With the current tabloid frenzy over the group, most of the fuss in the conservative media seems to come from the fact that the girls are (supposedly) lesbians, rather than the fact that they're dressing in disturbingly sexualized school-uniforms - after all, when Britney did that, it was equally sleazy, but no one made much of a fuss. It looks like much of the objections stem from some sort of homophobia rather than a horror at seeing overly sexualized images of young girls (the Sun just printed a piece comdemning the act as a paedophile creation, while printing about ten vaguely explicit photos of the girls themselves).
But there's the facy that Tatu's manager seems to be, without a doubt, a horrible old pervert who publically admits he wanted to attract an audience who are into underage girls. And the school uniforms and other elements of the project which highlight the girls' youth is, to me, absolutely vile. I'm interested in discussing whether it's possible to divorce the text from the subtext and view the likes of Tatu as queer-friendly; I'm not sure it is, but I do know it's not a black and white issue. As cangetmad pointed out, the very fact of seeing girls their own age kissing other girls in the media is a positive thing for young lesbians - but can that be separated from the fact that pervy old men are both creating the image and getting off on it? There's also the issue of whether the girls in Tatu are actually queer or not, and whether that makes a difference, politically and otherwise.
So tell me what you think, people. This is my unofficial survey so I may quote you as if you're part of a focus group or something (or by your names, if you feel like it). Help me, LJ-ers! You're my only hope! Well, you and the nice people from the Queer Studies course in UCD.