Madonna: MJ is gone, but I'm still standing

[Omar Vela 2,745]

1 hour ago, Psychedelic said:

For such a proof-sustained little artiscally-valued, heartless person you make her out to be, so consistently and so passionately in each thread. Your concerns and interests on her, are rather worrying for your own persona than anyone else involved in such disscussions!

[Omar Vela 2,745]

2 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Most of her speech is sound but there are some elements of it that are a bit...off. And bear in mind that I say all this as a feminist myself.

For starters, she made a certain point all about her. She said that you can be sexual in a way that men like but don't dare try to present your sexual ideas to the world. Yes, Madonna, keep banging on about how groundbreaking your Erotica era was. People weren't against you because you put your fantasies out there, necessarily, but rather, the crude way you did it. You were a singer, but in your Sex book, you became a p0rn star and you indulged in photography that was very shocking and objectifying, both to men and women. A man would have been equally as vilified if he had put out such a book, particularly in regards to that story it contained about having sex with someone implied to be underage. Yes, in 1992, it was a more conservative time but it wasn't the 50's. Women were allowed to be sexual and have sex outside of marriage and be outspoken, there was no widespread hatred or disagreement of that. I think putting your sexuality out there is fine as long as you're being classy about it because society must operate under a certain level of decency. You're not just allowed to do anything you want, you have to respect other people's levels of what they're comfortable with as well. And by the way, women sharing their sexual fantasies is considered hot as f**k by men. I have never encountered a man who was turned off by that, unless he was strictly religious. Madonna was considered the hottest thing around in 1992 by everyone, even those who said they disagreed with her because in Western society at least, we love displays of sexuality, overtly or secretly. She was villified, yes, but you can't deny that she had a lot of people who approved because she was being sexual. Don't exaggerate problems to fit your personal agenda.

Secondly, she says that women have to present themselves in a way that makes other women feel comfortable around other men...and that's somehow a bad thing in her mind. So, she doesn't value other women's opinions and feelings, then? Like I said above, there are rules in this society and you can't just do things because you like them, other people matter too and you don't have a right to make them feel uncomfortable. While I've never had to deal with this from personal experience, I cannot stand women who think it's ok to parade themselves sexually in front of men who they know are spoken for and even flirt with them and make their wives and girlfriend feel very offended and worried that their men will cheat. And even if they don't, they feel disrespected that another woman could act like that when she knows the marital status of the man. Women who do this are not feminists. These are the same women who disapprove of it only when other women do it to their man. Feminists support other women and would never behave inappropriately around men who they know are taken.

Overall, she goes on and on about supporting women but doesn't seem to realise that she's being a bit hypocritical herself. I talked about this on the thread over in the conversation area. Madonna rarely collabs with women (I believe Britney was the first one she ever did) and only collabs with women when they can give her relevancy. When she appears in movies as the lead, she is always the sole leading female and is at the centre of her own story. We've seen how mean she was to Gaga when she was trying to find her feet. She was mean to Sinead O'Connor back in 1992 when some of the attention was off her for a moment (Sinead actually responded saying that Madonna's actions betrayed her claims of feminism because she only approved of women when they were sexual like her). Madonna only seems to support feminism when there's something in it for her, when it personally affects her and doesn't seem to realise that she actually goes against a lot of feminist thought.

And finally, that bit about comparing herself to other legends was so unnecessary. The name checking didn't need to be done. I know what she was trying to say but she did it all wrong and made it sound like it was these artists fault for dying. Of course she's still here because she's alive! When most people say 'I'm still here' in the music industry, it's a reference to how they're still making successful music while others have fallen into obscurity since, but not to dead people. It's one thing to compare your longevity to people who are no longer successful, but people who are dead? What? By that logic, every civilian is on Madonna's level because they're alive and all these other legends are not. See, it doesn't really hold up under scrutiny, does it?

Notice the irony of you saying that as a man? Sure, men can be feminists, but maybe it would help to look at her speech a bit closer and look at some of the things I've said above to get another feminist's take on it. And the woman in your avatar could sure benefit from a feminism class as well.

[Psychedelic 1,098]

31 minutes ago, Omar Vela said:

When you run out of arguments against the truth ↑↑↑↑↑  

 

Avoid it all you want... it's meant to be said for your own benefit. But I guess you rather spend your time and energy on someone whom you despise.

