Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    G'Day,
    
    >	Do we care ?
    
	I sure do!  The censors are having a go at us again.  If you don't
    want to watch it just change channels.
    
    >	Should we buy it ?
    
	If you want to watch it and can't because of somebody else's ideals
    being forced upon you then of course you should buy it.
    
    >	Is Madonna a marketing genius ?
    
    	These days I think everybody knows that anything either sexual or
    controversial, and this video is both, will sell well.  I don't think
    she's a genius, just bright enough to realise what sells records.
    
    	The best part about all this is that we actually get to see the
    video here in Australia!  So far it has been shown on our version of
    MTV and also on the ABC (that's the Government run network) albeit late
    at night.  According to channel 9 (where MTV is shown) they only had
    one telephone call complaining about it - not bad since they have
    previously had hundreds of calls about other shows.
    
    David.
    

    
    yes, madonna inc. is a marketing genius
    

    Agreed ... and not very subliminal either ... right up front !
    
    Face it, sex sells ... and we all buy it, one way or another ...  8^)
    
    Jerry ...

    Yes, she is a marketing genius.
    
    The video was broadcast over here in the UK on Friday night - and
    believe me it really is nothing to get steamed up about (pardon
    the pun) ;-)
    
    Why do I say she is a genius?  Because she makes a video, just a
    bit too close to the edge, knowing that the censors will have it
    banned because it is "too steamy" to show on TV, thus making everyone
    all the more determined to see "what is it that we are not allowed
    to see - must be something pretty shocking".
    
    IMHO Maddona has now by-passed the shocking stage and has become
    boring.
    
    Just as a matter of interest does anyone know if Ultravox "Visions
    in Blue" video was banned, this has the same sexual connotations
    as Madonnas, making it obvious that her idea is certainly not original.
    
    
    Tracy W.  
    
    

    If anyone is interested, "Nightline" will be showing the complete
    and unedited version of this video on ABC tonight...
    
    Edd

    FORGOT TO ADD MY NOTE... I WATCHED THIS VIDEO FRIDAY EVENING
    AND TO BE HONEST HAVEN'T WE SEEN WORSE..WHATS ALL THE FUSS ABOUT,
    SHE SAID THAT SHE WAS ACTING OUT EVERYONES FANTASIES,I'M SURE
    THERES ALOT MORE INTERESTING ONES THAN THAT.
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Do we care?
    
    Personally I don't.  I've never enjoyed Madonna, and feel that most of
    her talents are only appeal to the under 16 age bracket.
    
    Is she a genius?
    
    Absolutely not.  If she's a genius than so is 2 Live Crew, Rosanne Bar,
    Andrew Dice Clay, Sam Kinnison (sp), and anyone else who solicits the 
    "Shock" method as a marketing tacktic.  Controversy equals publicity,
    and publicity equals $$$$$$$$.  Most members of the ape family are
    probably intelligent enough to come to the same conclusion.
    
    Should it be banned?
    
    If it contains the use of outlandish profanities and explicit
    sexual acts that are normally only shown on closed circuit TV in motels
    with names like the "Oh la la Lodge" that rent rooms by the hour, but
    if it doesn't, than no.  If MTV is worried about young minds, they should
    play if only after 10:00 pm, but not remove it.  I see many other
    videos that, in my mind, are worse.  
    
    Kel
      

{Opinions in this reply are soley of the author and  by no means reflect the 
opinions or postion of this notes file or it's management)

<<do we care

I certainly don't...  She can take a slow boat to Antartica, and freeze
her collective assets off for all I care.  (What would be better would
be if she took all her pointless music/videos with her..  but that'd be
asking WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY too much)  

<<should we buy it

Ya may as well, look at all the other rubbish american consumerism has 
provided.  Is this any different ??

<<Is Madonna a marketing genius ?

In my opinion, hardly..  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that
anything 'close to the controversial edge' will sell.  Matter of fact,
I think it goes a little against the public (us).  If we're dumb enough to
bite, someone may as well rake it in.

I guess if you like Madonna, (someone must!) you can appreciate her work.
Personally,,,,,, she does nadda-zilch-zippo for me.  I even dislike her
futile attempts to look like Marylin Monroe.

    I like Madonna.  Don't really care much for her music, although it is
    fun to dance to, but I like her *style*.  She doesn't take no sh*t from
    no one, no how.  She does what she wants, wears outrageous styles,
    does things patently "unfeminine" (crotch-grabbing, etc), is
    unabashedly sexual and makes fantastic videos.  One thing you can say
    for that star is she doesn't fit the standard pop-star mold, and I like
    that.
    
    Do I care?  Most assuredly.  I'm a big fan of Madonna's videos and I
    was upset that I won't be seeing this one on MTV (especially since we
    just got cable.)
    
    Will I buy the video?  Yup.  Like I said, I like her videos.  My
    roommate and I are gonna split the cost of buying it.  Should be fun.
    
    A marketting genuis?  *Genius*?  Well no.  Smart, yeah.  She knows what
    sells, and she knows how to do it *right*.  She has some saavy but I
    wouldn't say genius.
    
    I think MTV has the right not to show a video they don't want to.  I
    don't see this as a censorship issue - after all, it will be
    *available* to those who want it.
    
    D!

    I don't like Madonna's music, and I don't especially care for her
    videos either.  But, like D!, I do respect Madonna for being her own
    person.  I admire her for having the courage to do things the way she
    wants to do them.  
    
    Lorna
    

    re .9, *you* don't enjoy her videos, so she should take a slow boat to
    Antartica?  What about all the people who do enjoy her music?  Why
    should they be deprived just because you don't like it.  Do you think
    you should be the person who gets to decide what videos the rest of us
    get to see?
    
    re .11, who told Madonna that wearing lace bras in public would sell? 
    I don't recall anybody else doing it before her.  From what I've read
    and heard about her she has quite a bit of control over her work. 
    Maybe she just got lucky and a lot of people like it when she does what
    she wants to do.  (I was recently listening to a Bruce Springsteen
    interview and he said that he considers himself lucky because he
    records what he likes and a lot of other people like it, too.  Maybe
    the same is true for Madonna.)
    
    It's true she's not the demure little lady I was brought up to think
    women should be, and some probably find that offensive.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

In her Nightline interview, Madonna said that she "draws the line at
violence, degredation, and humilation" and that everything she does
is "by my own violition."

She also pointed out that MTV has no problem with violence or Sam Kinnison
spitting [?] on Jessica Hahn, but is afraid to show sexuality.

On the other hand, at the end of the video, when the heroine was leaving
the hotel room satiated and giggling, the following text appeared:

    Poor is the man whose pleasure depends on the permission of another.

That aphorism can be read in many ways, some quite violent.  In fact,
my first impression (before hearing the interview) was that it could
be a defense for a rapist; though this would appear to be far from her
intention.

Martin.

   
    re:13...
   << re .9, *you* don't enjoy her videos, so she should take a slow boat to
   << Antartica?  What about all the people who do enjoy her music?  Why
   << should they be deprived just because you don't like it.  Do you think
   << you should be the person who gets to decide what videos the rest of us
   << get to see?
 

In refernece to reply 13...
Ahh but wait..  I enclosed a proper disclaimer...
   
<<{Opinions in this reply are soley of the author and  by no means reflect the 
<<opinions or postion of this notes file or it's management)

Chill out Lorna. I said she could go away "FOR ALL I CARE" 

You wana groove to her tunes, that's fine with me, it;'s of no consequence.
My opinion is she's a pig.

	Re:  .14

	I hope you meant "by my own volition"  ;-)

						clb

    re .15:
    
    pigs are nice creatures and very useful too (as porcine dustbins) - and
    in due course you can use every part of the carcase.
    
    Which is a lot more than I'd care to say of the ........ this note is
    about.
    
    /. Ian .\

1,000 pardons to all pig lovers world wide.


{8?)

    If I want to be titillated by a mercenary, to boring synthetic
    music, I can go down the street a quarter mile to the nearest
    'topless' bar. Frankly I prefer real people, cheaper drinks,
    and rock & roll ;-)

    I don't think Madonna is a pig.  *I* think she's a free spirit.  But,
    she's certainly not the first free-spirited woman to be called a "pig"
    and I'm sure she won't be the last!  :-)
    
    I don't like her music either, but I think as a person she's neat.
    
    Lorna
    
    P.S.  I prefer rock & roll myself!  :-)
    
    
    

RE: Lorna

Maybe 'pig' was a strong word.  I know very little of her as a person,
all I know is what I've seen, courtesy of MTV, VH1, etc.. (And I rarely
watch the video stations)

But my kids do....  Her videos just aint got stuff in them I want my kids
to see, but then again,,,  neither does 45% of T.V. today.
So I guess I'm just venting  against her music.

I prefer 100% pure rock and roll myself,,, and the music that comes
out of her, is just somthing I can't come to grips with.

To me it sounds more like 'thumpa-thumpa caca---' then anthing else,
and I don't think she can sing a lick to save her life.

But if she can make millions doing what she's doing, I can't fault anyone
for that..  I wont be a part of her (and other's like her) success stories.

        And you know what they say about teaching pigs to sing.
        
