Jocelyn Wang wrote:

>When I saw that disc (with a nude Lara St. John holding a violin in front
>of her breasts) I thought, "Boy, this woman is obviously trying to sell her
>CD." That's all there was to it, and there was nothing wrong with that.

I thought, "Damn, here is a no name record label trying to sell art via
kiddie porn"

>I have a problem with the whole premise of this thread.  Since when is
>sexuality low? It isn't low, it is beautiful.

Sexuality is not low.  It is indeed beautiful.  But not in the context of
the exploitation of children.  Further, if it is in as poor of taste as the
L.s.J.  cd cover, then it is no longer a thing of beauty, but cheap, base
and cynical.

>I take issue with any self-appointed Guardian of the Public Morality who
>wants to decide what forms of expression should take place.  If Miss Mutter
>cares to grace a CD cover with a bit of her sexuallity, then anyone who
>doesn't like it is perfectly free not to buy her CD, or even look at it.

Couldn't agree more, which is exactly why I do not own the St. John cd.
I have nothing against any good looking artist on the front cover of a cd
exploiting their own good looks.  I would love to see "more" of Josh Bell
on a cover or two.  However, there is a difference in, say, a Calvin Klein
commercial that shows two adults in a sexually charged situation than in a
over like Ms. St. John's where the attempt to make her look under aged
is quite blatant.  Sex and sexuality are fine for those old enough to
appreciate it, practice it safely and be aware of the consequences.  That
I object to the Ls.J cover is not a product of any desire to be a thought
policeman.  It is me desire to see things presented in good taste, and in
a way which does not so much as imply that children are being exploited.

Kevin Sutton