Gwen Stefani makes an effort, makes the news?

So I always thought Malaysia was one of those free-love tropical paradise-type nations (even after a quarter of intensive Southeast Asian history, even after learning what utter crackpot dictators they've been under, etc.) So of course, I was surprised to hear that Gwen Stefani was performing there, and that, in order to prepare for her arrival, the nation instituted a new dress code.

Any female performer must be covered from her shoulders to her knees while performing. Obviously, this puts a kink in Stefani's plans, because the biggest part of any Gwen performance is not the music but the nudity. Apparently adapting to the Malaysian dress code required "a major sacrifice" on Gwen's part. Seriously? Major sacrifice? To put on a pair of pants?

Personally, I don't think of Gwen Stefani as the single-handed destroyer of Malaysian purity that this article paints her to be. (cf. The political authorities "blamed her for promoting promiscuity and corrupting the nation's youth.")

Don't get me wrong, I think free love is great. I think if you can't get it for free, you might as well pay for it. (You might as well - but I'll still judge you for it.) So I have no love in my heart for the Bible-thumping, burka-pushing, female-infant-killing protectors of women's virtue who ply the nasty religious backwaters.

Nonetheless, every time an item like this surfaces, the author of the article relies on some stock assumption that the more conservative culture comprises female-empowerment-hating fuddy-duddies who still haven't cottoned on to "moving pictures" and live lives of miserable sexual repression.

I know, I know. I'm talking about an article in People magazine. But the same article appears in multiple respected newspapers, with everyone making the grand point that Gwen Stefani, poor thing, is some great Western cultural scapegoat who has to take the heat for our enlightened ways.

I take offense. First off, why is it empowering for a female artist's bare ass to be part of her "image"? Why is Gwen's midriff okay but Britney's bare crotch or Janet's naked tit a no-no? Talk about a culture that gives with one hand but takes away with the other. Second, why do people who dress modestly automatically have crappy sex lives? If Adriana Lima can be a virgin (not saying I believe that or not) then why can't a girl in a headscarf be a freak between the sheets if she wants? Okay, maybe between the sheets of her marriage bed, I get it, but so what? Thirdly, how long can Gwen Stefani dress like she does (or any girl pop star, for that matter) and claim that somehow she doesn't represent promiscuity, that the bad-girl sexual allure of her outfits is part of her routine, and indeed her appeal derives partly from her attracting our feelings of a) lust and b) rebellion.

Don't blame the Malaysians for seeing with their eyes. Gwen Stefani is a cultural ambassador, she makes millions as such, and she's definitely encouraging promiscuity. Maybe not in words, but she's putting the image of it in their faces. Do they have to love it? No. Should they try to ban it? Frankly, I think they're exacerbating the problem. Also, I think they're disrespecting her style. But her style is a function of her background, just like the Malaysians is. Just like we prefer our pop stars in pearl bikinis, Malaysians prefer theirs in full-length leotards.

No getting around that fact. No getting around the fact that that's why Gwen came under fire. And no getting around the fact that it was entirely fair that she come under it. Because ultimately she's the one who chooses her clothes, not the other way around, and because she does represent the United States. And the other way around.