10 November, 2006
Let It Snow
Here comes the first real snowfall of the season. TCT is saying about 4 inches while the Weather Channel is estimating half of that.
07 November, 2006
In My Neighborhood
I voted just before 6 tonight. I'm in the 8th ward. My polling place is the American Family Insurance regional office on Walbridge. When I walked in, the line for pre-registered voters was almost to the door and I ended up waiting about 20 minutes or so. Pretty painless.
One thing I like about Election Day is seeing my neighbors at the polling place. I don't know many of the folks in my ward as most of my friends and co-workers live elsewhere in the city. Now, maybe it's because I'm feeling a bit randy this evening, but I noticed all the beautiful women in line at the polling place. There were a host of pulchritudinous blondes and women who looked to be of Mediterranean background, and a couple equally attractive African-American women. I realized that I don't see these people because I don't do much in my own neighborhood and I don't know anyone in my neighborhood. I chat with the folks next door or across the street on occasion but they aren't my friends and my ties to them are very tenuous. I used to encounter my neighbors over at Toad Hill Coffeehouse when it was open, but, since it closed, my contact with those who live around me has been minimal. That's one of bad things about my neighborhood - there's no real Third Place for me to congregate. Perhaps I ought to check out the new Sunprint Cafe.
One thing I like about Election Day is seeing my neighbors at the polling place. I don't know many of the folks in my ward as most of my friends and co-workers live elsewhere in the city. Now, maybe it's because I'm feeling a bit randy this evening, but I noticed all the beautiful women in line at the polling place. There were a host of pulchritudinous blondes and women who looked to be of Mediterranean background, and a couple equally attractive African-American women. I realized that I don't see these people because I don't do much in my own neighborhood and I don't know anyone in my neighborhood. I chat with the folks next door or across the street on occasion but they aren't my friends and my ties to them are very tenuous. I used to encounter my neighbors over at Toad Hill Coffeehouse when it was open, but, since it closed, my contact with those who live around me has been minimal. That's one of bad things about my neighborhood - there's no real Third Place for me to congregate. Perhaps I ought to check out the new Sunprint Cafe.
Something You Don't See Everyday
There's a group of most middle-aged white men who design circuit boards for a living playing basketball out back in the parking lot.
Torchwood - First Impressions
Aside from reading a couple books this past weekend, I was able to watch the first two episodes of the Doctor Who spin-off series, Torchwood, with The Dulcinea. The series premiere was called "Everything Changes" and it had a large amount of ground to cover introducing the Torchwood Institute and several characters. Overall I found the episode to be OK but leaning towards the good side of things.
The Torchwood Institute was founded by Queen Victoria in last season's Doctor Who episode, "Tooth & Claw". It was founded as a hyper-secret organization dedicated to protecting the UK from aliens and the supernatural. Torchwood was revisited in Doctor Who last season during the two-part season finale. Torchwood was based in London and the early scenes had the feel of a James Bond movie with the places being filled with alien artifacts and people tinkering with them to create really cool weapons. The stern hubirs of Torchwood's leader, Yvonne Hartman, led to some pretty nasty consequences, namely an invasion of earth by Cybermen and Daleks.
When Torchwood the series opens, we discover that the Institute has numerous branches and the one that we were to follow was in Cardiff, Wales. Captain Jack Harkness returns, viewers having last seen him two seasons ago in Doctor Who. In addition to Captain Jack, there are 4 other agents, a much lesser number than the London branch. Plus their headquarters is much smaller. Instead of being all gleaming white and at the top of a skyscraper, it's darker and located in what appears to be a disused subway station. The episode was shot very stylishly with some great high-contrast lighting at the opening.
It begins with the corpse of a man lying out in the middle of a street as rain pours down. The police investigating the crime scene are pulled away as our Torchwood gang arrive. One of them puts on this large metal gauntlet which brings the dead man back to life for a couple minutes. During this time, our heroes question him about the identity of his killer.
Watching this from a parking ramp from above is Constable Gewn Cooper. She gawks in disbelief as she watches a dead man brought back to life. Captain Jack spies her and she becomes his next "target". From here, we see Gwen go from being completely unable to comprehend what she sees and is told to becoming a member of Torchwood.
My main complaint is that it felt like the producers were trying to fit too much into too small a time. Things felt rushed instead of feeling like they happened in a natural cause & effect manner. Gwen's induction into the Institute just seemed rushed and I don't think we were allowed to wallow in her incredulity long enough. Plus it seemed odd that an organization unknown to even The Doctor would be so open to a stranger. My other complaint was that Gwen's (and our) first encounter with an alien wasn't scary enough. It involves Gwen approaching an unknown figure at the end of a long hallway. I think that the identity of the figures was given away too soon and that the audio wasn't evocative enough, not moody enough. I don't necessarily mean that some creepy music was in order, but some tweaking to the ambient sound would have helped. Maybe some echo to Gwen's voice or something along those lines.
Overall, though, I liked the episode. I found that I wanted to know more about the characters and more about what their jobs entail. I wanted to know more about what Torchwood does, exactly.
"Day One" was the second episode of the series. It was about Gwen's first day on the job. We learn that she is hiding the true nature of her work from her boyfriend and, when a meteroite crashes outside of the city, Gwen learns that work takes precedence over play.
At the scene, Gwen isn't quite sure what to do and is taunted by Owen, the geekiest member of Torchwood. In response, she tosses a chisel instead of handing it to him and it lands in the meteorite. This releases a gas which goes on to infect Carys, a young woman outside of a nightclub.
We find out that the gas is really an alien and that it feeds off of orgasmic energy. Knowing only this, one might think that it sounds like the plot to a really bad porno video or at least a rip-off of Species. But it was actually a very good episode. The show was able to pull it off. There were some humorous parts interspersed throughout which didn't come across as too cliched.
The subject matter brought out the possibility that Captain Jack was gay. This was hinted at during his stint in Doctor Who. But, being an alien, the normal rules wouldn't seem to apply. Still, a bit more mystery was added to Captain Jack and the promise of having a homo- or bi- or omnisexual lead character is intriguing.
There was an extended kissing scene with two ladies that was hot as well as a sex scene, something that is verboten in Doctor Who. So Torchwood is definitely for adults only.
I enjoyed "Day One" more than "Everything Changes". It didn't feel rushed and the story could breathe a bit. It didn't have to rush around making sure that certain things were shown to the viewer before the credits rolled.
I want to close by talking about sex. After having seen only the first two episodes, it is seems that sex and sexuality is to be one of the show's themes. Captain Jack's sexual orientation is ambiguous and a whole episode was devoted to an alien that feeds on the energy of orgasms. The show's creator, Russell T. Davies, is openly gay so, if sexuality is to be a theme, it seems likely that we'll get more than just the white bread heterosexual viewpoint. (Davies also wrote and produced Queer as Folk for UK TV which was later ported over to the States and remade for Showtime.) So I think that Davies and the writers have a great opportunity here to explore a theme that sci fi often avoids.
The Torchwood Institute was founded by Queen Victoria in last season's Doctor Who episode, "Tooth & Claw". It was founded as a hyper-secret organization dedicated to protecting the UK from aliens and the supernatural. Torchwood was revisited in Doctor Who last season during the two-part season finale. Torchwood was based in London and the early scenes had the feel of a James Bond movie with the places being filled with alien artifacts and people tinkering with them to create really cool weapons. The stern hubirs of Torchwood's leader, Yvonne Hartman, led to some pretty nasty consequences, namely an invasion of earth by Cybermen and Daleks.
When Torchwood the series opens, we discover that the Institute has numerous branches and the one that we were to follow was in Cardiff, Wales. Captain Jack Harkness returns, viewers having last seen him two seasons ago in Doctor Who. In addition to Captain Jack, there are 4 other agents, a much lesser number than the London branch. Plus their headquarters is much smaller. Instead of being all gleaming white and at the top of a skyscraper, it's darker and located in what appears to be a disused subway station. The episode was shot very stylishly with some great high-contrast lighting at the opening.
It begins with the corpse of a man lying out in the middle of a street as rain pours down. The police investigating the crime scene are pulled away as our Torchwood gang arrive. One of them puts on this large metal gauntlet which brings the dead man back to life for a couple minutes. During this time, our heroes question him about the identity of his killer.
Watching this from a parking ramp from above is Constable Gewn Cooper. She gawks in disbelief as she watches a dead man brought back to life. Captain Jack spies her and she becomes his next "target". From here, we see Gwen go from being completely unable to comprehend what she sees and is told to becoming a member of Torchwood.
My main complaint is that it felt like the producers were trying to fit too much into too small a time. Things felt rushed instead of feeling like they happened in a natural cause & effect manner. Gwen's induction into the Institute just seemed rushed and I don't think we were allowed to wallow in her incredulity long enough. Plus it seemed odd that an organization unknown to even The Doctor would be so open to a stranger. My other complaint was that Gwen's (and our) first encounter with an alien wasn't scary enough. It involves Gwen approaching an unknown figure at the end of a long hallway. I think that the identity of the figures was given away too soon and that the audio wasn't evocative enough, not moody enough. I don't necessarily mean that some creepy music was in order, but some tweaking to the ambient sound would have helped. Maybe some echo to Gwen's voice or something along those lines.
Overall, though, I liked the episode. I found that I wanted to know more about the characters and more about what their jobs entail. I wanted to know more about what Torchwood does, exactly.
"Day One" was the second episode of the series. It was about Gwen's first day on the job. We learn that she is hiding the true nature of her work from her boyfriend and, when a meteroite crashes outside of the city, Gwen learns that work takes precedence over play.
At the scene, Gwen isn't quite sure what to do and is taunted by Owen, the geekiest member of Torchwood. In response, she tosses a chisel instead of handing it to him and it lands in the meteorite. This releases a gas which goes on to infect Carys, a young woman outside of a nightclub.
We find out that the gas is really an alien and that it feeds off of orgasmic energy. Knowing only this, one might think that it sounds like the plot to a really bad porno video or at least a rip-off of Species. But it was actually a very good episode. The show was able to pull it off. There were some humorous parts interspersed throughout which didn't come across as too cliched.
The subject matter brought out the possibility that Captain Jack was gay. This was hinted at during his stint in Doctor Who. But, being an alien, the normal rules wouldn't seem to apply. Still, a bit more mystery was added to Captain Jack and the promise of having a homo- or bi- or omnisexual lead character is intriguing.
There was an extended kissing scene with two ladies that was hot as well as a sex scene, something that is verboten in Doctor Who. So Torchwood is definitely for adults only.
I enjoyed "Day One" more than "Everything Changes". It didn't feel rushed and the story could breathe a bit. It didn't have to rush around making sure that certain things were shown to the viewer before the credits rolled.
I want to close by talking about sex. After having seen only the first two episodes, it is seems that sex and sexuality is to be one of the show's themes. Captain Jack's sexual orientation is ambiguous and a whole episode was devoted to an alien that feeds on the energy of orgasms. The show's creator, Russell T. Davies, is openly gay so, if sexuality is to be a theme, it seems likely that we'll get more than just the white bread heterosexual viewpoint. (Davies also wrote and produced Queer as Folk for UK TV which was later ported over to the States and remade for Showtime.) So I think that Davies and the writers have a great opportunity here to explore a theme that sci fi often avoids.
06 November, 2006
Happy Belated Guy Fawkes Day
I hope everyone had a pleasant Guy Fawkes Day yesterday. While I didn't really celebrate, I did watch a documentary about The Gunpowder Plot and I must admit that I learned quite a bit. First of all, Guy Fawkes was not the leader of the plot, that role belonged to Robert Catesby. It's just that Fawkes is the one that got caught red-handed. There was a lot of intrigue to the story including how the conspirators got the gunpowder to a spot directly underneath the King's chamber and an anonymous letter to Lord Monteagle warning him not to attend the opening of Parliament on 5 November 1605. It read:
My lord out of the love i beare to some of youere frends i have a caer of youer preseruacion therfor i would advyse yowe as yowe tender youer lyf to devys some excuse to shift of youer attendance at this parleament for god and man hath concurred to punishe the wickednes of this tyme and think not slightlye of this advertisement but retyre youre self into youre contri wheare yowe may expect the event in safti for thowghe theare be no appearance of anni stir yet i saye they shall receyve a terrible blowe this parleament and yet they shall not seie who hurts them this cowncel is not to be contemned because it may do yowe good and can do yowe no harme for the dangere is passed as soon as yowe have burnt the letter and i hope god will give yowe the grace to mak good use of it to whose holy proteccion i comend yowe.
Monteagle gave the letter to the Secretary of State, Robert Cecil, who was in charge of rooting out Catholic dissent against the Protestant government. And this caused him to step up security and find Fawkes.
The show gave some good background to the persecution of Catholics and showed The Plot to be an act of religious terrorism. Catholics were not allowed to attend Mass and those who did were called recusants and charged fines. They were seen as potential traitors to the crown. This persecution started under the reign of Queen Elizabeth but abated somewhat under James I. However, James did a 180 and the fines were reinstated and he renounced them all.
