Duke freshmen refusing to read Alison Bechdel's 'Fun Home'
50 replies, posted
[QUOTE=sgman91;48539735]
You want to learn about the lesbian experience? You don't need to look at drawings of naked women laying together and giving each other oral sex (what's depicted in the comic).[/QUOTE]
Are you the same type of conservative that argues that we shouldn't educate kids on what penises and vaginas are in high school because they would have to look at naked body parts, it's not like it's going to hurt you, if you or the kid in article feel like witnessing a depiction of lesbian sex for the first time will mess with their heads or turn them gay or something, I have a hard time saying anything but how disconnected from reality that is.
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48539791]Are you the same type of conservative that argues that we shouldn't educate kids on what penises and vaginas are in high school because they would have to look at naked body parts, it's not like it's going to hurt you, if you or the kid in article feel like witnessing a depiction of lesbian sex for the first time will mess with their heads or turn them gay or something, I have a hard time saying anything but how disconnected from reality that is.[/QUOTE]
Nice non-sequitur/strawman. I'll respond when you actually respond to what I've said, and not your assumptions of what I believe.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48539895]Nice non-sequitur/strawman. I'll respond when you actually respond to what I've said, and not your assumptions of what I believe.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that was a non-sequitur or a straw man, I was just trying to figure out where you are coming from. I was asking you a question not saying you were those things.
What is it about a depiction of lesbian sex that is so troubling? Why should it be shielded? Why give it any sort of special preference, when all other kinds of things are taught without a second thought?
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48539919]I don't think that was a non-sequitur or a straw man, I was just trying to figure out where you are coming from. I was asking you a question not saying you were those things.
What is it about a depiction of lesbian sex that is so troubling? Why should it be shielded? Why give it any sort of special preference, when all other kinds of things are taught without a second thought.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter why it's troubling. I've not argued at all that anything anyone thinks is troubling is relevant. That's why it was a non-sequitur.
I've argued that nudity in this context is irrelevant to the point being discussed. Looking at naked women give oral sex doesn't do anything to understand the lesbian social perspective. That's why it's not comparable to seeing nudity when discussing reproductive health and/or Greek art. These students aren't hiding themselves form anything of value under the guise of religious offense. They simply don't want to do something that goes against their religious ideals while also gaining nothing of value in the process.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48539931]It doesn't matter why it's troubling. I've not argued at all that anything anyone thinks is troubling is relevant. That's why it was a non-sequitur.
I've argued that nudity in this context is irrelevant to the point being discussed. Looking at naked women give oral sex doesn't do anything to understand the lesbian social perspective.[/QUOTE]
So you are arguing against extraneous information being taught? I would argue a picture or a diagram in a book or article to illustrate what the author is trying to convey is directly relevant.
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48539980]So you are arguing against extraneous information being taught? [B]I would argue a picture or a diagram in a book or article to illustrate what the author is trying to convey is directly relevant.[/B][/QUOTE]
Honestly, are you even reading what I'm writing? My entire point is that this sexual nudity is not relevant to the point being illustrated, and is therefore perfectly fine to avoid. Whether you see depictions of women giving oral sex to other women does nothing to your learning process about the lesbian social experience.
-snip-
Alright, I hate having back and forths with strangers, you seem like a decent guy I've never met I just wanted to say two things:
1)
You made these claims here:
[QUOTE=sgman91;48540006]
[U]You want to learn about art from ancient Greece, the renaissance, etc? Well, in that process you [B]MUST[/B] look at artistic depictions of naked people.[/U] Without doing that you won't be able to get a full understanding of art during that period.
there is definitely a difference between artistic nudity and sexual nudity, both morally and legally.
It doesn't matter why it's troubling. I've not argued at all that anything anyone thinks is troubling is relevant.
[/QUOTE]
Then you contradicted yourself here:
[QUOTE=sgman91;48540006]
[U]You want to learn about the lesbian experience? You don't need to look at drawings of naked women laying together[/U] and giving each other oral sex (what's depicted in the comic).
Last I checked, these people weren't equivalent with all of Christian history and/or the vatican.
I've argued that nudity in this context is irrelevant to the point being discussed. Looking at naked women give oral sex doesn't do anything to understand the lesbian social perspective.
[/QUOTE]
2)
It is clear from your posts so far that you don't uphold the lesbians in a very high light, from an educational perspective on the topic of lesbians, why would naked pictures of lesbians be any less valuable than it is to studying christian/greek/whatever mythology and looking at naked pictures of gods? It's all relevant to understanding what it is you are looking at in total perspective. If you are reading a comic on lesbians, and it has a picture of naked lesbians in it, it's still part of the comic and is meant to be interpreted in it.
The fact that you said you MUST look at it for Greek/renaissance history and not for lesbians, when they can just be two different academic subjects, is just a really clear bias.
There's all sorts of smut in history of christian mythology, the bible is full of ridiculously sexual things, the same goes for Greek mythology and the Renaissance, plenty of sexually historic paintings depicting acts of sex and the implications of sex, that doesn't make the information unimportant towards understanding the topic. "If anything for religious people that is all they seem to fuss over" Which is why I think we are having this discussion.
I think the real question is: Should individuals be allowed to not consume syllabus material if it offends or upsets them in any case?
Because we need to apply a fair standard to everybody. "I don't believe in what you have to say, but I'll defend your right to say it", yadda yadda.
