Charles
>>> Max Sawicky <sawicky at epinet.org> 02/23/99 01:57PM >>>
> . . . This is interesting discussion, as far as I've been
able to follow,(and I am having a hard time for some reason). I
wonder how all this adolescent-body sexualization is tied into
the desire to be fuckiing an entity that is perceived as simple,
uncritical, that sort of thing. I mean it's not just the
innocent bodies that have allure, right? Don't they also somehow
signify the potential of unquestioning admiration and
cooperation?>
To paraphrase Billy Crystal, no, we pretty much want to nail all of you.
Buffy, pfeh. I think you're barking up the wrong tree. How bout them Victoria's Secret ads?
> Also, what do you guys think of the Calvin Klien children's
underwear ads, and the public response? Most, but not all, that
I've seen on the news are little boys. I seem to be hearing that
folks would have thought these pics ok, had not the sexualizing
Calvin been associated with them.(Geez, still with the
Calvinism!)>
Here's a subject only POMO could do justice to.
All I can say is how fascinating it is to hear the Mayor say something like, it doesn't matter at all what the picture shows (two little boys in their undies, one whose wee-wee was signaled by the presence of a tiny bulge). All that matters is what some people are thinking when they look at it. In terms of irrationality, reminds me of Mayor Koch's scheme to paint happy interior scenes on the windows of abandoned apartment buildings that people could see when they rode the train. Evidently you really do have to be crazy to be mayor of NYC.
mbs
mbs