Red light district

I'm having a hard time dealing with the Assange rape accusations. My dad is one of those progressive liberals that thinks Assange is the new hero of the people. I also support what Assange has done in terms of his actual political work. But in my mind that doesn't interfere with the possibility that he is a rapist. I'm not going to get into whether I think he is guilty or not, frankly I don't really care. What seems more important to me is that the allegations against him are given the weight and severity that rape allegations deserve and that the case play out as it would if he weren't who he is. That is, if he's guilty I hope he's convicted and if he's innocent I hope he's acquitted, and I hope that all of that happens without the influence of who he is tainting the case.

But I'm pretty grossed out by some things that have been said about the situation. This whole sex by surprise myth has been going on for too long in the media. This whole "Oh, it's just a condom misunderstanding situation; that's not rape!" "Oh, she knew him; that's not rape!" thing is really freaking me out.

Here's what Assange says:
"Women have been extremely helpful and generous and put up with me. But… You know, in a sense of assisting me with my work, caring for me, loving me and so on. That is what I am used to. So this particular episode in Sweden came as a great shock." -Julian Assange

Ew! Doesn't that reek of privilege?

And here's what Naomi Wolf said in a Democracy Now debate:
Naomi Wolf: All I’m saying is I think that this—again, never in 23 years of supporting rape victims—rape victims, people who had no ambiguity, who didn’t throw parties for their rapist four days later, who didn’t continue to host—I mean, women who have been raped, in my experience, don’t want to be around their rapist. They don’t host them in their home. They can barely go home if there’s been an assault in their home.

Honestly, I'm appalled and surprised that Naomi Wolf would actually say this as part of an argument. This makes no sense for so many reasons.

What about the women who were raped by their husbands before women had the legal right to refuse to have sex with their husbands? What about other women who are raped by their partners? What about the 70-80% of women who are raped by someone they know? Does Naomi Wolf seriously think that because Assange's accuser didn't behave in some specific way after the alleged rape, that it must not have been rape? That's so ridiculous. I can't even handle it it's so ridiculous. It does not matter how a woman acts at any point before or after being raped. That does not mean she wasn't raped. I'm so taken aback by how regressive and offensive Naomi Wolf is being. What's next? She was wearing a short skirt so she must have wanted it?

I'm glad to see people discussing rape in the media and I'm glad to see it being discussed among friends. I've discussed it with my dad. But I've been really frustrated by mostly everyone's reactions or opinions on the subject.

Please, sir. I want some more.

Last night I was at my favorite coffeeshop with my good friend Hamid. We started having a variation of a conversation I've had a couple of times before.

We started talking about pickup lines and how much you can look at a woman's breasts before it becomes rude or harassment. Hamid talked about some times he'd hit on women by complimenting them and I told him how uncomfortable it makes me when someone I don't know compliments my appearance. He argued that everyone likes feeling like they look pretty or hot thus, everyone likes compliments. I agree that everyone likes feeling attractive. I don't agree that everyone likes hearing that someone else thinks that they are attractive.

First, there are different kinds of "compliments" and I'm likely to react differently to "You have a nice smile," than I would to "You have a nice ass." But why is it more socially acceptable to compliment my smile instead of my body? Because "Nice ass," is much more obviously sexual? Why should I as a woman be expected to accept strangers' opinions about any part of my physical appearance? And more than that just accepting the opinions of others about what I look like, why should I be expected to thank a stranger for telling me what he thinks about what I look like? Why are women expected to listen to, accept, and thank people (probably mostly men) for saying what they think about their physical appearance?

Every pickup guide in the world would advise a man to compliment a woman's appearance in some way to begin a conversation with her. Not just "Nice shoes. Wanna fuck?" but "You have really nice eyes," "You're beautiful," and so on. But why is it socially acceptable to begin conversations with a woman you don't know by giving her your opinion on her appearance? What business is it of yours? And why do I want to hear what you think about what I look like?

Further, I feel like there's a potential for danger in the fact that a stranger finds me attractive. If I'm walking alone down a street at night and as I pass a man he tells me that he thinks I'm pretty, I'm automatically worried for my own safety. The fact that a stranger finds me aesthetically pleasing might very well be a threat to my safety. I don't know if that "compliment" is only a compliment, or the threat of further harassment if I don't pay attention to that man, or worse. I was walking to a taqueria near my house alone one night and a man yelled, "Hey beautiful," at me from across the street. It scared the hell out of me. I didn't know if he was going to follow me and I didn't know if he was going to be there waiting for me when I walked home. When I was in Florence doing my college-Europe-trip, some boys catcalled at me and my friend, then followed us for blocks when we refused to engage in conversation with them. I've never had a catcalling interaction become more dangerous than this, but I know they do to women every day.

