now..people can tell me that the naked body is a work of art, and ill agree. they can tell me that d' is an artist for he has truly sculpted his body, and ill agree. they can tell me that its been done before, this 'sexual' overtone to ones persona (prince - marvin) and ill agree that it has, but it does not justify it.

is this not the most blatant case of selling sex? is it d's responsibility to keep himself clothed just so as not to take advantage of the ignorantly vulnerable masses? no, i dont think so..but still, i believe it is done intentionally, by d' and his label..sex sells. no one will deny that. but i thought d was about the music. the artistry of music. and that selling was not the ultimate goal..crafting the music was.

now, the question, if d' were ?uest, if d and his estrogen evoking body was behind the drums hiding in the back, and ?uest and his obviosuly less appealing physique was front and center on stage..how would this tour be doing? how would this album be doing? realizing obviously that it would not be doing as well...how can one still go on night after night and flaunt their body to a bunch of souless, hungry, mad women, knowing that they are what drives the train..knowing that without this body hes parading around in, hed not be where he is right now..



'how can a man who regards success in life as a primary goal, be considered an artist..' -wilde

'when u come sloppy, fu*k is yall trying to do? yall in-to..some whack shit and aint saying nuttin new' -dice