The 2010 Student Sex Survey is now live!
Each year, Open surveys Rice students to get a real picture of sex and sexuality on campus.
Statistics from the survey will be published in the upcoming spring edition of the magazine.
Take it before February 14th for a chance to win a $25 gift certificate!
TrueCompanion homepage
Yesterday, TrueCompanion released what it is marketing as “Roxxxy, the world’s first female sex robot” (with the promise of an eventual male counterpart to follow). Roxxxy is a full-body, 120-lb female bot dressed in lingerie that can purportedly carry a conversation, feel touch, and even have a simulated orgasm. Specifics are scant at the moment, as the TrueCompanion website seems to be over bandwidth limits today (imagine that). I imagine there was a lot of interesting engineering that went into making her “anatomically correct”- I’d really love to see some specs.
The robot is intended as both a sexual and a conversation partner, with various personalities that can be swapped, modified, and even “shared with your friends over the internet” (!). The manufacturers are quoted as saying that the concept originated with a plan to create a robot that could store the personality of a friend lost in the 9/11 attacks- apparently they got side-tracked along the way. The default personalities range from “Wild Wendy” to “Mature Martha” and ”Frigid Farrah”, and will adopt your personal likes and dislikes (sports, music, etc.).
I find this aspect both fascinating and disturbing. Evidently this is a step up from the classic blow-up doll, which can’t tell you that she loves holding your hand, or , say, become an S&M goddess on command. While I’m not passing judgement on people who choose a synthetic companion out of necessity or preference, I wonder how compelling the illusion is (physical aspects aside), and what this will evolve towards: will we start to see a whole demographic of men whose expectations of women are skewed by intimate interaction with a female whose personality is entirely moldable and exchangeable at their whim? How will the robotic romantic experience affect relationships with real people? When does virtual reality become better than real life, and what does that mean for us as a society?
Also, I’m expecting reports of a host of hilarious ‘technical difficulties’ if these things becomes widespread… haha ; )
Happy New Year from the Open staff!
We are getting ready to put Open 2010 together, which means the submissions window is rapidly closing for written pieces.
We are looking for pieces by and for the Rice community and friends thereof- you do not have to be a Rice student to submit!
Email all articles, perspectives, opinions, short stories, poetry, and anything else to RiceOpen@gmail.com by TUESDAY, JANUARY 12th! Check out the link above for full details on submissions guidelines.
There will be a chance for you to make some revisions after this deadline, but we must receive drafts of all pieces by this date for inclusion in this year’s edition : )
Hope to hear from you soon!
-The Open Staff
A physical with my pediatrician has been an annual ritual, a pit stop on the rounds of get-this-done-while-you’re-home-from-college before I head back to Rice from winter vacation. And yes, I still go to the pediatrician I went to when I was a wee little thing, so I wait in the waiting room, next to a box of sample diapers, the game with the colored blocks, 5 year olds and mothers who look only a couple years older than me. But at least this is probably the last time I will be here: I am getting booted off my family’s insurance plan once I graduate, and I am finally too old to keep seeing a pediatrician. This means that these past few years have put me in something of a a nebulous limbo with regards to my ownership of both the price of my health (fortunately, I haven’t yet had to put up with co-pays and deductibles) and the confidentiality of my health records. This second item brings me to the prickly subject, as acknowledged by my doctor, of privacy rules.
In 1996, the US Department of Health and Human Services created the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, commonly referred to as HIPAA. The main purpose of this policy was to give individuals the right to their health information and the right to control who has access to it. Thus, the idea of doctor- patient trust and patient confidentiality gained the legitimacy of law. But what about the age group between 18-22: college aged adults who are still under their parent’s plan? How can you protect the privacy of these individuals’ information while they still share insurance? The HIPAA covers this with respect to providers ( i.e., my doctor) but not my insurer:
If I do not object, can my health care provider share or discuss my health information with my family, friends, or others involved in my care or payment for my care? Yes. As long as you do not object, your health care provider is allowed to share or discuss your health information with your family, friends, or others involved in your care or payment for your care. Your provider may ask your permission, may tell you he or she plans to discuss the information and give you an opportunity to object, or may decide, using his or her professional judgment, that you do not object.
