Many of the countries that continue to criminalise same-sex relationships are in Africa and Asia. Their anti-gay laws were, in fact, imposed by the European powers during the period of colonialism. With the backing of Christian churches and missionaries, the imperial states exported their homophobia to the rest of the world. In many of the conquered lands, little such prejudice had previously existed and, in some cases, same-sex relations were variously tolerated, accepted and even venerated. This importation of western homophobia happened in countries like Ghana, Jamaica, Nigeria and Uganda, which now absurdly decry homosexuality as a “white man’s disease” and “unAfrican”, while vehemently denying and suppressing all knowledge of their own pre-colonial era indigenous homosexualities.
An interesting ethical debate. At what point does mental illness represent an inability to provide informed consent? How do you balance attempting to prevent unconsentual sexual activity/abuse, with the natural right of adults to have sexual relationships, as someone with a supervisory position? what are the ethics of making these decisions for other people?
I presume that I may be overthinking this Plain Dealer article.
“25-year health campaign was misplaced outside the continent of Africa. But the disease still kills more than all wars and conflicts” WHO admits that the chance of pandemic HIV/AIDS among heterosexuals who aren’t sex workers/clients or IV drug users, and who live outside of Africa, is slim. With the transition of AIDS from a death sentence to a terminal illness already, i’m curious to see what this is going to do to the culture of safe[r] sex. Particularly among those who never knew an uncontrolled HIV/AIDS in the more developed post-industrial nations. [via]
Note first that all women who live long enough will at some point be women who can’t give birth and that some women are never able to give birth. Ged sees these women as something without purpose or without use. Then note how Ged defines women by their ability to give birth. This is revealing, because at its most extreme misogyny allows women now other area but the one in which men can’t substitute for them. In a sense, the definition of femininity becomes the ability to give birth and this is then the totality of what it means to be a woman. In such an extreme case masculinity is pretty much everything else; all other abilities, characteristics and traits. Only female sexuality and fertility and practical tasks associated with them will be viewed as properly feminine.
anthropophagous
Archive Audio Images RSS FeedThis is just a collection of things I think are neat.
A general overview of 'things I think are neat':abandonment/the post-industrial midwest, anarchism (syndicalism, insurrectionalism, etc), race/ethnicity (esp. defining/constructing the boundaries of whiteness), gender, class (talking/thinking about class generally seems to be an underrated activity), health care (access to, the experience of obtaining, etc), art, science fiction, punk music, conservative talk radio and anthropology (which probably incorporates almost everything else about people).
