Sex In The Public Square - women - Comments

Re-writing scripts

Bethany — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:54:14 -0700

Michael,

Thank you so much for your response!

"While personal safety is important in the short term, some rewriting of the scripts that control the way that we look at each other is necessary if we we wish to keep this as a positive rather than negative experience."

I agree wholeheartedly. We are all a part of re-writing these scripts directing how we look at each other. How do we do it? For my part, I would include treating people with dignity and respect in all walks of life as a foundation. Part of this means honoring boundaries. But, since many humans do not operate from this paradigm, I feel it is necessary to confront certain types of behavior so the people who are engaging in it are made aware that someone finds it unacceptable. If we don't speak up, then they learn nothing and the same cycles and scripts are perpetuated.

We live in a culture where staring at body parts, and the gratification gained from that, is more important than the feelings and spirit of the person who is actually the owner of those body parts. This is characteristic of a narcissistic culture, lacking empathy for others. There is something very wrong with that to me. I feel that honoring a person should come first. I also feel that it is possible to admire the beauty and sexuality of a person without treating them, and the parts of their bodies, like objects. So in re-writing the scripts, I would like to see a re-huminization of people to replace the prevalent de-humanization.

I was not pleased to hear about Ms. Gilbert and her experience at the mall. Again, like I was saying, we have to speak up against this nonsense, especially collectively. Women's freedom of expression is being encroached upon in public life. Sounds to me like she has a clear cut case of gender discrimination. I will be happy to send the security company a letter.

Here's a link to the parent company of Paragon Security

CelticWarrior — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:46:54 -0700

Here is the link to the parent company of Paragon Security. Write them and tell them about their bad child. I'm sure they will appreciate the information given that they are in business to make sure we are all safe.

http://www.trissecurity.com/?p=paragon

CelticWarrior (Kelly)

LA Daily News on Lapriss Gilbert

Elizabeth — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:46:00 -0700

Here is a link to a Los Angeles Daily News story about the situation that CelticWarrior mentioned above.

Lapriss Gilbert, an African American lesbian, was told her "lesbians.com" t-shirt was offensive and she would be arrested if she did not leave the federal building. The guard who forced her to leave works for a company called Paragon. A spokesperson for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (not sure why they were the ones speaking up, here) said that they opposed the actions of the private security guard and have notified Paragon of their position.

Gilbert's mom is Tanya Gilbert, who according to the article is also a longtime activist for gay rights. I think Paragon may be in for a lot of trouble. I hope so!

If anybody can find an email address for the right Paragon security company I'll happily encourage our readers to add their voices to the government's in "notifying " them that their guard's action was outrageously unacceptable.

and again...

CelticWarrior — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:29:00 -0700

Tonight, Thursday, 29 August 2008, FOX News, Channel 5 Atlanta, ran a story of a woman tossed out of a Social Security Office in California by b Security Guard for a T-shirt she was wearing. The guard threatened her with arrest (when did Rent-A-Cops get Police Power?) if she refused to leave.

The issue at hand had nothing to do with some exposure of flesh that might embarrass or offend. However, there is a blatantly sexual overtone to this story.

The woman was forced to leave under threat of arrest because of the offensive nature of the T-shirt. Emblazoned across the front of the shirt was the web address: lesbians.com

On how many levels is this offensive? I just don't get it. Elizabeth says in an earlier post, "we need to push back." We do and we need to begin pushing hard. I am precluded from pushing openly by an encumbrance that makes any pushing I do an excuse to be swept up. For those unencumbered, pushing needs to begin now and loudly. Let's all buy a T-shirt and have a printer emblazon it with the words, "Grow Up!"

I concur and question

CelticWarrior — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:08:37 -0700

I agree with the points Bethany makes overall. This patriarchal society is definitely not a benevolent patriarchy with respect to the female population. This patriarchy definitely has a dual standard and men and women have to operate under a different set of rules.

That is a bad thing. Men give up any moral high ground by insisting on this dual standard. Women who reflect those ‘values’, the sort who complained about Ms. Clem’s attire, fall on the scale of values somewhere below the men.

The question I ask is where one’s Rights begin. I am legally blind. So much so that I use a cane to ensure I do not run into things. I have peripheral vision. I notice people staring at me constantly. Do I have a right to demand others not stare at me? Conversely, when I had focal vision, I saw many things. I saw women on the beach in bikinis that had less material than the standard dinner napkin. Did I not have a right to enjoy the view? I saw the trend to dress in loose fitting pants that barely hung on hips and let me know what brand of boxers the wearer chose. Did I have a right, because I found this mode of dress unappealing, to demand that the person not be allowed in public?

Clothes, it seems to me, have two purposes. One is comfort and the other is to make a statement. In either case, to complain about another’s dress is akin to my most un-favorite ‘clothing situation’; “Put on a jacket, you are making me cold,” or “Go change into something cooler, I’m hot.”

Let me limit this by making it clear that clothes, mode of dress, is never an invitation. At the moment clothes evoke a reaction beyond appreciation, all bets are off.

