The other day I was sitting in my physics class, bored as usual. To amuse myself I randomly started drawing various objects in the lecture hall – the chalkboard, an empty desk, the back of someone’s head and finally, the garbage.

But as I sat there drawing the waste bucket, for some reason an image of Britney Spears emerged in my mind. I pondered this thought for a while until I realized it made perfect sense. Britney Spears, trash; there is no better comparison.

OK, maybe I am being a little bit harsh, but I can find no better description for someone who acts and dresses as though they belong in a profession only legal in Las Vegas.

I also think it is horribly inappropriate for Spears to act this way, considering little girls idolize her. Can you imagine an eight-year-old girl running around in a bra singing, “I’m a slave for you?” To me the very thought of it is mortifying.

I suppose the only reason I suddenly care what trailer-trash Barbie is doing is because of a few recent magazine articles. One came out last month in Rolling Stone and the other is in a recent issue of Cosmopolitan. The conflicting views the two magazines show is what really got to me.

Cosmopolitan named Spears the fun, fearless female of the year. I suppose some people might think that wearing underwear on top of your jeans and dancing with a snake is fearless, but I think there were some better choices.

Look at break-out artists like Alicia Keyes and Shakira. Keyes came out with a whole new style of R&B music and Shakira brought back the appeal of the butt with just one little hip shake. But beyond just disagreeing with Spears as the choice, I have issues with things in the article itself.

The story attempts to portray a somewhat sweeter Spears than we have seen in the world lately. In fact, Spears even claims she never had breast implants because she is a role model. A role model? That just makes me laugh. This whole notion of her being a role model takes us back to the article that came out in Rolling Stone last Dec. 2001.

I have to admit I didn’t bother reading this story; I was too distracted by the appalling photos that complemented the piece. It actually wasn’t the trashy threads Spears sported on the cover but the outfit she wore for some of the photos inside the magazine that got to me. In the pictures she is posing on an old, wooden swing in a white baby doll dress that looks like it might have fit her 10 years ago.

And note I do stress “might.” In this magazine Spears looks less like a role model and more like every pedophile’s wet dream. This is not the appearance a prospective role model should depict.

I suppose I should make it very clear now that I do not hate Britney Spears. I realize she is an entertainer and that it is her job to make money. However, I think it is despicable that she cannot make money in a respectable way that does not influence young girls in such an adverse fashion. I wish she could rely more on talent (although it is debatable how much she actually has) than on sex and her young body. Her slutty nature pleases more filthy, old men than it does innocent girls.

If Spears wants to be a true role model then she needs to consider the consequences of her actions. Instead of trying to attract the lowest denominator of people, pedophiles and child molesters, she should raise her own standards for herself. Trash belongs in the garbage can, not on posters hanging in little girls’ rooms.

Ayrel Clark is a freshman in pre-journalism and mass communication from Johnston.