I just picked up a flier about this this week at Student Health Services. I couldn't believe it when I read it:
In 1997 a 17-year-old girl in Italy was raped and abandoned in an alley by her 56-year-old driving instructor. After reporting the incident, the perpetrator is prosecuted and sentenced to jail. In 1998 he appeals the court's decision. The case is taken all the way to the Italian Supreme Court where the case is overturned and the perpetrator is released. In a statement by the head judge, he argued: "Because the victim wore very, very tight jeans, she had to help him remove them...and by removing the jeans...it was no longer rape but consensual sex."
Aaaaaah, I can't even respond to this. The flier calls for people to wear jeans on April 23rd (yesterday, oops!) in protest. You can find out more at www.denimdayinla.org. Though the protest could be something more noticeable, the website is really great, calling out "rape excuses" (the "rape myths" from the reading).
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Distasteful DC
Today Deborah Jeane Palfrey was convicted of running a prostitution right in Washington D.C. to service our nation's finest politicians. While Palfrey claims that her business was merely an escort service, she was brought to trial for illegally selling sex (and at high prices, at that). When confronted by the persecution about sexual activity between women employed by Pelfrey and their clients, Palfrey stated that it was not her responsiblity what happened on their dates; she was merely the mediator and could not control possible sexual situations.
Among the men accused of using the escort service are Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, Harlan Ullman, a military strategist who created the concept of "shock and awe" that the United States used to open hostilities against Iraq, and Randall L. Tobias, who resigned as a deputy secretary of state after acknowledging to ABC News that he used Palfrey's service for massages.
I find it interesting that the very men who run our country participate in illegal sexual acts. It could merely be that these men are not in agreement with the current legislation which makes prostitution illegal in Washington DC, but it does not mean that it is right to break the law. Or does it? Can our society really put laws on people's sexual behavior? If these politicians wanted to sexually interact with a woman from an escort service, whose right is it to say that he cannot?
On the other hand, maybe I shouldn't be so quick to defend our rights as sexual beings. What about the women employed by Palfrey? Were these women aware of their real duties when they applied and were accepted into the position of "escort"? Shouldn't women have the right to work as an escort and not feel pressure to sexually pleasure men, regardless of how much they paid?
Perhaps this entire debacle would not even be an issue if the escort service did not exist at all. Of course this is an easy and idealistic thing to state, but perhaps these politicians should spend a little more time thinking about ways that women could escape being trapped in a situation where they would have to sell their bodies in order to stay afloat in our society. I'm sure that there are some women out there who enjoy working for escort services, but I imagine that the majority of women in these situations are merely there to make ends meet. So, Mr. Congressman, rather than take advantage of our struggling, working class ladies, Mr Congressman, you could perhaps spend a little time giving them a break or helping them thrive in the same world that you do.
Among the men accused of using the escort service are Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, Harlan Ullman, a military strategist who created the concept of "shock and awe" that the United States used to open hostilities against Iraq, and Randall L. Tobias, who resigned as a deputy secretary of state after acknowledging to ABC News that he used Palfrey's service for massages.
I find it interesting that the very men who run our country participate in illegal sexual acts. It could merely be that these men are not in agreement with the current legislation which makes prostitution illegal in Washington DC, but it does not mean that it is right to break the law. Or does it? Can our society really put laws on people's sexual behavior? If these politicians wanted to sexually interact with a woman from an escort service, whose right is it to say that he cannot?
On the other hand, maybe I shouldn't be so quick to defend our rights as sexual beings. What about the women employed by Palfrey? Were these women aware of their real duties when they applied and were accepted into the position of "escort"? Shouldn't women have the right to work as an escort and not feel pressure to sexually pleasure men, regardless of how much they paid?
Perhaps this entire debacle would not even be an issue if the escort service did not exist at all. Of course this is an easy and idealistic thing to state, but perhaps these politicians should spend a little more time thinking about ways that women could escape being trapped in a situation where they would have to sell their bodies in order to stay afloat in our society. I'm sure that there are some women out there who enjoy working for escort services, but I imagine that the majority of women in these situations are merely there to make ends meet. So, Mr. Congressman, rather than take advantage of our struggling, working class ladies, Mr Congressman, you could perhaps spend a little time giving them a break or helping them thrive in the same world that you do.