        Dan

    re .22, so that's good, right? :-)   (to be a pig I mean)
    
    Lorna
    

Re: .21

You you like rock and roll and don't like Madonna, that your kids like? Ever ask
your parents what they thought of rock and roll when you were growing up?

	Plus �a change, plus c'est la m�me chose.
	-- Charles

    re .26, I think it's just down to a matter of taste now.  If I want to
    see a sexy woman singing modern music, *I'll* just watch Stevie Nicks
    like I have for years....or maybe Joan Jett.
    
    Lorna
    

    -1.  Yea, Anne Lennox and how 'bout k.d. lang......

    
    You said it, Jim ... k.d. lang ... YOWZA!
    
    Desert me,
    
    Carla
    

    re .29, are you serious, K.D. Lang?  That really proves that tastes
    differ because I don't find her sexy at all, or even marginally good
    looking to be honest.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Her style, her energy, her enthusiasm, her spiked hair =8-) and 
    her commitment to her beliefs are massively appealing to me.  Oh 
    and her voice.  How could I forget?  Her voice is goddess-like.
    
    Call me weird, but it's what radiates from within that holds my
    attention.
    
    Carla
    

  Given what I know of Madonna and her roots etc., I think its a real misjustice
to chalk her accomplishments up to "following trends" or "being told what to
do to make money".  I'm under the very strong impression that a significant
number of these ideas are *hers*, not some slick promotor or agent.  And she's
successful at it.

  As for her "commercial" approach, I don't find her any more/less commercial
than most bands out there today.  She just happens to be more successful than
most (i.e. in terms of product endorsements etc.).  And since everyone and
their sibling do product endorsements these days, I don't think its fair to
pick on her in particular.

Jim

    re .31, I do admire K.D. Lang's commitment to animal rights, and I
    think she has a nice voice but I don't find her physically attractive. 
    I know what you mean about finding something from within attractive about 
    people who are not conventionally good looking, though, because I find
    Iggy Pop attractive.
    
    Lorna
     

    I watched and taped the Madonna video last night.. Didn't care for the
    song and didn't care for the video. I don't see what the big fuss
    is all about. So it shows a little breast... Big deal, I've seen worse
    on late night t.v. I know it suggest alot but then again so doesn't
    most t.v. shows...
    
    REK

    
    > I don't see what the big fuss is all about. So it shows a little
    > breast... Big deal, I've seen worse on late night t.v.
    
	$ set mode/sarcastic/extra
    
    	Because this is about a woman wanting to be sexual of her own
    	volition instead of about a woman being sexually degraded by men, 
    	for men. 
    
    	It is the difference between Guns 'n Roses displaying their women
    	in sexual manners and Madonna having control to show herself in 
    	an sexual manner. Obviously the former is more desirable [implied:
    	to males] and is what (naturally) is allowed today.
    
    	We don't want women to control their own sexuality and sexual
    	fantasies now do we. No, only the men should do that.
    
    	OF COURSE that video was threatening in this Puritan society!

    	-Erik 
    

    
    Personally, I wouldn't walk to the next office cubicle to see or hear
    her but that doesn't mean that her stuff should be censored.  If we
    believe in censoring one person or group, then we must censor all 
    persons or groups.  There is always going to be someone who does not
    like exactly what we like or do.  Some folks don't like Classical
    music.  Does that mean it should be censored for those of us who do
    like Classical music?  Don't forget that even Classical music had it's
    bans by some people way back when.  Mozart, for example, was not
    allowed to perform some of his operas, by order of those in charge
    then.  There will always be folks who want to censor something, be it
    books, music, lyrics, videos, etc....  That doesn't mean that they
    should be banned just 'cause some people don't like it or find it
    offensive.  This is what freedom of speach and expression are all
    about.  As someone stated in a previous note, if you don't like it
    or find it offensive - turn off the %#$^& TV.
    
    Sue
    

    
    
    
    >       It is the difference between Guns 'n Roses displaying their women
    >        in sexual manners and Madonna having control to show herself in
    >        an sexual manner.
    
    
    Erik.  I can't think of any Guns n' Roses video that displays "their" 
    women in a degrading sexual manner.  In fact, most Guns 'n Roses videos
    don't have women in them (just the band members).  And the ones that
    do, the woman is usually the dominant one (ie, the one in control of
    the situation, whatever that situation might be).
    
    Granted, some Rn'R artists are pretty bad about degradation toward
    women (ie, Sam Kinnison for one), but I think it's a  minority.  I
    think that most videos just perpetuate the stereotype that a woman is a
    sex object to be lusted after.  
    
    One one hand I kind of like that portrayal.  To me it implies that women
    ARE in control of men in some ways and one of those ways is with our
    body....(ie, videos by Alice Cooper, ZZ Top, Winger, etc come to mind).
    
    One the other hand, these bands present these women as being ONLY tools
    for sexual/emotional gratification, which I feel is wrong, so.........a
    little bit of good, a little bit of bad.
    
    
    kathy
    
    

    Re: pigs - a few back
    
    Is this notes file harboring an attitude of discrimination against
    pigs?  Some of my best friends are pigs!   :-)
    
    Mary

    RE: Zarlenga's note
    
    I just saw the video and I didn't see any "dominant women" or
    "submissive men".  I just saw various combinations of men and women,
    with no particular power thing going on.  Maybe it's just seeing
    "active" women that makes you see them as being dominant(?), seeing as
    society has (at least in the past) said that women shouldn't really
    want sex and therefore should not initiate, etc.
    
    I don't particularly like Madonna's music nor her whole "material girl"
    thing, but I respect her for running her own career (I believe she
    does and she's taking it all to the bank) and for not being afraid of
    anyone.  I also agreed with her comments on Nightline about censorship. 
    They let kids see lots of violence (I'm not talking about MTV here) on
    TV and in the movies, but sex between consenting adults???  It's just
    plain silly that violence and degradation is allowed when a
    commensurate amount sexuality is censored.  (Look at the "Henry and
    June" X-rating controversy vs. all the violent action flicks showing at
    the same time.)
    
    Leslee
    
    

    Having watched the video and interview I was concerned over the
    statement Madonna made about the MTV executives censoring the entire
    video.  She asked if there was a particular scene they were concerned
    with and they said no, it was the entire video they were censoring.
    
    I didn't necessarily like the music, it wouldn't be my favorite
    song of the year and the video was quite interesting to watch, once,
    but they should have at least given her a chance
    to clean up what they didn't like instead of a total ban.
    
    At least I didn't have to buy the video to see what the controversy
    was all about..  Thanks Nightline.. 
    
    Kathy M.

> rife with images of submissive men and dominant women, and that's Ok with you.
>
> images of submissive women and dominant men, and those are not Ok.


	Some people  just  don't  get it.  They have to see everything as being
	dominant  and as being submissive.  You have to be dominant or you have
	to be submissive (often spoken as if a dirty word).  And there is no in
	between.

	There *is* such a thing as having a sexual (and otherwise) relationship
	based on EQUALITY you know.  I wouldn't want a sexual relationship that
	was  not based on equal roles.  And I definitely would not want to be a
	woman who was in a relationship with such a man who did not feel things
	this way, who felt everything revolved around being dominant.

	Why do  many men have this hang-up with dominance and submission? Is it
	that big a wonder what side of the equation they want to make sure THEY
	are  on?  Equality  doesn't  exist  even in their sexual relationships.
	Perhaps I should say especially there.

	-Erik
                                                                    

    see momcat::womannotes-v2 entry #820 ("Is S&M PC?") for a related
    discussion
    

    >see momcat::womannotes-v2 entry #820 ("Is S&M PC?") for a related
    >    discussion
     
    Hardly.
    
    D!    

    eric:
    
    I suggest you read that discussion, and decide for yourself whether
    some of the discussion there is related to what you seem to be saying.
    
    				herb
    

    
    	Mike,
    
    	The whole thing is about being in CONTROL. 
    
    	You seemed to miss that point entirely, instead seeing it in terms
    	of dominance and submission.
    
    	A video about a woman in control of her own fantasy and actions
    	makes you say "Why the double standard on dominance and
    	submission?" A woman in control of herself looks dominant?
    
    	Never mind. If you really wanted to know the answer, check out a few 
    	books on sexual politics, sexual assault, and feminist theory on
    	sexual relations. Also any number of college courses on these
    	subjects will help shed light on these matters for you too.
    

> Why do you have a problem with men treating women the way Madonna
> treats men?

   	It's quite simple... I don't.

    	If men treated women the way Madonna's sexual politics drives her
    	to treat men, the world would be a much better place. Not just in
    	sexual assault either.

    	If men made women equal partners and allowed them control and say
    	in how and what their sexual activities are I'd be very happy. It'd
    	be a giant leap from our current position of just getting men to
    	realize that a women's (correction, anyone's) "no" means "NO!".

    	If you still doubt it - consider. I'm involved in sexual assault
    	politics and groups for both female and male (yes, MALE) victims
    	of sexual assault. And I didn't have a problem with the video.
    	If it's still not clear, the best I can do with short time is point 
    	you to some classes or books. Or maybe someone else can jump in.

