controversy » Absurd Intellectual

Male sexuality double standard

Posted by Amy Breen on 25 November 2009 Modern Life

Nov 252009

Adam Lambert, the American Idol runner-up from this past season, has been getting a lot of media attention for his performance this weekend at the American Music Awards, where he simulated oral sex and kissed another man.

It was so controversial for some, that his performance on Tuesday on Good Morning America was canceled, with ABC releasing this statement:

Given his controversial American Music Awards performance, we were concerned about airing a similar concert so early in the morning.

Lambert himself has addressed the controversy, saying that if he were a female performer, there would be little to no problems with the performance.

There’s a big double standard, female pop artists have been doing things provocative like that for years, and the fact that I’m a male, and I’ll be edited and discriminated against could be a problem,” he explained.

Added Lambert, “People are scared and it’s really sad, I just wish people could open their minds up and enjoy things, it’s all for a laugh, it’s really not that big of a deal.

Just think of the kiss between Madonna, Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera. There may have been some controversy there, but more in a “oh look how hot that was” kind of way; they certainly wouldn’t have had any future performances canceled.

I agree with Lambert that a double standard exists, but not simply between men and women. I think his performance was controversial because he is a gay man expressing his sexuality, and people are uncomfortable with that.

Not that people are uncomfortable with male sexuality, though. You just have to look at the recent fervor over Taylor Lautner, the 17 year old star of New Moon:

Girls (and grown women) everywhere are drooling over Lautner’s pecs, abs, and biceps. He can’t even drink yet, and he’s on the cover of a magazine with a wet t-shirt. This kind of overt (straight) male sexuality is okay, but having an adult gay man do basically the same things Britney Spears did 10 years ago is considered lewd and offensive.

Lainey Gossip put it pretty well:

I don’t think the problem is the alleged lewdness. The problem is the factual gayness.

Gays are supposed to be adorable best friends like Stanford Blatch who tell you to buy those Jimmy Choos. Gays are not supposed to be put their gayness on tv.

Adam Lambert acted no more sexually provocative than Britney Spears did in her prime, and no more sexually provocative than Taylor Lautner dripping wet on the cover of a magazine, and appearing in a movie with his shirt off most of the time. Good for Lambert for trying to make it more acceptable for a gay man to be sexual on TV.

Haggis shaking up “Church” of Scientology

Posted by Amy Breen on 27 October 2009 Modern Life

Oct 272009

Paul Haggis, the award winning director of Crash has very publicly left the Church of Scientology after 35 years.

In a letter to national spokesman Tommy Davis, Haggis cited the church’s p0licy regarding Prop 8, and the policy of “disconnect” within the church — which requires members to cut off contact with family members and friends who are no longer part of the church (and is denied as being a policy) — as his reasons for leaving the church. It was originally published online in four parts on the blog of ex-Scientologist Marty Rathbun, and in its entirety at the Village Voice.

Haggis was, like I mentioned, part of the church for 35 years. That’s most of his life. His wife is a member, as were her parents. It is pretty clear throughout the letter that this was a difficult decision for Haggis, but one he had to make in light of the position of the church in recent years.

Here is part of the letter:

I joined the Church of Scientology thirty-five years ago. During my twenties and early thirties I studied and received a great deal of counseling. While I have not been an active member for many years, I found much of what I learned to be very helpful, and I still apply it in my daily life. I have never pretended to be the best Scientologist, but I openly and vigorously defended the church whenever it was criticized, as I railed against the kind of intolerance that I believed was directed against it. I had my disagreements, but I dealt with them internally. I saw the organization – with all its warts, growing pains and problems – as an underdog. And I have always had a thing for underdogs.

But I reached a point several weeks ago where I no longer knew what to think. You had allowed our name to be allied with the worst elements of the Christian Right. In order to contain a potential “PR flap” you allowed our sponsorship of Proposition 8 to stand. Despite all the church’s words about promoting freedom and human rights, its name is now in the public record alongside those who promote bigotry and intolerance, homophobia and fear.

…

This was my state of mind when I was online doing research and chanced upon an interview clip with you on CNN. The interview lasted maybe ten minutes – it was just you and the newscaster. And in it I saw you deny the church’s policy of disconnection. You said straight-out there was no such policy, that it did not exist.

I was shocked. We all know this policy exists. I didn’t have to search for verification – I didn’t have to look any further than my own home.

The letter goes on to describe the shock Haggis felt when he read the St. Petersburg Times series on Scientology leader David Miscavige, and that he had no idea of the injustices taking place in the church. As an outsider, we may find this hard to believe, but if you are in the church, it is hard to see the problems of the church.