[NONONONO 709]

1 hour ago, ZombieMirror said:

I think you can't understand too well the meanining of this fan-base site 

You seem to not understand it very well. I'll ask you again, if this is a Gaga fan-base site why are you posting 10 straight posts against Madonna?

I'll answer it for you again: obsession.

[Psychedelic 1,098]

1 hour ago, ZombieMirror said:

I think you can't understand too well the meanining of this fan-base site 

By fan-site, do you mean there is like 99% more threads about Gaga? Yet you rather dedicate your GAGAdaily time in the Madonna discussions???...   

Very FAN-esque of you!

[Versace 7,993]

7 hours ago, ZombieMirror said:

Nice try ! 

So then why is she desperate for attention after so much success ? 

 

Again, I'm not even a Madonna fan. I think Madonna is far from desperate for success, she is the most successful female musician of all time, till this day. She does however, say and do stuff with the intent of provoking attention and I don't blame her, the mainstream side of the industry are paying her dust. There is no reason why songs from Rebel Heart shouldn't have been played on the radio, when a lot of trash gets played today. Madonna fought so hard and reinvented herself each decade, when you look at people such as Britney and Christina who started off like Madonna (fame wise) they easily stopped "GIVING" going into their late 20's, where as Madonna was at her prime for decades, heck even Gaga is slowing down the slayage. We can argue that Gaga's first 3 albums have a tremendous impact, however I fear ARTPOP and Joanne are just good albums , great at best and nothing revolutionary. Madonna, from what I feel, is pissed at how things are today and if she expresses things like a bitch, I don't blame her, being a bitch will make people listen. 

 

[Sosa Jai 150]

21 hours ago, SpookyKid said:

All of you hating on this thread, very #ShareKindness of you

Gaga would be dissapointed

And yet, you seen like you're doing the same just because they're stating their opinions. Gaga would be proud of you. 

[Noah X 5,250]

Gaga Billboard 2050 speech:

"Michael is gone, Bowie is gone, Madonna is gone. But I'm still standing." 

[crisTEAne 21,059]

well, she casually forgot to name-drop gagz.

she's also standing.

right above ha.

and ha ego. 

i appreciate her effort, though. 

[StrawberryBlond 14,963]

3 hours ago, insight said:

1. I wouldn't go that far and claim that the SEX photo sessions were depicting genuine sexual intercourse.

2. It were her sexual fantasies and her choice to depict them how she considered best. You can't really condone someone's sexual fantasies since they're subjective and personal. Psyche 101. Speaking about Erotica, the album is a completely different pair of shoes. Pictures can convey powerful messages/ feelings that songs can't and the other way around; for that purpose the whole SEX imagery was a far more a visual-suited project than an aural one. Although Erotica has tracks that leave lots of room for the mind to play.  The idea of people feeling uncomfortable? What made people feel uncomfortable was that a famous woman shoved in their faces her sexual fantasies and she didn't feel apologetic about it. The imagery depicted in SEX wasn't nothing groundbreaking or shocking; had it not been Madonna photographed in the book, it would've slipped under the radar.

Apparently the ones of everyone else were all simulated. The only heterosexual photos depicted were of Madonna and Vanilla Ice, who she was dating at the time. But for that very reason, maybe that was the only times that it was real because if she was going to do it with anyone, it would be with the man she was currently with, right? But even if they weren't, well, it's still p0rn. Like I said, the definition of it includes solo nudity that's sexualised, it doesn't have to involve intercourse to be p0rn.

She didn't have to depict them at all. She did this book for attention. You said yourself that it wasn't that shocking and if it wasn't her doing it, no one would've cared. A lot of the press got it completely right at the time - they said she just wanted to shock and wasn't trying to be revolutionary like she claimed. A lot of them even said that they didn't find it all that shocking, just boring, derivative and weirdly sexless. I mean, having lived through the 90's myself, I found it hard to believe that everyone had never seen anything like this before or were that conservative. They were shocked about it because it was a woman who was famous for singing who was doing naked photography - the two things weren't linked. Whenever someone who's not famous for p0rn does it or something gets out, we're shocked because we've never seen them in that light and will never look at them in the same way again. Like I said before, I doubt it was because she was a woman that people didn't like it. If it was a man who did this, he'd be villified just as much, if not more.

[AquaFire Witch 160]

I still love Madonna even though she pisses me off sometimes...but it is true.

Funny just last night before reading this news I said they are all gone but Madonna is still here.

