Bette Midler Slams Ariana Grande: She "Has a Silly High Voice"

[ChasingTables 0]

Yas, Drag ha

 

[RAMROD 96,428]

I never like her, or any bitter people of her generation, i.e: whatserface, the one that once hosting fashion police, for that matter.

I feel disgusted on how she brought herself on Kathy Griffin's My Lufe on The D List.

Acting all snobs and mighty.

Compare that to when Kathy visits Liza Minelli for acting coach from the same show.

Liza have always so gracious and kind which is much more charismatic.

Bette have new music out full of covers.

Not sure how good is the performance.

But pretty sure not as good as these people she put opinion on.

[StrawberryBlond 13,285]

It's not that you are against s-xuality, is that your argument comes as a double standard.

 

Most of your argument is how s-xuality should be expressed in public. You said that being overly s-xual in public is degrading, but what about Gaga faking s-x with her dancers? Or Lana being ****ed over a pinball machine?

 

You don't decide what it's s-xy and what it's not, nobody does. Everybody has different taste.

 

Ariana may look young but that doesn't mean she can't express her s-xuality. She is an adult and she is not even being that provocative.

 

I've never claimed to agree with everything Gaga and Lana do. There used to be lots of kids at Gaga shows but there's barely any now as I think parents have finally worked out that she's too adult, so it's not like children are watching her provocations anymore. And Lana's audience is generally older too and the only really eyebrow raising stuff she does is in her videos, not live. She's not an artist that kids pursue as she's too intellectually-based and not aimed at that demographic. There's certain types of public s-xuality I can deal with and theirs is fine, in my opinion. I only have objections when there's basically a live s-x show going on, particularly when the artist has a huge young fanbase. No, Ariana is definitely not being that provocative, but her dress sense is concerning. Young girls always want to copy the style of their idol and the majority of her fans are very young girls. Speaking as someone who grew up with The Spice Girls, I can clarify first hand that provocative dress styles of celebrities directly influence the fans. There is something creepy about a girl who looks underage dressing so provocatively and I have no doubt that her label is instructing her to dress this way and exploit her s-x appeal. The fundemental question is why, though, as if her fans are mostly girls and pre-teen ones at that, who is she being s-xual for? And that then leads down the even darker path of considering if it is the labels aim to s-xualise the public's youth. The boys aren't getting a free pass either. The whole idea of male pop singers in the past was to be clean cut, but now labels are actively trying to create bad boys, suggesting that girls should be attracted to boys who are bad news.

 

I say all this because I've seen the damaging effects this has on young people and how it continues into adulthood. Highly provocative performers being marketed to children is a serious issue, as this is a time when your first thoughts about s-xuality are starting to be awakened and if your first experience of it is tawdry exhibitionism, that's what you're going to think it's all about and continue to believe so. And I say this as someone who went through exactly that as a child (thought it wasn't something as innocent as a pop show that I experienced) and it took me until I was about 15 to shake off potentially damaging ideas about s-xuality because of it.

[DrewStevens 5,249]

I've never claimed to agree with everything Gaga and Lana do. There used to be lots of kids at Gaga shows but there's barely any now as I think parents have finally worked out that she's too adult, so it's not like children are watching her provocations anymore. And Lana's audience is generally older too and the only really eyebrow raising stuff she does is in her videos, not live. She's not an artist that kids pursue as she's too intellectually-based and not aimed at that demographic. There's certain types of public s-xuality I can deal with and theirs is fine, in my opinion. I only have objections when there's basically a live s-x show going on, particularly when the artist has a huge young fanbase. No, Ariana is definitely not being that provocative, but her dress sense is concerning. Young girls always want to copy the style of their idol and the majority of her fans are very young girls. Speaking as someone who grew up with The Spice Girls, I can clarify first hand that provocative dress styles of celebrities directly influence the fans. There is something creepy about a girl who looks underage dressing so provocatively and I have no doubt that her label is instructing her to dress this way and exploit her s-x appeal. The fundemental question is why, though, as if her fans are mostly girls and pre-teen ones at that, who is she being s-xual for? And that then leads down the even darker path of considering if it is the labels aim to s-xualise the public's youth. The boys aren't getting a free pass either. The whole idea of male pop singers in the past was to be clean cut, but now labels are actively trying to create bad boys, suggesting that girls should be attracted to boys who are bad news.