Take Back The Night.
So, as our project approaches its end I wanted to talk about the most difficult topic our class has covered (for me anyway)...rape. As common and prevalent as the threat of rape among women is, i still feel like most women have the mentality that it could never happen to them, yet everyone engages in behaviors that they think will prevent any unwanted male attention. For me rape is something that hits way to close to home. I have had someone very close to me suffer because of something that happened years ago... even though she is a wife and mother now, it is very obvious that some part of her died the day that she was raped. some of the points i heard in class had to do with the threat of rape being equal to the threat of being robbed... my question to that is: does being robbed violate your body? does it ruin you emotionally? does being robbed violate your womanhood?... My answer is no. i'm not trying to be controversial or anything, but i don't think its fare when women decide to act like threat of rape is less than it is, and to further say that it isn't more damaging than being pick-pocketed or mugged.
....Anyway after that rant. I wanted to use this opportunity to encourage people to take part in Take Back the Night. there is one going on tonight april 15th, at Wentworth in Boston. its an organization that aims to make the night a safe place for women. its a really worthwhile cause and something i'm really devoted too.
the website is
www.takebackthenight.org
they have tons of events, posters etc.. check it out and get involved. no woman should ever have to go through the emotional and physical trauma of rape. its not right, and it needs to end.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Sex Tapes
Sex tapes used to be taboo. If a celebrity was found to have one, they would deny deny deny until they couldn't deny any longer. You had to be the victim to leave the situation unharmed.
Take Paris Hilton. That girl denied knowing that she was being filmed at the time. But of course, she ended up going along with the whole thing. In interviews, it remained awkward but she went along with it. You know why? She owned it. After the denial, she just decided to accept it and go with it. And anyone who saw it (not that I did....oh this is awkard!) would testify that that girl knew the whole time that it was filming. She was always posing and making sure to give h*** with her good side showing for the camera.
Now, in current news, it is being reported that a Marilyn Monroe sex tape is making the rounds. What do we think about this? Is the sex tape something that has been around for longer than we believe? Pamela and Tommy Lee weren't the first ones?
Why is it that sexuality is so pushed on us but taboo at the same time? We see half-naked women selling Budweiser and Heineken but when a couple makes a sex tape, we can't talk about it? Everyone makes jokes and the couple may endorse it and make money off of it - but interviews are still awkward because no one feels comfortable putting it out there. Now let's talk candidly, we're all sexual beings. We all engage in some sort of sexual activity at least once a day. We think about how someone looks, we have intimate moments with a significant other, or we simply hear about someone else's drunken slutty weekend. Sorry, that was indirect, joking slut-bashing. I apologize.
The truth of the matter is that we all like to think that sex is something that is private. We don't want to talk about our sex life to the general public. We don't want everyone to know what we think about or what we do. But truthfully, we put it out there all the time. Why can't we just have a sex tape and then move on from it? Marilyn Monroe was probably just having fun. Is this really scandalous? No. It's a sex tape. We all have sex. We see it in the movies. We see it on television. We hear it in the hit songs on the radio. Paris Hilton, Pamela Anderson, Kim Kardashian - they all have one! We all have fun in the bedroom. What's the problem?
We all have opinions on it. The question is why do we make it so taboo but at the same time so relevant? Is it possible that religion plays more of a role in politics than we like to believe? I personally think that the morals religion helped to shape for this country many years ago are still being used today. Church and state are not separate, people. Sure, children shouldn't hear about this so early. So parents, don't let them watch adult television? Children should be watching Barney, not Jay Leno or TRL. Let's all chill out and talk freely. It's really not that bad.
In conclusion, sex tapes are just fun and we should all just keep our judgment to ourselves. If people heard about what you do in bed, they would judge you too. :]
Signing off,
G
Take Paris Hilton. That girl denied knowing that she was being filmed at the time. But of course, she ended up going along with the whole thing. In interviews, it remained awkward but she went along with it. You know why? She owned it. After the denial, she just decided to accept it and go with it. And anyone who saw it (not that I did....oh this is awkard!) would testify that that girl knew the whole time that it was filming. She was always posing and making sure to give h*** with her good side showing for the camera.