Now, for any other religion, this would probably not be news at all. People lose their faith all the time. But Scientology has had a more difficult time, especially in popular culture. People feel that it isn’t a legitimate religion — more of a cult, really — and that it abuses its members while simultaneously taking their money.

Never mind the problem of Xenu, thetans, and alien races, or the fact that the religion was started by L. Ron Hubbard — a science fiction author. A lot of people look at the church very skeptically, especially considering how privately they conduct their business, and how aggressive they can be with their denials. Take this interview with Tommy Davis, for instance:

There’s no doubt that the church will deny Haggis’ letter, or try to discredit him. In fact, Davis is already saying that a misunderstanding has taken place, but the fact remains that Haggis’ letter is just another example of an ex-member publicly discrediting the church.

Multiculturalism is great, except when it’s inconvenient

Posted by Amy Breen on 2 June 2009 Modern Life

Jun 022009

A couple of weeks ago, Canadians who may not have been aware of the civil war in Sri Lanka were enlightened when protesters hoping to spur action from Ottawa took to a Toronto expressway, blocking traffic in a peaceful protest.

A bit of a controversy emerged, with a story in the Globe and Mail remarking of the protest, “By evening, the streets of downtown Toronto were clogged, streetcars backed up, and unimpressed onlookers said any goodwill earned during the day was likely quashed by the protest march passing before them.”

An opinion piece by Angelo Persichilli, published in the Toronto Star, read:

Canadians have the right to demonstrate and make their opinions known, but they have no right to disrupt the lives of other citizens by blocking highways and jeopardizing the safety of women, children and other citizens.

…

Aside from the need to defend human rights and oppose genocide, the protesters also were asking our government to intervene in a conflict that had nothing to do with Canada.

In an article titled, “Whose rights are really being trampled,” Christie Blatchford wrote, “That’s the real question I suspect gnawing at many folks: Are the Tamils merely exercising their rights or have they somehow breached the covenant, unwritten but understood, they have or ought to have made with their new country?” This was the stance taken by many people in the days following the protests, and of course, the topic is complicated, with arguments being made on both sides.

Eugenia Tsao responded to the controversy with an interesting article about how we as Canadians are proud of our multiculturalism and diversity, but the moment worldy reality sets it, we are aggravated and annoyed.

“Ours, you see, is a tolerant society” Canadians smugly confide to visiting Americans. And while the line between tolerance and mere endurance is a slender one, few would deny Canadians’ infatuation with cultural diversity. We like to lunch on sushi and samosas, sport henna tattoos, practice yoga, wear paisley embroidery, listen to reggae, and hang feathered dreamcatchers from our rearview mirrors. We proudly subscribe to magazines like National Geographic for the exotic, high-contrast photography and romanticized verbal portraiture. We love falling asleep on the subway to a velvet medley of diasporic languages, and nothing delights us more than consuming enormous sandwiches filled with things like prosciutto and chorizo.

But we cannot eat acts of non-violent civil disobedience or wear political grievances, you see, and this confuses us.

I think she makes a great point. We love all the different cultures in Canada, but the moment they try and approach us with politics, we decry them for not being Canadian enough, not adopting our passivity and apathy, and for briefly disrupting our lives.

Octuplets story gets stranger

Posted by Amy Breen on 6 February 2009 Modern Life

Feb 062009

We’ve all heard a lot about Nadya Suleman, the woman who recently gave birth to octuplets. Controversy is quickly erupting over the story, as it’s been revealed that this woman already has six children, is unemployed, single, and living with her parents.

A snippet from her first interview with NBC’s Ann Curry has been making the rounds today, and it’s safe to say that she’s a little on the loopy side.

One of the reasons Suleman has given for her decision to have so many children is because of the loneliness she felt as a child, due to her dysfunctional family.

Nadya Suleman, your family is about to get a whole lot more dysfunctional.

This msnbc article is a good read and also has the video of her interview.

I find it interesting that she thinks the backlash is due in part to the fact that she is a single mother. She comments that couples get the treatment all the time, but nothing is said of that; that there isn’t the controversy because it’s more acceptable.

Sure, couples get the treatment all the time. But so do single women. The difference here is that she was planted with eight embryos, something that is generally unheard of with invetro treatment. The controversy lies with her housing/employment situation and the fact that she already has six children.

Not to mention she seems slightly unstable.

I’m also disturbed with her saying that she “took a gamble” and the insemination was “a risk.” Doesn’t that make it worse that you were willing to risk your life, and the life of eight babies, in order to fulfill some long-felt lack of connection?

This whole story is erupting in debates over the ethics of her insemination, and the fertility doctor is now being invesitgated.

I just feel sad for the children. I don’t doubt that she will be the best mother she can be, but these kids are going to be plagued by controversy — and dysfunction — for a long time.