Sex In The Public Square - quickies - Comments

Marriage in California

Elizabeth — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:31:18 -0700

Same sex marriages have now been legal in California for a full week. How is it going out there? Is the ballot-initiative work slowing down or speeding up? What kind of grass roots or online organizing is needed to make sure that it fails and marriage stays legal?

I understand your nervousness...

Elizabeth — Tue, 27 May 2008 19:38:00 -0700

I'm sorry to have missed this comment when it was first posted. It's been kind of crazy around here.

I totally understand your nervousness. I think the fact that it only takes a simply majority on a ballot initiative to amend the constitution is grounds for great nervousness. On the other hand, I suppose it is also grounds for some amount of optimism. Technically, I suppose, it means that the constitution can be amended very frequently should people decide to organize for change. Maybe this is a good reminder that people living in states with such simple amendment procedures should start combing through their constitutions for things that need changing.

And in California specifically it means that those who want to see equality protected need to organize voters in large numbers. Let us know if we can be helfpful at Sex In The Public Square. Unfortunately none of the site's founders are able to vote in California, but we are prepared to help mobilize voters there, to be certain! And California is our second largest source of readers after New York. Let us know what you need. And we'll keep following the story.

I'm nervous

papercutsandplastic — Thu, 22 May 2008 09:16:11 -0700

The court decision is really exciting! I wasn't in the Castro the evening it came down, but I hear it was a great party, a wonderful moment of community. It's the kind of thing that warms my hippie little heart and makes me feel a part of a great big family.

But as I said in my subject line, I'm nervous. I know that the Religious Right are really good at getting out their voters, and they will play with people's homophobia to get this ammendment passed. I'm worried that their tactics--which I think are lowbrow and hurtful but are nonetheless effective--might work to get California voters to put discrimination in our constitution. Which would obviously just be a shame. I love California, and I love living in San Francisco where people mostly have open minds. It would be so sad to see us pass something so...backwards.

a rose by any other name....

tracya — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 05:49:29 -0800

this story has been covered in depth here in england, both at the time of the murders and now with the trial and conviction...

i have to say that i always bristle when the case is referred to as the "ipswich prostitute murders"...as if these women were defined by one aspect of their lives and of course, that being a "prostitute" even worse a street walking prostitute somehow makes them a "different" breed of human being.

with the conviction of steven wright, the BBC has been much kinder and more sensitive in taking the time to read out each woman's name with each update.

i still wonder why journalists feel that now that someone has been convicted of the pre meditated murder of these women, they are finally worthy of the dignity of having names.

more about these women

Thank you

JanieBelle — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 11:09:03 -0800

but no. :( My book isn't finished. I just kind of burned out and needed a day or two off. I've got a fairly long passage that just is not making me happy, and it's nagging me so I can't get on with the story until I've dealt with it.

Plus, there are health-care crises running rampant throughout the FCD household. :(

I've been keeping an eye out here though, both through the RSS feed on the bottom of my blog and through my shiny new RSS reader for FireFox.

Welcome back, JB!

Elizabeth — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 06:16:42 -0800

Hey JanieBelle, welcome back! We've made a few changes since you were last around.

Does this mean your book is finished? ;)

Virginia Beach PD also disagrees

JanieBelle — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 04:40:20 -0800

...with the FCC :

Police, saying they were responding to citizen complaints, carted away two large promotional photographs from the Abercrombie & Fitch store in Lynnhaven Mall on Saturday and cited the manager on obscenity charges.
Adam Bernstein, a police spokesman, said the seizure and the issuance of the summons came only after store management had not heeded warnings to remove the images.
The citation was issued under City Code Section 22.31, Bernstein said, which makes it a crime to display "obscene materials in a business that is open to juveniles." He did not say what was being done with the pictures and when the manager, whose name was not released, is scheduled to appear in court.

The images in question?

The other image is of a woman who is topless and whose "breast is displayed with her hand covering just the nipple portion," Bernstein said. "You could still pretty much see the rest of the breast."

HT: The Information Paradox

ABC News is reporting however , that on Monday, Virginia Beach PD dropped the charges.

Posters of scantily clad youths that were seized by police at an Abercrombie & Fitch store in a Virginia mall this weekend may be inappropriate for young children, but they are not obscene, according to legal experts.
Virginia Beach police apparently have agreed. On Monday, they dropped charges against the clothing company that markets to prep chic teens through sexually charged imagery.

I guess the question now is did they drop the charges for reasons of sanity or expediency? Hopefully, somebody in charge pulled their collective heads from their collective ~~butts~~ obscene place, but I suspect that the real reason is that the local DA told them they'd be on the losing end of a very expensive First Amendment suit.