Five hundred years later, religious differences are still a major problem. As I watched, I couldn't help but think to myself that this is exactly the reason why the First Amendment of our Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." History shows quite clearly that people of different religions just love to kill one another, including Christians. I was also reminded that tomorrow is Election Day and we have a candidate for governor that feels that 150-cell blastocysts are human beings just like himself and he feels this way because of his religion. I have to wonder what his program for the state's economy will be when he chases all the stem cell research firms out. I saw the chucklehead on the pedestrian walk over the Beltline this morning pushing a large cross around with a sign attached to it saying "Vote for God" or some such thing. I just wanted to yell at him, "Keep your superstitious religious bullshit out of my government!" What happened to the Golden Rule? How would these straight Christians like it if there was an amendment to our state constitution saying that society hated them and their loving relationships and banned official acknowledgment of them?
Vote NO tomorrow and vote to keep religious wingnuts out of office.
My lord out of the love i beare to some of youere frends i have a caer of youer preseruacion therfor i would advyse yowe as yowe tender youer lyf to devys some excuse to shift of youer attendance at this parleament for god and man hath concurred to punishe the wickednes of this tyme and think not slightlye of this advertisement but retyre youre self into youre contri wheare yowe may expect the event in safti for thowghe theare be no appearance of anni stir yet i saye they shall receyve a terrible blowe this parleament and yet they shall not seie who hurts them this cowncel is not to be contemned because it may do yowe good and can do yowe no harme for the dangere is passed as soon as yowe have burnt the letter and i hope god will give yowe the grace to mak good use of it to whose holy proteccion i comend yowe.
Monteagle gave the letter to the Secretary of State, Robert Cecil, who was in charge of rooting out Catholic dissent against the Protestant government. And this caused him to step up security and find Fawkes.
The show gave some good background to the persecution of Catholics and showed The Plot to be an act of religious terrorism. Catholics were not allowed to attend Mass and those who did were called recusants and charged fines. They were seen as potential traitors to the crown. This persecution started under the reign of Queen Elizabeth but abated somewhat under James I. However, James did a 180 and the fines were reinstated and he renounced them all.
Five hundred years later, religious differences are still a major problem. As I watched, I couldn't help but think to myself that this is exactly the reason why the First Amendment of our Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." History shows quite clearly that people of different religions just love to kill one another, including Christians. I was also reminded that tomorrow is Election Day and we have a candidate for governor that feels that 150-cell blastocysts are human beings just like himself and he feels this way because of his religion. I have to wonder what his program for the state's economy will be when he chases all the stem cell research firms out. I saw the chucklehead on the pedestrian walk over the Beltline this morning pushing a large cross around with a sign attached to it saying "Vote for God" or some such thing. I just wanted to yell at him, "Keep your superstitious religious bullshit out of my government!" What happened to the Golden Rule? How would these straight Christians like it if there was an amendment to our state constitution saying that society hated them and their loving relationships and banned official acknowledgment of them?
Vote NO tomorrow and vote to keep religious wingnuts out of office.
Cry Rape
Yesterday evening I finished reading Bill Lueders' newest book, Cry Rape. It concerns the rape of a woman here in Madison named Patty and her tribulations to bring her assailant to justice.
In September 1997, a visually impaired woman named Patty was raped by an intruder in her home in Madison, Wisconsin. The rookie detective assigned to her case came to doubt Patty’s account and focused the investigation on her. Under pressure, he got her to recant, then had her charged with falsely reporting a crime.
The charges were eventually dropped, but Patty continued to demand justice, filing complaints and a federal lawsuit against the police. All were rebuffed. But later, as the result of her perseverance, a startling discovery was made. Even then, Patty’s ordeal was far from over.
Lueders, the news editor for Madison's alternative weekly, Isthmus, has written a wonderfully compelling narrative. It opens with an account of the rape. The sober, deliberate tone in which he describes it mirrors, in large part, Patty's reaction to it. She remained fairly calm in the immediate aftermath of her assault while it was her daughter Misty that got hysterical. From there, Patty's story only gets worse.
Lueders tale is a mostly straightforward account of Patty story. She reports the rape which is investigated by a rookie detective. He uses interrogation as opposed to investigation techniques and gets Patty to recant her story. The next day, Patty goes back to her original claim of having been raped. The police decide to charge her with obstruction of justice. And so Patty's fight is twofold: 1) to be absolved of the obstruction charge and 2) to get the police to actively seek out her rapist. The book is about the institutional inertia that Patty encountered as well as the intense desire of individuals to maintain the status quo.
Here are some of my observations:
1) Lueders has this annoying (for me, anyway) tendency to tell the reader that someone or some event will be of importance later in the narrative. I was a bit distracted as I continued in the book because I kept an eye out for the person or event to make a return appearance. My personal preference is to not note that something will come back later and instead note this when the reappearance has already happened. This helps me keep my mind on the story instead of parsing through it for a specific person or whatever. In addition, I prefer the surprise of a character or event mentioned previously coming back into play without me knowing ahead of time. Nitpicking, I know.
2) I wish Lueders would have expanded upon some of his tangents. The two I'm thinking about are the ones about the MPD and the city of Madison itself. Firstly, there the MPD. Lueders mentions its reputation as being "progressive" and responsive to the community and how this stood in contrast to the image it had in the late 1960s/early 70s when the police chief regularly sent the cops out to beat the students protesting the Vietnam War. I'd like to know more about the transformation of the police department and its reputation. This one can probably be chalked up to my curiosity as a resident of Madison.
The second one is the city of Madison itself. Lueders briefly mentions the city's liberal reputation and its whiteness and then says residents were shocked that such a thing could happen here. I think Lueders gave short shrift to this. While I feel this way partly because, again, I'm a resident of Madison and would like to know more about something in my own backyard but I also think that this could help readers who aren't from Madison or weren't here when the events in the book took place. I understand that this isn't necessary to Patty's story nor in understanding Lueders' larger point, but I can't help but feel that it would have bolstered his plea for an independent board to oversee the various doings of city institutions or at least give readers a clue as to how difficult a task this may be. After the trial of Joseph Bong, Patty's accused rapist, one of the jurors said something about not having known anything about Patty's ordeal despite it having been in Isthmus and in our two dailies (and presumably on local TV news). This woman could not have been alone in her ignorance and others like her represent an impediment to bringing about the kind of independent review board that Lueders favors. Lueders wrote several pieces over the years about Patty and her tribulations. In the book he doesn't say much about how readers reacted. The only time that I can recall was after the first piece he wrote when he mentions only that a few people wrote in to say that it was good that the police are on the lookout for false accusations of rape because many women seek to hurt men with them. I have to wonder how many people are out there under the impression that women are lined up out the door of police stations to falsely report rape out of spite. How did the people of Madison react? What does this say about the chances of reforming our city's institutions to make sure that no women have to go through what Patty did and that they deal with and help rape victims appropriately?
3) The last thing I want to comment on was the conduct of certain police officers at Bong's trial. That women are raped is a fact of life. It's sad, unfortunate, and anger-inducing, but it happens. That police have fraternal bonds and stand by their fellow officers is something I accept. However, I was appalled when I read that several officers sat behind Bong at his trial while wearing their uniforms. Bong was already in jail when he was accused of being the assailant that raped Patty. Couldn't these officers have found some way to show that they stood behind their brother in blue which didn't also involve showing support for a violent scumbag asshole? This is another reason to delve into the whom may have become distrustful of the police because of Patty's ordeal.
I was surprised at how surprised I was about this. I know that I'm cynical because I grew up in Chicago where some of the police torture people and get their kicks in the wee hours of the morning by dragging bums off of subway cars, beating, and sicking police dogs on them. Cops is cops. Every force has officers that get off on their power trips and/or are corrupt just as every force has some really great officers who serve and protect. While I expect some bad cops and understand that all cops are human, that certain Madison officers supported an absolute cocksmoker who had no respect for them still shocks and angers me.
So there's my complaints. Two menial, one medium menial. Lueders has written a very good book. His style is clear and concise. While I would have liked to have had some of the tangents fleshed out, the book as it is offers a compelling story and plenty of food for thought for folks who live here in Madison or elsewhere. Even if changing the character of institutions doesn't interest you, the story of an incredibly brave woman who remained resolute and steadfast in the face of adversity that would have killed lesser women will.
In September 1997, a visually impaired woman named Patty was raped by an intruder in her home in Madison, Wisconsin. The rookie detective assigned to her case came to doubt Patty’s account and focused the investigation on her. Under pressure, he got her to recant, then had her charged with falsely reporting a crime.
The charges were eventually dropped, but Patty continued to demand justice, filing complaints and a federal lawsuit against the police. All were rebuffed. But later, as the result of her perseverance, a startling discovery was made. Even then, Patty’s ordeal was far from over.
Lueders, the news editor for Madison's alternative weekly, Isthmus, has written a wonderfully compelling narrative. It opens with an account of the rape. The sober, deliberate tone in which he describes it mirrors, in large part, Patty's reaction to it. She remained fairly calm in the immediate aftermath of her assault while it was her daughter Misty that got hysterical. From there, Patty's story only gets worse.
Lueders tale is a mostly straightforward account of Patty story. She reports the rape which is investigated by a rookie detective. He uses interrogation as opposed to investigation techniques and gets Patty to recant her story. The next day, Patty goes back to her original claim of having been raped. The police decide to charge her with obstruction of justice. And so Patty's fight is twofold: 1) to be absolved of the obstruction charge and 2) to get the police to actively seek out her rapist. The book is about the institutional inertia that Patty encountered as well as the intense desire of individuals to maintain the status quo.
Here are some of my observations:
1) Lueders has this annoying (for me, anyway) tendency to tell the reader that someone or some event will be of importance later in the narrative. I was a bit distracted as I continued in the book because I kept an eye out for the person or event to make a return appearance. My personal preference is to not note that something will come back later and instead note this when the reappearance has already happened. This helps me keep my mind on the story instead of parsing through it for a specific person or whatever. In addition, I prefer the surprise of a character or event mentioned previously coming back into play without me knowing ahead of time. Nitpicking, I know.
2) I wish Lueders would have expanded upon some of his tangents. The two I'm thinking about are the ones about the MPD and the city of Madison itself. Firstly, there the MPD. Lueders mentions its reputation as being "progressive" and responsive to the community and how this stood in contrast to the image it had in the late 1960s/early 70s when the police chief regularly sent the cops out to beat the students protesting the Vietnam War. I'd like to know more about the transformation of the police department and its reputation. This one can probably be chalked up to my curiosity as a resident of Madison.
The second one is the city of Madison itself. Lueders briefly mentions the city's liberal reputation and its whiteness and then says residents were shocked that such a thing could happen here. I think Lueders gave short shrift to this. While I feel this way partly because, again, I'm a resident of Madison and would like to know more about something in my own backyard but I also think that this could help readers who aren't from Madison or weren't here when the events in the book took place. I understand that this isn't necessary to Patty's story nor in understanding Lueders' larger point, but I can't help but feel that it would have bolstered his plea for an independent board to oversee the various doings of city institutions or at least give readers a clue as to how difficult a task this may be. After the trial of Joseph Bong, Patty's accused rapist, one of the jurors said something about not having known anything about Patty's ordeal despite it having been in Isthmus and in our two dailies (and presumably on local TV news). This woman could not have been alone in her ignorance and others like her represent an impediment to bringing about the kind of independent review board that Lueders favors. Lueders wrote several pieces over the years about Patty and her tribulations. In the book he doesn't say much about how readers reacted. The only time that I can recall was after the first piece he wrote when he mentions only that a few people wrote in to say that it was good that the police are on the lookout for false accusations of rape because many women seek to hurt men with them. I have to wonder how many people are out there under the impression that women are lined up out the door of police stations to falsely report rape out of spite. How did the people of Madison react? What does this say about the chances of reforming our city's institutions to make sure that no women have to go through what Patty did and that they deal with and help rape victims appropriately?
3) The last thing I want to comment on was the conduct of certain police officers at Bong's trial. That women are raped is a fact of life. It's sad, unfortunate, and anger-inducing, but it happens. That police have fraternal bonds and stand by their fellow officers is something I accept. However, I was appalled when I read that several officers sat behind Bong at his trial while wearing their uniforms. Bong was already in jail when he was accused of being the assailant that raped Patty. Couldn't these officers have found some way to show that they stood behind their brother in blue which didn't also involve showing support for a violent scumbag asshole? This is another reason to delve into the whom may have become distrustful of the police because of Patty's ordeal.
I was surprised at how surprised I was about this. I know that I'm cynical because I grew up in Chicago where some of the police torture people and get their kicks in the wee hours of the morning by dragging bums off of subway cars, beating, and sicking police dogs on them. Cops is cops. Every force has officers that get off on their power trips and/or are corrupt just as every force has some really great officers who serve and protect. While I expect some bad cops and understand that all cops are human, that certain Madison officers supported an absolute cocksmoker who had no respect for them still shocks and angers me.
So there's my complaints. Two menial, one medium menial. Lueders has written a very good book. His style is clear and concise. While I would have liked to have had some of the tangents fleshed out, the book as it is offers a compelling story and plenty of food for thought for folks who live here in Madison or elsewhere. Even if changing the character of institutions doesn't interest you, the story of an incredibly brave woman who remained resolute and steadfast in the face of adversity that would have killed lesser women will.
