Alex Needham insists that Paglia "missed the point by a mile":

Paglia's main criticism seemed to be that Gaga simply isn't sexy enough. "How would a figure so calculated and artificial, so clinical and strangely antiseptic, so stripped of genuine eroticism have become the icon of her generation?" she asked. But Lady Gaga has never presented herself as a sex object. She sells weirdness and eye-popping spectacle, not sex. She isn't posing in a meat bikini to woo Nuts' one-handed readers, and why should she? Though Paglia's tome Sexual Personae posits sex as the prime mover behind all culture, you'd still think that as a feminist she'd applaud the fact that there's a massive female pop star whose appeal doesn't depend on how many men she manages to arouse. Before Gaga, we had Britney – and look how that turned out.

Maria Bustillos is less kind to Paglia. Julie Klausner and Natasha Vargas-Cooper defend her. Klausner:

Gaga can be a smug diva with her little monsters lifting her throne as nothing more than fame cogs. Sexand her “gays”are accessories for her. Like Gaga showing up at the VMAs with gay soliders who were kicked out of the military for being gay–like they were a clutch purse.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.