Was the police response to the store an overreaction? Yes, according to legal experts. Though local laws can vary, courts require that the image show sexual activity or a "lewd display" of genitals, says Lawrence Walters, an Orlando, Fla., lawyer and First Amendment specialist.
"There is not a chance any jury in America would find the photo obscene under these standards," he said.

Apparently, MySpace Disagrees

JanieBelle — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:28:27 -0800

...with the FCC .

"I compare my local folder to the album, one picture at a time. Want to know what picture they found offensive?"

"That’s right. A photo of a 2000 year old Roman piece of art is offensive because it depicts a naked acrobat’s butt."

Those darned porn moguls at the British Museum, exposing us to naked butts. What is the world coming to?

I think the 'reproductive

Gracie — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:32:11 -0800

I think the 'reproductive angle' for lack of a better term ~ and let's face it, visual concept help *wink* ~ is what's the issue here...

There's long been a rule with comedy: Pants a man = funny; but never pants a woman. The difference is percieved vulnerability. A woman sans pants is deemed easier to access, if not use; but a man is considered unlikely to force. This, of course, isn't the complete truth; men can be/are raped. But the nakedness of women has a long history of use to convey vulnerability and fear ~ as well as arousal (there is a link between fear and arousal). And men cannot help themselves from being aroused at female nudity; only women can exert such control. Sexist, yes; however this leads us back to the male arousal at female bums is more 'proof' of female vulnerability.

I think the bottom line here (pun intended) is one of vulnerability. 'She' naked is vulnerable; 'he' naked is in control.

Context is key here, and that's not exactly the FCC's forte.

Reproductive v. Sexual

Elizabeth — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:32:24 -0800

Maybe the FCC needs to distinguish between reproductive organs and sexual organs. After all, even the FCC couldn't justify the categorizing of buttocks as reproductive could they? And can you imagine any part of the body that isn't somehow sexual, if by sexual we mean contributing to sexual response or arousal? Certainly they wouldn't stop the broadcasting of images of hands, would they? Or flashes of any exposed skin? Perish the thought!

Of course I don't think that the showing of nude bodies is indecent in the first place.

And as for accountability, Latest Visitor, I share your concern. The accountability has to come from us!

The gender bias is

Latest Visitor — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:14:34 -0800

The gender bias is noteworthy, but my first take on the story was that it's just another example of a self-appointed imperative to redefine things on an arbitrary basis. I am trying to think of some substantive real world examples (as distinct from Orwell stories), but in their absence, have come up with the idea behind 'Freedom Fries': replacing 'French' on the presumption that it would somehow make the food more patriotic. (Sorry I haven't come up with better.) In the case of NYPD Blue, the issue is about redefining female buttocks as a sexual organ. Never mind what biologists say. For broadcast purposes, the FCC is in a position to arbitrarily and inconsistently dictate such things on its own terms. For me, the worrying thing is that they are unnacountable.

It does come off

JanieBelle — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:35:45 -0800

as dismissive of both of them, but then the topic being discussed is of direct relevance to the groups depicted.

That said, I've tentatively made my choice of presidential candidate (by process of elimination, unfortunately), and I think I can safely say that none of these types of (intentional or otherwise) subliminal messages has affected that decision. It's just not been a very close descision for me because of the blatant violation of my own particular deal-breakers that I already had in place.

I've already posted (at UDoJ) that every one of the Republicans is right out (and why - including my list of deal-breakers).

I'll be getting to the Democrats shortly.

Reminds me of boarding

Alex — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:07:16 -0800

Reminds me of boarding school, where we were wheeled out as a rent-a-crowd for any school occasion. I'll bet that the New York Time photographer has about 20 other shots that can't be used because some of the students in them are asleep.

Oprah is not to be dismissed....

Elizabeth — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:34:55 -0800

...and yet the NYT pairing of middle school boys and Sen. Obama, and high school cheerleaders with Sen. Clinton's husband seems dismissive of both. Is it clear which is more dismissive?

i'm out of the loop

tracya — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:47:25 -0800

reading this is a reality check for me...i am familiar with the candidates and recognize the nuance..

i think mrs clinton should be offended...why should attentive but non voting cheerleaders listening to her husband be a positive for her??

it's so early in the race, i can't imagine how many hairs will be split in the push to the white house

i can share a conversation....monologue, really by a british co worker...

"have you seen this? that black guy, runnning for president? he 'as oprah backing 'im now, ha, it'll bring 'im way up in the polls...you know how they worship oprah in america"

i had to bite my tongue...

looking forward to the next 12 months...