Artistic Rape?

What is art and who decides what is defined as art? YesButNoButYes, a blog that identifies itself as “the greatest pop culture blog on the planet,” describes a developing piece by Ohio artist Richard Whitehouse entitled “The Rape Tunnel.” He is constructing an interactive tunnel art piece that ends with the viewer getting raped by Whitehouse himself. This piece is apparently a follow up to his instillation entitled “The Punch-You-in-the-Face Tunnel.”

My initial thought was: “Is this a joke? This can’t be real. Would any art museum even accept this?” While YesButNoButYEs did mention that Whitehouse is still in litigation for his last exhibit, I can’t help but wonder the implications of such a concept (hoax or not). What are the motivations for this piece? Is this art…or an attempt to perpetuate violence?

Is there such thing as "ethical" outing?

I found this article on Alternet about Mike Rogers, a reporter who is outing gay-republicans that push for anti-gay legislation. At first I was irritated, because I felt that outing these politicians was intrusive. Yet, as I read on and considered his rationale behind outing the politicians, I honestly gained a little appreciation for his mission. I do not condone what he is doing, but my disapproval does not revolve around the specific information he reveals about these politicians, but rather about personal information, in general, being brought to the public's attention. In response to a question probing the ethics of outing politicians, Rogers responded:

"First of all: Regardless of what they would like, politicians don’t get to decide what stories about their lives will be reported on. That’s not how it works. Whether it’s taking money from the treasury, bribing people, whatever it is - the guy in office doesn’t get to say, ‘Don’t write a story about this, but write a story about that.’"

I see some validity in what he is saying. After all, reporters write about nearly everything a politician does. Why not sexuality? Yet, I feel that it is fairly unethical to write on anyone’s personal life. Additionally, there are repercussions for being gay, and it can be very politically damaging sometimes, more so than reporting on an affair or someone’s drug use. By outing someone you are subjecting them to discrimination and the possibility of losing their job.

Many states in the U.S. still have no legal occupational protection against being discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. Therefore, people can be fired on the basis of being gay, and it is completely legal. If someone were to out an employee at some store in Texas and they got fired for it, many would be enraged with the person who did the outing, so why is it acceptable for Rogers to do the same thing on a national scale? I am still a little torn on how I feel about what Rogers is doing. In the end, I would rather less information be shared. However, if reporters are going to reveal personal information about politicians, the same standards should be applied to all. With this in mind, I am interested in other views on this article and subject.

Precious.....

A new movie Precious: Based on the Novel by Sapphire promises to shock and inspire. The Movie Insider wrote the following synopsis: “Precious Jones (Gabourey "Gabby" Sidibe) is a high-school girl with nothing working in her favor. She is pregnant with her father's child - for the second time. She can't read or write, and her schoolmates tease her for being fat. Her home life is a horror, ruled by a mother (Mo'Nique) who keeps her imprisoned both emotionally and physically. Precious's instincts tell her one thing: if she's ever going to break from the chains of ignorance, she will have to dig deeply into her own resources. Don't be misled - "Push: Based on the Novel by Sapphire" is not a film wallowing in the stillness of depression; instead, it vibrates with the kind of energy derived only from anger and hope. The entire cast are amazing; they carry out a firestorm of raw emotion. Daniels has drawn from them inimitable performances that will rivet you to your seat and leave you too shocked to breathe. If you passed Precious on the street, you probably wouldn't notice her. But when her story is revealed, as Daniels does in this courageous film, you are left with an indelible image of a young woman who - with creativity, humor, and ferocity - finds the strength to turn her life around.”
While I have not seen the film, it strikes me as being as one of those rare films whose goal is to tell a story about the real problems that poor, urban, women face. Despite a cast of big stars like Mariah Carey and Lenny Kravitz this movie does not appear to have a Hollywood spin placed on it allowing the emphasis to remain on the main character’s struggle to make the best of her situation, even when the cards are stacked against her.


The movie is set to be released on November 13, 2009. After the film’s success at the Sundance Film Festival, the Oscar rumors have already begun….

"Get Felt Up and Prevent Breast Cancer"....??

Over 200,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. Roughly one in eight women either has, or will develop, breast cancer at some point in her life. Each year over 40,000 women die from breast cancer. About 1,700 men will be diagnosed and 450 will die each year from breast cancer.

These are sobering statistics. Breast cancer is a serious problem that needs some serious attention. Unfortunately, it’s getting the wrong kind.



This a Canadian PSA made by an organization called ReThink Breast Cancer. The intention is to get men interested in breast cancer awareness and fundraising efforts. They’re not the only ones. The following are just some of the t-shirts you’re likely to see people wearing.