Clothes do make a statement. Intended or not. To tell Ms. Clem, or anyone else, that they must leave because of a statement they have made is exactly an abrogation of the First Amendment.

Okay, before the argument is made, if the invitation specifies Black Tie and I show up in cut-offs and huaraches I will not expect to get in to the party.

Attention and affirmation

Michael — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:42:22 -0700

Thanks Bethany. It is unfortunate that we live in a culture where we need to be constantly aware of possible ulterior motives. This is by no means universal.

We need to be aware of just how fine a line there is here. Socially we acknowledge each other's presence when our paths cross, this is part of cultural affirmation, and a rejection of urban anomie. It provides a form of cohesion and as Eric Berne says in Games People Play, seems to be a necessary form of 'back scratching' in which we constantly re-evaluate ourselves and our position in society. Yet fear leads us to also evaluate, and in particular, search for Male Gaze. If we feel uncomfortable when we notice other's looking at us, it may reflect our cultural conditioning or it may be that the gaze has crossed the point of affirmation to become one of power assymetry.

While personal safety is important in the short term, some rewriting of the scripts that control the way that we look at each other is necessary if we we wish to keep this as a positive rather than negative experience.

How we look at each other

Bethany — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:50:25 -0700

Elizabeth wrote:

"First of all, if these women's husbands were staring at Clem so much as to cause a noticeable disruption for their wives, who then complained to a security guard, why was his reaction not - as someone suggested on the body-positivity forum Going Braless (membership required to post) - to ask Clem if she was being made to feel uncomfortable or threatened by the leering men?"

This is a great question. In the interview I saw of Kymberly, she did not mention if she felt uncomfortable because of the way the husbands looked at her. But if she was uncomfortable, it seems to me she would have had every reason to be.

Most women do not complain about a passing, discreet glance that lasts for a few seconds from a man that is most likely due to attraction. That is not staring. Staring is more invasive and intrusive and possibly violating of the person being stared at. Women are often culturally conditioned to ignore this kind of behavior. But, we may be doing so to our own detriment. Being stared or leered at should not necessarily be brushed off as nothing and it may not be just about attraction. Here's a passage from some self-defense literature I like on this very topic and how it relates to robberies http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/robbery_avoidance.html#personal_safety:

Tip #7 Watch to see who is watching you.
An integral part of a robbery is the "interview." It is during this time that the criminal selects someone and then decides if he can successfully rob that person.

Reason: Even if you are the most drop-dead gorgeous person on the planet, there are cultural rules as to how long one can acceptably look at you. Too much attention is a danger sign. While many women regularly deal with unwanted attention by looking away and pretending not to notice, this behavior can also set you up for a crime. By turning away from someone, you can also fail to see if he starts approaching you. If someone is paying too much attention, walk wide, but check out of the side of your eye to be sure that he has not decided to follow you.

I'm not saying the husbands were planning to rob her. I'm commenting on what leering could indicate. I hope more women become aware of this and that men keep in mind that when they are staring they could be coming across as dangerous without intending to be or without realizing it.

"But what's wrong with a guy

Juniper — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:05:41 -0700

"But what's wrong with a guy checking a girl out?"

I don't think that there's anything wrong with a guy checking a girl out as long as he does not harrass, stalk, or make her uncomfortable by staring at her...and long as by doing so he is not breaking trust with someone else.

"But this case isn't so much about the men staring as it is about a few upset, ?jealous?, wives and 1 power-abusing guard. It's the wives that caused the problem to begin with, this isn't about the girl being upset that men were looking at her, she's upset that women responded to those stares negatively and one guard took advantage of his position and acted like a complete jerk."

Statistically, these wives most likely have a relationship understanding that defines “lusting in one’s heart” as cheating. Therefore, it’s perfectly reasonable for these women to feel betrayed and angry when their husbands visibly violated their relationship understanding.

What they don't have a right to do is have the authorities harass a woman who is not part of their relationship understanding.

A slightly different case

Eric — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:03:11 -0700

Everything that has been said so far on this page is true. But what's wrong with a guy checking a girl out? Girls check guys out as well, maybe not to the same extent but they still do. And there are different levels of 'staring', from the indescrete stare to a standing in front of the person ogling her openly. Many stares are not overly sexual, I will look at an attractive woman for a few seconds because what I see makes me feel good, it's like looking at anything of beauty.

But this case isn't so much about the men staring as it is about a few upset, ?jealous?, wives and 1 power-abusing guard. It's the wives that caused the problem to begin with, this isn't about the girl being upset that men were looking at her, she's upset that women responded to those stares negatively and one guard took advantage of his position and acted like a complete jerk.

So, yeah, there are men out there who overstep their boundaries when taking in something they find beautiful, but there are just as many women who react just as improperly in my opionon as the men but for the oposite reason.

Eric writes and contributes to public artices posted in the name of "The Sex Toy Life ".

Blaming women, constricting standards... scary times

Elizabeth — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:49:00 -0700

Michael, Bethany, I agree. It is very much the same tendency. Blaming women for the behavior of those around them is part of how patriarchy hangs on. And added to the trends toward increasingly restrictive standards of "modesty" it makes this an especially scary time in the US.

