skip to main |
skip to sidebar
If you look up the word i-d-i-o-t-i-c you will find a definition of a California school district for banning Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary from school shelves, calling it inappropriate for children to read.
Thankfully, the dictionaries were returned Tuesday in the Menifee Union School District. Betti Cadmus told the media that "the dictionaries will be back in the classrooms in a matter of hours."
Ironically, this comes on the very day that world mourned the loss of Jerome David “J.D.” Salinger, 91, the brilliant author who wrote about teenage angst and coming of age in the 1951 iconic classic Catcher in the Rye. His novel was also banned by many libraries for its realistic language, deemed inappropriate for children to read.
The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary would be returned to fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms at Oak Meadows Elementary School, a committee of Menifee Union School District parents, teachers and administrators decided Tuesday.
An alternate dictionary will also be placed in classrooms, and parents will have the option of choosing the dictionary their child can use, Superintendent Linda Callaway said in a statement at a school board meeting later that day.
School officials pulled the Merriam-Webster dictionaries the week before after an Oak Meadows parent complained about a child stumbling across definitions for "oral sex."
That action triggered worldwide media coverage, much of it very critical of the school district, and the U.S. for yet another classic example of hypocrisy.
“Question of the day: in which country has the dictionary just been banned for the danger it poses to the morals of the young?” asks Oliver Marre in a column in today’s Telegraph in the U.K. “The answer, which was a surprise to me but unfortunately plays into the hands of those lit snobs who choose to overlook many of last century’s best writers and paint the country as a nation of the illiterate and the stupid, is America.”
The decision to offer both dictionaries was made by a committee of about a dozen school administrators, teachers and parents. School board policy calls for a committee to be formed when classroom materials are challenged. The committee is required to determine whether the “questionable material” supports the curriculum, is educationally appropriate and is suitable for the age level of the students.
Callaway read its recommendation at the school board meeting, but the statement did go into detail about how the committee came to its decision, and she did not take questions from the floor.
"I just want to thank those who put in the time to resolve this as quickly as they did," school board President Rita Peters said after Callaway's announcement, an obvious attempt to quell the controversy.
Parents at Oak Meadows, which is in Murrieta, Calif., will be mailed a letter about the two dictionaries, Callaway said. Parents who do not want their child using the Merriam-Webster can sign a form at the bottom of the letter and return it to the school.
Interestingly, the Merriam-Webster dictionary was in use only at Oak Meadows. The alternate is a McGraw-Hill student dictionary and is already in classrooms, she said.
The Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionaries were purchased several years ago to allow advanced readers in the fourth and fifth grades to use them.
The controversy began when a student got lost somewhere between "oralism" and "orang" and found a rather recent entry to the lexicon: "oral sex."
A parent complained about a child finding the definition as "oral stimulation of the genitals," prompting the committee of principals, teachers and parents to pore over the book and determine whether it is fit for young eyes.
Obviously, book-banning in itself is nothing new. Books are banned for any number of reasons – sometimes they are burned for good measure just to make sure they don't come back – but it is hard to recall a case in North America where the offending tome has been a dictionary!
My views pretty much echo Marre’s, so here’s his excellent column in total:
“Question of the day: in which country has the dictionary just been banned for the danger it poses to the morals of the young?
The answer, which was a surprise to me but unfortunately plays into the hands of those lit snobs who choose to overlook many of last century’s best writers and paint the country as a nation of the illiterate and the stupid, is America.
Schools in southern California have banned the hugely respected Merriam Webster 10th edition because of its definition of “oral sex,” branded “sexually graphic” and “not age appropriate.”
On hearing this, I couldn’t held but wonder what unnecessary form of words the dictionary’s compilers had chosen.
Personally, I am not much for banning books. Read and let read, I say. And if you must burn a book occasionally, please do it on the basis of quality, not morality. Once you start down the route of censorship, it becomes difficult to stop.
There is, however, a measure of sense in individual schools (rather than a blanket, centrally imposed ban) steering pupils away from really unsuitable books and, on those grounds, I rather assumed that banning a book – especially a dictionary – suggested that the description supplied for this adult activity must have been very smutty (initially penned in jest and included in error, perhaps)…
In fact, they went for this: “Oral stimulation of the genitals.”
I am tempted to ask anyone with a less offensive definition to leave it in the Comments below, because I don’t think I can come up with one. It is also, and surely this is of the essence considering we are considering a dictionary here, accurate.
If schoolchildren have been giggling about this, it isn’t because of the definition: it is because some bright spark found the word “sex” in the first place. It is no different from the laughter in Biology classes when “that page” of the text book is reached.