Now, in current news, it is being reported that a Marilyn Monroe sex tape is making the rounds. What do we think about this? Is the sex tape something that has been around for longer than we believe? Pamela and Tommy Lee weren't the first ones?
Why is it that sexuality is so pushed on us but taboo at the same time? We see half-naked women selling Budweiser and Heineken but when a couple makes a sex tape, we can't talk about it? Everyone makes jokes and the couple may endorse it and make money off of it - but interviews are still awkward because no one feels comfortable putting it out there. Now let's talk candidly, we're all sexual beings. We all engage in some sort of sexual activity at least once a day. We think about how someone looks, we have intimate moments with a significant other, or we simply hear about someone else's drunken slutty weekend. Sorry, that was indirect, joking slut-bashing. I apologize.
The truth of the matter is that we all like to think that sex is something that is private. We don't want to talk about our sex life to the general public. We don't want everyone to know what we think about or what we do. But truthfully, we put it out there all the time. Why can't we just have a sex tape and then move on from it? Marilyn Monroe was probably just having fun. Is this really scandalous? No. It's a sex tape. We all have sex. We see it in the movies. We see it on television. We hear it in the hit songs on the radio. Paris Hilton, Pamela Anderson, Kim Kardashian - they all have one! We all have fun in the bedroom. What's the problem?
We all have opinions on it. The question is why do we make it so taboo but at the same time so relevant? Is it possible that religion plays more of a role in politics than we like to believe? I personally think that the morals religion helped to shape for this country many years ago are still being used today. Church and state are not separate, people. Sure, children shouldn't hear about this so early. So parents, don't let them watch adult television? Children should be watching Barney, not Jay Leno or TRL. Let's all chill out and talk freely. It's really not that bad.
In conclusion, sex tapes are just fun and we should all just keep our judgment to ourselves. If people heard about what you do in bed, they would judge you too. :]
Signing off,
G
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Male Birth Control
The FreeP just ran an interesting article about something we've talked about as a hypothetical situation in class several times: birth control for males. After just having the reading the article for class about the media's portrayal of rape myths in the Kobe Bryant trial, I read this with caution. The opening sentence is: "A new male birth control method to reduce semen output offers results comparable to a vasectomy and may dispel the belief that contraception is a woman's responsibility, researchers and experts suggest." I think article itself is not sexist because it presents but does not support the "woman's responsibility" myth.
However, the entire article does focus on the myth. One expert they interviewed said that "a male birth control pill is necessary because it adds to women's options to take the pill and allows men to share the risk of pregnancy." He goes on to say that the drug companies "have felt women would not trust a man to actually be on the pill" and that "men wouldn't take the pill because they don't perceive birth control to be their responsibility." They also interviewed a male BU student who said that "[male] birth control isn't necessary when there are other means to prevent possible child birth. [...] Just using condoms and spermicide eliminates almost any chance of pregnancy, so that seems fine by me." All of these quotes obviously perpetuate the sexist myth, which seems to be the most interesting part of the new birth control method. Unlike other articles about developments in medicine, when it deals with sexuality and gender roles, that is what is discussed the most.
However, the entire article does focus on the myth. One expert they interviewed said that "a male birth control pill is necessary because it adds to women's options to take the pill and allows men to share the risk of pregnancy." He goes on to say that the drug companies "have felt women would not trust a man to actually be on the pill" and that "men wouldn't take the pill because they don't perceive birth control to be their responsibility." They also interviewed a male BU student who said that "[male] birth control isn't necessary when there are other means to prevent possible child birth. [...] Just using condoms and spermicide eliminates almost any chance of pregnancy, so that seems fine by me." All of these quotes obviously perpetuate the sexist myth, which seems to be the most interesting part of the new birth control method. Unlike other articles about developments in medicine, when it deals with sexuality and gender roles, that is what is discussed the most.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
OPRAH!
I'm watching the pregnant trans-gendered man on Oprah right now! its fascinating! he just made a really good point. Oprah asked him why he couldn't just be a lesbian and he responded, sexual identity is completely different than what gender you identify with. I knew that he faced a lot of opposition from certain doctors who refused to treat him, but he also said that a big part of the trans-gendered community doesn't support what he's doing because "the worlds not ready for a pregnant man" .. ahh this is amazing.