I think that educational institutions should just offer different alternative pieces of media to talk about: so for each assignment you'd have a choice of at least 3 different books, films or comics to write about that cover a particular topic. That way it also benefits people who find comics more accessible than books, or films more accessible than comics, etc. It also means that you have different perspectives from which to view the topic so that you can still write about it even if you don't 'get' one of the sources due to differences in culture, creed, ethnicity, etc.
The only situation this wouldn't apply in is in medical courses where you would need to look at naked bodies, blood, etc. In this case, you'd probably want to think about going into a different field of study or perhaps focusing on medical research instead of medical practice.
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48540179]Alright, I hate having back and forths with strangers, you seem like a decent guy I've never met I just wanted to say two things:
1)
You made these claims here:
Then you contradicted yourself here:
2)
It is clear from your posts so far that you don't uphold the lesbians in a very high light, from an educational perspective on the topic of lesbians, why would naked pictures of lesbians be any less valuable than it is to studying christian/greek/whatever mythology and looking at naked pictures of gods? It's all relevant to understanding what it is you are looking at in total perspective. If you are reading a comic on lesbians, and it has a picture of naked lesbians in it, it's still part of the comic and is meant to be interpreted in it.
The fact that you said you MUST look at it for Greek/renaissance history and not for lesbians, when they can just be two different academic subjects, is just a really clear bias.
There's all sorts of smut in history of christian mythology, the bible is full of ridiculously sexual things, the same goes for Greek mythology and the Renaissance, plenty of sexually historic paintings depicting acts of sex and the implications of sex, that doesn't make the information unimportant towards understanding the topic. "If anything for religious people that is all they seem to fuss over" Which is why I think we are having this discussion.[/QUOTE]
I really don't see what's hard to understand about his point. Nudity is directly relevant to ancient art because people are depicted as naked in many art pieces. It's not relevant to the social situation of lesbians, how they practice sex doesn't have anything to do with the way they are treated by society.
[QUOTE=_Axel;48543291]I really don't see what's hard to understand about his point. Nudity is directly relevant to ancient art because people are depicted as naked in many art pieces. It's not relevant to the social situation of lesbians, how they practice sex doesn't have anything to do with the way they are treated by society.[/QUOTE]
A lot of ancient art, especially of Greek nature IS pornographic, or to be more precise, erotic in it's origin. Sexual references, be they based on word or picture, within the source do not reduce the informational value of the source.
The point of calling anything pornographic, in the conversation, is to debase it from it's value, and to portray it as lacking value that is considered "pure". Basically, anything that holds no value, can be considered pornographic. Like, I, for example, may call bible to be pornographic, as it holds no inherent values that I would call, positive. Others would of course, defend it, since they would see some value in that specific work of fiction, that I would not. It's a form of devaluation.
[QUOTE=_Axel;48543291]how they practice sex doesn't have anything to do with the way they are treated by society.[/QUOTE]
Arguing that exposure to nudity is critical to understanding Renaissance art but that exposure to sexuality is irrelevant to the subjective experience of a sexual orientation seems like special pleading to me. Both could be considered offensive, but both are an important part of their respective subjects beyond dry academic analysis.
[QUOTE=catbarf;48544243]Arguing that exposure to nudity is critical to understanding Renaissance art but that exposure to sexuality is irrelevant to the subjective experience of a sexual orientation seems like special pleading to me. Both could be considered offensive, but both are an important part of their respective subjects beyond dry academic analysis.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily, if what you're studying is how [I]society[/i] treats people of a certain orientation their sexuality itself isn't really relevant.
[QUOTE=_Axel;48544254]Not necessarily, if what you're studying is how [I]society[/i] treats people of a certain orientation their sexuality itself isn't really relevant.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and if you're studying the history of Europe then nudity itself isn't really relevant either. But Fun Home is not a stuffy objective treatise on societal depictions of lesbianism so I'm not sure what you're getting at, it's about the subjective, personal experience of a lesbian. Sexuality is a pretty important part of that.
[QUOTE=catbarf;48544318]Yeah, and if you're studying the history of Europe then nudity itself isn't really relevant either. But Fun Home is not a stuffy objective treatise on societal depictions of lesbianism so I'm not sure what you're getting at, it's about the subjective, personal experience of a lesbian. Sexuality is a pretty important part of that.[/QUOTE]
Oh, OK then, I thought we were talking about respectively studying ancient arts and social studies, my bad.
[QUOTE=gufu;48543797]A lot of ancient art, especially of Greek nature IS pornographic, or to be more precise, erotic in it's origin. Sexual references, be they based on word or picture, within the source do not reduce the informational value of the source.
The point of calling anything pornographic, in the conversation, is to debase it from it's value, and to portray it as lacking value that is considered "pure". Basically, anything that holds no value, can be considered pornographic. Like, I, for example, may call bible to be pornographic, as it holds no inherent values that I would call, positive. Others would of course, defend it, since they would see some value in that specific work of fiction, that I would not. It's a form of devaluation.[/QUOTE]
Huh? The only remotely pornographic parts I can name from it are King Solomon talking about tits and another part with donkey semen
How is this any different from people complaining about upsetting books in college curriculums, and being catered to?
Why is it worse if it's conservatively minded being overly sensitive about something?
Maybe they just do not want to read the book because they do not like it?
Actually that is really stupid still, yeah...
Just fucking read the book, and do assignments on it. Then you can shit on it afterwards.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;48549148]It's just a lot more hypocritical and more than a little ironic.[/QUOTE]
I find it no more hypocritical than people complaining about One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest because of racism
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