When you consider what the children of south California can find in their science books and elsewhere (the web?), this ban really does seem to be among the most moronic pieces of news of the year so far. It is also a little alarming.”
I , too, find this whole thing pretty frightening. In a free society, such blatant censorship is an affront to the country’s ideals. It is the free exchange of information and knowledge that is at the basis of any democracy. Dictionaries are neutral, providing factual definitions to words and concepts – even sex.
If parents are offended by those facts, they need to look at their own sexual views, not demonize a book and further stigmatize the subject. There is no way to shield children from life and sex is part of life.
The best any parent can do is educate their children about the risks, but ensure they have the actual facts. I have a friend who learned about sex at 18 only through dictionaries because her parents had steadfastly refused to talk about it and she was embarrassed to talk to her friends. Thanks the Gods that the dictionary was there before she acted! If not, she could very easily have ended up pregnant, or contracted an STD.
I would also like to thank Surviving Survial for pointing this story out to me.
— The Curator
French lawmakers recommended a partial ban on any veils that cover the face – including the burqa, the full-body covering worn by some Muslim women, backing off from a total ban that is supported by a clear majority of its citizens.
The ban on the "voile integrale" – which literally means "total veil" – would apply in public places like hospitals and schools, and on public transport, a French parliamentary commission announced Tuesday.
It would also apply to anyone who attempts to receive public services, but it would not apply to people wearing the burqa on the street, the commission said.
The commission stopped short of recommending a full ban only because not all of the 32 commission members could agree on it.
Italy announced that it too may soon seek a ban or partial ban on full-face Muslim veils, drawing on France’s debate. Equal Opportunities Minister Mara Carfagna has said the Italian government will quickly follow in France's footsteps, breathing new life into four draft bills on the niqab or burqa already circulating in parliamentary committees.
"I completely agree with the French initiative, which I think will push other European countries and hence, also Italy, to enact laws on this issue," Carfagna said this week.
"This is about a sacrosanct battle to defend the dignity and rights of immigrant women. A law is being studied that would ban the use of a burqa and niqab, which are not religious symbols – that's not us saying it, but the top religious authorities of the Islamic world, like the imams of Cairo and Paris."
France already has a law against Muslim girls wearing headscarves in state schools. It sparked widespread Muslim protests when the French Parliament passed the law in 2004, even though the law also bans other conspicuous religious symbols including Sikh turbans, large Christian crucifixes and Jewish skull caps.
The Commission has now recommended that Parliament pass a resolution on the partial ban. Such a resolution, if passed, would not make the wearing of a full veil or burqa illegal, but it would give public officials support when asking people to remove it.
Commission members began their work six months ago after French President Nicolas Sarkozy controversially told lawmakers that the full veil was "not welcome" in France.
Sarkozy said the issue is one of a woman's freedom and dignity, and did not have to do with religion.
The French National Assembly assembled a cross-party panel of 32 lawmakers to study whether women in France should be allowed to wear the burqa – or any other full veil, including the niqab, which shows only the eyes. The commission also studied whether such full veils pose a threat to France's constitutionally mandated secularism.
Commission members heard from 200 people from all areas of French society, including Muslims, though they only heard from one woman who wears a veil.
By recommending a ban on full veils in public places such as hospitals and schools and by anyone receiving public services, the commission members said they wanted to assist those working with members of the public when asking that full veils be removed. That would include school teachers who meet children's parents or ticket agents at train stations.
A date for the vote in Parliament has not been set, though it is unlikely to happen before regional elections which are scheduled for March 14 and 21. Parliamentary majority leader Jean-Francois Cope said this week he believed the resolution will pass.
Any law directed at an outright ban of full veils is likely to be challenged in the courts both in France and at the European level.
Nonetheless, more than half of French people support a full ban, according to a recent opinion poll. The Ipsos poll for Le Point magazine found 57 percent of French people said it should be illegal to appear in public wearing clothes that cover the face.
That's despite government estimates that less than 2,000 women in the country actually wear the full Islamic veil.
France has about 3.5 million Muslims, representing about six percent of the population, according to research by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. The country does not collect its own statistics on religion in accordance with laws enshrining France's status as a secular state.
French lawmakers believe the burqa is a growing phenomenon beneath which lies a not-so-subtle message of fundamentalism.
Those who advocate the ban say women are often forced to wear full veils by the men around them – husbands, fathers or brothers – and that it is a sign of subjugation.
However, women who actually wear the veils deny that.
