for in effort and work and some success in living as a
fair minded, loving, peaceful human being."
Susan, if it's not a "sin" (vague pun intended!) to say "me too!" then I'd
like to say so! I think "humanist" is a sometimes underestimated vocation!
3. Franklin wrote : " NP Fleetwood Mac "Bare Trees" maof (miniscule amount
of filler) plus
some of the best interweaving guitar work from two of the most
tasteful guitar players to ever grace the planet - Danny Kirwan and
Bob Welsh - Kick-ass, refined guitar work!! Also some great songs -"
Ah Franklin! I never thought I'd meet anyone who'd feel like I do about
Fleetwood Mac's Bare Trees! It's a wonderful album, with Christine
Perfect's bewitching voice, before Ms Nicks's frilly-little-girl's voice
brought the band to a more commercial level. It's certainly in my top ten
albums list, and I've given it to so many "special" friends who've never had
much to say about it afterwards that I was beginning to wonder! Thank you
for liking it!
Lots of love to you all,
Lieve.
_____________________________________________________________
This message may contain privileged information. If you have received this message by
mistake, please keep it confidential and return it to the sender.
Although we have taken steps to minimise the risk of transmitting software viruses,
the EBRD accepts no liability for any loss or damage caused by computer viruses and
would advise you to carry out your own virus checks.
The contents of this e-mail do not necessarily represent the views of the EBRD.
______________________________________________________________
