Kate, Madonna, and magazine issues...

[JONES%RPIECS.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu]

Hello there fellow Love-Hounds--
  Well, here's MY two cents' worth concerning this whole Kate/Madonna
thing...
  Basically, I have to agree with all of those who have voiced the
opinion that both Kate and Madonna are sexual, but that they portray
their sexuality in such different ways.  In my opinion, Kate has the
kind of sexual appeal that's subtle; it's in that full mouth and in
the "come-hither-thou-handsome-stranger" look in those huge dark eyes.
Madonna, on the other hand, is a sleaze, if you want my honest opinion.
I mean, I thought she used to be bad enough when her belly-button was
the national hotspot and she wore bracelets up to the elbow.  But now,
if it's at all possible, she's gotten worse, crotch-grabbing a-la-Michael
Jackson and wearing what appear to be funnels over her breasts.  NOT
the most appealing thing (if you ask me).  Oh sure, I suppose there are
men who like that sort of thing, and I also suppose I feel I can flame
her all I want because she's famous and she's got a good body and I'm
jealous.  But I also know that I never really liked women (or men) who
sell their sexuality so blatantly.  To me, being subtle, and just giving
a tempting HINT at sexuality is much more natural and much more
attractive.  And so I find it with Kate.  Speaking as a woman, I think
Kate's beautiful, and undeniably sexy.
  There!!  Now that I've gotten that out of my system, I can send a
public note of thanks to Ed Suranyi for making a plug about my _CD
International_ article.  As for the review that was written about the
_Live at Hammersmith Odeon_ laserdisc, I didn't write it.  I would NEVER
have said something to the effect that readers could have "been sick of
Kate Bush"!!  By the way, I did indeed post my KT article to Love-Hounds
once upon a time, but I will do so again if enough of you want a reprint...

                                                All the best,
                                                     Deb Wentorf