    	-Erik
                                                                             

    Mike:
    
    I believe that Erik was kidding when he said "We don't want women to
    control their own sexuality and sexual fantasies now do we."  I believe
    he warned that he was about to be sarcastic.
    
    When we talk about Madonna having control over her own sexuality, we're
    NOT saying CONTROL OVER ANYONE ELSE.  This is where the dominance and
    submission idea that you're talking about comes in.  There *is* no
    dominance and submission when people are *controlling* themselves and
    their own sexuality but are *not* controlling others.  I believe that
    was Madonna's point when she talked about chaining herself to the bed,
    not having someone else chain her.  It's play-acting, or acting out
    one's fantasies (however much we may or may not like or agree with
    them) when the people involved all understand that it is by choice and
    could be stopped at any time by choice.
    
    Get the difference?
    
    L.
                       

    
    
    
    I'm not sure what all these videos have to do with music, but I guess I
    just don't get video...  But I agree with Madonna's point that it's
    ironic that we should allow videos (and movies and tv) that show
    degradation of and violence  against women and then limit access to a
    video that shows consensual (although non-traditional) sexual activity.
    
    I don't know which videos are violent and degrading, but I know that
    some of them are getting airplay.  
    
    Justine

    re dominance and submission
    
    ceding control - temporarily - to someone you trust can be fun and is
    perfectly fine, regardless of the sex of the ceder, in my opinion.
    
    

    
    re:.55
    i bet you think music has to do with such arcana as pitches and
    harmony and rhythm and such-like.
    

    I hate to bring this up, but Madonna's video is *not* being
    censored. MTV is not the Federal Goverment. They are a business
    with a clientele. Their business is to provide their clientele
    with entertainment they think said clientele will like.
    
    THEY ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO BROADCAST *ANY* VIDEO. If they
    choose not to broadcast Madonna's video, it's a business decision,
    not censorship. If a software engineer came up with a swufty new
    utility, and DEC declined to turn it into an official DEC product,
    is that censorship? No, it's a business decision, and so is MTV's
    declining to show Madonna's video.
    
    They are not telling Madonna that she is not allowed to make or
    exhibit her video to anyone, only that they will not offer their
    services to her to exhibit it. And they are well within their rights
    to do this.
    
    --- jerry
    
    Disclaimer: This opinion is completely independent of my opinion
    of Madonna and her music. I'd feel the same way even if this was
    happening to someone whose music I liked.

    
    
    
    Not to rathole anything, but.....
    
    >  <<< Note 562.56 by AV8OR::TATISTCHEFF "oink, oink" >>>
    >  <<< Note 562.58 by HEYYOU::ZARLENGA "woof, woof" >>>
    
    
    No, maybe I WON'T comment on the personal names after all!  8-)
    
    
    
    kat
    
    

    
    
    
    RE: .59
    
    Jerry....  I feel that eMpTyV has every right to not want to play the
    video.  I fully understand that and accept that.
    
    I also wouldn't call it "censorship", however, I would all it BIAS. 
    eMpTyV is allowing violence and degradation to be shown on their
    airwaves, but they are not allowing consensual sexual interludes (I
    can't really say "sex" because the video doesn't "graphically depict"
    sex.)
    
    It would never be my intention (or many others here, I don't think) to 
    try to force eMpTyV to play "Justify My Love".
    
    Rather, since they have drawn their own line now on what they allow and
    don't allow, I would expect them to not be biased in drawing that line.
    
    
    kathy

    One thing about this video, and this is common is many music videos,
    but it seems especially so here...
    The words don't have the slightest connections to the action! She
    could have just as easily done her video to the smash hit "twinkle
    twinkle little star"...
    I wonder how these artists "justify" what they portray visually,
    to the words they actually sing.
    
    John

    
    	One prime example I can think of of 'degradation' of women
    	is Motley Crue's video for Girls, Girls, Girls.  Now I 
    	like the Crue but do not like this video.  The whole video
    	is shot inside/outside a strip joint.  They show women who are VERY
    	scantily clad crawling on the floor and gyrating with poles
    	and chairs.....Madonna was more clothed in her video than these
    	women were.
    
    	yet they won't show Madonna's Justify.

    RE: 62
    
    Words? Meaning???  I think the music and words in "Justify My Love" are
    the equivalent of *dialogue* in a porn movie (i.e., well, SOMETHING'S
    gotta be on the soundtrack!)
    
    Actually, I don't remember any of the words, other than the title being
    repeated, except "what do you want?" -- which I suppose fits the video. 
    It may have been that the peanut gallery I watched the thing with was
    making comments throughout the entire thing, so it was hard to hear
    anything.  But I think the point was more the visual anyways.
    
    L.
      

    I think videos are an art form in and of themselves, and don't need to
    be "justified".  At their inception, videos were mainly a visual
    rendition of the song...now they are works in their own right.  Like in
    a movie, the music provides the background, but the crucial part is the
    video, not the music.  However, there is still a much stronger link
    between the music and visual in videos than in music.
    
    While you make not *like* the art form of videos, they are nevertheless
    an art form, and therefore are allowed the same "artistic liscence" of
    other art forms.
    
    D!

>    I think videos are an art form in and of themselves, and don't need to
>    be "justified".  At their inception, videos were mainly a visual
>    rendition of the song...now they are works in their own right.
    Art form? I view them are art as much as I view a box of laundry
    detergent as art. They're just a way to sell something.
    Even so, when does a video cross the line into art? Were the visual
    renditions art? Is 2 Live Crew's video art?
      Like in
>    While you make not *like* the art form of videos, they are nevertheless
>    an art form, and therefore are allowed the same "artistic liscence" of
>    other art forms.
    I like videos as much as the next person. I just have a hard time
    comparing it with what I consider true art. Depending on how far
    you want to go, the coke jingle could be considered "art".
    
    John

        By Edna Gundersen  -  USA TODAY

        Against  a  sultry  dance   beat   and   breathy   cooing,   a
     dressed-to-spill  Madonna and real-life beau Tony Ward tryst in a
     Paris  hotel.   Carbaret-like  images  flirt  with   group   sex,
     voyeurism,  cross-dressing,  bisexuality  and  light  S&M, touchy
     topics in a medium dominated by me-Tarzan-you-Jane quickies.

        The teasing video more closely resembles an unhinged Obsession
     ad than soft porn.  It tickles rather than titillates.

        And it's less offensive then MTV clips that portray  women  as
     T-bones  and  men  as cartoonish gladiators.  In Warrant's Cherry
     Pie, band members drool at a jiggly blone, then  hose  her  down.
     Bell  Biv DeVoe's Poison demeans women with the cold cut, "Me and
     the crew used to do her."

        Nobody is hurt or humiliated  in  Justify.   In  a  refreshing
     twist  on video tradition, a woman controls and celebrates sexual
     experience.  And while the sex fantasies incorporate out  siders,
     focus is on the couple.

        "He is included in all the fantasies," Madonna told USA TODAY.
     "This  is  where I draw the line between lust and love.  It's all
     about including that person.  Not  everone  is  comfortable  with
     this,  but these fantasies exist in all human beings.  This issue
     is not taboo in the movies.  I want people to  deal  with  it;  I
     want people to see it."

    Videos are an art form exactly as their ancestor - opera. You love
    it or hate it.

don't confuse the "art form" with its content. I agree with D!. Videos are a
new art form. A particular painting may be trash but that does not mean the form
is not art. The French Impressinists who are worshipped now days were laughed at
and accussed of defiling the "art form" of painting when they first created their
works. Perhaps Madonna is just ahead of her time. Course, I haven't seen the
video yet. :*) liesl

    "True art"?  Pshaw.  No such thing.
    
    Forget it.  We are using the term "art" to mean totally different
    things.  You are using the word "art" as a value judgement...if
    something is good it is "true art", otherwise it isn't.  I am using it
    as simply a descriptive, with no value judgement at all.
    
    Designing laundry soap boxes is not an art, it is a science: that is,
    it involves following rules, testing results, etc, and no creativity. 
    Writing ad jingles...yeah, that's an art.  It isn't Rembrandt, it isn't
    Bach, it isn't Da Vinci, but it's art.  It involves creativity and
    doesn't follow a strict set of rules.
    
    As a matter of fact, a lot of commercials are art.  The idea of art is
    to evoke a feeling in the viewer (listener, etc.)  Commercials are
    designed to do just that - evoke an emotion in the viewer.
    
    Videos are an art form.  It's a new form of media that hasn't yet been
    fully explored, but they are working on it. This doesn't make them good, 
    or bad.  They just are.
    
    (Actually perhaps it would be more acurate to say that videos are a
    medium for art..I dunno.)
    
    D! 

    re .-2
    Does a TV commercial where the participants sing to a jingle constitute
    art? Is that *really* any different from a music video?
    
    John

    
>    Designing laundry soap boxes is not an art, it is a science: that is,
>    it involves following rules, testing results, etc, and no creativity. 
>    Writing ad jingles...yeah, that's an art.  It isn't Rembrandt, it isn't
>    Bach, it isn't Da Vinci, but it's art.  It involves creativity and
>    doesn't follow a strict set of rules.
    So the line is creativity? I wouldn't necessarily say that designing
    packaging of any kind does not take creativity. Maybe not a lot,
    but some.
    
