You're trolling for hits again!

I think a great deal of it has to do with target audience, and (relatedly) with the image that got promoted *before* the secualizing turn. Someone who traded on little-girl-cute, and who appealed to an audience of little-and-teenage girls, inspires parental worry when she starts flaunting it. Neither was true of Kournikova. (Ten year old girls aren't tennis' primary viewership.)

If someone's been in the public eye since she was a *very* little girl, then the creepiness associated with sexualization increases dramatically. Christina Ricci, Anna Paquin, and Jodie Foster all allowed a few transition years. Brooke Shields didn't, and as I recall she inspired some uneasiness.

But-- the Olsen twins... *shudder*. I look at them and I still see the sallow-faced little brat on Full House-- and the ever-increasing share of Blockbuster being given over to the kiddie flicks. The thought that they're almost 18 and ready to sexualize their image... brrr...

Man, if I were still in school, I'd start a U of C tabloid dedicated to you two pervs - complete with photoshopped evidence. :)

Ok. I saw links on various blogs excoriating Rolling Stone for putting the twins on the cover. Naturally, I assumed they were talking about George and Laura's spawn. Apparently, I assumed wrong.

Who the hell are the Olson twins? Clearly Mrs. Olson (of Folger Coffee Fame) is to old to breed, let alone have twins. Am I that old? Should I care?

One difference between Britney and Anna K., if I may be so informal, is that Anna did not dress like a 16-year-old hooker. I mean, according to what I see of 16-year-old hookers on TV. Yeah. Anyway, a lot of it is class; the Olsens are dress-down sexy and so it's OK to notice their sexuality. Milano and Barrymore appeared in seriously R-rated films, so they're trashy.

Back to Britney and Anna: there's also a lot of self-satisfied resentment against a musical performer whose talent is in doubt, in that it's hard to know how much of her vocal performance is real, given modern studio techniques especially when it comes to synthesizer-based pop music. Note the anti-Anna backlash in the long run, when her tennis ended up not matching up to her celebrity. (Then again, a recent letter to Salon reminds us that in tennis, being "only" the 8th best in the world makes you a loser, so that backlash may not be fair.)

You have forgotten the eleventh commandment (or
was that the 613th?): "thou shalt not covet the
shiksa."

It was "shocking" for Britney but not Anna because Britney was marketed to 10-year old girls but Anna was not, so there was no worry that girls are going to start dressing like whores because they saw Anna playing tennis.

Interesting questions, indeed!

I agree that much of it has to do with perceived trashiness. Kournikova is certainly overtly sexual in tight clothing, but she looks like a professional athlete rather than a streetwalker. Frankly, I've never thought Spears was as trashy as her detractors claim, but many who have emulated her look come out that way.

The Olsen twins are particularly strange, in that they have not gone away--we've literally watched them grow up with no gap period. (I mean, what did Barrymore do between her ET/Firestarter days and her re-emergence as a B movie attraction?) The Rolling Stone cover, to me, just showcases two really beautiful young girls, but doesn't strike me as sexual.

"I mean, what did Barrymore do between her ET/Firestarter days and her re-emergence as a B movie attraction?"

Drugs and/or booze, I think. I don't remember that episode of "True Hollywood Story" very well...

As for the Britney/Anna thing, neither of them can hold a candle to the pure skank oozing from Christina Aguilera's career trajectory. Now I know why Disney Channel is now just showing cartoons...