Yah but Madonna was born in the 1950's... She was in her 20's when she hit the scene. Sure, she made songs that were hits with young kids, but it was definitely clear that she wasn't a little girl... So parents would know what to expect sending their kid to a Madonna concert. Britney's new image kinda just happened in between the albums. Was the innocent little girl image manufactured, or is it the new image that's manufactured? I agree, Britney is doing well to further her career, I guess I'm just confused as to who her target demographic is.

Both of the images were manufactured, of course (and, BTW, I am not that certain that 'innocent little girl' image of someone who obviously is not exactly that 'innocent' and 'little' was targeted only at pre-teens ). As for her target demographics, well, that's for her label execs to worry about...

We all know that young people (preteens through college) carry the music industry on their back, and they always have... But I think Britney is putting a lot of parents in some tough positions.. I mean Elvis and The Beatles did the same thing but they weren't dancing half naked. I guess I'm just wondering how far the envelope of sexuality in music videos and the like can get pushed before it gets really really really old. It's not even sexy anymore because it's so overt and in your face. I feel like I should mail Britney some dollar bills or something. If I want that I'll go to a strip club where there's better music.

As Doug noted, a generation ago appearing on TV in tight trousers (with some socks stuffed in front, undoubtedly, for greater, er, effect ) or using semi-explicit (what euphemysm) vocabulary was as shocking as dancing half naked today (or more). Besides, remeber John Lenon and Yoko Ono being photographed naked (I think it was during that 'stay in bed' protest)?

But, what I really don't understand is why are we all 'buying' Christian and Freudian nonsense that exposure to sexuality, however indirect, is harmful for children? I mean, female breasts mean food and comfort for them untill we teach them they are object of mysterious, occult and dirty rituals some people do at night, but parents don't, haeven forbid. Perhaps it's time we stop teaching our children that the very fact we have bodies, and that we were born as the result of certain pleasurable activity are sins.

BTW I was saying "so were you" in the plural sense, in that a lot of people were Madonna fans but hesitate to admit it.

I was repulsed from Madonna 'operation' by her too elaborate and carefully though-of stage act (including choice of deliberately controversial stage name). I am not intersted in discussions of suitability of a crucifix as jewelry on a woman publicly displaying a rather tasteless bra. That said, when I do happen to hear her music, I must admit that some of it has certain merit. I think I will wait for another style change, then buy a decent compilation .

The English language needs a distinct plural form of "you" like the romantic languages have. Here in Philadelphia it's "youse" as in "youse guys" but that hasn't exactly caught on.

But 'you' is plural. English has lost singular, thou (objective thee, possesive thy or thine, reflexive thyself).

Oh and I agree, Britney's music is putrid tripe.

I wouldn't know. Reputation she has on this board is such that I have managed to avoid hearing knowingly anything of her work (which illustrates high esteem I hold this board in ).