>    As a matter of fact, a lot of commercials are art.  The idea of art is
>    to evoke a feeling in the viewer (listener, etc.)  Commercials are
>    designed to do just that - evoke an emotion in the viewer.
    Moreso to get the person to buy the product. If they involve emotion,
    (Phillip Morris's Bill of Right tour, MacDonalds use of ill children
    in their ads) it's just a tactic to get us to buy. It's certainly
    not intended to be art.
    
    John
    

    
    i'd go a little further, d!, and suggest that designing the soap
    container *is* art. there's a fascinating little essay entitled
    'what lingers on...after the song is over' by the eminent music
    theorist benjamin boretz. one of these days i'll enter it (it's
    not long) since a paraphrase doesn't do it justice. but one of
    his central points is that *all* people have a need to communicate.
    not merely to be understood, rather, we all have a deep, primal urge 
    to express ourselves *for its own sake*. thus, in everything we do, 
    even the most trivial, we put a little of ourselves into it.
    furthermore, we don't do it haphazardly: there is always some form, 
    some sense of structure. sure, some people with a special talent may 
    have a knack for manipulating the forms, or what they have to say may 
    have special resonance for others. but we are *all* artists.
    
    

    
    
    
    
    
    
    >So the line is creativity? I wouldn't necessarily say that designing
    >    packaging of any kind does not take creativity. Maybe not a lot,
    >    but some.
    
    Yup, you're right, I'm wrong.  Designing soap boxes *does* take
    creativity, and yes, it is an art.  However, it is more of a science
    than it is an art, because it follows rules more than uses creativity. 
    (ie: bright colors attract attention, etc.)  But yes, it takes some
    creativity.
    
    Actually, packaging and advertising in general is an art.  The Museum of 
    Contemporary Art in New York agrees with me - they have examples there.
    
    me> The idea of art is
    me>    to evoke a feeling in the viewer (listener, etc.)  Commercials are
    me>    designed to do just that - evoke an emotion in the viewer.
    
    John> Moreso to get the person to buy the product
    
    You missed my point: the emotion commercials try to evoke is desire:
    desire for the product they are selling.
                                                                           
    Secondarily, many commercials also evoke other emotions, such as anger,
    sympathy, pride, lust, etc.  Regardless of the "ulterior motives" for
    generating those emotions (to get you to buy something) it still
    generates them; one could say that Picasso (or fill in your favorite
    "real" artist) evoked the emotions he did in his paintings so that
    people would *buy* the paintings and he could make money.  Ulterior
    motive have *nothing* to do with whether something is art.
    
    You are still trying to attach a value judgement to the word "art".  It
    ain't there.  Videos may be bad art, but that doesn't make them not
    art.
    
    >It's certainly not intended to be art.
    
    Nor are a child's drawings.  Kids draw because they have fun drawing,
    not because they want to create art.  but it is art anyway.  Intent
    also has *nothing* to do with whether something is art.  Videos are a
    personal expression of those making them.  
    
    I take it you do not consider film in general to be "art", eh?  If you
    do, there is no reason why videos don't fall into the same category.
    
    D!

    
    	Do people still hold the definition of art as "If the creator
    	calls it art, it is art"??
    
    	-Erik (who has been out of film studies too long) 

    
    Madonna "I want people to see it. I want people to deal with it. "
    and something to the affect that these re fantasies experienced by
    every human being??
    
    Get a life, Madonna. NOT EVERYONE has Bi-sexual fantasies.  Not
    everyone wants to watch it on TV. 
    
    And I SURE as HELL don't want my kids to SEE it and DEAL with it. 
    
    I was quite shocked that MTV finally felt a little accountability and
    nixed that trash. They should can a whole lot more (one in particular
    I think was called Baby Doll?? I don't remember...I just remember that
    it was QUITE sexist and unsuitable for any human being under the age of
    OLD). 
     Congradulations MTV. Keep up the good taste.....
    
    As for Madonna, go home, but some clothes on, and see how far you can
    get on talent, not on pornography. 
    
    cathy
    
    

re: .77

	Who died and left you the defender of public morality?

	You could always use my solution.  I don't have have cable, and thus
no MTV.

						--D

    
    re:.76
    i should think it fairly simple to distinguish between -d and d!
    ;^)
    

    who died and left ME defender of public morality?
    
    I am not trying to defend the public. 
    Just my kids. 
    From people with no morals who have decided that if I don't like it
    I should just not watch tv or go to movies or buy record albums or
    have an opinion. 
    
    Why is it ok for people to tell ME what's ok, but wrong for me to
    express what I think is not ok? 
    
    A la Frank Zappa. I guess anyone who see's anything wrong with total
    lack of accountablility is just a bored housewife. 
    
    Don't get cable is a cop out. Don't watch tv is a cop out. Don't go to
    movies...don't read the newspaper. Keep your kids out of 7-11 and don't
    let them listen to the radio. 
    
    I'm sick and tired of having to protect my kids from a liberal society 
    who thinks that THEIR way is the ONLY way and that if I don't like it,
    I can keep away from it, or keep my kids away from it. 
    
    When will society realize that we're all in this together, and the old
    'if you don't like it don't look' think doesn't work for kids. 
    Kids aren't legally alowed to have alcohol or smoke. We can see how
    well that works. How can we even imagine to be able to keep them
    from seeing the kind of crap on tv or the radio orin record stores
    when everything around us is cramming down their throats. 
    
    I'm tired of trying to protect my kids from a sick society. 
    
    No one died and left me to defend anyone by my kids. I will do that
    in spite of you. 
    and, thanks for asking. 
    
    cathy

    
    Re-reading my last (.80), I realized that I got into the censorship
    issue a little too passionatly! My apoligies!
    
    But I was just sitting here (in class not paying my attention...oops)
    thinking something that I wanted to ask to everyone out there.
    
    I assume that we're all pretty much the same age, give or take 10
    years!
    
    I was wondering how many of you folks out there were ever exposed to 
    Madonna-esque displays when you were younger (we're talking school
    age type young). 
    
    I mean, I had this vision of Gilligan and MaryAnne doing it in a fit
    of passion, or Keith Partridge and Shirley talking about condoms or
    whether he should tell his siblings that he was gay. 
    Or how 'bout Mr. Greenjeans with Purple hair talking about this is your
    brain on drugs...
    
    do you think we were sheltered? Do you think we missed out?
    
    Do you think you are better off today or worse off?
    What's changed, and how did it?
    AND  are you glad it did? 
    
    cathy (if you hadn't noticed, I don't want to get into a knock down
    drag out fight here...I'm light..I'm light!!)
                                                 

    
    i certainly don't dispute your desire, nay your responsibility,
    to raise your children safely and morally. i'm not convinced,
    however, that the advice to withhold patronage of an offensive
    item (tv, radio, 7-11, whatever) is a 'cop out'. if you honestly
    believe our society is so 'sick', then i'm afraid you're the
    one who's going to have to make the choice to avoid whatever it
    is you think is 'sick'. the reality is that most people *like* 
    what they watch on tv or hear on the radio or see at 7-11; 
    otherwise they'd be out of business.
    
 

    re .82.
    
    I appreciate your non-attack non-insulting note! Thanks. 
    
    I guess that the bottom line question here is (PLEASE read the intent
    of my question before you answer it, if you choose to).....
    
    Aren't *MY* children important enough to *YOU* for you to HELP me
    raise them safely and morally? 
    
    cathy
    still smiling!!!

    
    > Aren't *MY* children important enough to *YOU* for you to HELP me
    >    raise them safely and morally? 
       
    your children are important enough to me to protect your right to
    *choose* how to raise them (and ultimately, their right to make 
    their own moral decisions). but unless we can come to some sort of
    agreement on what, exactly, 'raise them safely and morally' *means*
    i'm afraid i'd have to say: no.
     
           
     

    
    I'll bye that. 
    
    But at what age are they able to make their own moral decisions in your
    estimation?
    
    cathy

Cathy, to answer your questions, I read "Tropic of Cancer" when I was 12. I was
also able to read "Catcher in the Rye" and a few other classic that commonly set
some parents wild. I think they were good for me. The pap that was on TV in the
60's didn't protect me, it insulted me. At least until Laugh-in. oh OK, I admit
it, I love'd Man from Uncle and Star Trek too. Oh yah, and Rocky and Bullwinkle.

There is a limit to what should be seen at times. I consider most of that to
consist of meaningless violence but that's considered just fine for kids in our
society. I'd rather have them learn about sex. liesl

    
    
    ...also....(!!)
    
    society is making it almost impossible for 'me' to raise 'my children'
    with morals that 'I' want them to have (until they are old enough to
    make their own choices and decisions on something this monumental).
    Instead, I am forced to raise them with Madonna's morals, unless I
    don't have a television set, never let them go to their friends homes
    (who I find are allowed to watch R rated movies at 10 years old),
    etc.  You can't expect me to put them into a bubble to protect them
    from a hovering society who can't wait to turn them into adults.
    
    At 10 years old, they deserve to have (a) childhood. They deserve to
    be left alone, without an outside world who's only attitude is "I
    want to see it, so Scr** you".
    
    I thought that the ME generation was past? 
    