 

I say all this because I've seen the damaging effects this has on young people and how it continues into adulthood. Highly provocative performers being marketed to children is a serious issue, as this is a time when your first thoughts about s-xuality are starting to be awakened and if your first experience of it is tawdry exhibitionism, that's what you're going to think it's all about and continue to believe so. And I say this as someone who went through exactly that as a child (thought it wasn't something as innocent as a pop show that I experienced) and it took me until I was about 15 to shake off potentially damaging ideas about s-xuality because of it.

 

I disagree with your view on the way the affect kids but that's my opinion and this is yours.

[StrawberryBlond 13,285]

I disagree with your view on the way the affect kids but that's my opinion and this is yours.

 

I've studied the whole business of advertising and marketing and it is really naive to think that media manipulation doesn't affect kids. 1D wouldn't have record-breaking album sales and sold out stadium tours if kids were not affected by the media. The youth of today are rabid media consumers and advertisers and record labels know this, so they spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars advertising to the youth market. will.i.am once said "Kids rule the world" in reference to the music charts and it's true: the majority of artists in the singles and albums charts and selling out world tours are primarily the ones with young fanbases. It's a well known fact that if you aim yourself at the young, you'll have success. That's why Madonna and J-Lo are trying so desperately hard to be contemporary and are copying the trends of much younger stars, as once you're relevant to the young, you'll make a mint. So, we end up with very adult performers being marketed to children. Trying to find a popstar who's completely appropriate for children to listen to is like trying to find a needle in a haystack, so you'd have to be blind not to realise that they're being affected by all this adult behaviour they see. When you're a kid, you want to be an adult, after all, so naturally, you want to copy what the adults you perceieve as cool are doing.

[DrewStevens 5,249]

I've studied the whole business of advertising and marketing and it is really naive to think that media manipulation doesn't affect kids. 1D wouldn't have record-breaking album sales and sold out stadium tours if kids were not affected by the media. The youth of today are rabid media consumers and advertisers and record labels know this, so they spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars advertising to the youth market. will.i.am once said "Kids rule the world" in reference to the music charts and it's true: the majority of artists in the singles and albums charts and selling out world tours are primarily the ones with young fanbases. It's a well known fact that if you aim yourself at the young, you'll have success. That's why Madonna and J-Lo are trying so desperately hard to be contemporary and are copying the trends of much younger stars, as once you're relevant to the young, you'll make a mint. So, we end up with very adult performers being marketed to children. Trying to find a popstar who's completely appropriate for children to listen to is like trying to find a needle in a haystack, so you'd have to be blind not to realise that they're being affected by all this adult behaviour they see. When you're a kid, you want to be an adult, after all, so naturally, you want to copy what the adults you perceieve as cool are doing.

 

I still don't agree with your point of view because I don't think Ariana is acting or dressing that inappropriate in front of her young audience. 

[Psychedelic 1,098]

So, younger people and older people have distinct views that never overlap or interchange? So what if an older person could be more open-minded - that doesn't make them right. I wasn't being ageist previously, I was merely suggesting they tone it down, as should a lot of other younger performers. Being ageist would be saying that they should never be s-xual once they reach a certain age, which is not what I'm suggesting.

 

So, now you're telling someone how they should think about s-xuality? That's a deeply personal thing and absolutely no one should dictate such a delicate matter. It's thinking toxic, damaging ideas about s-xuality that's leading to such problems regarding s-xuality worldwide. And it's shame that rejection of these ideas makes you a prude, apparently.

 

 

 

Reading through your posts you have contradicted yourself many times already. You said yourself, this is 2014, kids or whoever might be sensitive to s-xual content, can easily find it anywhere; internet, television, you name it, and in even more explicit ways than those you are rejecting.

 

So it's no one's responsability to educate about s-xuality but the parents or guaridans of those kids. Like I said, s-xuality is a natural thing, so it should be openly disscussed starting from a very young age, so that people will learn to discern what's appropriate and what is not. Not disscussing these things is what leads to a misconception of the subject, and it might evolve into more serious problems and s-xual behaviours. Did you know most pederasts are people who were s-xually repressed at certain time of their lives? 