04 November, 2006
Dining Like a Muscovite
Soon I will be off to explore Arbat, a new(ish) Russian restaurant here in Madison. And I won't have to endure the traffic shown below. I am going with my buddy Charles and I fear that he will gorge himself on pelmeni and end up like Mr. Creosote. Hopefully the waitstaff won't offer him a wafer-thin mint. I've missed the Russia House since it closed so the appearance of Arbat is a real treat. Too bad it's in a strip mall in Fitchburg.
Shielding Those Naughty Bits
Here are a couple selections from the Science & Society Picture Library's sexual history section.
Male anti-masturbation device, British, 1871-1930
Iron chastity belt lined with silk, possibly 16th century
Man! I can't imagine having to wear and anti-masturbation device and being deprived of one of life's greatest pleasures. And look at the chastity belt. The front opening is serrated. Talk about vagina dentata...
Male anti-masturbation device, British, 1871-1930
Iron chastity belt lined with silk, possibly 16th century
Man! I can't imagine having to wear and anti-masturbation device and being deprived of one of life's greatest pleasures. And look at the chastity belt. The front opening is serrated. Talk about vagina dentata...
"Banned" Looney Toons 6: "Uncle Tom's Bungalow"
"Uncle Tom's Bungalow" was released on 5 June 1937. It is a parody of the famous novel by Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin. Like many of the other so-called "Censored 11", this cartoon traffics in stereotypes of blacks and has thusly been pulled from circulation.
It begins by establishing the setting which is a plantation. We see a steamboat docked on the shore and the camera pans to reveal fields dotted with shacks. Finally we arrive at the plantation home and are introduced to the first character, Little Eva, by a kindly narrator. This is followed by intros to all of the characters: Topsy, Tom, Eliza, and Simon Simon Legree
Note that these are all characters in Uncle Tom's Cabin. Here they are introduced as being unassociated with one another and the narrator asks them to get ready to act in the story.
It begins at the Simon Simon Legree Used Slave Company where Simon threatens poor old Tom.
Tom utters the phrase, "My body may belong to you, but my soul belongs to Warner Brothers" which is a parody of a line from the book which replaces Warner Bros. with "God". Eva and Topsy come to the rescue and buy Tom from Simon.
While able to make the first couple month's payments, the girls fall behind and Simon goes to the plantation home to repossess Tom. Tom hides himself in a portrait on the wall just before Simon enters. He looks around for Tom and reaches underneath the couch only to put his fingers into an electrical socket. This angers him and the girls look to suffer at his hands.
But it's Eliza to the rescue and she bursts out of the closet and grabs the children. She run across the snow-covered fields until she comes to the river. Unfortunately for her, it hasn't frozen over. However, there just happens to be an ice machine on the shore so she puts in a nickel and pulls the lever. The ice machine-cum-slot machine comes up jackpot and Eliza throws the ice onto the river so she can get across.
Simon and his hounds are in pursuit, however. The narrator describes the chase as if it were a horse race with Eliza so many lengths ahead with the villain gaining. Simon finally corners them next to a tree on the opposite side of the river. He menacingly hovers over Eliza and raises his whip. Things are looking bad until they see Tom driving towards them, his hands clutching a lot of cash.
The stereotypes here are common and I've seen them before in the some of the other "censored" Looney Toons that I've watched. (See below for links.) Black characters are portrayed as if in black face; black men are prone to gambling, specifically shooting craps. I didn't mention it above but, when we are introduced to Eliza, she does a raucous little dance. I think this buys into the stereotype of blacks as having no self-control and in need of restraint.
The one scene that I found amusing was when Legree puts his hand into the electrical outlet. I could see it coming a mile away but I still laughed. It must have appealed to the same part of my brain that loves The Three Stooges. Plus, Uncle Tom's Cabin engenders the antebellum South and to see an electrical outlet play against that just humors me.
One thing I wondered about after having watched the cartoon was just how many people today would get the parody element here. While it seems unlikely anyone would make a parody of Uncle Tom's Cabin today because of the racial stereotypes, what would happen if South Park did it? How many of the viewers would recognize the parody? The Wikipedia entry for the novel notes that there were several cinematic adaptations of it between 1903 and 1927 and then moviemakers virtually abandoned the book. Disney did a parody of it in 1933 called "Mickey's Mellerdrammer" and then the cartoon at hand in 1937. But it would be until 1987 that the story was revisited cinematically with live actors in the form of a TV movie. Did it become verboten for its content? Or had it been given the film treatment too many times? The author of the Wikipedia entry says: "The subject matter of the Harriet Beecher Stowe novel was judged too sensitive for further film interpretation for several years." I'm not quite sure which subject matter (s)he is talking about. The portrayals of blacks certainly couldn't have been the issue as the negative stereotypes were to be found elsewhere in abundance between 1927-87. Was it slavery? Christian faith and the Christ-like portrayal of Tom? The "feminist" views?
The cultural currency of Uncle Tom's Cabin has changed a lot over the years. When it came out, it was considered a potent tool for the anti-slavery movement. Today, it seems to be viewed more as a historical curiosity that purveys harmful stereotypes, albeit one that had good intentions. This is perhaps misguided. Here's a quote from Dr. Sarah Meer, Lecturer and Director of Studies in English at Selwyn College, University of Cambridge:
In some ways, our seeing her (Stowe's) pictures of black people as caricatures comes from the fact that lots of people borrowed from her. They became stereotypes because other people did it many times.
It is odd that there was a 60-year period in which Hollywood avoided the novel excepting a Mickey Mouse cartoon and the one at hand and I have to wonder what happened during this time. That these 2 shorts were made leads me to believe that dealing with the novel cinematically was not beyond the pale in the 1930s. I think that it also indicates that Disney and Warner Brothers expected general audiences at the time to be familiar with the novel. So, what to make of "Uncle Tom's Bungalow" today? On the one hand, it's a parody of a novel with which viewers at the time were familiar. On the other, though, it clearly traffics in negative stereotypes. So, while the cartoon itself is not all that amusing, it does bring to light a topic of interest to me: how our society's perceptions of Uncle Tom's Cabin have changed over the years.
You can watch "Uncle Tom's Bungalow" here at Google Video.
Screencaps found here. Thanks to Duck Dodgers.
"Herr Meets Hare"
"What's Cookin' Doc?"
"Goldilocks and the Jivin' Bears"
"All This and Rabbit Stew"
"Sunday Go to Meetin’ Time"
Crosstown Traffic
Now that I commute from Madison's far east side to its far west side, I have to deal with lots of rush hour traffic on the Beltline and it's a pain in the arse. At least I don't have it as bad as some Muscovites.
03 November, 2006
Halloween Unmasked
"Is it a trick or a treat? Halloween unmasked".
Pagans may venerate Oct. 31 and fundamentalists are free to shun it, but most Americans will agree with the Supreme Court that Halloween is secular not religious. At worst, it teaches kids the art of the shakedown and the joy of the sugar high. At best, it is a chance for children to enjoy the theater of the masquerade and to meet neighbors they don't encounter any other time. That alone seems reason enough to follow the one tradition we do know the Druids honored: marking the end of summer with a festival to bring the whole community together.
Pagans may venerate Oct. 31 and fundamentalists are free to shun it, but most Americans will agree with the Supreme Court that Halloween is secular not religious. At worst, it teaches kids the art of the shakedown and the joy of the sugar high. At best, it is a chance for children to enjoy the theater of the masquerade and to meet neighbors they don't encounter any other time. That alone seems reason enough to follow the one tradition we do know the Druids honored: marking the end of summer with a festival to bring the whole community together.
Letter to a Christian Nation
Some quotes from Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation which I read this evening.
Religion allows people to imagine that their concerns are moral when they are not - that is, when they have nothing to do with suffering or its alleviation...This explains why Christians like yourself expend more "moral" energy opposing abortion than fighting genocide.
Your principal concern appears to be that the creator of the universe will take offense at something people do while naked.
(Regarding 10th Commandment)
And what are we to make of the fact that, in bringing his treatise to a close, the creator of our universe could think of no human concerns more pressing and durable than the coveting of servants and livestock?
If you are concerned about suffering in this universe, killing a fly should present you with greater moral difficulties than killing a blastocyst.
It has been estimated that 50 percent of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, usually without a woman even realizing that she is pregnant. In fact, 20 percent of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. There is an obvious truth here that cries out for acknowledgement: if God exists, He is the most prolific abortionist of all.
Religion allows people to imagine that their concerns are moral when they are not - that is, when they have nothing to do with suffering or its alleviation...This explains why Christians like yourself expend more "moral" energy opposing abortion than fighting genocide.
Your principal concern appears to be that the creator of the universe will take offense at something people do while naked.
(Regarding 10th Commandment)
And what are we to make of the fact that, in bringing his treatise to a close, the creator of our universe could think of no human concerns more pressing and durable than the coveting of servants and livestock?
If you are concerned about suffering in this universe, killing a fly should present you with greater moral difficulties than killing a blastocyst.
It has been estimated that 50 percent of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, usually without a woman even realizing that she is pregnant. In fact, 20 percent of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. There is an obvious truth here that cries out for acknowledgement: if God exists, He is the most prolific abortionist of all.
01 November, 2006
Kids
Dogger and I were talking on the phone earlier when we started talking about Charles, I, Charles II, and the English Civil War period. Dogger said, "Those silly Papists" followed by "You're a silly Papist." I protested that I wasn't and he said that he wasn't talking to me, but rather to Miss Regan - who is nearly 3. I then heard her say, "I'm a silly Papist!" Oh, Dogger is in trouble when his wife, Mel, who's a Catholic, hears about this...
Sci-Fi Geekiness
My sidebar isn't totally accurate as I've been listening to a Doctor Who audio drama called "The Nowhere Place" recently. The audio dramas came up on Sunday at brunch and I wanted to rave about this story because it is just freakin' spooky!
I'm just a bit more than halfway through. The first half takes place in 2197. The fighter-carrier Valiant is out on the perimeter of our solar system and on guard against intrusions by alien raiders. Meanwhile, The Doctor (6th) is taking Evelyn back to 20th century Earth for a visit when he is overcome by a disturbing feeling that something is going terribly wrong. He then hears a bell. Back on the Valiant, members of the crew begin hearing the bell which instills terror into them. Then they are mysteriously and perpetually drawn to a door in one of the cargo holds. The funny thing about the door, besides being positioned to lead directly into space, is that there is only a void behind it. Just a nowhere. Oh, and the TARDIS calculated it to be a bit more than 50,000,000,000 years old.
The story is positively creepy. One thing that really works to its advantage is that there is no appearance by a known baddie. For instance, if you know that a story features the Cybermen, then, no matter how good it is, you always know that one of them is going to step out of the shadows at some point. And you know what the Cybermen do and what their motivation is. But here, I don't know what's going on or who's behind it all. To top things off, I find myself scared shitless by a door.
There's a pattern to the scariness. The Doctor and Evelyn are captured by the hard-ass captain who takes no shit. Not believing their story, she alternately threatens to kill or cryogenically freeze them. So I find myself distracted and fearing for the fate of the heroes even though I know they'll be fine. Then a warning klaxon starts meaning that the door is opening. A guard down by the cargo hold which contains the door then contacts the captain via an intercom. He frantically describes vain attempts to keep the zombified crewmen from walking through the door and into the void. There's static and panic and yelling and screaming and it just makes my heart race and scares the bejeezus outta me! So you have these low tension level lulls which are punctuated by these visceral scenes which just ratchet up the tension instantly. Great stuff!
I anxiously awaited the arrival of Torchwood all summer and now I find that we're 3 episodes into the season already. And I haven't even watched one yet! I've got them all but just haven't found the right time to watch. The Dulcinea and I keep meaning to sit ourselves down in front of the TV but it seems like we always have sex instead. Not a bad trade-off, I guess. And so I still have something to look forward to.
Another thing I'm looking forward to is tonight's LOST. There's just one more episode after tonight's before the show goes on hiatus until Februrary. Get ready because tonight is gonna be a shocker.
SPOILERS!! SPOILERS!! SPOILERS!! SPOILERS!! SPOILERS!!
Someone, as in a series regular is going to buy the farm. By looking at lists on the Internet of who it isn't and of write-ups for future shows, it seems like Jin is going to die. But it could be Rose, whom I would consider to be a regular cast member, although she is a minor one. I mean, she did get a flashback. Maybe her cancer has come out of remission.
While the death of a character will be shocking, I'm fired up for Locke's return to The Pearl Station. As we saw in last week's preview, Locke and some other Losties return to The Pearl and are watching one of the monitors when a figure's face comes into view. Upon that face is an eyepatch. Remember last season when Eko finds the box in The Arrow station which contains a Bible and a fake eye. Is Ol' One-Eye really Radzinsky? Is it a live feed or a tape? Probably a tape of The Swan. And tonight features flashbacks for Mr. Eko. Presumably we'll meet some of the figures that he saw in Smokey last season.
