I have officially had it with Britney Spears.

Not that she was ever in heavy rotation on my CD player. But since her 1999 debut, "Baby One More Time," she's been in heavy rotation in mainstream media, only briefly ceding the spotlight to fellow pop tart Christina Aguilera.

It took Spears four years to go from cute girl next door to posing practically naked for the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, and she's taken a generation of girls to the brothel with her.

Look from the low-cut pants and mercilessly cut tops many girls are sporting today to the Bratz dolls, Britney and Christina-like Barbie knockoffs that have grade-school girls playing with the idea of being like Britney. True, a lot of this is the work of marketing forces, but Britney's been a willing vehicle.

Spears does have talent. She's been a stage actress and is a great dancer. But that's not what she's trading on. You don't get a recording contract with nothing.

Britney protests that she's unfairly singled out as other artists such as Aguilera and Beyonce Knowles are presenting themselves in a very sexual manner. There's a point, but Britney is the biggest star and began her career playing to very young girls who have been heavily influenced by her and her - ahem - music.

With the imminent release of her new CD, "In the Zone," coming out Tuesday, it has been clear that for Spears, it is not about music. It's about her body.

If you think the Rolling Stone shoot was hot, see her bottomless cover for Esquire, not to mention the inside shots, in which only well-placed necklaces stood between her and our imaginations. It's been going this way a long time. Her initial gimmick was dressing in a school uniform with the front of the shirt knotted instead of tucked in, to look a little naughty.

Since then, less has been more - more media, more exposure, more money.

Though Spears recently expressed some regrets about the photo spreads, she has long said she was not trying to be sexual.

OK, Brit. We have two choices: Either you're really stupid, or you think we are.

And if you are that dumb, you have had legions of managers and executives who knew exactly what was going on, letting you sell every shred of your dignity.

Defying this path are artists such as Norah Jones, Alicia Keys and india.arie, who have gotten attention through their passions for music and musical talent. There's the difference: They've exhibited musical talent, while Britney's fallen deeper into exhibitionism.

In the interview that accompanied the Playb - uh - Rolling Stone photos, Mark Binelli asked several personal questions before Britney protested, "Can we talk about my music ..."

So he complied, asking her to talk about her favorite song on her new album.

And she couldn't remember its name.

In Newsweek, she bragged about South Asian influences on the CD but then seemed completely unaware of Hinduism.

Judging by her first single from "In the Zone" and advance reviews, whatever is good about the CD is attributable to producers and guest artists such as Moby.

Britney is selling something, but it isn't music. And if you rush to the store Tuesday to get "In the Zone," you're buying. I'm willing to bet though, you won't get no satisfaction.