 

I was listening to a s-xologist the other day at a conference and she said that there is a very thin line between eroticism and p0rnography, but at the end of the day, it's one's own perception that defines the difference. And I find it very absurd that you feel offended by pop stars being s-xually provacative. Number one because you are in Gaga forum with a Lana Del Rey avi and number two because what these artists express s-xually is quite subtle compared to what can be found in the media these days, like we have disscussed previously.

 

Like I told you, you are entitled to your opinion, but there has to be a reason why there are several people differing with it and even feeling bothered by it. I didn't wanna use that last word you've used to describe your comments but you went for it yourself. Save me the effort!

[StrawberryBlond 13,285]

I still don't agree with your point of view because I don't think Ariana is acting or dressing that inappropriate in front of her young audience. 

 

You don't think micro-miniskirts, knee-high boots, bra tops, high-cut leotards and stockings with high heels is an inappropriate style to use when marketing yourself to a young audience? She rocked up to the VMAs wearing a leather minidress with a zip up the front paired with thigh high leather boots. All she needed was a whip and she would be a dominatrix. She's been doing s-xy dance moves recently too. Her songs may be fine but her image needs a serious re-think as she is selling an adult fantasy to children and is (even if indirectly) encouraging them to dress like her. Her younger fans probably aren't even aware of her age and think she's as young as them, seeing how she could easily pass for 16, if not younger. So, naturally, they'll want to dress like her as she looks the same age as them and can get away with it, so why can't they?

 

Reading through your posts you have contradicted yourself many times already. You said yourself, this is 2014, kids or whoever might be sensitive to s-xual content, can easily find it anywhere; internet, television, you name it, and in even more explicit ways than those you are rejecting.

 

So it's no one's responsability to educate about s-xuality but the parents or guaridans of those kids. Like I said, s-xuality is a natural thing, so it should be openly disscussed starting from a very young age, so that people will learn to discern what's appropriate and what is not. Not disscussing these things is what leads to a misconception of the subject, and it might evolve into more serious problems and s-xual behaviours. Did you know most pederasts are people who were s-xually repressed at certain time of their lives? 

 

I was listening to a s-xologist the other day at a conference and she said that there is a very thin line between eroticism and p0rnography, but at the end of the day, it's one's own perception that defines the difference. And I find it very absurd that you feel offended by pop stars being s-xually provacative. Number one because you are in Gaga forum with a Lana Del Rey avi and number two because what these artists express s-xually is quite subtle compared to what can be found in the media these days, like we have disscussed previously.

 

Like I told you, you are entitled to your opinion, but there has to be a reason why there are several people differing with it and even feeling bothered by it. I didn't wanna use that last word you've used to describe your comments but you went for it yourself. Save me the effort!

 

How have I contradicted myself? I've explained fully my reasons behind my thoughts on s-xuality at an older age and accepting the s-xual performances of Gaga and Lana.

 

The problem is that even if you do educate your children, they can just choose not to listen. This is where the whole "just teach them and everything will be fine" mindset fails - children rebel by their very nature. I didn't do everything my parents told me, I'm sure you didn't either and neither did the rest of the world. Some listen all of the time, some listen half the time and others don't listen at all. Some children are just born to be live wires and a law unto themselves. And that's why you can't always blame a parent for their kids turning out bad. When it comes to an issue like s-x, this is definitely where we rebel as we are usually taught quite strict, conservative views about it from our parents that we deem to be taking all the fun out of it. Despite all the s-x education available now, teen girls are still getting pregnant, so clearly, education isn't some magic wand that'll make everyone obey. I'm all for parents having open discussions with their kids about s-x and answering any questions they have, but we need to stop believing that doing this will stop them acting out s-xually in any way. Dramatically reduce, maybe, but not stop. As I said before, s-x is the most natural thing to use as a weapon of rebellion.

