orgasms, faces, regulation
Last night a group of us went to see the premiere of Orgasm Inc. at the Quad Cinema. There's still a chance to attend a screening if you're near Boston, Chicago, LA, etc. Not a synopsis, but some quick thoughts:
Are facial features more honest than language?: During interviews, whenever a speaker quoted the party line but internally disagreed with it, their face immediately afterward would betray their true feelings. Several women working for the medicalization of sexuality industry repeatedly showed their conflicting feelings:
Exhibit 1. The woman at the trade show who spoke about vaginoplasty and "moving the bladder back up to where it normally - for a young woman - would be", who not only showed her disgust with that statement on her face, but asked the filmmaker to let her get a new job before the film was aired. (She subsequently stayed at her position, though with the film coming out, her employer may be unhappy with her and she might have to find a new job anyway.) Before I get on a tangent about why people stay in jobs that are morally draining but financially fulfilling, let's move on to...
Exhibit 2. The woman working for the pharmaceutical company who made a "this is awkward" face after talking about how prevalent Female Sexual Dysfunction is. The number frequently cited, 43% is not exactly true. But back to facial expressions...
Trainings about public speaking undo may of these natural demonstrations of how people feel. I wonder what it'd be like if we all knew where the other person stood - if communication were transparent. In the examples I mentioned, the women's cognitive dissonance was so strong that they had to express both views - one verbally, one nonverbally.
What is the role of government in protecting its people from toxicity? Even well-documented environmental hazards (arguably less controversial than sexuality) are not adequately regulated. Since 1997, when the FDA approved direct-to-consumer advertising, we have seen an barrage of marketing from the pharmaceutical industry. (The US and New Zealand are the only countries where direct-to-consumer advertising is legal.) If toxic advertisements - promoting surgeries and pharmaceuticals that have not been approved by the FDA and are harmful to health - are presented to a vulnerable public, who is responsible for the effects? I'd rather be too protected than too vulnerable.
Are facial features more honest than language?: During interviews, whenever a speaker quoted the party line but internally disagreed with it, their face immediately afterward would betray their true feelings. Several women working for the medicalization of sexuality industry repeatedly showed their conflicting feelings:
Exhibit 1. The woman at the trade show who spoke about vaginoplasty and "moving the bladder back up to where it normally - for a young woman - would be", who not only showed her disgust with that statement on her face, but asked the filmmaker to let her get a new job before the film was aired. (She subsequently stayed at her position, though with the film coming out, her employer may be unhappy with her and she might have to find a new job anyway.) Before I get on a tangent about why people stay in jobs that are morally draining but financially fulfilling, let's move on to...
Exhibit 2. The woman working for the pharmaceutical company who made a "this is awkward" face after talking about how prevalent Female Sexual Dysfunction is. The number frequently cited, 43% is not exactly true. But back to facial expressions...
Trainings about public speaking undo may of these natural demonstrations of how people feel. I wonder what it'd be like if we all knew where the other person stood - if communication were transparent. In the examples I mentioned, the women's cognitive dissonance was so strong that they had to express both views - one verbally, one nonverbally.
What is the role of government in protecting its people from toxicity? Even well-documented environmental hazards (arguably less controversial than sexuality) are not adequately regulated. Since 1997, when the FDA approved direct-to-consumer advertising, we have seen an barrage of marketing from the pharmaceutical industry. (The US and New Zealand are the only countries where direct-to-consumer advertising is legal.) If toxic advertisements - promoting surgeries and pharmaceuticals that have not been approved by the FDA and are harmful to health - are presented to a vulnerable public, who is responsible for the effects? I'd rather be too protected than too vulnerable.