My doctor didn’t have any clear cut answer other than to help manuever me through the process of getting birth control without (fingers crossed) letting my parents know. This process included signing new forms of disclosure that only listed myself and the agreement that should my parents ask, I was getting this prescription because I was having irregular periods. Admittedly, it’s strange that the doctor should have to essentially lie to the parents, but just because I decided not to disclose my medical records through the doctor’s office didn’t mean that my insurance wasn’t going to let my parents know when I filled the prescription. And then, well– then I would have some explaining to do.
It is true that I could avoid this little ruse and simply buy contraception on my own from Planned Parenthood, but that would run me between $20 to $30 a month, which means $240- $360 a year! Versus: free. I imagine many other college aged women, when faced with this steep price or privacy issue, might forgo birth control all together– and that is just women who are already comfortable enough with their sexuality to get to this step. With this high barrier to entry, it’s no wonder that many women go without this safety net.
Don’t get me wrong, condoms are fantastic and should be used at least as a bare minimum of protection, but do you really want to have to worry, what if it breaks? what if…? In a telling conclusion to my trip to the doctor, a nurse who was administering a shot asked me about my post-college plans. After telling her I wanted to get another degree, she told me that she wished she had gotten her Masters, but now doesnt have the time to anymore. I asked her why she didn’t: turns out, she took a year off after college, planning on going for the degree after the break…and during the break, she had a child. Unplanned. No more Masters degree. Obviously, this nurse is a smart cookie (she is a nurse after all). She told me that after her first child, she went on birth control.
My point is that HIPAA should provide a provision to let individuals specify access rights not only through the provider but through the insurer as well. Also, we should work to make birth control more affordable, considering it is a long-term-use item– and less stigmatized. If society has the tools to enable individuals to be in control of their life plans, they shouldnt be subject to taboo, a scarlet letter with which all sorts of assumptions and prejudices are bundled, but rather embraced as the gifts of modern achievement that they are.
Last Friday, President Obama promised a major step forward for human rights, announcing plans to remove a travel ban on persons with HIV/AIDS by January. HIV/AIDS has been included on a list of excludable conditions since 1987, preventing foreigners with HIV/AIDS from residing in or traveling to the United States. Most diseases on the list are added and removed by the Public Health Service, but this changed in 1987 when Jesse Helms moved to add HIV to this list, effectively making HIV/AIDS presence on the list a responsibility of congress. As early as 1990 the Public Health Service recommended removing HIV/AIDS from the list, but no action was taken at that time. During the Clinton administration legislation was introduced to remove it, which failed after a large public outcry. This most recent legislation, finally successful, is set to be enacted in January.
The recommendation for removal in 1990 was meant to recognize that HIV/AIDS is not contagious through casual contact, like most diseases considered to be excludable conditions. In addition to misrepresenting the nature of the disease, inappropriately including HIV/AIDS on the list can have broad social consequences. Preventing people with HIV/AIDS from traveling to or residing in the United States reinforces confusion about how the disease spreads and increases the stigma surrounding the disease. Worst of all, such a ban discourages testing and increases the risk of the disease spreading. Hopefully, through this measure and others like it awareness, understanding and honesty can prevent the continued spread of HIV/AIDS.
A full list of excludable diseases from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/diseases.htm
Background on the conflict from AIDS.org: http://www.aids.org/atn/a-128-03.html
BBC News Report on Poland’s move to mandate chemical castration for sex offenders
The president of Poland last week signed into law a bill mandating chemical castration as a punishment for those convicted of raping children or immediate family members. While chemical castration is becoming increasingly common as an alternative punishment, this is the first instance of a federal mandate.
