By Jeff Harris
The Eyeopener has received a lot of flack over the two photographs that appeared in the “Making Whoopie” love and sex supplement last week. Complaints, letters to the editor and e-mail have been quick to label us as sensationalist and trashy, among other things.
But the decision to run images of a woman and a man engaged in sexual activity was not taken lightly. There was discussion in our office as well as a lengthy debate the Thursday before publication. Out of a group of 20, all but two voted in favor of running the photos (the two that voted against were both male).
The Feb. 15 issue featured frank articles about sex written by students. We wanted honest photography about sex to complement these articles. Sex is a big part of students’ lives and as a student paper, we wanted to reflect that. We thought most readers would appreciate not having their intelligence insulted with sugarcoated imagery.
But many students have shaken their heads in disgust and labeled the paper as pornographic. We don’t see ourselves this way.
When a fourth-year photo arts student brought his photos to our office, we saw them as a refreshing change to commercialized depictions of sex. While open to individual interpretation, we don’t see the photos as offensive. The emphasis in the first is on the woman’s face, and the confident, comical look in her eyes indicates a playful mood. In the second image, she exposes the man and comfortably stares on in amusement.
The elements in these photos that caught my attention were the balance of power between the sexes and the representation of the male body as object—both of which turn the tables on conventional sexual imagery. The woman is on top and I see her controlling the situation. The man is seen as nothing more than his sexual organ (a dick, ha ha).
It appears that it is acceptable to write frank articles about sex but not publish photos that deal with the same issue. This is hypocritical. Why are photographs more controversial? What is it about human nudity that offends people?
Perhaps the penis is a problem for some. Breasts have been extensively exploited in the visual world but Hollywood has managed to keep the penis hidden. Our photos challenged the glossy, unreal commercial world and reflected an honest, straightforward approach to sexuality.
Some readers saw no context for running explicit photos. Perhaps they missed the article that ran underneath entitled “Sexual definitions: definitive proof of a sexual climate in need of ‘Making Whoopie’. The piece excerpted The Official Sexually Correct Dictionary (for example, “making kissing sounds constitutes sexual harassment”) to illustrate how screwed up the sexual world has become for young people. The page was a call to our readers to say “Lighten up! It’s OK to be sexual.”
One valid concern was the lack of a depiction of safe sex. But these are only still photographs, and we can’t make the conclusion that unsafe sex is taking place. The photos certainly were not meant to be a promotion for unsafe sex.
Another concern was that the reader was not given a choice to view the photos or not because the images were thrown into the paper without warning. This has been a learning experience for us too, and a front page warning might have been fair for those who would choose not to look at the images.
These photos have given rise to healthy debate for some of the students at Ryerson. Others have chosen to cry out for censorship. This is unfortunate. Real progress in society comes from an open exchange of ideas—not from knee jerk reactions.
Leave a Reply