    
    But-anyhow, (:-)) Madonna is a product of a horney, voyeuristic
    audience!! Seems that she appeals to women because of her 'free spirit'
    and 'I don't NEED men' attitude, and appeals to men with...well.....
    that part goes without saying I s'pose!!
    
    Hey, don't get me wrong...I'm no prude!  I am not a bored housewife
    with nothing better to do! I'm just concerned by the overall 'scr** you
    attitude that some of us seem to take with regards to the 'other'
    audience......
    
    cathy:-)

    
    gee, i don't know. my parents, for example, are from that social
    set that strongly disappoved of 'swearing'. growing up in these
    modern times, i was, of course, exposed to quite a bit of 'bad'
    language. it was always clear that such language was 'not allowed'
    in our house and often was the time my mother said, 'i hope i
    never hear *you* talk like that'. and, in fact, with one or two
    exceptions when i lost my temper, i have never used profanity
    in their presence. but at some point in my teens, i decided that
    *for myself* that stricture had no meaning and allowed the
    previously forbidden into my vocabulary.
    
    the point is that it seems to me that if you are true to yourself
    and consistent, your children (and everyone else, for that matter)
    will know what you believe in and what you stand for. no amount
    of t.v. or anything else is going to have a greater influence
    on them in their 'formative youth' than you. so in a sense, that's
    all that matters. 
    
    but in another very real sense, i guess i think it makes no
    difference at all, because ultimately morality comes from
    within.
    

    I watched the video from Nightline... I was not impressed with it.
    I then turn off the TV picture and listened to the song...
    With out the video, the song is a BOMB! DUD!!
    
    I like early Madonna but the last couple of years... Really reaching...
    Of course while we are all in here talking about it Madonna is at the
    bank counting her money... She is a very smart business person. She
    knows what is selling and what is not. Any one who makes 90 million
    the last 4 years has got to have something going for them.
    
    REK
    
    PS I do not have cable and will not get it. I do not want MTV etc on my
    TV... My choice!

    
    90 million in the last 4 years?????????????????????????????????????????
    
    wow. 
    
    I do think that from what I've heard, she does make her own career
    decisions.  If so...then looking out at the rest of the financial
    genius in the country, she ranks right up there!
    
    

    Yes.. 90 million the last 4 years... Makes you wonder huh...
    Then you read about WIllie Nelson... He has tried to make a
    difference... Now the IRS has taken all of his land... Makes you
    wonder...
    
    REK

    G'Day,
    	
    	But Willie owes the IRS 21 million dollars.  I reckon if he loses
    his land - tough!  In order to owe that much in tax he must have earned
    a lot more and obviously spent it all.  If somebody can't get by on
    that sort of income then there is something wrong!
    
    David.  (Who has probably alienated all the Willie fans out there)
    

    re:.61
    
    All that you say is quite true, Kathy, but that's a separate issue.
    It's just my feeling that to bundle *this* issue under the umbrella
    of "censorship" is wrong.
    
    re:.62
    
    The "art form" (yes, I agree with D! that it's an art form; more
    on that later) of music videos has evolved over the years. At its
    basic level, the music videos of today are no different than the
    films of the Beatles singing their latest hit that Ed Sullivan
    used to run on his show after the group got too big to appear on
    it live.
    
    There are a few distinct styles to music videos. One is the straight
    concert-footage style, showing the band playing the song in front
    of an audience, maybe "gussied up" a little, as with, say,
    Springsteen's "Dancing in the Dark". A second style is to create
    a video that depicts what's said in the song, as with, say, John
    Fogerty's "Vanz Kant Danz" (the observant may be able to tell from
    my examples that it's been a long time since I watched MTV :-)).
    The third major style is to create a video that is more of an
    Impressionistic visual story that has little or nothing to do with
    the song itself. One of my favorites in this regard is Fleetwood
    Mac's "Gypsy". The difference between take the route of the second
    style or the third style lies in the song itself. Some songs lend
    themselves more to "storytelling", some to just describing thoughts
    and feelings.
    
    In some cases, the intended result is that the video is a short
    film with a one-song "soundtrack". That the song isn't directly
    relevant to the visuals isn't really of great concern. In fact,
    one can look at it the other way around: the video is a "sighttrack"
    for the song.
    
    Consider, by analogy, the film FANTASIA. Some of the music pieces
    used lend themselves to telling a story ("The Rite of Spring" to use
    an example that sends some people into fits), while others are used
    as "mood pieces" (such as the Toccata and Fugue in D Minor). It's
    reasonable to suggest that when Ponchielli composed "Dance of the
    Hours", he didn't have terpsichorean hippopotami in mind. Does that
    make that sequence any less artistic?
    
    re:.66
    
    The fact that the industry sees videos as "just a way to sell
    something" is irrelevant to determining whether they are or aren't
    an art form. Michael Nesmith (yes, the ex-Monkee) was the pioneer
    of the music video as we know it today. He didn't create videos
    as a way of selling something. He was trying to create an art form
    that combined music and visuals. Whatever the intent the record
    labels have in making the videos, to look at Mac's "Gypsy" or Dire
    Straits' "Brothers in Arms" and still believe that music videos
    cannot be an art form is to wear blinders.
    
    re:.77,.80,.81,.87  (Cathy Pitt)
    
    	� Get a life, Madonna. NOT EVERYONE has Bi-sexual
    	fantasies. Not everyone wants to watch it on TV. �
    
    But some people *do* want to watch it on TV. Should they not be
    able to?  And the bisexuality of the fantasies is not really
    what's relevant. It's the fantasy *itself* that's relevant, not
    what form it takes.
    
    	� I am not trying to defend the public. Just my kids. 
    	From people with no morals who have decided that if
    	I don't like it I should just not watch tv or go to
    	movies or buy record albums or have an opinion. �
    
    No one is telling you that you shouldn't watch tv or go to movies
    or buy record albums or have an opinion. There's a great variety
    in every medium, and people are offered a choice. People who don't
    want to watch MARRIED WITH CHILDREN have the option of watching
    AVONLEA. People who don't want to see HENRY AND JUNE have the option
    of seeing DRIVING MISS DAISY. People who don't want to listen to
    2 Live Crew have the option of listening to Linda Ronstadt.
    
    	� Why is it ok for people to tell ME what's ok,
    	but wrong for me to express what I think is not ok? �
    
    One doesn't have to like something to support (either actively or
    passively) its existence. I dislike Madonna instensely, but still
    feel that she has as much right to make and exhibit her videos as
    the next person. I find much in the world of music video repre-
    hensible, but I also recognize that for me to ensure that what *I*
    want can exist, I must allow others to have what they want, no
    matter what I may think of it personally.
    
    And *that's* the difference.
    
    	� I'm sick and tired of having to protect my kids
    	from a liberal society who thinks that THEIR way is
    	the ONLY way and that if I don't like it, I can keep
    	away from it, or keep my kids away from it. �
    
    And if I find THE PTL CLUB to be morally reprehensible, am I within
    my rights to insist that it not be broadcast so that my (hypothetical)
    kids will not be exposed to it?  No, I'm not. The solution would
    be to not allow my kids to watch it, or to try to instill my values
    in them so that they won't *want* to watch it.
    
    	� When will society realize that we're all in this
    	together, and the old 'if you don't like it don't look'
    	think doesn't work for kids. Kids aren't legally alowed
    	to have alcohol or smoke. We can see how well that
    	works. How can we even imagine to be able to keep them
    	from seeing the kind of crap on tv or the radio orin
    	record stores when everything around us is cramming
    	down their throats. �
    
    Precisely. That kids aren't legally allowed to have alcohol or
    cigarettes (or worse) doesn't stop them from having them. But our
    society doesn't outlaw those products, because it's felt that the
    adults who *want* them should have access to them. The same is
    true of music and video. Those that want them should have access
    to them.
    
    	� I mean, I had this vision of Gilligan and MaryAnne
    	doing it in a fit of passion, or Keith Partridge and
    	Shirley talking about condoms or whether he should tell
    	his siblings that he was gay. Or how 'bout Mr. Greenjeans
    	with Purple hair talking about this is your brain on
    	drugs... �
    
    	� do you think we were sheltered? �
    
    No, because those programs reflected the moral tenor of those times.
    That doesn't make them better or worse than what we have today.
    
    	� Do you think we missed out? �
    
    Yes. I think that anything that avoids the realities of life is
    causing us to "miss out".
    
    	� Do you think you are better off today or worse off? �
    
    Better off.
    
    	� What's changed, and how did it? �
    
    Society is more permissive as a reaction against the restrictive
    society that preceded it. Our art reflects that change.
    
    	� AND  are you glad it did? �
    
    Yes. While in general, I think the art (I'll stick specifically
    with television here, to continue with your example, but the point
    holds equally true for other art forms) of the 60's was better than
    that today, the greater quality has nothing to do with the moral
    change in society. The shows back then were simply better written
    and acted. But the strictures of 60's societies would not have allowed
    programs like CAGNEY AND LACEY or CHINA BEACH. It's worth putting
    up with all of the crap in order to be able to see Chris Cagney
    come to grips with her alcoholism.
    
