Page 1 of Am I the only one who finds something so very wrong with t.a.T.u?

ok, choosing my words wisely..

These two girls are marketed as underage lesbian schoolgirls who wear see-thru clothing and have been having sex for over 4 years, even tho ones 18, the other 17 (nearly 18)

The song they sing is good, IMHO. Not the best, but catchy and boogie-able. I just have a big problem with the pedo-pop they seem to perpetuate.

A few years ago, I seem to remember a report (I may have mentioned this before) about a chap who took a polaroid of his girlfriend (who was then 17) naked, in a provocative pose. For one reason of another, the police became involved and the man was arrested and convicted of posessing child pornography. Even tho they couple were in a loving relationship, and were legally engaging in sexual relations, the fact she was under 18 (the legal age to appear fully nude in an `adult` magazine, you can appear topless from 16) she was considered a minor in a very loose sense of the word. (probably bought on by an over-enthusiastic and petty parent? I dunno, anyhoo, I digress)

With this in mind, I fail to see how the eejits who are marketing these two girls can get away with it. The younger of the 2 (the red-haired one, apparently) claims that she`s going to appear in Playboy as soon as she turns 18.

With these 2 running at the top of the charts for 4 weeks now, they seem to be making a mockery of the movement that is trying so desperately to halt the sexualisation of children in the media. It wasn`t so long ago that the makers of Spy Kids 3 were auditioning for (quote) a 13-year-old Femme Fatale.

I just think that`s there`s something so very unwholesome about the whole thing. i like a `dirrty` gal, but as long as she`s old enough to vote.

"A few years ago, I seem to remember a report (I may have mentioned this before) about a chap who took a polaroid of his girlfriend (who was then 17) naked, in a provocative pose. For one reason of another, the police became involved and the man was arrested and convicted of posessing child pornography."

The report is either bollocks, or from the US. In the UK, the legal age is 16, full stop - there`s no distinction between tits and front bottoms!

Incidentally, a paedophile is an individual who is sexually attracted to PRE-PUBESCENT children - if we`ve got to the stage where the term "paedo-pop" can be applied to 17- and 18- year-old performers, then there`s something ridiculously wrong, IMO.

"With this in mind, I fail to see how the eejits who are marketing these two girls can get away with it."

Er, maybe because they`re from Russia (where the legal age of consent is 14)?

Mike

This item was edited on Wednesday, 26th February 2003, 01:17

I`m pleased to say I`ve thus far avoided hearing this no doubt magnificent musical opus and have not seen video`s of the pathetically faked up lesbianism.
I`ts just another svengali promoter selling his short shelf life product, but if its been No 1 for 4 weeks in the very fast turnover that is the singles charts he must be doing something right. :-))
One of my few pleasures in being a bit older is that I can be totally oblivious of music charts where I only recognise a couple of the more well known names.
.
btw Who is this guy ft who is in so many of the singles ? you know " RastaRap ft Sniffles or PolePulla ft Percy"
.
;-)) P

This item was edited on Wednesday, 26th February 2003, 09:52

Does anyone have a link so I can see the video, as I wish to be rightious and indignant about it too.

Yes, I also would like to see the video, so I can make an informed judgement as to whether my sensibilities are offended.

I`d also like a link to the Holly Valance Kiss Kiss video, as I somehow failed to see this either, and I hear it might be offensive too.

Craig Tubby, how many times do you think we should watch the video before we can make a truly rational argument....?

I agree with you Stanz. The whole video is shot to make the girls look younger than they are. The marketing is aimed at, among others, older men who like much younger girls. Then throw in bit of lesbianism. Maybe I think its perverted because IMHO they both look about 15 in that video.

Britney Spears One More Time video (another young girl in a school uniform) is the closest I can think of, but she did look 18+ and she wasn`t touching-kissing some other girl/guy.

The whole lesbianism thing is so obviously faked it`s untrue, but if they`re comfortable doing it and are making shed loads of cash, fair play to `em. Then again, there`s always the possibility that these girls are both impossibly naive and are being whored by their manager (who claims to have had sexual relations with both girls, or so I read). Either way I find the whole thing pretty boring, and the video was a lot of something and nothing. I actually think they're both quite attractive, but if people have the urge to look at eighteen year old girls lezzing it up there are far easier ways to do it than sitting in front of the TV waiting for t.a.T.u. to show up.

And to answer the original question, no I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with it. We're not talking about ten year olds here, and I certainly wouldn't classify a seventeen or eighteen year old girl as a child (they can be childish, but that's not the same thing). Just because the video makes them look fifteen, it doesn't mean that they are (and where they come from that's perfectly acceptable anyway).

I`m sure I posted a link to the terribly offensive video on the `are you offended by gay stuff` thread a little while back. I won`t try and find it again myself, as being offended so often really takes it out of you. Should be easy to find though :-).

I think it`s all to do with making money, a marketing gimmick, and it`s working very well.

It appeals to budding young lesbos, young boys have got something to have a "tommy" over when watching MTV! ... oh and pedo`s love it as well!

I think it`s paving the way for Will Young and Micheal Barrymore to have a duet together, tongues included! Ugh!!!

Thanks Soprano. I`d just like to reiterate that I don`t have a problem with the girls at they are. what I object to is that their `back story` includes a period where they were supposedly indulging in (by British legal standards) illegal underage sex. If it was true, fine, we know about it, thank for telling. But the fact it`s been played on (and the fact that they do look about 15 each, you must admit) make the whole thing very iffy.

I`m not getting righteous, thank you very much. I`m no prude, I have no problems with gay gals `in love` (so they say) I just have a problem with the image these girls are portraying. i.e. Underage sex (of whatever proclivity) is ok, justified, and cool.

And Mike G. The report is true, i just found it again on ananova. It isn`t illegal to have sex at 16, like I said. That`s not what the paragraph was about. The law in this country prohibits a person (of either sex) under the age of 18 to appear fully naked in a sexually provocative pose, in an `adult` magazine. Topless is OK, apparently. You know that phrase they always mention in the news, about `Making pornographic images of a minor`? that`s what happened there. Yes, it`s a stupid law, and the guy should not have been prosecuted for it. But since when did common sense and high court judge ever appear in the same sentence? (apart from just then?)

This item was edited on Wednesday, 26th February 2003, 17:45