I've been to forums where some folks claim that LOST has jumped the shark and I disagree. Personally, I enjoy how new mysteries have arisen and how old ones are being explored once again. For instance, how is it that Desmond now has precognition? Must have been a result of the failsafe mechanism of the Swan Station. Or was it? As for old things, the polar bear returned and Smokey is supposed to as well. We've got a whole new group of characters to be explored. Plus I appreciate how the new season once again shifts the focus to a new locale. First there was the beach and the island generally; next came the Swan Station; and now we have the Hydra Station and the camp of The Others.
Shit! I just read that Ol' One Eye isn't Radzinsky. Ooh! And there's a funeral tonight too!
I'm just a bit more than halfway through. The first half takes place in 2197. The fighter-carrier Valiant is out on the perimeter of our solar system and on guard against intrusions by alien raiders. Meanwhile, The Doctor (6th) is taking Evelyn back to 20th century Earth for a visit when he is overcome by a disturbing feeling that something is going terribly wrong. He then hears a bell. Back on the Valiant, members of the crew begin hearing the bell which instills terror into them. Then they are mysteriously and perpetually drawn to a door in one of the cargo holds. The funny thing about the door, besides being positioned to lead directly into space, is that there is only a void behind it. Just a nowhere. Oh, and the TARDIS calculated it to be a bit more than 50,000,000,000 years old.
The story is positively creepy. One thing that really works to its advantage is that there is no appearance by a known baddie. For instance, if you know that a story features the Cybermen, then, no matter how good it is, you always know that one of them is going to step out of the shadows at some point. And you know what the Cybermen do and what their motivation is. But here, I don't know what's going on or who's behind it all. To top things off, I find myself scared shitless by a door.
There's a pattern to the scariness. The Doctor and Evelyn are captured by the hard-ass captain who takes no shit. Not believing their story, she alternately threatens to kill or cryogenically freeze them. So I find myself distracted and fearing for the fate of the heroes even though I know they'll be fine. Then a warning klaxon starts meaning that the door is opening. A guard down by the cargo hold which contains the door then contacts the captain via an intercom. He frantically describes vain attempts to keep the zombified crewmen from walking through the door and into the void. There's static and panic and yelling and screaming and it just makes my heart race and scares the bejeezus outta me! So you have these low tension level lulls which are punctuated by these visceral scenes which just ratchet up the tension instantly. Great stuff!
I anxiously awaited the arrival of Torchwood all summer and now I find that we're 3 episodes into the season already. And I haven't even watched one yet! I've got them all but just haven't found the right time to watch. The Dulcinea and I keep meaning to sit ourselves down in front of the TV but it seems like we always have sex instead. Not a bad trade-off, I guess. And so I still have something to look forward to.
Another thing I'm looking forward to is tonight's LOST. There's just one more episode after tonight's before the show goes on hiatus until Februrary. Get ready because tonight is gonna be a shocker.
SPOILERS!! SPOILERS!! SPOILERS!! SPOILERS!! SPOILERS!!
Someone, as in a series regular is going to buy the farm. By looking at lists on the Internet of who it isn't and of write-ups for future shows, it seems like Jin is going to die. But it could be Rose, whom I would consider to be a regular cast member, although she is a minor one. I mean, she did get a flashback. Maybe her cancer has come out of remission.
While the death of a character will be shocking, I'm fired up for Locke's return to The Pearl Station. As we saw in last week's preview, Locke and some other Losties return to The Pearl and are watching one of the monitors when a figure's face comes into view. Upon that face is an eyepatch. Remember last season when Eko finds the box in The Arrow station which contains a Bible and a fake eye. Is Ol' One-Eye really Radzinsky? Is it a live feed or a tape? Probably a tape of The Swan. And tonight features flashbacks for Mr. Eko. Presumably we'll meet some of the figures that he saw in Smokey last season.
I've been to forums where some folks claim that LOST has jumped the shark and I disagree. Personally, I enjoy how new mysteries have arisen and how old ones are being explored once again. For instance, how is it that Desmond now has precognition? Must have been a result of the failsafe mechanism of the Swan Station. Or was it? As for old things, the polar bear returned and Smokey is supposed to as well. We've got a whole new group of characters to be explored. Plus I appreciate how the new season once again shifts the focus to a new locale. First there was the beach and the island generally; next came the Swan Station; and now we have the Hydra Station and the camp of The Others.
Shit! I just read that Ol' One Eye isn't Radzinsky. Ooh! And there's a funeral tonight too!
Bitching
My new job is going fairly well. I've finally gotten to the point where I have a decent view of the lay of the land. It's not a bad gig and I've learned some new stuff but I'm trying to decide if I want to stay here past December, when the decision would be made. For starters, I really don't like working out here on the far west side. There's no interesting places to walk to. It's like you've gotta drive to the bathroom. So far I've concluded that the only nice things about working on this side of town are closer proximity to: 1) Steve's Liquor and 2) Westfield Comics. For some reason, half the IT staff is in another building a few minutes walk from here. And the cubicles do a good job of cutting one off from those around you. I used to work downtown in a nice structure built in the 1930s, but now I'm in this ugly shack. The creek out back is scenic, but I miss downtown. The food carts, the Wednesday Farmer's Market, a Puerto Rican take-away joint nearby, the restaurants in the Gateway Mall; Mad City Music was a short jaunt away and Four Star Video was as well. The pasties at Teddywedgers always made for a nice, hearty lunch during the winter months; coffeeshops were nearby as was a post office; and my trek home meant I went right by the Willy Street Co-op, Woodman's, Bongo Video, & Star Liquor. No more group lunches at Parthenon's Gyros or Jamerica. Plus there is a severe shortage of hotties here. There's a couple accounting interns here but that's about it. Unlike social work, the engineering field doesn't attract a lot of women who wanted to grow up and design electronic components for a living.
On the plus side, the folks here are friendly and it's a relaxed, casual work environment.
I stopped down at DHFS earlier this week to see some former co-workers and pickup my Pampered Chef order from Ed. It was nice to see them again. People always ask me if I'm getting paid more but I'm not. It's really clear to me now that I'm on a road to nowhere with my current employer. Aside from becoming a master LAN admin overnight, there's really nothing I can do to get a raise outside of a token 2-3% annual bump. This despite every client having been happy with my performance. CUNA liked me and so, instead of being sent packing after a rollout, they brought me onboard. One state agency went short-handed for two and a half months in order to get me back. Another told me that I was they'd love to have me there after a mere week. And my current client accepted me within 2 hours of having lunch with a manager. But none of this has done me any good with my employer. I got a little less than 50% of the value of the contract with the state. But the state is downsizing and has caps on how much contracting companies will be paid for a particular position. To top things off, the state contracts out the work of hiring contractors to a company called Comsys and pays them 2.5% for this service. (And guess who eats that 2.5%?) Here's how it was explained to me: Comsys merely provides bodies. They go to 65 firms which trade in contracts who in turn go to probably 100 firms that actually employ people. I am certainly in favor of cost saving measures but wonder just how much money is being saved by having a Texas company that doesn't even have an office in Wisconsin do this. And I'm still interested to know how much taxpayer money leaves the Wisconsin economy when the state brings in contractors from Canada through a firm in New Jersey or moves the state's help desk to Illinois or mandates that certain products must be purchased from companies outside of the state.
Now I'm back in the private sector so you can bet your ass my company is getting more for my services than it got from the state. But my pay hasn't changed. My best guesstimate is that my take has fallen to somewhere around 40-43% of the contract.
My manager here at the client's site asked me last week if my contracting company's manager had contacted me about taking a UNIX class. He had not and I knew absolutely nothing about this when he brought the issue up. I still know nothing about this hypothetical class. Looking through some emails here, I see that my summer '06 performance assessment hasn't gone anywhere since 1 August when I completed step #1. The upshot here is that my manager was supposed to have tackled step #2 about three months ago but hasn't.
It's clear to me now that my employer will never be communicative with me unless I don't submit a timesheet by the Monday deadline and thusly prevent the people in billing from charging a client. It is also crystal clear that my pay is not commensurate with the value of a contract. A client could be billed $100/hour for my services and I'd still get the same amount every two weeks. I honestly have no idea what hoops I need to jump through to get a raise so that I'm making an average salary. But I suppose that a performance assessment would help.
OK, enough bitching for now.
On the plus side, the folks here are friendly and it's a relaxed, casual work environment.
I stopped down at DHFS earlier this week to see some former co-workers and pickup my Pampered Chef order from Ed. It was nice to see them again. People always ask me if I'm getting paid more but I'm not. It's really clear to me now that I'm on a road to nowhere with my current employer. Aside from becoming a master LAN admin overnight, there's really nothing I can do to get a raise outside of a token 2-3% annual bump. This despite every client having been happy with my performance. CUNA liked me and so, instead of being sent packing after a rollout, they brought me onboard. One state agency went short-handed for two and a half months in order to get me back. Another told me that I was they'd love to have me there after a mere week. And my current client accepted me within 2 hours of having lunch with a manager. But none of this has done me any good with my employer. I got a little less than 50% of the value of the contract with the state. But the state is downsizing and has caps on how much contracting companies will be paid for a particular position. To top things off, the state contracts out the work of hiring contractors to a company called Comsys and pays them 2.5% for this service. (And guess who eats that 2.5%?) Here's how it was explained to me: Comsys merely provides bodies. They go to 65 firms which trade in contracts who in turn go to probably 100 firms that actually employ people. I am certainly in favor of cost saving measures but wonder just how much money is being saved by having a Texas company that doesn't even have an office in Wisconsin do this. And I'm still interested to know how much taxpayer money leaves the Wisconsin economy when the state brings in contractors from Canada through a firm in New Jersey or moves the state's help desk to Illinois or mandates that certain products must be purchased from companies outside of the state.
Now I'm back in the private sector so you can bet your ass my company is getting more for my services than it got from the state. But my pay hasn't changed. My best guesstimate is that my take has fallen to somewhere around 40-43% of the contract.
My manager here at the client's site asked me last week if my contracting company's manager had contacted me about taking a UNIX class. He had not and I knew absolutely nothing about this when he brought the issue up. I still know nothing about this hypothetical class. Looking through some emails here, I see that my summer '06 performance assessment hasn't gone anywhere since 1 August when I completed step #1. The upshot here is that my manager was supposed to have tackled step #2 about three months ago but hasn't.
It's clear to me now that my employer will never be communicative with me unless I don't submit a timesheet by the Monday deadline and thusly prevent the people in billing from charging a client. It is also crystal clear that my pay is not commensurate with the value of a contract. A client could be billed $100/hour for my services and I'd still get the same amount every two weeks. I honestly have no idea what hoops I need to jump through to get a raise so that I'm making an average salary. But I suppose that a performance assessment would help.
OK, enough bitching for now.
Weekend
The autumn days are flying by. After an unseasonably warm day on Monday, it looks to be a chilly one today. This weekend was quite a bit of fun. The highlights were a party on Saturday with brunch and a video premiere on Sunday.
Saturday's shindig was a Samhain party hosted by I., from our writing group. The Dulcinea, her oldest, and I headed over for feasting and fun. For the occasion, I wore my wool cloak and I must say that it was quite warm. GD and his wife were there as well and they were the only folks that I'd ever met more than once previously. I got to meet I.'s roommates for the second time, although I was actually able to have conversations this go-round instead of a brief hello-and-goodbye. I. led a brief Samhain ceremony. A circle was cast and she went around with a mirror and matches. Each person lit a match, looked into the mirror and bid farewell to something. It had been a few years since I was involved in any kind of pagan or Wiccan ceremony and so it was rather nice to participate again.
It was a potluck and there were tasty foods of all sorts, including the hostess' Vampire Chicken which involves impaling fowl with a wooden spike. Since Des was along, we couldn't get too rowdy and I couldn't imbibe too much, although I did bring a bottle of cyser and drank my fair share of it. I also brought along my bottle of kvas and had my first taste of the stuff. The way Charles was describing it, I thought it would be some foul concoction but I really enjoyed it. The best way for me to describe it is that it tasted like pumpernickel bread that had more than its fair share of molasses.
We awoke Sunday morning to find that it was a beautiful day. The Dulcinea and I had a brunch date out at The Stead. Mistress R and J. put on quite a spread. It was funny to see the place decked out to accommodate several eaters as opposed to having all manner of pleasure-inducing gear strewn about. J. manned an omelet station and there was bacon, asparagus, spuds, et al. In addition to the savory, there were sweets and I made a glutton of myself with the Thousand Layer Cake which I topped with a generous amount of peach jalapeno jelly. I did this twice, in fact. I left not a square inch of space for a Dutch Baby. We sat with R.'s roomie, whose name I cannot recall and some of her co-workers and friends. One of her friends, to whom I don't think we introduced ourselves, unfortunately, was a co-worker of Lola. A small world. At one point, the conversation took a turn towards the dorky as it first became about the story Beowulf and Grendel in its various incarnations followed by Doctor Who. We had a good time and ate much too much.
We picked up Des from his grandmother's place and headed towards the mall. We had a couple hours to blow before our presence was required elsewhere. I hadn't been to a bookstore in ages so I decided to hit one. Being out by the dreaded mall, The Dulcinea could go to a couple stores in the vicinity for Halloween crafts and decorations.
