[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I feel like this was written by a fan of the attists/music (openly within the first few sentences) and from that point neutrality goes out the window. It then cherry-picks which criticisms to counter (the ones that express outrage at the overt sexuality) and use those specific criticisms to create a "critic strawman" to argue against in a blinkered way, making massive assumptions along the way. They've either allowed their bias to stop them from seeing that there are multiple criticisms that have absolutely nothing to do with "not liking women talking about sex" OR they have consciously decided to ignore the parts of the argument that they can't easily shoo away with that particular angle. Neither makes for a very good article. I'd be more interested in the academic angle from observers who are not already fans of the genre or the artist. Not people who DISlike the genre of course, that would be just as biased, but anything that lacks sociological neutrality on this isn't really worth reading, just a lot of signalling and parroting.

Your opinion is so much more unbiased than this academic article?..
Look at your use of language, she is cherry picking/biased/blinkered/ assumptive/

You can only comment on anything if you are neutral.. When did that become a thing, do film critics refuse to critique films or actors they like or admire? No of course they don't.

You've taken exception to this comprehensive peice as it flies in the face of your armchair sociologist perspective. So instead of validating anything she's said as having any merit, youve dismissed her as a fangirl.