Not to mention the slogans like "Save a Life, Grope your Wife" and "My Boobs are Killer." There are others. I’m sure you’ve seen or heard them.

So what is the problem with all of these? Once again, women are being sexually objectified. The adds are concentrating more on the loss of boobs for the sake of men’s amusement than the loss of countless women’s lives. Is that really the message we want to be sending as a society? It's as if we're saying: "Well, we don’t really care about all these women dying, but the loss of all those boobs...oh, no!" It’s assigning women a value based on their sexual worth, and that is not ok.

What about the women who survive breast cancer because of a mastectomy or double mastectomy? Are we saying that their lives are worth less? And, although women are much more likely to have breast cancer and die from it, what about the men who have breast cancer, do they not count at all?

I am a huge supporter of funding cancer support and research, but this is not the kind of attention that we want. There are a number of really awesome organizations that fight against breast cancer in a way that is empowering to women (and men) who have breast cancer. Let’s throw our support behind those!

For alternative ways to support breast cancer patients and survivors please visit

http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/

University Official says Attractive Female Students are "Perk of the Job"

Dr. Terence Kealy, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Buckingham in Buckingham, England has been quoted in an article of Times Higher Education Magazine on the seven deadly sins of academia saying that professors are aware of female students who “flaunted their curves.”

He says, “ most male lecturers know that, most years, there will be a girl in class who flashes her admiration and asks for advice on her essays. What to do? Enjoy her, she’s a perk.”

He continued by referencing literature characters to compare to the students. “She doesn’t yet know that you are only Casaubon to her Dorothea, Howard Kirk to her Felicity Phee, and she will flaunt you her curves. Which you should admire daily, to spice up sex, nightly, with the wife.”

These comments have created quite an uproar. Kealy later made a statement saying “It says that sex between middle-aged academics and young undergraduates is wrong. It also says that academics should enjoy the company of their students. That too is unexceptionable.”

He called the article a “moral piece” saying he was using humor to promote self restraint.

This is super offensive and adds a whole new side to sexual harassment at the university level. How did he even get a job at a university? And furthermore, why in the world would he think that every single (attractive) female student that asks for help or advice is only doing so because she is sexually interested in her professor and is “flaunting” herself. Is it so unfathomable that a female who is attractive could also be smart and interested in the class and/or concerned about her grade? Although I suppose in his mind only the “unattractive” female students are serious students.

What do you think? Is this offensive or just harmless humor?

Makin' Penises Look Pretty?

While reading a few articles on doublex.com, I stumbled upon this article on circumcision. The idea of me writing on the matter of circumcision seems like the tag line of some joke; nevertheless, the article intrigued me, and I felt that I should share it.

The article’s juxtaposition of the commonalties between circumcision and female genital mutilation is intriguing. If you happened to read my post on FGM a few months back, I compared vaginal rejuvenation with FGM. Circumcision introduces a whole new aspect to the argument, particularly when considering the religious connections for both FGM and circumcision, the lack of individual consent for these procedures, and societal repercussions that stem from having or not having one of these procedures.

I hope that this post will fuel an interesting debate over whether or not circumcision can be related to FGM

I doubt this is about mice….

The tragic story of Annie Le has gripped the country not only because of its’ location at an Ivy League school and proximity to her wedding day, but also because of the lack of explanation for the attack. So far investigators have offered little information about what motivated Raymond Clark to strangle Annie Le at the Yale lab where they both worked and hide her body in a utility crawl space. School Officials and the New Haven Police have stated that this was workplace violence issue, but slowly information is coming forward that suggests Clark may have had control issues, especially when it came to women.

For instance it has been reported that Clark forced sex on his high school girlfriend in 2003 and when she tried to break it off it became necessary to call the police who later advised Clark not have any further contact with her. His current relationship does not seem much better with neighbors commenting that "[h]e would never let her talk to anyone. I would hear a lot of yelling upstairs." This behavior sounds like it carried over into the lab where Clark’s co-workers noted that Clark was very strict with the mice cages he was responsible for. All of these circumstances suggest to me that Clark feels the need to control those around him, particularly women.
It would not surprise me if the motive for this attack turns out to be related to this loss of control. Some news reports have mentioned emails from Clark to Le regarding the cleanliness of her mice cages and requesting her to meet with him. I think it is very possible Le may have been defiant about her cages or perhaps spurned his advances causing Clark to feel such a loss of control over Le that he attacked her in an attempt to regain it.

I hope investigators will not stop searching for the motive behind Le’s murder because if this case is labeled solely a workplace violence issue, it will de-emphasize the problem of violence against women which I believe underlies the reason for this attack.