Vagina Plastic Surgery, Disney stars, and Angelina Jolie - oh my!
Margaret Cho just posted an entry on her myspace blog that you can visit here: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=30965431&blogID=373437682.
In it she discusses the collagen injection she had into her G-Spot for new reality show. She claims that she now does not feel like she wants to have sex and is waiting for the effect to wear off in four months. This raises a big question in my head: Is sexuality now something to play with for amusement? Should we encourage one playing with the formation of their genitalia for a funny joke? I personally find it funny when tv personalities make fun of common American practices and take part in them to show their ridiculousness but I would NEVER inject anything into my genitalia. In a society that puts sex on such a pedestal, it's surprising that one would risk their own sexual pleasure and self-esteem for a joke. I know Margaret Cho is all about being obscene and ridiculous, but COME ON?! This is too much.
In other news, Jesse McCartney has a new single. And the weird thing is that it is sort of good. Known for his role on the summer tv show, Summerland, Jesse was a one-hit wonder that had more of a following in the viewers of the Disney Channel than anywhere else. In this recent attempt at an image overhaul, Jesse's single comes with a music video that depicts him in close proximity to a lustful lady talking to her about leaving her man for him. Then, he is depicted singing to her dressed minimally on a bed with the focus being on her body. She's a vixen. I wonder if he just decided to ditch the Disney star status for being a sexy heartthrob to gain more universal popularity. He may be slowly gaining radio spins but with Disney refusing to play the sexy video, will he reach any of the heights that he once did with "Beautiful Soul." His new single "Leavin'" will have to depend on American audiences accepting his new look as legitimate or he'll just flop again. Or would he have been smarter to try and be Hannah Montana? She may still be 15 and he may be 21 but look at her success. That's baller. I may despise her for her annoying YouTube videos but she is so rich. No one can touch that. She is admired by millions and had a completely sold-out U.S. tour! Maybe Jesse should have made a slower transition?
And finally, Angelina Jolie is under fire for recently released pictures of her from when she was 16-years-old. Every blog is calling them sexy and scandalous. Um, what? She is depicted with maybe a devious look on her face but she is fully-clothed and chillin'. She obviously is attempting to look sexy but there is nothing horrid about them. Hannah Montana has taken pictures with probably just as much sexiness. It's amazing how much America condemns any form of visible sexuality by anyone under 18 but then when marketing a star like Britney Spears, they put her in a Christian schoolgirl outfit. She is in a bikini in some shots. So what? If girls shouldn't wear bikinis, don't sell them. But in the same week, when Audrina Patridge has Playboy trial shots released to the Internet, her age being over 18 makes them okay. But that bitch is NAKED! What's the deal, America?
Anyways, that was your pop culture scandal update. Oh me, oh my. I'm out.
In it she discusses the collagen injection she had into her G-Spot for new reality show. She claims that she now does not feel like she wants to have sex and is waiting for the effect to wear off in four months. This raises a big question in my head: Is sexuality now something to play with for amusement? Should we encourage one playing with the formation of their genitalia for a funny joke? I personally find it funny when tv personalities make fun of common American practices and take part in them to show their ridiculousness but I would NEVER inject anything into my genitalia. In a society that puts sex on such a pedestal, it's surprising that one would risk their own sexual pleasure and self-esteem for a joke. I know Margaret Cho is all about being obscene and ridiculous, but COME ON?! This is too much.
In other news, Jesse McCartney has a new single. And the weird thing is that it is sort of good. Known for his role on the summer tv show, Summerland, Jesse was a one-hit wonder that had more of a following in the viewers of the Disney Channel than anywhere else. In this recent attempt at an image overhaul, Jesse's single comes with a music video that depicts him in close proximity to a lustful lady talking to her about leaving her man for him. Then, he is depicted singing to her dressed minimally on a bed with the focus being on her body. She's a vixen. I wonder if he just decided to ditch the Disney star status for being a sexy heartthrob to gain more universal popularity. He may be slowly gaining radio spins but with Disney refusing to play the sexy video, will he reach any of the heights that he once did with "Beautiful Soul." His new single "Leavin'" will have to depend on American audiences accepting his new look as legitimate or he'll just flop again. Or would he have been smarter to try and be Hannah Montana? She may still be 15 and he may be 21 but look at her success. That's baller. I may despise her for her annoying YouTube videos but she is so rich. No one can touch that. She is admired by millions and had a completely sold-out U.S. tour! Maybe Jesse should have made a slower transition?