Bethany wrote:

To me, the only way to win is to not play this game. We have the right to decide to wear what makes us feel good, comfortable, beautiful and sexy. We have to stand up for ourselves, like Ms. Clem is doing, if someone tries to take that fundamental right away from us.

I couldn't agree more. And we need to stand up for each other, too!

The story is representative

Bethany — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:05:40 -0700

The story is representative of dangerous trends in the U.S.

It most certainly is a dangerous precedent that is being set. If a woman can be forced to leave a mall because other shoppers do not like what she is wearing, how far can this go? I guess I, as a Black woman wearing long, Afrocentric braids, could be asked to leave also since I could be threatening to some other mall customer. The wives in this story have been trained oh so well to support patriarchy: blame the woman, ask her to change her way of being or ask her to leave and do not hold the men accountable whatsoever for their behavior.

I repeatedly hear people criticizing women for what we wear. If we wear something sexy, we are "sluts." If we dress conservatively, we are "old maids". Women can't win if we play this game. To me, the only way to win is to not play this game. We have the right to decide to wear what makes us feel good, comfortable, beautiful and sexy. We have to stand up for ourselves, like Ms. Clem is doing, if someone tries to take that fundamental right away from us.

Women, and what we wear, are constantly being blamed for the inappropriate, harassing and abusive behavior of some men in public life. If we wear something we think is beautiful and do not go out of our way to hide every aspect of our body, we are blamed if we are stared at, ogled, leered at, assaulted or raped. This is insanity. I have heard men say that if women do not like being looked over or stared at then "cover up" and don't wear things that attract men's attention. Translation: I, as a man choose not to exercise any self-discipline or self-control. It's all on you.

The other issue is that just about anything a woman wears, from the most plain and unrevealing, to the most ornate and sexy, can attract a man's attention, whether she wants the attention or not. What excuse do these men have when women, wearing a plain, baggy t-shirt and jeans are harassed, leered at, assaulted or raped? Is it our fault then for being a woman and having curves? Or, maybe we should not have been walking in that part of town. Whatever way you look at it, our patriarchal society will make it the woman's fault. But, the fault is not in what women wear. The fault lies in a culture where women are seen as inferior, where gender inequality is commonplace, and where parts of the female body are often exploited. If a person has honor and respect in their heart for a woman as a human being in her own right, that makes it much harder to ogle and harass her. It also makes it harder to dictate to her what she can and can't wear.

Exactly so, Michael

Lou FCD — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:13:23 -0700

"But in reality, the dress itself is irrelevant, and discussion about the specifics of the dress are worryingly reminiscent of those around rape, in which some people claim a woman deserves to be raped if she dresses in a way that attrscts male interest."

Exactly so, Michael

Standards

Michael — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:43:09 -0700

It's curious how the discussions on this issue evolve. If you are really curious about the dress (or shirt as some claim), there is a video in which Kymberly Clem is wearing it.

But in reality, the dress itself is irrelevant, and discussion about the specifics of the dress are worryingly reminiscent of those around rape, in which some people claim a woman deserves to be raped if she dresses in a way that attrscts male interest. The issue is really one of discrimination, in which if people do not like the way you look, you can be punished. It is sometimes helpful, as suggested in Elizabeth's link to a women's discussion group, to simply change the actors in the scene and see how it looks. Let us imagine that Kymberly was disabled, or of a certain race or religious group for a moment.

Students of the concept of Male Gaze, will recognise the darker patriarchal threads in which men can look at a woman in ways that clearly some people felt inapproppriate, and the woman is punished. Elizabeth makes reference to cultures that control women's appearance. Let us consider how many people have been maimed or killed to supposedly 'rescue' those women, yet the same ideology is apparently accepted in their own countries.

I thank you all for your

Gracie — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:22:28 -0700

I thank you all for your comments, here and elsewhere. I just wrote a follow-up piece on the program which includes more from other sex workers (including Jessi from the show) and clients based on the forums at MyRedBook. Also, there are other sites which have linked to the articles (as they were cross posted); I've compiled a list of links here.

More to come... *wink*

20/20

kristen — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:51:13 -0700

Unfortunately, I did not see 20/20. I don't think that there will ever come the time that Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters, Katie Couric, etc. would ever find any positive things to say about being a sex worker whether it is legal or not. It is an unfortunate fact that our society cannot look at the reasons it would be beneficial to legalize prostitution. We are still stuck in old world thought processes and I wonder if we will ever come out.

I look at this scandal with Eliot Spitzer. He really was crucified because of the hypocrisy of it all. He went after people and bullied them while behaving like the moral authority. Isn't it a silly thing that he was forced to resign because he paid for sex. Is it really anyone's business other than his wife? Our new governor had affairs. Is that more acceptable because when he committed adultery, he didn't pay for the actual sex act? That is what Diane Sawyer should have been looking at.

As far as unbiased reporting, you won't see it when it comes to these issues. She wants to be seen as a role model and a champion for women's causes. In reality, if a woman chooses to be a sex worker, than isn't that her choice, and shouldn't we be empowering her and doing everything possible to make sure she is safe in her choice?