Feminist writer Camille Paglia wrote in the Sunday times that although Lady Gaga claims to represent the freaks and misfits of the world, her manufactured image suggests otherwise. Though she borrows from erotic icons like Madonna and Cher, Paglia suggest that Lady Gaga's over the top image represents the end to the sexual revolution: Furthermore, despite showing acres of pallid flesh in the fetish-bondage garb of urban prostitution, Gaga isn’t sexy at all – she’s like a gangly marionette or plasticised android. How could a figure so calculated and artificial, so clinical and strangely antiseptic, so stripped of genuine eroticism have become the icon of her generation? Can it be that Gaga represents the exhausted end of the sexual revolution? In Gaga’s manic miming of persona after persona, over-conceptualised and claustrophobic, we may have reached the limit of an era… What do you think? Is Lady Gaga's persona authentic or just an image? And does she follow in the footsteps of other sexual icons, or does she miss a beat? added by: sgwhites