I'm like a kid in a candy store when I find myself surrounded by books. Having a credit or debit card in my pocket while in such places is not the best thing in the world for my finances. Oddly enough, I walked out of there with only two (2) new acquisitions: Cry Rape by Bill Lueders and Letter To a Christian Nation by Sam Harris.
I was rather heartened to see that the shelf on Atheism at the bookstore had grown considerably. Just a few years ago, it held only a handful of books which were all written by philosophers and were formal refutations of the Ontological Argument of God's Existence, Pascal's Wager, etc. And now a few authors have about doubled the numbers of texts there. There's Sam Harris and his two books, Richard Dawkins new tome, and Dan Dennett's recent contribution. (Next year Christopher Hitchens throws his hat into the ring.) While it seems like all these books touch on proofs for and against the existence of deities, they are primarily concerned with very tangible aspects of religion in the here and now.
Cry Rape caught my interest because it's about a woman - Patty - from right here in Madison. It tells the horrible story of the aftermath of her rape. Being sexually assaulted is terrible enough, but the police pressured her into recanting at one point and she suffered even more at the hands of the authorities. Interesting yet sad reading ahead.
Of course there were lots of other books that I wanted to get but didn't. For instance, there was a bio of Thomas Paine staring down at me in the US History section that was mighty tempting. Actually, the history section had a lot of tomes that I wanted to get, especially in the Ancient & Medieval sections. Looking back, I used to read mostly fiction when I was younger but now, my tastes usually run towards non-fiction. And I was never much for history until fairly recently as well. I think I've turned into my father.
Another book that I was sorely tempted to purchase was Misquoting Jesus. It concerns how the New Testament, originally written in Koine Greek, has been perverted and mistranslated throughout the centuries.
And so there were many, many books I wanted to get but I was remarkably restrained.
At around 4 we took off and headed to the Harmony Bar where The Dulcinea's grandfather would be for a book signing, panel discussion, and video premiere. The occasion was the publication of the book Long Shadows: Veterans' Paths to Peace and the completion of its accompanying video. The Long Shadows project is about letting some local veterans who have gone from soldiers to peace activists tell their stories. One of them was Will Williams. It seems like whenever I go to one of these lefty events, he and I are only smokers so we always end up meeting out back somewhere chewing the fat as we puff away. He's a member of the Madison Gospelaires (that's him at the left of the two left-most pictures) and a really nice guy. He's got this avuncular quality to him. But, seeing pictures of him laying down his anti-war views, he takes on a Frederick Douglass persona of majestic wrath.
As I sat there watching, I felt like, "You don't need to tell me war is hell." Granted, I did not serve, but I've read enough and, more importantly, have spoken with enough veterans who have broken down in tears telling me stories about the killing they did and the friends they lost in war to know that it is truly hell. But then I realized that, in a sense, it wasn't directed at me. While I suppose the project was aimed at various folks, including other vets, turning to my left to see Des sitting there reminded me that people aren't born with a sense that war is hell. This is something that each generation must teach that which succeeds it. We human beings really do need to keep telling the same story over and over again.
The video was only about 30mins long and so viewers only got brief snapshots of the veterans' stories and only about half of the vets in the book were represented. Still, it was really interesting. Will's story caught my attention because his was wrapped up in race. He grew up as a colored American in the South during the 1950s/60s and he drew parallels between how colored folks were treated here in the States and how he treated other non-whites in Vietnam. Will's story just had this interesting racial aspect that the stories of the white vets lacked. So now I've got another book to add to my to-buy list.
Saturday's shindig was a Samhain party hosted by I., from our writing group. The Dulcinea, her oldest, and I headed over for feasting and fun. For the occasion, I wore my wool cloak and I must say that it was quite warm. GD and his wife were there as well and they were the only folks that I'd ever met more than once previously. I got to meet I.'s roommates for the second time, although I was actually able to have conversations this go-round instead of a brief hello-and-goodbye. I. led a brief Samhain ceremony. A circle was cast and she went around with a mirror and matches. Each person lit a match, looked into the mirror and bid farewell to something. It had been a few years since I was involved in any kind of pagan or Wiccan ceremony and so it was rather nice to participate again.
It was a potluck and there were tasty foods of all sorts, including the hostess' Vampire Chicken which involves impaling fowl with a wooden spike. Since Des was along, we couldn't get too rowdy and I couldn't imbibe too much, although I did bring a bottle of cyser and drank my fair share of it. I also brought along my bottle of kvas and had my first taste of the stuff. The way Charles was describing it, I thought it would be some foul concoction but I really enjoyed it. The best way for me to describe it is that it tasted like pumpernickel bread that had more than its fair share of molasses.
We awoke Sunday morning to find that it was a beautiful day. The Dulcinea and I had a brunch date out at The Stead. Mistress R and J. put on quite a spread. It was funny to see the place decked out to accommodate several eaters as opposed to having all manner of pleasure-inducing gear strewn about. J. manned an omelet station and there was bacon, asparagus, spuds, et al. In addition to the savory, there were sweets and I made a glutton of myself with the Thousand Layer Cake which I topped with a generous amount of peach jalapeno jelly. I did this twice, in fact. I left not a square inch of space for a Dutch Baby. We sat with R.'s roomie, whose name I cannot recall and some of her co-workers and friends. One of her friends, to whom I don't think we introduced ourselves, unfortunately, was a co-worker of Lola. A small world. At one point, the conversation took a turn towards the dorky as it first became about the story Beowulf and Grendel in its various incarnations followed by Doctor Who. We had a good time and ate much too much.
We picked up Des from his grandmother's place and headed towards the mall. We had a couple hours to blow before our presence was required elsewhere. I hadn't been to a bookstore in ages so I decided to hit one. Being out by the dreaded mall, The Dulcinea could go to a couple stores in the vicinity for Halloween crafts and decorations.
I'm like a kid in a candy store when I find myself surrounded by books. Having a credit or debit card in my pocket while in such places is not the best thing in the world for my finances. Oddly enough, I walked out of there with only two (2) new acquisitions: Cry Rape by Bill Lueders and Letter To a Christian Nation by Sam Harris.
I was rather heartened to see that the shelf on Atheism at the bookstore had grown considerably. Just a few years ago, it held only a handful of books which were all written by philosophers and were formal refutations of the Ontological Argument of God's Existence, Pascal's Wager, etc. And now a few authors have about doubled the numbers of texts there. There's Sam Harris and his two books, Richard Dawkins new tome, and Dan Dennett's recent contribution. (Next year Christopher Hitchens throws his hat into the ring.) While it seems like all these books touch on proofs for and against the existence of deities, they are primarily concerned with very tangible aspects of religion in the here and now.
Cry Rape caught my interest because it's about a woman - Patty - from right here in Madison. It tells the horrible story of the aftermath of her rape. Being sexually assaulted is terrible enough, but the police pressured her into recanting at one point and she suffered even more at the hands of the authorities. Interesting yet sad reading ahead.
Of course there were lots of other books that I wanted to get but didn't. For instance, there was a bio of Thomas Paine staring down at me in the US History section that was mighty tempting. Actually, the history section had a lot of tomes that I wanted to get, especially in the Ancient & Medieval sections. Looking back, I used to read mostly fiction when I was younger but now, my tastes usually run towards non-fiction. And I was never much for history until fairly recently as well. I think I've turned into my father.
Another book that I was sorely tempted to purchase was Misquoting Jesus. It concerns how the New Testament, originally written in Koine Greek, has been perverted and mistranslated throughout the centuries.
And so there were many, many books I wanted to get but I was remarkably restrained.
At around 4 we took off and headed to the Harmony Bar where The Dulcinea's grandfather would be for a book signing, panel discussion, and video premiere. The occasion was the publication of the book Long Shadows: Veterans' Paths to Peace and the completion of its accompanying video. The Long Shadows project is about letting some local veterans who have gone from soldiers to peace activists tell their stories. One of them was Will Williams. It seems like whenever I go to one of these lefty events, he and I are only smokers so we always end up meeting out back somewhere chewing the fat as we puff away. He's a member of the Madison Gospelaires (that's him at the left of the two left-most pictures) and a really nice guy. He's got this avuncular quality to him. But, seeing pictures of him laying down his anti-war views, he takes on a Frederick Douglass persona of majestic wrath.
As I sat there watching, I felt like, "You don't need to tell me war is hell." Granted, I did not serve, but I've read enough and, more importantly, have spoken with enough veterans who have broken down in tears telling me stories about the killing they did and the friends they lost in war to know that it is truly hell. But then I realized that, in a sense, it wasn't directed at me. While I suppose the project was aimed at various folks, including other vets, turning to my left to see Des sitting there reminded me that people aren't born with a sense that war is hell. This is something that each generation must teach that which succeeds it. We human beings really do need to keep telling the same story over and over again.
The video was only about 30mins long and so viewers only got brief snapshots of the veterans' stories and only about half of the vets in the book were represented. Still, it was really interesting. Will's story caught my attention because his was wrapped up in race. He grew up as a colored American in the South during the 1950s/60s and he drew parallels between how colored folks were treated here in the States and how he treated other non-whites in Vietnam. Will's story just had this interesting racial aspect that the stories of the white vets lacked. So now I've got another book to add to my to-buy list.
28 October, 2006
Myths & Misconceptions
(To Part 1, Part 2.)
One woman in "The Trouble With My Vagina" who refuses to have any pubic hair explained this attitude by saying "it's just more hygienic for it to be groomed". But is it? What ill-health effects are to be had by keeping your pubic hair? None, apparently. The following is in the 1994 edition of The American Medical Association Family Medical Guide:
Many women regularly remove hair from certain areas, and most men shave their faces daily. Hair is usually removed if it is considered unsightly. Whether hair is unsightly or not is a matter of personal preference. Removal of unwanted hair is unlikely to improve hygiene or health.
Indeed, waxing can be harmful. Marian Segal wrote in the 1996 FDA Consumer that “waxing—and tweezing as well—can leave the skin sore and open to infection”. The hair on women's heads is (generally) longer and denser than pubic hair, yet it is not considered unhygienic. Is there something in our psyches that equates genitalia and its surrounds with uncleanliness that is at play here?
Later in the program, Scarlet editor Sarah Hadley says:
Because we are sexually open, there will always be side effects to anything positive that happens and because we're so sexually open, women are watching a lot of pornography now. We're looking at women's vaginas and saying, 'Oh! That's a nice vagina, that looks incredibly symmetrical and neat and mine doesn't look like that. And so, as soon as a woman has an insecurity, there's an entire multi-million dollar industry ready to cash in on that insecurity. It's happening now.
A doctor interviewed in the program had this to say:
Part of me just thinks that it's a problem that women are creating for women, ah, simply because I don't know a man who's ever been put-off by the site of somebody's vulval area. By the time they get that far, they're grateful to have gotten as far as they've got.
One woman causing problems for fellow women by cashing in on their insecurities is Marilyn Jaeger, the proprietor of a skincare studio in San Francisco. She's appeared on the radio show-cum-podcast, Sex With Emily a couple times hawking her services and promoting the total removal of pubic hair. These two dyed-in-the-wool fanatics of hairless crotches sound like an infomercial together.
Emily: So Marilyn, what can a Brazilian wax do for me?
Jaeger: Well Emily, after having a Brazilian, you'll instantly attract men and get laid every night!
If you think I'm just being funny, then read these actual quotes from the Hairless Duo:
Emily: "Tonight we're talking to Marilyn Jaeger, who is one of my personal heroes, because Marilyn put Brazilian bikini waxing on the map. She's the first one who did that little stripper strip mound of hair to me several years ago and she changed my life."
Jaeger: "I brought Brazilian bikini waxing to the Bay Area – nobody knew what it was. I've been doing it for 13 years…I have fans all over the world. I walk into a restaurant and five guys are bowing on the floor because I take care of their wives."
Emily: "Married people probably need Brazilians more than straight [sic] because married people don't have sex and they wanna start having sex."
Jaeger: "Absolutely."
Jaeger: "When I'm doing their eyebrows and they're telling me these stories [about lack of sex in their marriages], inside I'm all , 'Girlfriend, drop your drawers – I will take care of you and your husband will not leave you alone."
Jaeger: "I have clients who are the biggest prudes in the world and they're so shy and embarrassed. And then they get their Brazilian and they strut out of my salon like they are the hottest thing on this planet."
And these quotes are just from the first few minutes of the first time Jaeger was on the show. Listen for yourself.
Like a snake oil peddler, Jaeger assures listeners that their sex lives will be enhanced or even risen from the ashes like the Phoenix after she removes most or all of their pubes. The implication here is that pubic hair is sole to blame instead of seeing that a couple's sex life is influenced by a myriad of factors. This puffery (at best) or lying (at worst) wouldn't be so bad on its own, but she never misses a beat in trying to make folks who prefer to retain their pubic hair feel inadequate and downright ugly. Her refrain is "You've gotta mow the lawn to sell the house". First of all, having your pubes yanked out is not mowing; it's ripping up the sod. Secondly, why is this all about selling the house? Jaeger constantly warns (threatens?) listeners that, if they have pubic hair, potential sexual partners will flee in terror. And so it seems that for her, if your self-image is just fine with hair between your legs, then there is something wrong with you, you're not part of the "in" crowd, and so you'd best ditch that positive self-image.
