thesinatraguy@a..., responding to my message, wrote:
> (Personally, I have a problem with the theme and would decline to participate
- not that I'd expect anyone else to do the same. Why should an institution of
learning be glorifying prostitutes, as if using a eupemism made it any less
degrading?)
>I agree and disagree with what you are saying. I live in Atlanta, and the arts
are really suffering here. One playhouse is using nudity in their plays to keep
audiences coming in. Sex does sell, and perhaps we must do whatever it takes to
keep the doors open. The last thing people want to spend money on in a rough
economy is the arts, so why not do whatever it takes? As long as something
doesn't go way over the line then I am all for it.
First, I'll distinguish between private enterprise and institutions of higher
learning.
Second, I know I'm in a distince minority about this. As a matter of principle,
I won't go to a popular and well-reviewed movie where the main subject matter is
a woman who's a prostitute. Because if you believe the movies, 8 out of every
10 professional women sell their bodies for a living (OK, I'm exaggerating, but
you get the point.) It's none of my business what someone chooses to do in
private, but think of all those other juicy women's roles in movies that aren't
getting written because prostitution brings in the box office $$ - so I don't
contribute to it. For example, I never saw Jane Fonda's academy award winning
role, Klute, or Julia Roberts' hit, Pretty Woman. I don't care how entertaining
they are. Every once in a while I break my own rule, or get fooled into seeing
something, and I always regret it.
By the way, I have no problem with art that has sex as a subject matter (which
arguably is almost everything). My problem is romaticizing or glorifying
prostitution.
Peggy
Margaret Harrison, Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
|