Hamid said that I was a hypocrite and that if Brad Pitt said I was beautiful, I'd want to hear it. Maybe that's true, but I also think that if I were around Brad Pitt (or someone else whose social/sexual advances I was open to) I think it would be clear that I was, in fact, open to those advances. When a man yells at me on the street, I am not engaging him in conversation first. When an old man at the grocery store tells me that I'm a pretty young thing, I haven't flirted with him first. I haven't smiled or made eye contact. I haven't opened myself to their advances in any way. In no way have I communicated that I want to engage in conversation, and in no way have I communicated that I want to hear what these men want to say to me. But when the man ringing up my purchases says that I have beautiful eyes, and when the man at the bookstore says that he loves my top while he's looking at my breasts, what am I supposed to say except for thank you? It seems women are expected to understand that when they enter the public sphere their bodies become something men can evaluate and then comment on. I've been socialized to accept that when someone says something "nice" about what I look like, I am supposed to thank them for their opinion of me. Women have been taught to accept what men think about their faces, their eyes, their hair, and their bodies, and thank them for it every time.

Dear stranger, if you want to strike up a conversation with me at a coffeeshop, maybe even with the best intentions, I beg of you. Ask me what book I'm reading. Ask me about the weather. Please don't tell me what you think about what I look like because I don't give a fuck.

Not a crook

"The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality. What it is, it’s the latent insecurity. Most Jewish people are insecure. And that’s why they have to prove things."

From new Nixon tapes

Watch What Happens

I used to be something of a Bravo addict. By that I mean that I would watch any and every show on Bravo when I was in high school. That sort of ended once I realized that Kathy Griffin isn't actually funny, but there was a time when I regularly watched every show on Bravo. Like Significant Others, an improv comedy about couples in couples therapy. Yeah, you didn't even know Bravo had sitcoms, did you? I did.

Let me tell you, it was pretty funny. I scored the complete series on DVD at a close-out sale of Tower Records. I know Bravo.

That's why I recognized Jonathan Waud when I saw him today.


This is Jonathan on Bravo's Make me a Supermodel in 2009. Sharp, right?




This is Jonathan today: Forever 21 model. I was rooting for him! That really brings me down, man.

Doe a deer

Unknown. Kiki Smith. Audrey Hepburn, unknown. Peregrine Honig.
I have a really bad habit of saving photographs I like without remembering to keep track of who took the photo or where I got it. I'll get better about that.

An edifice awry

If you can believe it, this is Tony Kushner for Gap.

For world AIDS day, a movie theatre near my house screened Angels in America as a benefit to AIDS/Lifecycle. I wrote my college thesis on Angels in America, and know more about that play than most, and have seen the movie more than most, also. On top of that, I'm going to New York in late January with my dad to see the new revival of AIA. My point is, I know a lot about the play. I know a lot about HIV/AIDS, and I know a fair amount about its representation in film and theatre.

Of course the screening was magical and I cried four times more than I usually do. I've been thinking, though, about another recent film that dealt (a little bit) with the subject of AIDS, For Colored Girls. I think there were a lot of admirable things about that movie. I think a lot of it was very touching. I think most of the acting was breathtaking. But. I don't think AIDS was represented in a responsible way. I've seen so many movies that I'm suspicious anytime something unusual happens in what's a more-or-less realistic film; something innocuous in the first act is always the smoking gun in the second. When Janet Jackson's character had a touch of a cold the first time she was on screen, I noted it. (After this, spoilers about the movie, so don't read if you don't want to know.) Once it was clear that Janet's husband was having gay sex I thought, "Of course. Coughing is the director's way of foreshadowing. She has AIDS." And of course I was right. This isn't the first time I've seen a couple coughs act as the signifier for AIDS; RENT comes to mind. But just because there's a precedent doesn't make it any less dumb or ignorant. A Tony Kushner quote that I used in my thesis goes something like, "I wanted this play to be real and show the realities of AIDS. I didn't want there to be a couple coughs and then a nice, pretty death." I guess I'd say the same thing about Precious. HIV/AIDS is still real, and people still die from it. I don't know why so many movies now sort of brush over it like it's just a little cold and a couple coughs. Are movies that address HIV/AIDS trying to make it clear that a diagnosis is no longer a death sentence and doesn't have to be the focal point of an entire movie? Why even include it in a film if you're not going to address it any further than a diagnosis and a cough? I guess to be fair, I haven't read For Colored Girls and I haven't read Precious, either. Maybe the books deal with it in a more comprehensive manner? But my point is, HIV/AIDS is more than a couple of coughs. It isn't a death sentence, but it isn't something to throw around heavy-handed in a work of art, either. In my mind here are three reasonably successful popular films (RENT, Precious, and For Colored Girls) that had the opportunity to say something real about HIV/AIDS, but instead opted for cliché and glossing pretty songs over reality.

I and nobody else am the greatest traitor

Audrey Kawasaki. Vogue. Vogue. Unknown. Scarling. Melvin Sokolsky. Vogue.