(fwd) Re: What does it matter?

[treefrog@netcom.com (An Earthling...Really!)]

P.R.Houghton@newcastle.ac.uk (P.R. Houghton) writes:

>In article <CMM-RU.1.4.767523271.vickie@pilot.njin.net>, vickie@pilot.njin.net (WretchAwry) writes:
>> Why say *anything* about Kate's looks in the FAQ? There's no need to
>> say "yes, she's a fox" or "yes, she is beautiful" or anything else.
>> Those with eyes can see. It's as silly as saying "yes, she is a woman"
>> or even "yes, she has two arms and two legs" because it's irrelevant
>> to her *MUSIC*.
>> 
>> Vickie
>> 
>> ps, "zaftig"? geez
>> 
>It may be for you, but for most male Kate fans, I shouldn't think it is.  Kate's
>music relies very heavily on her sexuality, as does our appreciation of it. 
>Divorcing Kate from her physical and spiritual attractiveness is like saying the
>fact that Michaelangelo's David is naked has nothing to do with its quality.  It
>is completely impossible.

Actually, to me the "yes, she's a fox" line is like saying of Michaelangelo's
David, "yes, he's very well hung." While both of these may be true, they
certainly don't seem like the most respectful ways of discussing the 
subjects. I am a male Kate fan, and while I think she is great looking,
that has no bearing at all on why I like her songwriting, on why I think
her art is worthy of note. Her songs and albums would blow my mind if I'd
never seen a picture of her.

peace
Edward
--
treefrog@netcom.COM
"Denny, you got any hash joints left? I know you do." -B. Wilson