Sexual hypocrisy, prudishness and prejudice??

How many of you experience it among people who are your friends? People that you think should know better? People here on Lit.?

For instance, LT's thread on Madonna's book where Lord GreyStoke states "I like her music, don't like most of her videos and if I had a child her book no matter how good would be the last one in my house. "

I can only assume his prejudice is either because of Madonna's sexuality, or maybe something else? I don't know for sure, but given Madonna's sexuality I just assume that is it.

The other day I was at a party and a group of my friends, most of whom are very liberal and generally open minded were also going on about Madonna and this:

http://newsfeed.tcm.ie/images/people/madonnakissesbritneyAP.jpg

I believe they were also going on about the children's book too, but it was a bit loud and I didn't hear all of it, but you could have heard a pin drop when I said I didn't mind the infamous kiss, and that in fact I rather enjoyed it. There were some laughs afterwards, but you could tell a few were shocked. I meant it half in jest to get a humorous reaction, but I was also serious.

Why should these people be so aghast at an open display of two women kissing on stage? These are people I have had discussions with before about gay marriage, and they are all for gay rights, but when it comes down to ridiculing someone, they choose two women who were acting out a kiss between two women.

Why would a member of Lit not want a children's book, whether it is good or not, just because it was written by a person who is open about her bisexuality? Especially a member who wrote a story where he engages in sex with bisexual women?

Is it that Madonna should hide her sexuality? Is sexuality only okay when we are anonymously posting on a porn board? Why?

I'd ridicule the kiss, only because it wasn't at all about sexuality, it was about exploiting the fact that everyone thinks girls kissing is hot.

I responded in the thread you are referring to, and I agree with you. It's hypocritical behavior.

girl kissing is hot.

Angel said:

I'd ridicule the kiss, only because it wasn't at all about sexuality, it was about exploiting the fact that everyone thinks girls kissing is hot.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Angel said:

I'd ridicule the kiss, only because it wasn't at all about sexuality, it was about exploiting the fact that everyone thinks girls kissing is hot.

Click to expand...

That is what much of entertainment is today; exploiting sexuality. Why ridicule two women kissing when nobody would have thought twice if Madonna had tongue kissed a guy?

The Heretic said:

That is what much of entertainment is today; exploiting sexuality. Why ridicule two women kissing when nobody would have thought twice if Madonna had tongue kissed a guy?

Click to expand...

You just named the answer right there. Nobody would have thought twice if Madonna had tongue-kissed a guy, so she tongue-kissed a girl. It was all about publicity.

Pyper said:

You just named the answer right there. Nobody would have thought twice if Madonna had tongue-kissed a guy, so she tongue-kissed a girl. It was all about publicity.

Click to expand...

I'm sure he knew what we meant.

Pyper said:

You just named the answer right there. Nobody would have thought twice if Madonna had tongue-kissed a guy, so she tongue-kissed a girl. It was all about publicity.

Click to expand...

Yes of course, but does that disqualify her as an author of a children's book? Why would people make such a decision based on what was obviously done for entertainment? It does come down to the fact that it was a woman she kissed, not that it was done for publicity. She could have kissed George Bush and made as much publicity, and people wouldn't be boycotting her book because they thought she was immoral.

I'd think the same thing if Madonna were kissing a guy....ho hum...another photo-op. This might not be fair of me but then you brought the subject up.

I haven't read the other thread in question but wonder if the incongruency isn't more about preference than prudence and prejudice. I think that we can be tolerant of different lifestyles and rationalize the basic covenant of 'to each their own' but it still doesn't change just what appeals to us on a personal level. Here at Lit people don't seem to hold back much so I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to hold back on celebrity criticism if that celeb doesn't appeal to them. Does it make them two-faced if that celeb is gay and they support gay rights? I think not. I support artistic freedom but don't want eminem playing in my house.

weed said:

I haven't read the other thread in question but wonder if the incongruency isn't more about preference than prudence and prejudice. I think that we can be tolerant of different lifestyles and rationalize the basic covenant of 'to each their own' but it still doesn't change just what appeals to us on a personal level. Here at Lit people don't seem to hold back much so I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to hold back on celebrity criticism if that celeb doesn't appeal to them. Does it make them two-faced if that celeb is gay and they support gay rights? I think not. I support artistic freedom but don't want eminem playing in my house.

Click to expand...