In " The Brazilian Wax: New Hairlessness Norm for Women?", Magdala Peixoto Labre takes a look at the Brazilian Wax, which is generally understood to be a treatment whereby all hair between a woman's legs is removed excepting a small patch on the Mons Veneris - the "landing strip". As Labre notes, the fad of the Brazilian is thought to have started, not in Brazil, but in New York by the J. Sisters – seven Brazilian sisters whose names all begin with the letter "J". They supposedly learned the technique from their aunt's beauty salon in Brazil and brought it to America. Labre shows how the procedure has been promoted by magazines aimed at women as well as by the TV show Sex and the City. But the most interesting section is when she tries to inform readers about what the media left out of its frenzy of promotion.
In promoting the Brazilian wax trend, the media failed to question whether the procedure was, in fact, espoused by a majority of Brazilian women. Although I was born and raised in Rio de Janeiro and visit the country regularly (at least once a year), I had never heard of the Brazilian wax procedure until it became popular in the United States a few years ago. Growing up in Brazil, my friends and I did go to beauty salons for a regular bikini wax, not a Brazilian wax. In searching the Web sites of Brazilian beauty salons, I have found that some do offer a more extensive bikini wax (referred to as “virilha cavada”, or deeper bikini line)—for women who wear smaller bikinis. However, few bikinis are small enough to require the complete removal of hair.
According to Pello Menos Depilation Institute, which has 13 clinics in Rio de Janeiro, the complete removal of pubic and anal hair is referred to in Brazil by its scientific name, “tricotomia” (response to e-mail request for information, August 22, 2001). It is a procedure that is usually performed on pregnant women right before they give birth. According to Pello Menos Institute, because the Brazilian wax procedure requires specialized training, it is not offered by many Brazilian salons. However, the institute noted that its clinics do offer this service, which is now becoming popular among Brazilian women.
It seems that The Brazilian Wax was not a fad in the country for which it is named but was instead an American creation that was exported later. She also touches on what I mentioned previously about pornography being a model. Labre notes:
…the disappearance of pubic hair among Playboy models. Although there is anecdotal evidence that this has occurred, this phenomenon has not been the topic of research. In our society, Playboy models often are the first images of female beauty to which boys are exposed. The consumption of these images may contribute to adolescent boys’ conception of what a female body should look like and generate dissatisfaction with women’s bodies. For example, a study of male college students found that those exposed to pictures of Playboy and Penthouse centerfolds subsequently described their girlfriends as less sexually appealing (Signorielli 1993).
Perhaps this explains my own personal preference for women having their pubes. I hit puberty in the first half of the 1980s back when Playboy models, although neatly trimmed, still had hair between their legs. I guess I really just don't know. I would also hazard to guess that my attitude towards women's body hair generally was shaped, at least in part, when I was in high school. A friend's parents were hippies right out of the 1960s. In the 70s, they took the notion of "getting back to the land" to heart and moved to a very small farm here in Wisconsin. Unsurprisingly, my friend's mom didn't shave her underarms or legs. I don't recall my initial reaction but I suppose it was just one of curiosity as she was different. As time went on, it became a non-issue as I simply recognized her as a woman who refused to conform to society's norm of female beauty. I think that, because of this experience, I tend to view women who refuse to depilate one area of their body or another as being non-conformists or rebels in their own little way. And this quality of not simply following the herd is one I respect greatly.
Sources:
"The Brazilian Wax: New Hairless Norm for Women?" – Magdala Peixoto Labre
"Caucasian Female Body Hair and American Culture" - Christine Hope
"The Hairless Ideal – Women and Their Body Hair" – Susan A. Basow
"Women and Body Hair – Social Perceptions and Attitudes" – Susan A. Basow and Amie C. Braman
"The Hairless Norm: The Removal of Body Hair in Women" – Marika Tiggemann and Sarah J. Kenyon
"Attitudes Toward Women's Body Hair: Relationship with Disgust Sensitivity" – Marika Tiggemann and Christine Lewis
"Body hair removal: the 'mundane' production of normative femininity" – Merran Toerien, Sue Wilkinson, Precilla Y.L. Choi
"Who decided women should shave their legs and underarms?" – The Straight Dope
Sex With Emily - podcast
The Madison Public Library (Libraries rock!!)
Pictures found at:
ShaveWorld
Vintage Paper Ads
eBay
Hippie Goddess
For some interesting discussion on this topic, I recommend the following blog entries:
"Buffing the Teen Beaver" - I Blame the Patriarchy
"To Shave or Not to Shave" - an eighth
"Taking 'parental consent' to a whole new level" - Feiminste
One woman in "The Trouble With My Vagina" who refuses to have any pubic hair explained this attitude by saying "it's just more hygienic for it to be groomed". But is it? What ill-health effects are to be had by keeping your pubic hair? None, apparently. The following is in the 1994 edition of The American Medical Association Family Medical Guide:
Many women regularly remove hair from certain areas, and most men shave their faces daily. Hair is usually removed if it is considered unsightly. Whether hair is unsightly or not is a matter of personal preference. Removal of unwanted hair is unlikely to improve hygiene or health.
Indeed, waxing can be harmful. Marian Segal wrote in the 1996 FDA Consumer that “waxing—and tweezing as well—can leave the skin sore and open to infection”. The hair on women's heads is (generally) longer and denser than pubic hair, yet it is not considered unhygienic. Is there something in our psyches that equates genitalia and its surrounds with uncleanliness that is at play here?
Later in the program, Scarlet editor Sarah Hadley says:
Because we are sexually open, there will always be side effects to anything positive that happens and because we're so sexually open, women are watching a lot of pornography now. We're looking at women's vaginas and saying, 'Oh! That's a nice vagina, that looks incredibly symmetrical and neat and mine doesn't look like that. And so, as soon as a woman has an insecurity, there's an entire multi-million dollar industry ready to cash in on that insecurity. It's happening now.
A doctor interviewed in the program had this to say:
Part of me just thinks that it's a problem that women are creating for women, ah, simply because I don't know a man who's ever been put-off by the site of somebody's vulval area. By the time they get that far, they're grateful to have gotten as far as they've got.
One woman causing problems for fellow women by cashing in on their insecurities is Marilyn Jaeger, the proprietor of a skincare studio in San Francisco. She's appeared on the radio show-cum-podcast, Sex With Emily a couple times hawking her services and promoting the total removal of pubic hair. These two dyed-in-the-wool fanatics of hairless crotches sound like an infomercial together.
Emily: So Marilyn, what can a Brazilian wax do for me?
Jaeger: Well Emily, after having a Brazilian, you'll instantly attract men and get laid every night!
If you think I'm just being funny, then read these actual quotes from the Hairless Duo:
Emily: "Tonight we're talking to Marilyn Jaeger, who is one of my personal heroes, because Marilyn put Brazilian bikini waxing on the map. She's the first one who did that little stripper strip mound of hair to me several years ago and she changed my life."
Jaeger: "I brought Brazilian bikini waxing to the Bay Area – nobody knew what it was. I've been doing it for 13 years…I have fans all over the world. I walk into a restaurant and five guys are bowing on the floor because I take care of their wives."
Emily: "Married people probably need Brazilians more than straight [sic] because married people don't have sex and they wanna start having sex."
Jaeger: "Absolutely."
Jaeger: "When I'm doing their eyebrows and they're telling me these stories [about lack of sex in their marriages], inside I'm all , 'Girlfriend, drop your drawers – I will take care of you and your husband will not leave you alone."
Jaeger: "I have clients who are the biggest prudes in the world and they're so shy and embarrassed. And then they get their Brazilian and they strut out of my salon like they are the hottest thing on this planet."
And these quotes are just from the first few minutes of the first time Jaeger was on the show. Listen for yourself.
Like a snake oil peddler, Jaeger assures listeners that their sex lives will be enhanced or even risen from the ashes like the Phoenix after she removes most or all of their pubes. The implication here is that pubic hair is sole to blame instead of seeing that a couple's sex life is influenced by a myriad of factors. This puffery (at best) or lying (at worst) wouldn't be so bad on its own, but she never misses a beat in trying to make folks who prefer to retain their pubic hair feel inadequate and downright ugly. Her refrain is "You've gotta mow the lawn to sell the house". First of all, having your pubes yanked out is not mowing; it's ripping up the sod. Secondly, why is this all about selling the house? Jaeger constantly warns (threatens?) listeners that, if they have pubic hair, potential sexual partners will flee in terror. And so it seems that for her, if your self-image is just fine with hair between your legs, then there is something wrong with you, you're not part of the "in" crowd, and so you'd best ditch that positive self-image.
In " The Brazilian Wax: New Hairlessness Norm for Women?", Magdala Peixoto Labre takes a look at the Brazilian Wax, which is generally understood to be a treatment whereby all hair between a woman's legs is removed excepting a small patch on the Mons Veneris - the "landing strip". As Labre notes, the fad of the Brazilian is thought to have started, not in Brazil, but in New York by the J. Sisters – seven Brazilian sisters whose names all begin with the letter "J". They supposedly learned the technique from their aunt's beauty salon in Brazil and brought it to America. Labre shows how the procedure has been promoted by magazines aimed at women as well as by the TV show Sex and the City. But the most interesting section is when she tries to inform readers about what the media left out of its frenzy of promotion.
In promoting the Brazilian wax trend, the media failed to question whether the procedure was, in fact, espoused by a majority of Brazilian women. Although I was born and raised in Rio de Janeiro and visit the country regularly (at least once a year), I had never heard of the Brazilian wax procedure until it became popular in the United States a few years ago. Growing up in Brazil, my friends and I did go to beauty salons for a regular bikini wax, not a Brazilian wax. In searching the Web sites of Brazilian beauty salons, I have found that some do offer a more extensive bikini wax (referred to as “virilha cavada”, or deeper bikini line)—for women who wear smaller bikinis. However, few bikinis are small enough to require the complete removal of hair.
According to Pello Menos Depilation Institute, which has 13 clinics in Rio de Janeiro, the complete removal of pubic and anal hair is referred to in Brazil by its scientific name, “tricotomia” (response to e-mail request for information, August 22, 2001). It is a procedure that is usually performed on pregnant women right before they give birth. According to Pello Menos Institute, because the Brazilian wax procedure requires specialized training, it is not offered by many Brazilian salons. However, the institute noted that its clinics do offer this service, which is now becoming popular among Brazilian women.
It seems that The Brazilian Wax was not a fad in the country for which it is named but was instead an American creation that was exported later. She also touches on what I mentioned previously about pornography being a model. Labre notes:
…the disappearance of pubic hair among Playboy models. Although there is anecdotal evidence that this has occurred, this phenomenon has not been the topic of research. In our society, Playboy models often are the first images of female beauty to which boys are exposed. The consumption of these images may contribute to adolescent boys’ conception of what a female body should look like and generate dissatisfaction with women’s bodies. For example, a study of male college students found that those exposed to pictures of Playboy and Penthouse centerfolds subsequently described their girlfriends as less sexually appealing (Signorielli 1993).
Perhaps this explains my own personal preference for women having their pubes. I hit puberty in the first half of the 1980s back when Playboy models, although neatly trimmed, still had hair between their legs. I guess I really just don't know. I would also hazard to guess that my attitude towards women's body hair generally was shaped, at least in part, when I was in high school. A friend's parents were hippies right out of the 1960s. In the 70s, they took the notion of "getting back to the land" to heart and moved to a very small farm here in Wisconsin. Unsurprisingly, my friend's mom didn't shave her underarms or legs. I don't recall my initial reaction but I suppose it was just one of curiosity as she was different. As time went on, it became a non-issue as I simply recognized her as a woman who refused to conform to society's norm of female beauty. I think that, because of this experience, I tend to view women who refuse to depilate one area of their body or another as being non-conformists or rebels in their own little way. And this quality of not simply following the herd is one I respect greatly.
Sources:
"The Brazilian Wax: New Hairless Norm for Women?" – Magdala Peixoto Labre
"Caucasian Female Body Hair and American Culture" - Christine Hope
"The Hairless Ideal – Women and Their Body Hair" – Susan A. Basow
"Women and Body Hair – Social Perceptions and Attitudes" – Susan A. Basow and Amie C. Braman
"The Hairless Norm: The Removal of Body Hair in Women" – Marika Tiggemann and Sarah J. Kenyon
"Attitudes Toward Women's Body Hair: Relationship with Disgust Sensitivity" – Marika Tiggemann and Christine Lewis
"Body hair removal: the 'mundane' production of normative femininity" – Merran Toerien, Sue Wilkinson, Precilla Y.L. Choi
"Who decided women should shave their legs and underarms?" – The Straight Dope
Sex With Emily - podcast
The Madison Public Library (Libraries rock!!)