[ZombieMirror 299]

1 hour ago, headonfire said:

You seem to not understand it very well. I'll ask you again, if this is a Gaga fan-base site why are you posting 10 straight posts against Madonna?

I'll answer it for you again: obsession.

I'll answer it myself: YOU ARE ON THE WRONG FAN-SITE  

[insight 2,463]

5 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

They were shocked about it because it was a woman who was famous for singing who was doing naked photography - the two things weren't linked. Whenever someone who's not famous for p0rn does it or something gets out, we're shocked because we've never seen them in that light and will never look at them in the same way again. Like I said before, I doubt it was because she was a woman that people didn't like it. If it was a man who did this, he'd be villified just as much, if not more.

I have to disagree with you last sentence, because none of the stars of her caliber back in the early 90s, who were few, attempted to do what she did prior or shortly after SEX. She could've written more chart-topping songs or do a play  or whatever, but she chose to do the book. I believe it was an amalgamation of reasons behind her choice: it was an act of rebellion against patriarchal views on women's sexuality, her ego (she knew she'd get all the attention and press and that the book would sell) and it was a bold/risky project (which she always welcomes one). She even explained them several times (VH1 behind the music documentary 1998, Australian 1992 promo interview, etc). 

The only male performer whose work was as sexual (not sure if at the same level as M's, although his lyrics dripped with sexual innuendos and suggestive content) as M's, at that time, was Prince, and he showed off of his buttocks at the VMA 1991 and he got away with it. The only other contender was Bobby Brown who f*cked on stage, but that's not relevant to our discussion.  Prince wasn't vilified for that. I don't think men even needed at that time to express their sexuality the way M did in her SEX book, because they were always idolized and sort of given a free pass, cause it was ok for male performer to be sexual, to express freely and be in charge of his sexuality. 

[SpookyKid 15,153]

1 hour ago, Jayy J Brown said:

And yet, you seen like you're doing the same just because they're stating their opinions. Gaga would be proud of you. 

Opinion ≠ hating on someone

[StrawberryBlond 14,963]

12 minutes ago, insight said:

I have to disagree with you last sentence, because none of the stars of her caliber back in the early 90s, who were few, attempted to do what she did prior or shortly after SEX. She could've written more chart-topping songs or do a play  or whatever, but she chose to do the book. I believe it was an amalgamation of reasons behind her choice: it was an act of rebellion against patriarchal views on women's sexuality, her ego (she knew she'd get all the attention and press and that the book would sell) and it was a bold/risky project (which she always welcomes one). She even explained them several times (VH1 behind the music documentary 1998, Australian 1992 promo interview, etc). 

The only male performer whose work was as sexual (not sure if at the same level as M's, although his lyrics dripped with sexual innuendos and suggestive content) as M's, at that time, was Prince, and he showed off of his buttocks at the VMA 1991 and he got away with it. The only other contender was Bobby Brown who f*cked on stage, but that's not relevant to our discussion.  Prince wasn't vilified for that. I don't think men even needed at that time to express their sexuality the way M did in her SEX book, because they were always idolized and sort of given a free pass, cause it was ok for male performer to be sexual, to express freely and be in charge of his sexuality. 

So, in that case, we'll never know what the reaction would have been because it never happened. That was partly why Madonna stood out. It's not that a woman wouldn't dare to do what she did, it's that no one, man or woman, felt the need to put their fantasies into a book of photography if photography wasn't their day job. More than shocking, the project felt so random above all else. Random equals attention seeking in our minds and we tend not to like attention seekers.

Prince did not 'get away with' doing what he did. He was presumed to be gay for years because of it and apparently he even got attacked a few times. Men have rules about how to display their sexuality too - it always has to be macho, never involve nudity (unless you're in a p0rno), never be submissive, don't dance unless it's a really masculinsed form. Really, women using sexual expression as a form of liberation always confused me because men want us to be sexual. We're just giving them what they want. That's not liberation, that's submission to the status quo. Women used to want to liberate themselves by doing the things men didn't want them to do - being educated, being smart, being talented, owning their own things, being their own person. Nowadays, women just think that acting sassy and looking hot is two fingers up to the patriarchy while sexist men are rubbing their hands in glee that women have fallen for the sham of doing exactly what men want and believing it to be liberation. Don't get me wrong, sexuality is fine and all, but it's just that - sexuality. Anyone can have sex, it's a bodily function, it's nothing to do with liberation. Problem is, the fun involved in being sexual is often mistaken for power and liberation.