[LMB] Levels of Sexuality
marianlesslie at gmail.com
Thu Jan 6 07:30:51 GMT 2011
On Jan 5, 2011, at 9:39 PM, Jeff Shultz wrote:
> The push-up corsetry under a Renaissance neckline says "handle freely."
> As do slits and things. Slogans on t-shirts and the back of shorts do the
> same thing.
> Except when they don't... amazing how much of that crowd can instantly
> convert to the "no means no" philosophy if they want to.
2011/1/6 Katherine Collett <kcollett at hamilton.edu>
> I'm uncomfortable with the implication that the way someone dresses validates
> what someone else wants to do to them. Clothes do not constitute an invitation.
I'm probably misinterpreting Jeff's comment (one of the many reasons I
wish email had an <irony> tag, or something more helpful than smiley
faces :D) but that viewpoint makes me quite uncomfortable. People
should be able to wear whatever ridiculous over-sexed half-nude items
they want and not be subject to anything more than people mocking
their taste. I'm not saying that people shouldn't mind how they dress,
because there are often drunk people out there who are a problem, but
like Katherine said: clothes do not constitute an invitation.
As for children's sexuality, I think it's interesting to compare two
articles I read this morning. One is about an upcoming photoshoot for
Vogue magazine which is full of young girls who are dressed as adult
models would be
The other is about an exhibition for the Sydney Children's Hospital
which has been cancelled because the boy in one of the photos has no
shirt on (http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/why-this-photo-cost-hospital-a-charity-bonanza-20110104-19f54.html).
There's a real contradiction here.
More information about the Lois-Bujold