Pictures found at:
ShaveWorld
Vintage Paper Ads
eBay
Hippie Goddess
For some interesting discussion on this topic, I recommend the following blog entries:
"Buffing the Teen Beaver" - I Blame the Patriarchy
"To Shave or Not to Shave" - an eighth
"Taking 'parental consent' to a whole new level" - Feiminste
Whither the Pubes?
(To Part 1.)
Answering this is actually quite difficult as social scientists don't seem to have actually attempted to find one for this specific question. However, they have examined the removal of women's body hair generally but have only done a handful of studies (that I could find, anyway). It's like science knows more about the lives of ants than it does about why women labor to remove all of their body hair. Reading the studies and other articles, it seems like pubic hair removal is, pardon the pun, an outgrowth of the "normal" practice of women removing their leg & underarm hair; this wasn't really something that came out of the blue, but is, rather, an extension of pre-existing norms.
The Christopher Columbus of this area of study is one Christine Hope. Her name appeared constantly in discussions about women and their depilation practices. While there were those before her who noted a "hairless ideal" for women and that the lack of body hair was considered feminine, she seems to be the first person to go out and try to find out why this was. The result was "Caucasian Female Body Hair and American Culture" which appeared in the Spring 1982 issue of the Journal of American Culture. I wasn't able to find a free copy of the article and wasn't going to pay $29 for one. However, it is quoted liberally in other pieces and I found that I was already familiar with her thesis. Uncle Cecil from The Straight Dope used Hope's research to answer "Who decided women should shave their legs and underarms?". I should note that Hope did not survey women about why they removed their hair. Instead she looked at the ads in issues of Harper's Bazaar, McCall's, the Sears catalogue, and the like from the years 1915-1945 to suss out the normal conception of beauty as it related to women and their body hair during these years.
According to Hope, the underarm campaign began in May, 1915, in Harper's Bazaar, a magazine aimed at the upper crust. The first ad "featured a waist-up photograph of a young woman who appears to be dressed in a slip with a toga-like outfit covering one shoulder. Her arms are arched over her head revealing perfectly clear armpits. The first part of the ad read `Summer Dress and Modern Dancing combine to make necessary the removal of objectionable hair.'"
(The first razor for women – Gillette's Milady Decollete.)
("A necessity for the well groomed woman")
Next came the assault on the legs:
The anti-leg hair campaign was more fitful. The volume of leg ads never reached the proportions of the underarm campaign. Women were apparently more ambivalent about calling attention to the lower half of their anatomy, perhaps out of fear that doing so would give the male of the species ideas in a way that naked underarms did not.
Besides, there wasn't much practical need for shaved legs. After rising in the 1920s hemlines dropped in the 30s and many women were content to leave their leg hair alone.
Still, some advertisers as well as an increasing number of fashion and beauty writers harped on the idea that female leg hair was a curse.
Though Hope doesn't say so, what may have put the issue over the top was the famous WWII pinup of Betty Grable displaying her awesome gams. Showing off one's legs became a patriotic act. That plus shorter skirts and sheer stockings, which looked dorky with leg hair beneath, made the anti-hair pitch an easy sell.
It seems that, before 1915, women generally didn't find their normal body hair to be a problem and nor, apparently, did men. Then along came clothes with very short or no sleeves and suddenly underarm hair became "superfluous", "ugly", "unwanted", and "unfashionable". These ads were aimed at white women and they often touted the benefits of shaving using the phrase "smooth and white". An advertisement by Dunsworth Laboratories, who presumably made some kind of depilatory, read: "Freedom from Unwanted Hair Opens the Gates to Social Enjoyments that are Forever Closed to Those so Afflicted". Afflicted with what? Being human?
As Hope noted, it was really in the post-World War II timeframe that the "hairless norm" took hold. While most women traipsed towards it with a razor in hand, there were others who were seemingly so desperate to be "normal" that they headed to the back alley for "X-ray epilation". This meant that they exposed themselves to harmful doses of radiation all in the name of hair removal. (Their desperation was later termed "North American Hiroshima maiden syndrome".) And some women paid the ultimate price for their pursuit – death.
In addition to linking hair removal to advertising campaigns and fashion trends, the literature on the topic also tends to speculate that patriarchal imperatives and biases are involved. In the preface to her study "Women and Their Body Hair", Susan Basow notes:
As middle-class women moved out of their "separate sphere" of domestic life both physically and behaviorally, the removal of body hair may have served to maintain a certain distinction between the genders. It also may have served to de-emphasize women's adult status, since increased body hair and the development of underarm hair are secondary sex characteristics that develop after puberty. Since hair has long had sexual association for men and for women, its removal also may have conveyed two closely associated sexual messages – that a woman's mature sexuality is controlled at the same time as her "tamed" sensuality is on display.
In the context of her article, Basow is implying that the above are not side effects of, but rather motivations for a trend. Personally, I find that this interpretation of hair removal as a method of social control puts an awfully large amount of intention behind a marketing ploy that goes beyond making money. While I agree that the ideas of what was "feminine" changed at this time, I still cannot attribute this to a malicious patriarchal subterfuge executed via the Gillette Safety Razor Company.
Besides Susan Basow's study, "Women and Their Body Hair" (1991), we have "The hairless norm: the removal of body hair in women" (1998) by researchers Marika Tiggemann and Sarah J. Kenyon. Whereas Basow looked at the habits of professional women, Tiggemann and Kenyon examined the hair removal habits of Australian high school girls and university women. Basow found that about 80% of her sample removed leg and/or underarm hair. T&K found:
Of the university women: 91.5% removed leg hair & 93% removed underarm hair
Of the high school girls: 92% removed leg hair & 91.2% removed underarm hair
Basow's respondents generally reported that they began shaving for "normative" reasons (i.e. – it was just something that women did when they hit puberty) as opposed to reasons related to femininity or attractiveness. Seven years later across the Pacific, T&K, however, found something different:
In contrast to Basow's (1991) finding for starting reasons, both groups also rated the feminine/attractiveness reasons as more important. This was much less pronounced for the university students, whose third to highest rated reason was the normative item "It was the thing to do" (highest rating in Basow's study). However, it was extremely clear that for the high school girls their starting reasons were primarily the feminine/attractive ones.
And why do women continue to shave? From Basow:
Most women continue to shave for reasons relating to femininity and sexual attractiveness. Few respondents say that they remove leg and/or underarm hair for functional reasons; i.e., that body hair is unclean or uncomfortable. Few also say body hair is gross, ugly, or disgusting; or that they shave to avoid looking like an animal or even like a man. Furthermore, few say they shave to appeal to men. Although self-reports may not be entirely accurate, the results do suggest that white women shave primarily because it is socially normative and because shaving is tied to feeling attractive and feminine.
T&K:
As can be seen in Table II, which displays the means for each of the reasons for hair removal, both the university and high school groups rated the feminine/attractiveness reasons as most important in why they continue to remove body hair. For the university group, the two most highly rated reasons were "It makes me feel attractive" and "I like the soft silky feeling". For the high school girls, the two most highly rated reasons were "Body hair is ugly" and "Men prefer women without body hair". This is consistent with Basow's (1991) findings, although in general the mean ratings are much higher.
In addition to the data above, each study engaged the topic with much more nuance than I give here. For instance, Basow emphasizes the differences in attitudes among women of different sexual orientations and identification with feminism while T&K discuss "the ways people process and analyze information in autobiographical memory". I do recommend that you go and read the studies themselves as they're quite interesting. I would also like to note that the samples of these studies consisted primarily of whites. This being the case, I would like to take a moment to quote Basow on the answers given by her black respondents.
These general findings need to be qualified by possible ethnic group and class differences. Since 91% of the sample is white, this pattern of behaviors and reasons apply primarily to white professional women. Since only 12 black women were respondents, statistical analysis of their responses are problematical. However, their results are suggestive of a very different social norm regarding body hair. Although there were no significant differences found between black and white respondents with respect to age, degree of body hair, growth rate, frequency of shaving, sexual orientation, degree of feminist identification, or removal of underarm hair (25%), more blacks than whites do not remove leg hair (50% compared to 21%). Those black women who do shave rated most of the reasons low, especially the social normative ones.
Basow and Tiggemann reappear in studies designed to gauge how body hair affects the perception of women.
Basow set out to see how body hair affects the perception of women by others. She had a couple hundred college students watch two 2-minute video clips featuring the same actress in each. A 22 year-old white model would emerge from a swimming pool in a two-piece swimming suit and dry herself off. In one clip, the woman had hair under her arms and on her legs while in the other she was shaved. Some of the results are rather disturbing. When shown with body hair, respondents found the woman to be:
1) less intelligent
2) less sociable
3) less happy
4) less positive
These results matched other studies and supported the author's thesis that people generally have negative attitudes towards body hair on women. One result, however, bucked the trend. In a previous study, women with hair were seen as "stronger" but, this time around it was the hairless who were perceived as "less strong active, and aggressive". Also of note here is that respondents who held feminist attitudes were more accepting of women with body hair than those who didn't. While this jived with her previous study, she notes that most women with feminist attitudes still shaved.
Tiggemann teamed up with Christine Lewis in 2004 for "Attitudes Toward Women's Body Hair: Relationship With Disgust Sensitivity". In addition to revisiting the reasons women give for shaving, they also examined how women perceive other women's reasons for removing hair. T&L found that women say that they shave themselves so that they look attractive and/or feminine. However, they perceive that other women shave because that is what's expected of them. (That old normative reason again.)
Thus, women interpret others’ behaviors, as due to normative pressures, in a way they do not do so for their own… It appears that women can recognize the normative pressures on them in general to shave, but are unwilling to accept this as the rationale for their own specific behavior… Perhaps the normative values of individualistic cultures render it difficult for women to acknowledge their own vulnerability to social pressures, although they can recognize such vulnerability in others.
Perhaps it was only a matter of time before attitudes towards underarm and leg hair were applied to the pubes to complete a mindset which is dead set against body hair on women. The area between women's legs became increasingly more visible and so it joined the ranks of the underarm and leg in hairlessness. But this "hairless norm" for women is a social construction. Men do not have the same social pressures. We men can walk down the street in shorts and a sleeveless shirt without social opprobrium despite having hairy legs and armpits. However, women are generally not able to do such. Plus, until fairly recently, women outside of North America felt little pressure to remove their body hair.
The problem here is that these studies didn't study pubic hair removal and merely mentioned it via tangents. Unlike the armpits and legs, the women's pubic areas don't get a lot of exposure out in public, except for situations such as the beach. In this sense, the fashion of removing the pubes bucks the trend that Hope noted, which was that hair removal seemed to be commensurate with more revealing clothing. Perhaps this can be explained by the proliferation of pornography. Starting from the beginning of the trend of women removing body hair, the marketers and the media have been complicit. Porn went mainstream and it started to demand that female actresses remove their pubic hair for more revealing shots. After this, non-porn stars felt the need to go barer and barer down there. In "The Trouble With My Vagina", a surgeon who performs labiaplasty notes that many of his patients come to him saying that they want the "Playboy look" or "I wanna look like Playboy". And so for many women, pornography provides a model to be emulated for literally thousands of dollars.
Thusly, I think it's fair to think of pube removal in the terms outlined above for other body hair.
(To Part 3.)
Answering this is actually quite difficult as social scientists don't seem to have actually attempted to find one for this specific question. However, they have examined the removal of women's body hair generally but have only done a handful of studies (that I could find, anyway). It's like science knows more about the lives of ants than it does about why women labor to remove all of their body hair. Reading the studies and other articles, it seems like pubic hair removal is, pardon the pun, an outgrowth of the "normal" practice of women removing their leg & underarm hair; this wasn't really something that came out of the blue, but is, rather, an extension of pre-existing norms.
The Christopher Columbus of this area of study is one Christine Hope. Her name appeared constantly in discussions about women and their depilation practices. While there were those before her who noted a "hairless ideal" for women and that the lack of body hair was considered feminine, she seems to be the first person to go out and try to find out why this was. The result was "Caucasian Female Body Hair and American Culture" which appeared in the Spring 1982 issue of the Journal of American Culture. I wasn't able to find a free copy of the article and wasn't going to pay $29 for one. However, it is quoted liberally in other pieces and I found that I was already familiar with her thesis. Uncle Cecil from The Straight Dope used Hope's research to answer "Who decided women should shave their legs and underarms?". I should note that Hope did not survey women about why they removed their hair. Instead she looked at the ads in issues of Harper's Bazaar, McCall's, the Sears catalogue, and the like from the years 1915-1945 to suss out the normal conception of beauty as it related to women and their body hair during these years.
According to Hope, the underarm campaign began in May, 1915, in Harper's Bazaar, a magazine aimed at the upper crust. The first ad "featured a waist-up photograph of a young woman who appears to be dressed in a slip with a toga-like outfit covering one shoulder. Her arms are arched over her head revealing perfectly clear armpits. The first part of the ad read `Summer Dress and Modern Dancing combine to make necessary the removal of objectionable hair.'"
(The first razor for women – Gillette's Milady Decollete.)
("A necessity for the well groomed woman")
Next came the assault on the legs:
The anti-leg hair campaign was more fitful. The volume of leg ads never reached the proportions of the underarm campaign. Women were apparently more ambivalent about calling attention to the lower half of their anatomy, perhaps out of fear that doing so would give the male of the species ideas in a way that naked underarms did not.
