Jump to content

Archived

This thread has been closed to further replies because it was not updated for 12 months. If you wish to have this thread reinstated, please contact an administrator.

Bionic Monster

Madonna attempts to shade probable "Best Actress" nominee Lady Gaga

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, HninSi said:

Imagine writing hypothesis to defend this one sentence.

There is nothing to defend. That sentence is true! Sex with 16-18 yo boys can be fun for a 20 yo girl. There is nothing morally wrong in that. Therefore nothing to defend. If you interpret the word "young" as less than 16yo then you are neglecting all other narrative details like that he was a "teenager" and that he was "kicked out by his parents from his apartment".  It's so pathetic to interpret the word "young" as in child. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HninSi said:

There are several reviews calling it porn right after its release.

And it has pornographic content regardless of who published it.

But the far more and far more current reviews calling it art/photography don't matter? What a very convincing argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, HninSi said:

Fact is it has pornographic content. 

But why are you erasing social and historical context? Yes, it does have soft pornographic material in it, of course. But ultimately it's a social commentary and is now, in hindsight considered to be a masterful postmodern body of work. Public perception and discussion provocation is the art of it (of course, the photography element as well). I mean, you took the time to read the negative initial reviews, why not invest that time in reading the rave reviews it got later on from social scientists, scholars and historians? tay3

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jjang said:

But why are you erasing social and historical context? Yes, it does have soft pornographic material in it, of course. But ultimately it's a social commentary and is now, in hindsight considered to be a masterful postmodern body of work. Public perception and discussion provocation is the art of it (of course, the photography element as well). I mean, you took the time to read the negative initial reviews, why not invest that time in reading the rave reviews it got later on from social scientists, scholars and historians? tay3

I said it has pornographic content. Did I say its bad or good?

I just scanned the critical reception section of its wiki page. Takes a min.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HninSi said:

I said it has pornographic content. Did I say its bad or good?

No, but it’s a dismissive statement esp. when you’re not even interested in engaging in a discussion about it. Context creates art. It’s not just a porn book. It served a purpose and people who are certified to judge it from that aspect called it a masterpiece of a release. ari4 You’re not being slick, Mr. Obvious. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HninSi said:

Fact is it has pornographic content. 

All I see is naked people, that's not called porn. Still waiting for the receipts or you can just gtfo, you're just repeating your posts, you look like you're out of arguments.

ny9

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 350.000.000 records sold said:

All I see is naked people, that's not called porn. Still waiting for the receipts or you can just gtfo, you're just repeating your posts, you look like you're out of arguments.

ny9

Do you really expect someone who comes from one of the most conservative cultures in the world to view the SEX book as anything other than a porn book? I mean, he's literally throwing shade at any singer who does more than just sing in long evening gowns and pretends they are sluts for performing in short clothes to "cha cha music". Female singers in his opinion are meant to only sing boring soul ballads in evening gowns and not do more than that.

Why the hell are all these Moo stans so fucking misogynistic?

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Yzma said:

 I mean, he's literally throwing shade at any singer who does more than just sing in long evening gowns and pretends they are sluts for performing in short clothes to "cha cha music". Female singers in his opinion are meant to only sing boring soul ballads in evening gowns and not do more than that.

Why the hell are all these Moo stans so fucking misogynistic?

This, someone needs to explain to his/her misogynist ass that life does not revolve around do re mi fa sol la si do and that being a riffing expert does not make you the better artist. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Yzma said:

Do you really expect someone who comes from one of the most conservative cultures in the world to view the SEX book as anything other than a porn book? I mean, he's literally throwing shade at any singer who does more than just sing in long evening gowns and pretends they are sluts for performing in short clothes to "cha cha music". Female singers in his opinion are meant to only sing boring soul ballads in evening gowns and not do more than that.

Why the hell are all these Moo stans so fucking misogynistic?

 

3 minutes ago, Jjang said:

This, someone needs to explain to his/her misogynist ass that life does not revolve around do re mi fa sol la si do and that being a riffing expert does not make you the better artist. 

The automatic assumptions tho .moo13

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yzma said:

Are Gargoyle fans really coming for Madonna's soft porn content when Gaga has literally released pics with her fanny exposed? Or pictures of her hanging naked from the sealing tied up in ropes? 

No we’re coming for her selling her sick pedo fantasy and making money off of it.brit12

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 332
  • Created
  • Last Reply

  • Browsing now   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×