This might be a touchy subject for some people, but you know what…

I don’t care.

Has anyone ever noticed that every single successful rock band has been composed of all men? Now, when I say successful, I mean a rock band that has been taken seriously by the public and one that has lasted decades upon decades.

Rock bands like The Bangles and The Go-Go’s were successful, but you know what? They really weren’t. They were viewed as sex objects and had to start climbing at an even lower rung on the ladder of rock success than most male bands. They’ve come out with a few cute hits, but they weren’t something you could bang your head and play air guitar to in your bedroom. These two female bands did not last long at all, and the band members went on to have solo careers that didn’t last very long either.

The same goes for new female rockers, The Donnas. I personally cannot take them seriously. Every single song on their debut album has a sexual ring to it. For example, their hit single is called “Take it Off.” The name of their debut album is “Spend the Night.” You don’t see male rockers have songs and album titles with an obvious sexual meaning, do you? Why do women have to resort to being sexual just to get noticed?

Also, female rockers are always thin and beautiful, and they have to be in order to be successful. Male rockers could look like anything from a Greek God to something you scrape off the bottom of your Converse All-Stars, and still be successful and taken seriously.

What about Hole?

They were three-fourths female, but they were not taken very seriously either. Lead vocalist Courtney Love was viewed (and still is viewed) as a grungy, dirty, sexual, naughty, screwed-up chick. Was Hole somewhat successful because of their music or because of Love’s racy image?

Who knows. But I have a better answer for you.

I have a theory. No, don’t put down the newspaper just yet. Hear me out.

Male rock bands may not be more successful than female rockers because of their music. I’ll admit that I am a fan of male rockers over female ones, but that’s not the point.

Alright, brace yourselves kids. This does not hold true for every dude or every chick, but this is a generalization. I’ll just say it.

It seems like male rock listeners will buy an album based on the music and female rock listeners will do the same – but they will also buy the album because they find the band attractive and sexually appealing.

Boys will not do that as much.

For example, guys do not buy albums by female rock groups unless they like the music. Girls will not buy these same albums unless they like the music, because most of the time female listeners are jealous of the female rockers and won’t buy their album.

On the other hand, why do you think The Beatles sold so many albums? They created good rock (a plus for dudes and chicks), and they were good looking (a plus for chicks). The rest is history.

I’m guilty of this too. I first started to like the Goo Goo Dolls in middle school because I thought lead vocalist Johnny Rzeznik was cute. Little did I know that I would end up liking their music too.

So ladies and gents, does this mean that female rock groups are doomed forever? Will sexy male rockers rule the charts and will female rockers only be recognized because they are “cute” or because a band member is on drugs and does weird things in public?

It seems that things won’t change for a long time – if they ever do. I guess that the day women in general don’t have to be sexy to be noticed will be the day that a female rock group will be successful based on their music and not their sex appeal.

Samara Marblestone is a Collegian Columnist.