    	� society is making it almost impossible for 'me'
    	to raise 'my children' with morals that 'I' want
    	them to have (until they are old enough to make
    	their own choices and decisions on something this
    	monumental). Instead, I am forced to raise them
    	with Madonna's morals, unless I don't have a
    	television set, never let them go to their friends
    	homes (who I find are allowed to watch R rated
    	movies at 10 years old), etc. �
    
    Many moral people raise their children in a moral environment, and
    instill their moral values into their children, despite what goes
    on in the world around them. The point is not to just tell them,
    "I don't want you watching 'X' because it's immoral," but to explain
    *why* you think it's immoral.
    
    	� You can't expect me to put them into a bubble
    	to protect them from a hovering society who can't
    	wait to turn them into adults. �
    
    Children need to be guided. They don't need to be protected.
    
    	� I thought that the ME generation was past? �
    
    And you don't see that what *you* are suggesting is a "ME" thing?
    Aren't you saying, "Don't allow this because *I* don't want it"?
    Aren't you saying, "Don't allow this because it's an inconvenience
    to *me* in trying to raise my kids"?
    
    --- jerry

    I just KNEW it!
    
    Ray

    There were a few remarks a while back about a scantily clad Madonna and
    that she should put some clothes on and work on her talent.  Hasn't 
    anyone one noticed that MTV pushes Playboy magazine quite a lot. 
    Doesn't this bother anyone as this channel is watched, I think, mostly
    by kids.
                                   
    

    re .83, my answer to your question as to whether your children are
    important enough to *me* to help you raise them morally and safely
    would have to be:  No.
    
    Is my daughter important enough to you that you will help me make
    certain that her right to live her life as she chooses, without the
    restrictions of outdated morality imposed upon her?  
    
    I grew up in the 50's and 60's and was kept completely ignorant of
    anything to do with sex, homosexuality, child abuse, drugs, alcohol,
    etc., etc.  If my parents had ever died when I was 16 and left me alone
    to fend for myself God knows what would have happened to me, because I
    didn't know a damn thing.  I had been completely sheltered and
    protected from what was going on out in the real world.  
    
    I'd rather have my daughter have a clear idea of what's going on out in
    the world, before she finds herself alone living in it.
    
    A short while ago my daughter and I went to see the Sandra Bernhardt
    movie, "Without You I'm Nothing."  On the way home I found myself
    wondering out loud if Madonna is bi-sexual.  My daughter (aged 16)
    answered, "Well, if she is, more power to her."  At first, I was taken
    aback a little bit, and I said, "What do you mean, more power to her?"
    and she answered, "Well, you always told me there's nothing wrong with
    it."  That made me feel good - I'm raising an open-minded person! :-)
    
    The only thing I really want to protect my daughter from is war, or
    being stuck in an unhappy marriage, with a pack of kids, and no skills
    to earn a living.
    
    Lorna
    

Hi Cathy,

Like Joe, I think that it's important that *you* have the freedom to raise your
kids in a way that you think is "moral". Personally though, I think that it's
important for you to let your kids see things like the Madonna video so that
you can explain to them what it is and why (you think that) it is immoral. If
not, when they finally DO "go out into the world" and get exposed to such things
they will have no defenses. Don't you think it's important for them to KNOW
about such things even if you don't approve of them? I don't think sheltering
them from them will accomplish what you want.

For my part, I will "expose" Kai to fundamentalist and extremist views in
order that I can explain why some people believe them, and why I don't. I think
it's important that he have a realistic view of what the world *is* not just
what I would like it to be (though I will make sure he knows that too.)

As for the Madonna video - I doubt I will ever see it. You see I DON'T have
cable, and I DON'T get broadcast TV. Not because I disapprove of Madonna or MTV
but because I don't like the mindless pablum that passes as "entertainment" on
TV, I don't like the passivity it promotes, and I don't like the values that
are implicit in most programming. I'm also a TV addict - if a TV is on in a
room, I will watch it - regardless of how bad the show is or how important other
things going on in the room are. I don't know how I'm going to "expose" Kai to
this pernicious evil without doing him irreparable harm though... :-)

	-- Charles

	Thanks, joe, for expressing my thoughts much better than I did.

	Cathy...

	If you had expressed a desire to limit certain things on "free" TV to
non-family times, I would have been much less inclined to make the "guardian
of public morals" crack.  I'm sorry, but you *pay* to bring MTV into your home
and in my mind, that puts the decision squarely on you.  Nobody is twisting
your arm to have cable.

	Also, you can't shelter your children from everything.  I don't have
children but (despite rumors to the contrary) I was a child once.  I always
knew what my parents approved and disapproved of, and that certainly influenced
me as I made my choices through life.  And by college, the most uncontrolled
people I met were those who were finally given some freedom after years of
living under an iron rule.

	Good luck raising your children.


					--Doug

    
    
    
    Just a little something I read the other night before going to sleep.
    It's my intention to start a basenote topic on this someday when I get
    a little time, but for now it might be relevant to paraphrase a little.
    
    
    When we don't accept responsibility for what is happening around us, we
    then give up the power to ever do anything about it.  We allow our
    surroundings to control us, instead of us controlling our surroundings.  
    We give up our right to choice.
    
    
    This is a terrible paraphrasing of what I read, when I have the book
    with me, I'll try and do better.
    
    Kath

    re .74
    
>    You are still trying to attach a value judgement to the word "art".
    
    Sort of. Your definition could include every single tanglible thing
    on the face of the earth (make that universe - stars bring out emotion
    in me). I'm trying to define what is and what isn't. You're make good
    points on what is, but you tell me what isn't?
    
>    Nor are a child's drawings.  Kids draw because they have fun drawing,
>    not because they want to create art.  but it is art anyway.
    Perhaps a kid's drawing is the highest form of art. There is no motive
    except to transform what's in the mind to paper. Commercialism is so
    rampant in every aspect of our lives, it's hard for me to call
    something art when the "creator" could care less about the artistic
    value, but only what the ROI will turn out to be.
    
    
    re .93
    
>    The fact that the industry sees videos as "just a way to sell
>    something" is irrelevant to determining whether they are or aren't
>    an art form. Michael Nesmith (yes, the ex-Monkee) was the pioneer
>    of the music video as we know it today. He didn't create videos
>    as a way of selling something. He was trying to create an art form
>    that combined music and visuals.
    Just because one individual created a form that we call art, doesn't
    make everyone that follows artists. Could it be those that followed
    saw the financial gain of doing something that got called "art", so
    they could plunder it? Do you think Nesmith is happy with what he
    started?
    > Whatever the intent the record
>    labels have in making the videos, to look at Mac's "Gypsy" or Dire
>    Straits' "Brothers in Arms" and still believe that music videos
>    cannot be an art form is to wear blinders.
    Again. Does a good example of something make all examples using the
    same medium justified in calling it art?
    
    
    John

	I have not seen the video nor do I plan to - I don't have pay
	TV (unless you count PBS).

	I am a mother and I value my children and I value the children
	in the world (which we are all, children that is) and I think
	that all children should be brought up safely and morally
	but my idea of what that means most likely does not match yours.
	So who idea should we all follow yours or mine or may be it
	would be better if we lived what we believe and let others do
	the same.  Of couse that would mean bring up our children to
	do the same.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Oh yes this includes the animal kingdom
			and the plant world and even the birds
			in the sky, oh yes and the rocks and
			the waters and ....

    Cathy,
    
    Others have made the points I wanted to make well about your making
    moral decisions for others, but I have one additional comment...
    
    You made a comment about "people without morals".  While there might be
    such a thing, but I doubt there are many.  I suspect that you were
    referring to people (like Madonna) who simply have *different* moral
    systems.
    
    I really resent the implication that those who don't agree with your
    morals don't *have* morals.
    
    Have a nice day.
    
    D! 

    Cathy,
    
    You stated that you didn't want to see bisexuality on TV, nor do you
    want your kids too, but consider this.  I am a lesbian, I have a
    daughter who's 13, I am in a committed relationship with another woman,
    and am 39.  Until I was 28, I tried to live the heterosexual life
    because all my youth I was told it was bad to be a lesbian, it was
    dirty, it was immoral.  It is also the way I am, always have been, and
    always will be.  I would have loved to have seen bisexuality,
    lesbianism, etc. when I was younger because then I wouldn't have felt
    that there was something seriously wrong with me and that I was a
    freak.
    
    I am a very moral person, I am raising my daughter to be a moral
    person.  My relationship is very loving and Diane is someone that I
    will spend the rest of my life with, no doubt the way you feel about
    your partner.
    
    If you talk with many gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, the recurrent
    theme is "I've always been attracted to the same sex in some way, but
    maybe didn't know what to call it."  We are born this way, just as
    heterosexuals are born that way.  Heterosexuality is not natural for
    me, just as homosexuality is not natural to you.  Imagine if society
    said that you had to live as a homosexual because that's the natural
    way and you were heterosexual and that being a heterosexual was dirty,
    perverted, nasty, and immoral.  Imagine your confusion and pain because
    it just wasn't right for you.  That's what I had to live with.  I don't
    now, I live as I must, just as you do.
    
    If you would like more discussion about this, please contact me. 
    Sometimes it is hard to be as open in this public forum as one can be
    in private mail.
    