 

Actually, there is distinct differences between erotica and p0rn, but not everyone is aware of them. The degrading/exploitative element is subjective, but there is clear cut definitions between the two. In erotica, there is no nudity or s-x acts, there's a strong focus on fetishes (which are by definition, non-s-xual in and of themselves) and it's all about suggestion and encouraging the viewer to use their imagination. In p0rn, there is full-on nudity, full-on s-x and it's all about leaving nothing to the imagination. That is the definitive differences between the two.

And I already said I don't have a problem with artists being provocative, provided they are of legal age and are not marketed to children (the Madonna/J-Lo thing was just a personal preference, obviously, their provocative nature does fufil these two criteria but I still find it disgusting, but that doesn't mean I think it should be stopped in their case). Gaga and Lana are legal and aren't marketed to children, so I have no problem with it.

 

I understand that not everyone will agree with me, but just because I'm that one lone voice doesn't make me wrong and just because you're the louder crowd doesn't make you right. And I can assure you I'm no prude. Just ask the guy who thought I was demure until he cybered with me. I've always been a big supporter of the "lady in public, wh0re in the bedroom" philosophy, as you can gather.

[DrewStevens 5,249]

You don't think micro-miniskirts, knee-high boots, bra tops, high-cut leotards and stockings with high heels is an inappropriate style to use when marketing yourself to a young audience? She rocked up to the VMAs wearing a leather minidress with a zip up the front paired with thigh high leather boots. All she needed was a whip and she would be a dominatrix. She's been doing s-xy dance moves recently too. Her songs may be fine but her image needs a serious re-think as she is selling an adult fantasy to children and is (even if indirectly) encouraging them to dress like her. Her younger fans probably aren't even aware of her age and think she's as young as them, seeing how she could easily pass for 16, if not younger. So, naturally, they'll want to dress like her as she looks the same age as them and can get away with it, so why can't they?

How have I contradicted myself? I've explained fully my reasons behind my thoughts on s-xuality at an older age and accepting the s-xual performances of Gaga and Lana.

The problem is that even if you do educate your children, they can just choose not to listen. This is where the whole "just teach them and everything will be fine" mindset fails - children rebel by their very nature. I didn't do everything my parents told me, I'm sure you didn't either and neither did the rest of the world. Some listen all of the time, some listen half the time and others don't listen at all. Some children are just born to be live wires and a law unto themselves. And that's why you can't always blame a parent for their kids turning out bad. When it comes to an issue like s-x, this is definitely where we rebel as we are usually taught quite strict, conservative views about it from our parents that we deem to be taking all the fun out of it. Despite all the s-x education available now, teen girls are still getting pregnant, so clearly, education isn't some magic wand that'll make everyone obey. I'm all for parents having open discussions with their kids about s-x and answering any questions they have, but we need to stop believing that doing this will stop them acting out s-xually in any way. Dramatically reduce, maybe, but not stop. As I said before, s-x is the most natural thing to use as a weapon of rebellion.

Actually, there is distinct differences between erotica and p0rn, but not everyone is aware of them. The degrading/exploitative element is subjective, but there is clear cut definitions between the two. In erotica, there is no nudity or s-x acts, there's a strong focus on fetishes (which are by definition, non-s-xual in and of themselves) and it's all about suggestion and encouraging the viewer to use their imagination. In p0rn, there is full-on nudity, full-on s-x and it's all about leaving nothing to the imagination. That is the definitive differences between the two.

And I already said I don't have a problem with artists being provocative, provided they are of legal age and are not marketed to children (the Madonna/J-Lo thing was just a personal preference, obviously, their provocative nature does fufil these two criteria but I still find it disgusting, but that doesn't mean I think it should be stopped in their case). Gaga and Lana are legal and aren't marketed to children, so I have no problem with it.

I understand that not everyone will agree with me, but just because I'm that one lone voice doesn't make me wrong and just because you're the louder crowd doesn't make you right. And I can assure you I'm no prude. Just ask the guy who thought I was demure until he cybered with me. I've always been a big supporter of the "lady in public, wh0re in the bedroom" philosophy, as you can gather.

I dont think she is that provocative. Kids shouldn't be watching the VMAs and she was wearing something normal compared to what artists wear all the time. But then again, this is my opinion and that's yours.

[DontDoubtDavid 1,181]

Oh really...