Posts by Emma Hart
-
It bothers me that realistic female genitals are still so unacceptable in art. Is there something wrong with them?
Another question Australia has the answer to: yes.
According to theregister.co.uk the Aussies have been busy tackling the issue of art vs porn, specifically images of nude underaged people.
I have a deep love for Australia's censorship crazy*, but I'm pretty sure there hasn't been a law change. After the kerfuffle over the Henson exhibition calmed down, I'm pretty sure it ended up being rated M15+. Certainly making any picture of a naked child porn would make every parent a pornographer.
*Not actually saying everything on that list was acceptable. What Kyle Sandilands did was fucking insane.
-
just a phase they go though, a bit like Lesbians Until Graduation (LUGs)
I don't want to derail this excellent thread, so I shall just put my hands over my face and groan quietly.
-
So, were there any female genitals?
I'd hate to unequivocably say 'none', and then be proved wrong, but that was my impression. And no body hair. There was one sculpture that was as anatomically correct as a Barbie.
-
Anyone else look at that and see a woman texting in bed?
I do NOW. Well, waking up and reading her texts and trying to summon the energy to stumble as far as 'coffee'.
That's one painting that looks a great deal better in the flesh, so to speak. I really liked it.
-
In contemporary terms, I'd say that a non young, non classically beautiful female naked body is as unacceptable as a classically beautiful male's naked body, if not more so.
Indeed. This is probably why I found Fiona Pardington's Proud Flesh (no pics online, unfortunately) so fascinating. Scarring, like ageing and fat, is not supposed to be attractive. Yet in its own way scarification sorta kinda is. I think it's the idea that any body can be beautiful if you present it as if it is. Being as how "I don't know much about art", I don't know how that's done, technically.
-
males clamouring to ogle at other males. Metrosexuality has only kicked off that trend, now resulting in "nude calendars" of sportsmen outselling all else.
Um... it didn't occur to you that perhaps SOME of those 'nude calendars' are selling to women?
Hoping to be able to get in touch with the people involved for a future column, but issue 3 of Filament includes an article on people launching a magazine featuring photos of gay male couples, marketed to women.
-
Like Tony, my experience with students who smoke the weed is that they can't concentrate on their studies and usually fail.
Geoff, how do you know which of your students smoke?
-
And how many heart by-passes... does a c-section cost compared to a natural birth.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "none".
Has a serious screaming at the television moment on Sunday.
Oh, but, but... [SPOILERS] When Joan smashed that vase over her husband's head because he was displaying his total ignorance by having a 'you can't know what it's like moment' - look, it's even relevant! - my little heart just lit up.
-
it seems to me that feminists have been an ally there, by and large
By and large, sure, but I've heard some quite strident opposition. Certainly male victims of sexual and domestic violence are often subject to simple erasure.
When I was at Uni, Canta did a Men's Issue. The organised feminist group there was horrified, protested, and ensured it didn't happen again - at least as long as I was still in touch with uni life.
This despite the fact that the back page story was a beautifully-written harrowing account a male student had written of his own rape and the difficulty he found living with that without any support geared to men, and in the face of women, quite unwittingly, saying to him, "Well you're a man, you can't know what it's like to be raped." I can remember sitting in the main cafe reading that and crying. I'm damn sure that guy's bravery opened a few eyes and made them consider men as victims of rape for the first time. And the reaction of the loudest feminist voices at Canterbury was "this must never happen again".
And with a very deep breath, my own mother delayed leaving my father and going to a refuge until her sons left home, because she was told (not as official policy, I believe, just as a quiet word) not to bring teenage boys into a refuge. They suffered more than I did: the help we got was determined by our relative genders.
-
Okay, obviously a sensitive issue for me, but I'm finding the deliberate trolling on this issue across three different threads pretty offensive, and obstructive to actual discussion.
GLBT's do demand in legislation that everyone have the same attitude like them
"I did not previously know that" Is it true, or just an opinion?
I believe this is the part of the Vast Gay Conspiracy called Human Rights legislation.