    I invite you to view this piece as a bit of education of how other live
    and exist in this world.  Sometimes it's not easy for any of us.
    
    sue
    

  I've also noticed a general difference in "moral attitudes" between people who
grew up in the 1960-70s now and those who grew up in the 1940-50s.  The culture
of the latter tends to (sorry, gross generalization) remember how it was when
they were growing up, where information tended to flow much less freely about
topics like sex.  Kids growing up now are exposed to this stuff from their peers
at a very early age.  Ask any kid who's 8-9 years or older and I'll almost
guarantee that they know a lot more about sex than you'd have guessed.  The
Vietnam war changed a lot of things with respect to what you see on TV today
and what kids are exposed to (via newscasts etc). Things like drugs or AIDS,
which get prominent newsplay and which they hear from classmates.

  I think that it can be difficult to come to grasps with this new
reality/openness. Whether or not one agrees that it's right, its there and
probably won't go away.

Jim

    re:.100
    
    	� Just because one individual created a form that we
    	call art, doesn't make everyone that follows artists. �
    
    No, but I'm not arguing whether Person X is an artist or Person
    Y is not an artist. I'm arguing that music video as a whole is
    an art form.
    
    Book cover paintings exist only to sell the book. Does that make
    them not art? If they are not art, then why do art galleries sell
    lithos of, for example, Frank McCarthy's western paintings that
    were created as cover art for Louis L'Amour novels? If they are
    not art, does that mean that oil paintings as a whole are not art,
    simply because a number of people produce oil painting only for
    commercial reasons?
    
    	� Do you think Nesmith is happy with what he started? �
    
    Yes, I think he probably is.
    
    	� Does a good example of something make all examples using
    	the same medium justified in calling it art? �
    
    No, no more than bad examples of something making all examples
    using the same medium justified in calling it not art.
    
    --- jerry

    First, my apologies to all of you out there who really DO want to talk
    about Madonna and NOT about how I have chosen to raise my kids.
    I do feel that I need to answer all the bombardment of hate mail
    that I generated with an earlier entry. 
    So this is it, then we can all get back to talking about Madonna. 
    
    My kids:
    
    My ten year old daughter still believes in Santa Clause and the tooth
    fairy. My son, 11, finally figured out this year that the whole thing
    is a scam, but he's been really good about not ruining the experience
    for Jenny. 
    
    I've told them about "why women have a period", but haven't gotten into
    'reproduction' any further yet. They ask questions, I answer the
    question and only proceed if they appear to still be interested. 
    
    They still blush when there are people kissing on TV. 
    
    They both get good grades and are social animals, at least that's what
    I get from their teachers. 
    
    They have NEVER seen a X rated movie, DON'T watch MTV. I switch TV
    stations if we are watching TV and something that I feel is too
    risque' comes on a family type channel. 
    
    They are kids. Little children growing up in an entirely too liberal
    society-->(that was MY opinion). ... 
    They are surrounded by adults who are more concerned about THEIR rights
    to see and do any damned thing that they want to, to worry what they
    might be feeding to a mind that is still being developped.  I don't
    care what you want to see or do. I do care that 'your' attitude is that
    it is my job to shield my kids from it. Then again, there are those who
    seem to think that kids should not be shielded from anything. 
    Sorry. Strongly disagree. 
    
    These are children. They still play with cars and trucks. They have too
    much growing to do. They need to learn who they are with positive
    influences, instead of being given the list of alternatives from which
    to choose....but that's slightly off of the subject. 
    
    So I can't believe that there is anyone out there who believes that
    kids don't emulate what they see, don't take it far more seriously than
    adults do.  ... well...I'm rambling. Worse yet, I'm rambling to myself
    and the silent majority out there who hate to get flamed on so choose,
    not to partake in the pleasures of noting. 
    
    Nothing will change how you feel about raising kids. Nothing will
    change how I feel about raising kids. I wish we could get together in 
    15 years and compare notes. 
    
    BUT:  I am concerned about the growing number of teen pregnancies, the
    growing number of teen alcoholics (or worse get the grade school age
    alcoholics), the drug problem...and the lack of respect that kids seem
    to have for authority in general. 
    
    What GOOD has come to todays youth from the new liberal approach taken
    by the baby boomers?  Sorry. I'm going to continue to give my kids a
    childhood. I'll shield them from the free-for-all world of adults for
    as long as I can. I haven't seen anything that tells me that 'your' way
    is better.   Quite the contrary. 
     
                                    
    And now back to our regularily scheduled topic.
    I hear that Madonna is the love child of Marilyn Monroe and JFK?? I
    knew it......
    
    cathy
    

For those of you who remember this December discussion about Madonna and
morality, there are two points I would like to make.

1) Cathy asked if any of us watched something like Gilligan and Maryanne
   "doing it" or Keith Partidge coming out of the closet.  My favorite
   show in (5th?) grade was "Love, American Style."  As I remember, it
   was *filled* with sexual innuendo, which was the reason why I watched it.
   Laugh-In often made sexual jokes, too, and displayed a lot of (mostly
   female) flesh, with men constantly coming on to women.  Laugh-In also
   had gay characters/actors, although the jokes went over my head at
   the time (but I catch them now on Nick-At-Night occasionally!).

2) Some of you suggested, "don't get cable."  This may be an option where 
   you live, but in Colorado Springs you either get cable (or satellite dish)
   or you don't watch TV.  We get LOUSY reception.  Since Cathy's node is
   CSC32, same as mine, I assume she is in the same situation.

         Carol

   Some of you suggested, "don't get cable."  This may be an option where 
   you live, but in Colorado Springs you either get cable (or satellite dish)
   or you don't watch TV.  We get LOUSY reception.  Since Cathy's node is
   CSC32, same as mine, I assume she is in the same situation.

So don't watch TV...

	-- Charles (being unhelpful, but who doesn't watch TV)

    re .109, did Gilligan and Maryanne do it?
    
    Lorna
    

    re .109, did Gilligan and Maryanne do it?
    
    Lorna
    
Come *on* Lorna, would *you* do it with Gilligan? Of course, they were on that
island a *long* time. ;*) Heck, maybe I'd even do it with Gilligan after that
long. liesl

    re .112,
    
    Now, that's what Ah call funny.
    
    Eugene

    *SIGN*.. Love American Style... I miss that show...
    
    There was some wild stuff ....
    
    

    re:.112 re:.109
    
    C'mon. We're talking Gilligan here!  There's always the Professor,
    after all. Or, for that matter, Ginger.
    
    --- jerry

    
>    C'mon. We're talking Gilligan here!  There's always the Professor,
>    after all. Or, for that matter, Ginger.
    
 
	Does this make sense to anyone?

	What's a Gilligan or a Ginger?  (apart from my moggies)


	Heather

    I take it then that you've been spared the misfortune of seeing
    the 60's American sitcom GILLIGAN'S ISLAND?
    
    	� Does this make sense to anyone? �
    
    Of course not. Nothing about GILLIGAN'S ISLAND made sense. :-)
    
    --- jerry

	I have missed that,


	but we do have "C'mon down - the price is right!"


	Is that about the same?

    Heather,
    
    It's not even in the same ball park! Gilligan's Island was about
    a group of people ship wrecked on some isolated Pacific Island.
    There was a rich older couple, a young woman, the captain of
    the boat and his 'crew' a man named Gilligan who was always doing
    incredibly stupid things.
    
    Bonnie

    re:.119
    
    You forgot the movie star and the Professor. :-)
    
    --- jerry

	Aha, you mean like Captain Pugwash...............?


	Heather

    --- jerry  I hardly watched it at the time! ;-) I think most of
    my memory of the show comes from the cartoon that was on Saturday
    ams
    
    and Heather, what's Captain Pugwash?
    
    :-)
    
    Bonnie

    re .112, .115, well, I *might* have done it with Gilligan.  I've always
    had a weakness for men who make me laugh.  But, I suppose he was more
    of the buddy type (but sometimes I'm attracted to that type).  My first
    choices would have been either the Professor or Ginger, though.  Nice
    to have either brains or beauty.  Last choice would have been a toss-up
    between The Skipper and the millionaire's wife.  Neither one quite my
    cup of tea.  You can count on one thing, though, if I had been stuck on
    that dumb island as long as they were I would have eventually done it
    with somebody.
    
    Lorna
    

	Captain Pugwash was animated pictures, ypu, not as up-market
	as cartoons, and it was on in "childrens hour".

	He sailed a pirate ship, it was a type of comedy, where the ship's
	boy was always getting him out of problems.

	He was a pirate.

	I used to love it as a kid, so silly.

	They have since banned it, because of the names of two of the 
	characters:      Seaman Staines, and Master Bates.


	Heather

    Actually if you are going to list of Gilligan's Island characters
    you've gotta do 'em in order.
    
    Howsit go?
    
    ...castaways on this uncharted desert isle...
    With Gilligan, the skipper too, the millionaire, and his wiiiiiiife.
    The movie star...the Professor and Maryanne, here on GILLIGAN'S ISLE!!!
    
    (We never learn the Professor's name, or Skippers.  The Millionaire
    Couple are Mr. and Mrs. Thurston Howell [does she have a first name?])
    