Besides, there wasn't much practical need for shaved legs. After rising in the 1920s hemlines dropped in the 30s and many women were content to leave their leg hair alone.
Still, some advertisers as well as an increasing number of fashion and beauty writers harped on the idea that female leg hair was a curse.
Though Hope doesn't say so, what may have put the issue over the top was the famous WWII pinup of Betty Grable displaying her awesome gams. Showing off one's legs became a patriotic act. That plus shorter skirts and sheer stockings, which looked dorky with leg hair beneath, made the anti-hair pitch an easy sell.
It seems that, before 1915, women generally didn't find their normal body hair to be a problem and nor, apparently, did men. Then along came clothes with very short or no sleeves and suddenly underarm hair became "superfluous", "ugly", "unwanted", and "unfashionable". These ads were aimed at white women and they often touted the benefits of shaving using the phrase "smooth and white". An advertisement by Dunsworth Laboratories, who presumably made some kind of depilatory, read: "Freedom from Unwanted Hair Opens the Gates to Social Enjoyments that are Forever Closed to Those so Afflicted". Afflicted with what? Being human?
As Hope noted, it was really in the post-World War II timeframe that the "hairless norm" took hold. While most women traipsed towards it with a razor in hand, there were others who were seemingly so desperate to be "normal" that they headed to the back alley for "X-ray epilation". This meant that they exposed themselves to harmful doses of radiation all in the name of hair removal. (Their desperation was later termed "North American Hiroshima maiden syndrome".) And some women paid the ultimate price for their pursuit – death.
In addition to linking hair removal to advertising campaigns and fashion trends, the literature on the topic also tends to speculate that patriarchal imperatives and biases are involved. In the preface to her study "Women and Their Body Hair", Susan Basow notes:
As middle-class women moved out of their "separate sphere" of domestic life both physically and behaviorally, the removal of body hair may have served to maintain a certain distinction between the genders. It also may have served to de-emphasize women's adult status, since increased body hair and the development of underarm hair are secondary sex characteristics that develop after puberty. Since hair has long had sexual association for men and for women, its removal also may have conveyed two closely associated sexual messages – that a woman's mature sexuality is controlled at the same time as her "tamed" sensuality is on display.
In the context of her article, Basow is implying that the above are not side effects of, but rather motivations for a trend. Personally, I find that this interpretation of hair removal as a method of social control puts an awfully large amount of intention behind a marketing ploy that goes beyond making money. While I agree that the ideas of what was "feminine" changed at this time, I still cannot attribute this to a malicious patriarchal subterfuge executed via the Gillette Safety Razor Company.
Besides Susan Basow's study, "Women and Their Body Hair" (1991), we have "The hairless norm: the removal of body hair in women" (1998) by researchers Marika Tiggemann and Sarah J. Kenyon. Whereas Basow looked at the habits of professional women, Tiggemann and Kenyon examined the hair removal habits of Australian high school girls and university women. Basow found that about 80% of her sample removed leg and/or underarm hair. T&K found:
Of the university women: 91.5% removed leg hair & 93% removed underarm hair
Of the high school girls: 92% removed leg hair & 91.2% removed underarm hair
Basow's respondents generally reported that they began shaving for "normative" reasons (i.e. – it was just something that women did when they hit puberty) as opposed to reasons related to femininity or attractiveness. Seven years later across the Pacific, T&K, however, found something different:
In contrast to Basow's (1991) finding for starting reasons, both groups also rated the feminine/attractiveness reasons as more important. This was much less pronounced for the university students, whose third to highest rated reason was the normative item "It was the thing to do" (highest rating in Basow's study). However, it was extremely clear that for the high school girls their starting reasons were primarily the feminine/attractive ones.
And why do women continue to shave? From Basow:
Most women continue to shave for reasons relating to femininity and sexual attractiveness. Few respondents say that they remove leg and/or underarm hair for functional reasons; i.e., that body hair is unclean or uncomfortable. Few also say body hair is gross, ugly, or disgusting; or that they shave to avoid looking like an animal or even like a man. Furthermore, few say they shave to appeal to men. Although self-reports may not be entirely accurate, the results do suggest that white women shave primarily because it is socially normative and because shaving is tied to feeling attractive and feminine.
T&K:
As can be seen in Table II, which displays the means for each of the reasons for hair removal, both the university and high school groups rated the feminine/attractiveness reasons as most important in why they continue to remove body hair. For the university group, the two most highly rated reasons were "It makes me feel attractive" and "I like the soft silky feeling". For the high school girls, the two most highly rated reasons were "Body hair is ugly" and "Men prefer women without body hair". This is consistent with Basow's (1991) findings, although in general the mean ratings are much higher.
In addition to the data above, each study engaged the topic with much more nuance than I give here. For instance, Basow emphasizes the differences in attitudes among women of different sexual orientations and identification with feminism while T&K discuss "the ways people process and analyze information in autobiographical memory". I do recommend that you go and read the studies themselves as they're quite interesting. I would also like to note that the samples of these studies consisted primarily of whites. This being the case, I would like to take a moment to quote Basow on the answers given by her black respondents.
These general findings need to be qualified by possible ethnic group and class differences. Since 91% of the sample is white, this pattern of behaviors and reasons apply primarily to white professional women. Since only 12 black women were respondents, statistical analysis of their responses are problematical. However, their results are suggestive of a very different social norm regarding body hair. Although there were no significant differences found between black and white respondents with respect to age, degree of body hair, growth rate, frequency of shaving, sexual orientation, degree of feminist identification, or removal of underarm hair (25%), more blacks than whites do not remove leg hair (50% compared to 21%). Those black women who do shave rated most of the reasons low, especially the social normative ones.
Basow and Tiggemann reappear in studies designed to gauge how body hair affects the perception of women.
Basow set out to see how body hair affects the perception of women by others. She had a couple hundred college students watch two 2-minute video clips featuring the same actress in each. A 22 year-old white model would emerge from a swimming pool in a two-piece swimming suit and dry herself off. In one clip, the woman had hair under her arms and on her legs while in the other she was shaved. Some of the results are rather disturbing. When shown with body hair, respondents found the woman to be:
1) less intelligent
2) less sociable
3) less happy
4) less positive
These results matched other studies and supported the author's thesis that people generally have negative attitudes towards body hair on women. One result, however, bucked the trend. In a previous study, women with hair were seen as "stronger" but, this time around it was the hairless who were perceived as "less strong active, and aggressive". Also of note here is that respondents who held feminist attitudes were more accepting of women with body hair than those who didn't. While this jived with her previous study, she notes that most women with feminist attitudes still shaved.
Tiggemann teamed up with Christine Lewis in 2004 for "Attitudes Toward Women's Body Hair: Relationship With Disgust Sensitivity". In addition to revisiting the reasons women give for shaving, they also examined how women perceive other women's reasons for removing hair. T&L found that women say that they shave themselves so that they look attractive and/or feminine. However, they perceive that other women shave because that is what's expected of them. (That old normative reason again.)
Thus, women interpret others’ behaviors, as due to normative pressures, in a way they do not do so for their own… It appears that women can recognize the normative pressures on them in general to shave, but are unwilling to accept this as the rationale for their own specific behavior… Perhaps the normative values of individualistic cultures render it difficult for women to acknowledge their own vulnerability to social pressures, although they can recognize such vulnerability in others.
Perhaps it was only a matter of time before attitudes towards underarm and leg hair were applied to the pubes to complete a mindset which is dead set against body hair on women. The area between women's legs became increasingly more visible and so it joined the ranks of the underarm and leg in hairlessness. But this "hairless norm" for women is a social construction. Men do not have the same social pressures. We men can walk down the street in shorts and a sleeveless shirt without social opprobrium despite having hairy legs and armpits. However, women are generally not able to do such. Plus, until fairly recently, women outside of North America felt little pressure to remove their body hair.
The problem here is that these studies didn't study pubic hair removal and merely mentioned it via tangents. Unlike the armpits and legs, the women's pubic areas don't get a lot of exposure out in public, except for situations such as the beach. In this sense, the fashion of removing the pubes bucks the trend that Hope noted, which was that hair removal seemed to be commensurate with more revealing clothing. Perhaps this can be explained by the proliferation of pornography. Starting from the beginning of the trend of women removing body hair, the marketers and the media have been complicit. Porn went mainstream and it started to demand that female actresses remove their pubic hair for more revealing shots. After this, non-porn stars felt the need to go barer and barer down there. In "The Trouble With My Vagina", a surgeon who performs labiaplasty notes that many of his patients come to him saying that they want the "Playboy look" or "I wanna look like Playboy". And so for many women, pornography provides a model to be emulated for literally thousands of dollars.
Thusly, I think it's fair to think of pube removal in the terms outlined above for other body hair.
(To Part 3.)
The "Trouble" With Vaginas
I recently watched a documentary from the UK called "The Trouble With My Vagina" which mainly concerned itself with some of the various practices that women engage in to "enhance" the beauty of their naughty bits. Admittedly, the program had its fair share of sensationalism, but it also had some good food for thought.
It covered four broad areas:
1) Masturbation
2) Removal of pubic hair
3) Genital piercing
4) Labiaplasty
Discussion of each area began with either a neutral or positive portrayal and then proceeded to give one or more examples of women having had a bad experience. E.g. - the show starts by noting that women today are more aware of their bodies than previous generations and that women's sexuality is no longer hidden away as it once was. We are then shown several clips of women talking about how much they enjoy masturbation. Then in classic Fox style, things take a turn towards the "When Dildos Attack" side of things. One woman described how a vibrator shorted out during one session of self-pleasure while another related how a lime got wedged in her vagina. And so the show went; a brief look at a practice followed by horror stories.
The bit on genital piercing left me ambivalent. For me, some genital piercings look good while others just scare me. I either find them intriguing or find myself envisioning a nightmare scenario involving me accidentally ripping a ring out of a woman's clitoral hood. I tend to view piercing as the ritual adornment of the ”modern primitive” but my gut instinct tells me that depilation and labiaplasty are activities of the consumer who has succumbed to a marketing campaign.
The removal of pubic hair and labiaplasty were presented in the show as being connected. The relationship between them is given by Sarah Hedley, the editor of Scarlet magazine, which looks to be like Maxim but for women and in the UK. She says:
The whole aesthetics of the vagina have run their course. Now, in the 70s, the vagina wasn't under the magnifying glass because the afro was in fashion. Now, what has happened in recent years is that hair modification has become the latest craze. So you've got all these different, like weird and bizarre styles, but what they do is expose the labia, the vaginal lips underneath. Now that they're exposed, they are being looked at and torn apart and we are now all of the sudden very conscious about how they look.
Once the hair was gone, the labia were next on the chopping block, both figuratively and literally. Footage of a woman having her pubes ripped out just made my skin crawl because it looked extremely painful. And why the hell were women with perfectly fine vulvas going under the knife for a few grand? It made no sense.
So, if the rise of labiaplasty is due to the vulva being exposed because all of the pubic hair was gone, then why did the hair go away?
(To Part 2.)
It covered four broad areas:
1) Masturbation
2) Removal of pubic hair
3) Genital piercing
4) Labiaplasty
Discussion of each area began with either a neutral or positive portrayal and then proceeded to give one or more examples of women having had a bad experience. E.g. - the show starts by noting that women today are more aware of their bodies than previous generations and that women's sexuality is no longer hidden away as it once was. We are then shown several clips of women talking about how much they enjoy masturbation. Then in classic Fox style, things take a turn towards the "When Dildos Attack" side of things. One woman described how a vibrator shorted out during one session of self-pleasure while another related how a lime got wedged in her vagina. And so the show went; a brief look at a practice followed by horror stories.
The bit on genital piercing left me ambivalent. For me, some genital piercings look good while others just scare me. I either find them intriguing or find myself envisioning a nightmare scenario involving me accidentally ripping a ring out of a woman's clitoral hood. I tend to view piercing as the ritual adornment of the ”modern primitive” but my gut instinct tells me that depilation and labiaplasty are activities of the consumer who has succumbed to a marketing campaign.
The removal of pubic hair and labiaplasty were presented in the show as being connected. The relationship between them is given by Sarah Hedley, the editor of Scarlet magazine, which looks to be like Maxim but for women and in the UK. She says:
The whole aesthetics of the vagina have run their course. Now, in the 70s, the vagina wasn't under the magnifying glass because the afro was in fashion. Now, what has happened in recent years is that hair modification has become the latest craze. So you've got all these different, like weird and bizarre styles, but what they do is expose the labia, the vaginal lips underneath. Now that they're exposed, they are being looked at and torn apart and we are now all of the sudden very conscious about how they look.
Once the hair was gone, the labia were next on the chopping block, both figuratively and literally. Footage of a woman having her pubes ripped out just made my skin crawl because it looked extremely painful. And why the hell were women with perfectly fine vulvas going under the knife for a few grand? It made no sense.
So, if the rise of labiaplasty is due to the vulva being exposed because all of the pubic hair was gone, then why did the hair go away?
(To Part 2.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)