Chemical castration is the administration of drugs meant to reduce or eliminate the sex drive. This process does not physically remove the sexual organs, nor does it sterilize the patient. The chemicals employed are generally designed to counteract the effects of androgen, and the chemicals used include some (female) birth control hormones (such as Depo Provera, an injected contraceptive).
Other countries, including France (after a series of violent sex crimes perpetrated by repeat offenders) and Korea (in the wake of a crime perpetrated by an older man towards an 8-year-old girl), are currently debating the possibility of enacting similar laws. Several US states, including Florida, Iowa, and California, have laws allowing chemical castration as a sentence, and in some cases mandating it.
While human rights groups generally denounce mandating the treatment as cruel and unusual, the BBC also published an account from a chemically castrated former sex offender, who speaks positively of his experience with the drugs. As Open mentioned in last year’s news briefs, chemical castration has become increasingly common in some countries as an “opt-out” alternative to continued prison time, though it is argued that reception of this treatment is not always as “voluntary” as it is made to sound.
Real benefits? For some, yes. Human rights violation? For some, yes. Reminiscent of “A Clockwork Orange”? Probably. We’ll see if this becomes a trend.
_______________________________________________________________________
On that less-than-cheery note, hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving, and good luck to all Rice students with finals coming up!
Over the last couple of months, an unsavory character has been getting considerable media coverage for various displays of ignorance and pseudo-righteous self-assertion. Former Miss California 2009 and Miss USA first runner-up Carrie Prejean, has demonstrated that even the “best” of us are at times the worst of hypocrites.
During the question and answer portion of the Miss USA 2009 pageant, Prejean selected a question that was asked by gossip-blogger and socialite Perez Hilton. Perez wanted to know whether or not the future Miss USA agreed or disagreed with same-sex marriage, to which she replied:
“…you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.”
How very eloquent. Both Perez and Prejean have commented on how the answer cost the latter her title as Miss USA 2009. Prejean later said: “I knew if I told the truth, I would lose all that I was competing for: the crown, the luxury apartment in New York City, the large salary — everything that went with the Miss USA title. I also knew, or suspected, that I was the frontrunner, and if I gritted my teeth and gave the politically correct answer, I could be Miss USA.”
This issue provoked a sharp inflow of criticism both of Prejean and of Perez. Social conservatives and Christian groups lamented over the apparently unfair treatment that Carrie received, and notably Donald Trump reflected that “It wasn’t a bad answer, that was simply her belief.”
This is all splendid and we are all entitled to our opinions, right? No. The idea behind the Miss USA pageant (let us assume that there is a grand and lofty idea behind it) is to elect a young representative who will be open, empathetic and compassionate with the American population; a Miss USA is expected to be a representative. With her apparently admirable honesty, Prejean managed to alienate a significant portion of the American population – the LGBT community and sympathizers alike. As a regular person, Prejean is entitled to her opinion – as Miss USA, she most certainly is not.
But let us put this aside. Carrie Prejean comes from a strict, Christian family, has been raised to think in this way and there is absolutely nothing wrong with her beliefs or opinions. Let us assume that she is morally grounded, has a strong set of values and is sexually and socially conservative – which is in some regards admirable.
Shortly after the pageant fiasco, another Prejean-bomb hit the web. Unfortunately, sexually conservative Carrie Prejean once enjoyed the art of the sex tape. You can watch what she had to say about that on Fox News here.
Uh-oh, hypocrite. Well, if only that was the last we heard of Carrie Prejean. Turns out this model-Christian not only recorded a sex-tape “by accident”, she decided to record seven more “by accident”. Needless to say that it wasn’t just the Miss California pageant team that de-crowned her (you can read the details of why this happened here); the Christian organizations she was working with after her bold same-sex marriage statement found they couldn’t work with her either. Oh the tragic life of the two-faced liar.
Most recently, Prejean walked off the legendary Larry King Live show because she decided that Larry was being “inappropriate”. Click here for the video.
Well, what can I conclude from all this? I can conclude that Prejean is a genius.