    D!

    
    	i believe it's "dahhling".  :-)
    

	Lovey

    wasn't the Skipper someting like 'jonas'?
    
    BJ

    
    	.128 - yeah, i think so. I thought the Professor was John
    something...
    

    My favorite episode was when they set "Hamlet" to the music of
    "Carmen".  Gilligan made a fine Hamlet, the Howells were suitably
    royal, Marianne was born to play Ophelia, and the Skipper whupped hiney
    as Polonius:
    
    	Neither a borrower nor a lender be.
    	Never forget:  Stay out of debt.
    		(sung to the Toreador Song)
    
    Just stopping by on my way to joe's corner in the Floatation Tank,
    Ray

Well, it's become obvious that GI has challenged us much more than madonna. Is
GI the USA version of a fairy tale? liesl

    Opening credits...
    
    Now here is the tale of our castaways {...something...} trip
    It started from this tropic port, aboard this tiny ship
    
    The mate was a mighty sailin' man, the skipper brave and sure
    Five passengers set sail that day for a 3-hour tour (a 3-hour tour).
    
    The weather started getting rough, the tiny ship was tossed,
    If not for the courage of the fearless crew, the Minnow would be lost
                                                (the Minnow would be lost.)
    
    The ship set ground on the shore of this uncharted desert isle,
    > With Gilligan, the skipper too, 
    > the millionaire, and his wiiiiiiife.
    > The movie star...
    > the Professor and Maryanne, ! "and the rest,"
    > here on GILLIGAN'S ISLE!!!
    
    In the original version, the line "and the rest" was in the place of
    "the Professor and Maryanne".
    
    Closing credits:
    
    So this is the tale of our castaways, left here for a long long while
    {something about tuning in to catch further adventures...}
                                          ....here, on Gilligan's Isle!
    
    DougO

    G'Day,
    
    	Top show!  But I've got to make a few corrections to the previous
    note.
    
    >Now here is the tale of our castaways {...something...} trip
    >It started from this tropic port, aboard this tiny ship
    
    Should be:-
    
    Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale, a tale of a fateful trip,
    That started from this tropic port, aboard this tiny ship.
    
    David.
    

    thank you!  thank you both!
    
    :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) 

    Now I remember part of the closing...
    
    >    {something about tuning in to catch further adventures...}
    
    So join us here each week my friends, you're sure to catch a smile
    From seven stranded castaways, here on Gilligan's Isle!
    
    DougO

        You all still left out at least four lines
        
        	no ? no ? no ?
        	not a single luxury
        	like Robinson Crusoe
        	as primitive as can be
        
        Dan

	Aha, you mean a "Dallas-ized" Robinson Cruiso    ?


	Heather

    
	Closing credits:

	So this is the tale of our castaways, 
	They're here for a long long time,
	They'll have to make the best of things,
	It's an uphill climb.

	The Skipper and his merry crew,
	Will do their very best,
	To make the others comfortable,
	On their tropic island nest.

	No boats!, No lights!, No motorcars!
	Not a single luxury.
	Like Robinson Crusoe,
	It's primitive as can be.

	So join us here each week my friends,
	You're sure to get a smile,
	From seven stranded castaways,
	Here on Gilligan's Isle!

    Thanks, people!  JUST THANKS!!!!!!!!!!
    
    NOW I CAN'T GET THIS STUPID SONG OUT OF MY HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    E Grace

    I am awed.  While I coined the phrase Musically Associative Memory, I
    hereby renounce any claim to being the champ.
    
    So, you folks who know this song in both its flavors (opening and
    closing credits), do you watch this on Nick, or do you have a better
    memory for songs than even I do?  I remember the words, melody,
    harmony, and score of every song I ever liked, and many I didn't!
    
    Sara  :-0  (<-that's the pic for open-mouthed admiration)

    The burning question about GI.....
    
    
    
    If they went on a three hour cruise (like the song says), then why did
    they have so much luggage with them?
    
    Geez, you'd think they'd be stranded with the clothes on their back and
    the tour guide in their hand....but nooooooo
    
    Lisa

    And it was sung by agroup called "The Hollingsworths"
    
    -Jody(the vast wealth of useless trivia)
    
    -Jody
    

    
    Speaking of the Hollingsworth's, when I was at the laundromat not too
    long ago, I read (in People?) that the Cowsills are staging a comeback.
    
    CQ

    Well, what I remembered from the song came from back when I used to
    watch re-runs of the show after school in 8th and 9th grade.  haven't
    seen it since then.
    
    It's got one of those very simple, catchy tunes that you CAN'T EVER GET
    RID OF once you know it.
    
    D!

    D! is right, Sara- I know I haven't seen the show in at least ten years
    because I haven't owned a tv in that time...
    
    Wow, the person who got all the closing song, I'm impressed!  The line
    about Robinson "Karew-so", who could forget!
    
    Sorry, E Grace...
    
    DougO

    re: .139
    
    >	No boats!, No lights!, No motorcars!
    
    I think it was "No *phones*, no lights, no motorcars."
    
    

    Yeah, it couldn't be "no boats" - they _had_ a boat. (Of course, it had
    a big hole in it, but you'd think that if they could whip up those
    huts, saunas, exercise bikes, and whatnot, they could have repaired the 
    boat if they really _wanted_ to.) 
    
    -b

    Re: .123
    
    >either the Professor or Ginger, though.  Nice to have either brains or 
    >beauty
    
    Hey, the Professor was pretty cute.

    re: names
    
    The Skipper is Jonas Grumby
    The Professor is Roy Hinkley
    Mrs. Howell is Lovey Howell
    Mary Ann is Mary Ann Summers
    Ginger is Ginger Grant
    
    Gilligan is the only one whose full name is unknown.
    
    re: theme song
    
    A few times I've heard a parody called "Stairway to Gilligan's Island",
    which is the GI theme sung to the tune of Zep's "Stairway to Heaven".
    Talk about bizarre.
    
    re: the Professor's brains
    
    In BACK TO THE BEACH, Bob Denver has a bit part as a bartender,
    and at one point, he's talking to Frankie Avalon and says, "I knew
    this guy once who was a genius. He could take a pair of coconuts
    and a string and make a nuclear reactor. But he couldn't fix a
    two-foot hole in a boat!"
    
    --- jerry

	Re: no *phones*, no lights, no motorcars.

	Yeah -- that's sounds right.  I wasn't sure what the first 
	'no <thing>' was, but I knew it had an 'o' sound in it.

	I haven't watched the show in years.  I remember it from when
	I used to watch the reruns sometime between 5th and 8th/9th
	grade, probably.



	-Andy

    I think it's great that a topic on Madonna turns into a Gilligan's
    Island walk through memory lane!
    
    -Colleen

    
    So back to Madonna.
    
    Justify My Love has been and gone. So did it reach number 1 world wide,
    did Madonna get a best video award ?  
    The video never really made that much effect on me, but then
    I saw her in concert (Blonde Ambition Tour) where said the * F * word
    16 times (apparently, but I never counted) and did lots of crutch
    grabbing, stroking mens bumpy bits, simulating sex and wearing different 
    pairs of Ice Cream cones stuck to her and a couple of blokes chest.
    But saying that I thought she was brilliant (especially as I was not a
    100% Madonna fan before the concert) and promptly went and brought
    'I'm Breathless" and 'The Immaculate Collection" when it came out.
    The only thing that did annoy me about Justify my love is that
    throughout the Video you didn't see any sign of a Condom and that 
    annoyed me because she is happy to say "Don't be stupid, don't be silly
    put a condom on your willy" (what a poet ;-))  at her concert, but
    for video that is going to be shown world wide, there is not hint of
    it. 
    
    Anyway, to move on we are now faced with a new challenge from the
    geniuses behind Madonna. Material Girl, Like a Prayer and a couple of
    others have been found to contain Satanic messages, and her new single 
    'Rescue Me' is no exception. They have been played in T.V. and yes 
    indeed you can clearly hear warblings about satan saving us and lots
    of dubious meanings. 
    
    So Ladies, what are your comments on this one ?

    RE:  .154
    
>   I saw her in concert (Blonde Ambition Tour) where said the * F * word
>   16 times (apparently, but I never counted) and did lots of crutch
>   grabbing,                                                     ^
                                                                  |
                                                                  |
                                                                  |
                                                                  |
                                                                  ^
    Are you talking about Justify My Love or Justify My Handicapped Parking
    Validation? 
    

    I don't know what any ladies would say, but I can assure you that
    you'll find more than enough comments about `backmasked' Satanic
    messages in the D�j� Vu conference (BOMBE::DEJAVU).
    
    					Ann B.

I haven't heard any Satanic messages, but if they are there, I suspect that she
is poking fun at the Fundamentalist censor types who like to find Satanic
messages in all sorts of things.  The Beatles did something similar but putting
backwards messages into some of their songs (such as "Revolution Number 9").
People overanalyzed that and other songs (such as the longstanding myth
that "number nine" backwards sounds like "turn me on dead man", which it 
doesn't.)  If you want to, you can hear nasty messages in *any* song.

So it wouldn't surprise me at all if she put messages in to scare the
right-wingers silly and as a marketting ploy.

more power to her!

D!