I agree that a person should be tolerant of different lifestyles and viewpoints, and that this doesn't mean that a person needs to encourage something they don't like. I don't care for male homosexuality - indeed it turns me off, but I wouldn't base a purchasing decision of a CD, a book or other product solely on the sexual preference of the author rather than the content.

When you read Lord GreyStoke state "I like her music, don't like most of her videos and if I had a child her book no matter how good would be the last one in my house. ", doesn't that say to you that he is judging the author based on something other than what she wrote? It does to me.

I am a little more likely to be wrong about my friend's comments the other day, because it was a party, they had been drinking and just relaxing - but I do think that they may not be as open minded as they think they are. I am fairly sure most of them would be shocked if they knew I frequented Lit. - some might even try to subconciously undermine my career (I've had that happen before when someone didn't like what I said about politics and religion).

I see what you mean Heretic. It's the odd thing about art I guess - some focus on what is produced and some focus on the people who produce it. I'm sure I don't agree with everything that celebrities do....but if their art appeals to me, it's the art I like - not necessarily the actions/inactions of the artist.

The Heretic said:

Yes of course, but does that disqualify her as an author of a children's book? Why would people make such a decision based on what was obviously done for entertainment? It does come down to the fact that it was a woman she kissed, not that it was done for publicity. She could have kissed George Bush and made as much publicity, and people wouldn't be boycotting her book because they thought she was immoral.

Click to expand...

Perhaps in some people's minds, it comes down to immorality.

In my mind, it really does come down to the publicity whore aspect of it. The kiss was a stunt, and it taints the release of the book with that stunt feel as well. Maybe it was even intended that way-- to generate controversy around the same time something of hers was being released.

Let me make it clear that buying the book or not isn't a decision I really have to make, not having any kids of my own. But having been in the book industry, I've seen the monumental struggle children's authors go through to get published, even if they are greatly talented. It needles a little bit to see Madonna get her book out there simply because of who she is.

Much has been made of the Madonna and that kiss...in public, on stage, at a show. Hmmmm...controversial to say the least. However...I saw nothing shocking in that kiss. That Madonna writes a childrens books is impressive. She is multi-talented and pretty to boot.

I guess that people being people, have ingrained thought processes that prohibit them from taking the good from one person and overlooking the bad. There are limits of course...but I see no problem with her writing children's books.

What people practice sexually has no bearing on their ideas or knowledge. There have been great artists and inventors who were what some would call quite twisted sexually, so whats the big deal?

That they looked great as they kissed? That they seemed to enjoy the kiss? That a Bi-sexual would dare to write a book for children? That children would read a book by a person who was known for being sexually open?

If I had kids at that age and I thought that the book was a good read I would have gotten it for them, regardless of who wrote it. The story is important in the read not the author.

BlueElf said:

I see what you mean Heretic. It's the odd thing about art I guess - some focus on what is produced and some focus on the people who produce it. I'm sure I don't agree with everything that celebrities do....but if their art appeals to me, it's the art I like - not necessarily the actions/inactions of the artist.

Click to expand...

Yes - and I can maybe even see the point of view of someone who boycotts someone for a moral or political disagreement with the artist, such as the people who boycotted the Dixie Chicks for their comments. I could see the POV of someone boycotting Madonna because they were vehemently opposed to bisexuality/homosexuality. But to boycott them because they do something that you like? That is what I don't understand.

I also don't understand someone who claims to be tolerant, who would be aghast and angry at being called a homophobe, but who thinks it is fine to make fun of an entertainer who was open about their bizexuality. I hear comments all the time about how Madonna can't possibly be a good mother, etc., by people who are supposedly "tolerant". I believe there was even a thread about this issue once here on Lit.

In other words, sexuality is okay as long as you hide it in the closet or can hide behind an anonymous nickname on a porn board, but woe to the person who comes out of the closet.

curious2c said:

She is multi-talented and pretty to boot.

Click to expand...

I think she can sing, and even act a little, but pretty? In an average sort of way, especially lately her appearance at times seems hard - almost like a a drug addict.

I guess that people being people, have ingrained thought processes that prohibit them from taking the good from one person and overlooking the bad. There are limits of course...but I see no problem with her writing children's books.

Click to expand...

But what was "bad" about her sexuality? I know you aren't saying that it was, but the very fact that you mentioned "the bad" seems to show some underlying view of sex (or a particular kind of sex) as being bad.