Not even the best and most legendary Miss USA has gotten so much national media coverage. Congratulations, Carrie.
According to an article from CNN, sex can be a trigger for a strange condition called transient global amnesia (TGA), in which an individual loses his or her short-term memory. Usually occurring in patients over the age of 50, TGA is triggered by strenuous activity, such as vigorous exercise, sudden immersion into cold or hot water, and, most commonly, intercourse.
The sudden change in blood flow for all these activities may be the culprit for initiating cases of TGA. Researchers who have studied the condition attribute the cause to the temporary lack of blood flow within the brain’s blood vessels, which occurs during sexual climax.
TGA is usually not recurrent, and its triggers are not powerful or stressful enough to leave permanent damage to the brain. Memory loss associated with TGA is brief and short-term.
Individuals with a history of migraines or headaches may be at a higher risk of getting TGA, which has been linked to the hippocampus.
Tomorrow, November 3, residents of Maine will decide whether to agree with the legislature’s legalization of same-sex marriage, or deny it via a “people’s veto.” If voters affirm the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry by voting against Question 1, Maine will become the first state to support same-sex marriage at the ballot box; thus far, same-sex marriages have been legalized exclusively through court rulings or legislative action.
Although the race has been close, Philip Spooner, a republican and World War II veteran who has a gay son (among four children), openly supports same-sex marriage and gave testimony for marriage equality on April 22 of this year. This testimony is now online, and has about 600,000 views (you can watch it, too, on youtube ).
As with all matters put to a vote, voter turnout is key. We’ll find out soon what the people of Maine decide.
UPDATE (Wednesday, Nov. 4th)- Well, no dice. Maine followed California and Hawaii in overturning gay marriage rights granted by their governments, according to the Wall Street Journal. Washington state, however, is still potentially poised to increase domestic partnership rights to those of married couples, making the difference semantic only, according to a writeup by examiner.com. According to numbers from late last night, the results are harrowingly narrow, with 51% in support so far. The geographic distribution is interesting, as most of the major population centers seem to be in favor, but most of the geographic area against.
Vote distribution, from the Washington State Goverment via the Examiner.com article. Green is approval, Yellow is rejection of Referendum 71.
For comparison, here is a map of population distribution by county in Washington, from the Department of Transportation:
This is interesting to compare to the distribution in Texas of counties who voted in favor of Proposition 2 in 2006, to ban gay marriage:
Again, it becomes evident that population density LOOSELY correlates to opinion, though of course, Austin county ( in green ) was the only one that did not actually support the ban with a 50% majority– the other colors only indicate decreasing degree of support. (A few lightly populated Western counties are notable exceptions, though their <10,000 populations are perhaps too small as sample sizes. Anyone from out that way want to shed light on the political climate?)
Image from maps.com
I can’t claim to know quite what that means in terms of sociology, but it’s interesting to think about.
Despite the fact that throughout history, the nude has been the subject of thousands upon thousands of paintings, in today’s society, the nude, as it is presented in art (both in visual and performance) still makes particular individuals uncomfortable. It is the belief of scholars and artists that the nude in art adds a level of discomfort for the viewer because it allows the viewer to see a semblance of oneself in one’s most vulnerable form.
Why is the nude body seen as vulnerable? This answer to many of you is likely an obvious one. Clothing acts as a form of defense, a defense against other’s judgement, a defense against our own self-judgement, as well as a shield against possible predators. Without clothes, we are exposed to the elements.
This lack of protection as presented through visual depictions of the nude through art accomplishes what I believe to be one of the most important duties of art: it provokes self reflection as well as reflection of the state of society. The nude body in art displays our vulnerability.
At times, the nude is sexually charged. This presentation of sex and/or the body as it would be in intimate moments causes a feeling of retreat for many people. The nude is intimate. One’s body can be said to be the only thing that belongs to a person. It is the ultimate possession and it’s display, to some, might take away from some the only thing that is truly personal.