And finally, Angelina Jolie is under fire for recently released pictures of her from when she was 16-years-old. Every blog is calling them sexy and scandalous. Um, what? She is depicted with maybe a devious look on her face but she is fully-clothed and chillin'. She obviously is attempting to look sexy but there is nothing horrid about them. Hannah Montana has taken pictures with probably just as much sexiness. It's amazing how much America condemns any form of visible sexuality by anyone under 18 but then when marketing a star like Britney Spears, they put her in a Christian schoolgirl outfit. She is in a bikini in some shots. So what? If girls shouldn't wear bikinis, don't sell them. But in the same week, when Audrina Patridge has Playboy trial shots released to the Internet, her age being over 18 makes them okay. But that bitch is NAKED! What's the deal, America?
Anyways, that was your pop culture scandal update. Oh me, oh my. I'm out.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Quick Sex?
CNN.com is reporting today that the optimal length of sex averages between 3 and 13 minutes. This study was conducted by a group of sex therapists and included 1,500 couples for 4 weeks. Women were equipped with stop watches to record the time that they had sex. This time, however, does not include foreplay. Any time short than 3 minutes and the couples complained that it was merely too short.
I find this article interesting for one main reason: the image that we all have of sex from the media. Americans seem to accept the idea that the longer the sexual encounter the better. However, this study finds that couples don't generally take a long time to have sex, and that it is preferable to finish in under 15 minutes. Where did the notion of marathon sex originate and when did Americans begin accepting it as the norm? Not only that, but are couples dissatisfied with their own sexual relationships if they last only 8 minutes opposed to the insatiable porn star? Do we think that everyone else is lasting for much longer? I think that this study is important to sexually active individuals because it tells them that they should not base their sex on what everyone else is doing, since most of the time "what everyone else is doing" isn't a particularly accurate account of what really goes on behind our closed doors.
I find this article interesting for one main reason: the image that we all have of sex from the media. Americans seem to accept the idea that the longer the sexual encounter the better. However, this study finds that couples don't generally take a long time to have sex, and that it is preferable to finish in under 15 minutes. Where did the notion of marathon sex originate and when did Americans begin accepting it as the norm? Not only that, but are couples dissatisfied with their own sexual relationships if they last only 8 minutes opposed to the insatiable porn star? Do we think that everyone else is lasting for much longer? I think that this study is important to sexually active individuals because it tells them that they should not base their sex on what everyone else is doing, since most of the time "what everyone else is doing" isn't a particularly accurate account of what really goes on behind our closed doors.
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Construction of Womanhood
The ex-gay ministry was mentioned last week in class and I stumbled upon this testimony today. I'm researching the woman (an "ex-lesbian" who works for both Exodus International and Focus on the Family) who wrote it for a project and I thought the last part of her story was interesting:
"During my years of restoration, I also began to learn about this thing called womanhood. Goodness! Who knew there was so much to learn: plucking eyebrows, hair bleaches, hair waxings, facial mud masks, eye lash curlers, manicures, pedicures, push-up bras, tummy tuckers, rear-end boosters, last year’s colors, and next year’s fashions?"
In learning to be a woman (since of course being a woman and a lesbian at the same time is completely impossible), these were the most important things. It made me think of how the most threatening part of homosexuality for the boys in "Dude, You're a Fag" was the rejection of masculinity, not gay sex. Gay guys could still be popular and not be called a fag if they were the captain of the football team. Constructing a gender role for this woman was an important part of Exodus's construction of her sexual orientation. After this quote she goes on to say how she started learning about boys next. Only once she had the accepted concept of gender could she move on to the next step of sexuality. You can read the rest of her story here. Other stories on the website are called "Safe as a Woman," "Secure in my Feminine Identity," and "Finding Joy as a Woman."
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)