This is one of the issues the USA has been struggling with for centuries; our intolerance of sexuality and especially nudity. We are way behind Europe in this respect.

Also, I often wonder about the fact that most of us are not allowed to cruise porn sites at work. Why? Is porn all that bad? Is it bad at all? I know that these policies are based on several aspects, including sexual harrasment, and offending someone who doesn't like porn. But why is sex so offensive to someone in a work place? I could surf to religious websites that advocate that "God hates fags", and I guarantee that most of the people who I work with would find that offensive too - yet they wouldn't dare get on my case about that. More than one person here has been fired for coming to Lit. from their workplace computer.

To be clear, I don't surf anywhere on the net but to work related websites (okay, the occasional weather report, or if someone nukes someone I may go look it up, but 99.99% of my surfing is work related). I don't even play games at work. I don't want to give anyone a single excuse to lay me off again.

Heretic, you are acting hysterical and you know it.

My post about Madonna had nothing to do with her kissing J-Lo; she wants to raise her daughter away from the very culture Madonna has helped create. Bottom line.

The Heretic said:

I agree that a person should be tolerant of different lifestyles and viewpoints, and that this doesn't mean that a person needs to encourage something they don't like. I don't care for male homosexuality - indeed it turns me off, but I wouldn't base a purchasing decision of a CD, a book or other product solely on the sexual preference of the author rather than the content.

When you read Lord GreyStoke state "I like her music, don't like most of her videos and if I had a child her book no matter how good would be the last one in my house. ", doesn't that say to you that he is judging the author based on something other than what she wrote? It does to me.

I am a little more likely to be wrong about my friend's comments the other day, because it was a party, they had been drinking and just relaxing - but I do think that they may not be as open minded as they think they are. I am fairly sure most of them would be shocked if they knew I frequented Lit. - some might even try to subconciously undermine my career (I've had that happen before when someone didn't like what I said about politics and religion).

Click to expand...

If it's hypocrisy then it's hypocrisy. Like I said, I didn't read the thread so I'm not going to second guess whether someone else's preferences stated here are based on sexual orientation or more a preference for how and where sexuality is displayed. Good art is good art no matter who does it. When my kids focus on a star figure (sports, music, acting or whatever) who's lifestyle is less than what I would prefer in a role model I try to be clear on what it is about their behaviour that I take issue with. If they go against my grain too much I won't want to support them by purchasing their products no matter how good the art is. With someone like eminem, I don't care for what he expresses through his art. He's certainly entitled to express it, but I don't have to listen just because I support the freedom of expression.

Stop the bullshit about this. The fact is if Madonna had written the kids book under a pseudonym, would it sell? Please, its all about publicity, her being a fading star...

matt

Pyper said:

It was all about publicity.

Click to expand...

well, that and Madonna is trying to shock people again. Why does she think the world cares about her bisexuality?

Scott X said:

well, that and Madonna is trying to shock people again. Why does she think the world cares about her bisexuality?

Click to expand...

You're talking about it, so obviously you do.

Angel said:

I'd ridicule the kiss, only because it wasn't at all about sexuality, it was about exploiting the fact that everyone thinks girls kissing is hot.

Click to expand...

And because she's a dimming ageing idol who was always a bit of a mediocrity and is now desperate to rescuscitate her evaporating reputation by doing a middle aged imitation of whatever those Russian pseudo lebians teeniboppers are.

This was a real Sunset Boulevard moment. Well, she got her closeup.

EarnestImp said:

And because she's a dimming ageing idol who was always a bit of a mediocrity and is now desperate to rescuscitate her evaporating reputation by doing a middle aged imitation of whatever those Russian pseudo lebians teeniboppers are.

This was a real Sunset Boulevard moment. Well, she got her closeup.

Click to expand...

I don't really care if they're lesbian or not, but yes, Madonna reeks of desperation.

I don't care if she's a skank, bisexual, lesbian, ho, whatever, and I'd really, really like to distance myself from criticisms of her based on that line of reasoning. The problem is that she suffers from the classic illogic of making a huge cultural bed and then not wanting to lie in it. In one moment she's sheltering her kids from her culture, and hiding from it, and in the next she's immersing them and us in it.

I wouldn't want to be charged with building a bridge across a disconnect of that size.