"You are going to isolate these women and then you can't say that it is Islam that has denied them freedom, but that the law has," said Mabrouka Boujnah, a language teacher of Tunisian origin.
Boujnah, who at 28 is about to have her first child, says she came to wearing a full veil gradually, after wearing headscarves as an teenager. She said she believes a law against full veils would take away fundamental rights of Muslim women.
She and her friend Oumkheyr, who would not give her last name, say they prefer to cover their faces out of piety. The women, both French citizens, say they are only following their religious beliefs and France should respect that.
But even some Muslims in France think the full veil goes too far.
There is nothing in the Quran that directs women to cover their faces, said Imam Hassen Chalghoumi, who runs the Islamic center in Drancy, a Paris suburb. He said it is ridiculous to do so in France.
In 2008, France's top court denied a Moroccan woman's naturalization request on the grounds that she wore a burqa.
France is not the only European Union country to consider banning the burqa. Dutch lawmakers voted in favor of a ban in 2005, although the government at the time left office before legislation could be passed.
Critics see the niqab or burqa, a full veil with a slit for the eyes, as a symbol of the subjugation of women.
To the full Islamic veil worn by some women in his country, Sarkozy answers with a resounding, "Non."
Saying the clothing was "not welcome" in a nation that valued sexual equality in his new year’s speech to the nation, Sarkozy said he favors moves to ban the face-covering veil, calling for an “unambiguous” parliamentary resolution.
However, to squelch accusations of promoting anti-Muslim sentiment, Sarkozy said any law should avoid stigmatizing any ethnic or religious groups.
In response to those in his right-wing Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) party who are pushing for an immediate ban of the full veil in public, he said lawmakers should wait for results of a six-month parliamentary inquiry before taking action. After that, parliament should pass a non-binding, but “unambiguous,” resolution against wearing the full veil in public.
In his speech, Sarkozy addressed accusations that his actions are creating a more hostile environment toward France’s 6 million Muslims and said the proposed ban was motivated by love of his nation’s principles, not racism.
“The full veil is not welcome in France because it runs contrary to our values and contrary to the idea we have of a woman’s dignity,” he said, while cautioning against an extreme move that would further alienate a section of society.
“Let us undertake not to give opponents of democracy, dignity and sexual equality the chance for a victory which would put our society in a very difficult situation,” he said, adding it was “essential that no one felt stigmatized.”
In Italy, the initiative has drawn strong support from the far-right, anti-immigrant Northern League party in Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's conservative government, though some opposition figures have also applauded the move.
In deeply Catholic Italy – where a European court ruling against crucifixes in classrooms sparked a national uproar – a few small northern towns have already tried to ban niqabs or burqas with local decrees, though some of those were later annulled.
The ban initiative also appears to have the backing of most Italians. A poll by the SWG polling group showed 71 percent of Italians were in favor of a ban on full-face veils.
Still, like in France, the issue has provoked sharp debate in Italy over whether a new law is needed, with leftist politicians and even some in Berlusconi's coalition questioning whether legislation could end up being counterproductive.
"I'm convinced the burqa is a prison and a form of male dominance," said leftist senator Vittoria Franco. "Having said that, I think it's wrong to ban it because it would be an abstract intervention that would not help emancipate women."
Others say wearing a burqa or a niqab is already illegal under a 1975 anti-terrorism law in Italy that bars appearing in public with a masked face.
But conservative lawmaker Souad Sbai, who has proposed amending the 1975 law to specifically include the words "niqab" and "burqa," says a clear message needs to be sent to dissuade young immigrant Muslim women from taking up face veils.
"If we don't ban it now, tomorrow we'll have lots of women walking around in a niqab," Sbai, who is of Moroccan descent, told news outlets. "Each day the number of women wearing it rises. Just go to Brescia, Bergamo or Milan or any market, they are full of women wearing them."
She says more than 1,000 women in Italy wear full face veils, though Ahmad Gianpiero Vincenzo, head of the Italian Muslim Intellectuals group, says not more than 100 women do.
Muslim groups in Italy say they advise women against wearing face veils, but that enacting a new law on it is either unnecessary or could constitute an attempt to legislate personal choice.
Either way, niqab or burqa wearers are unlikely to get much done in Italy, says a reporter from La Repubblica newspaper. Going undercover in a niqab, she recounted not being allowed to borrow library books and being asked to leave local government offices.
"Walking around Milan inside a burqa is like walking under water," she wrote in the left-leaning newspaper.
A burqa ban in Italy would be largely symbolic, since the full veil is hardly ever seen in the country. Even in France, which is about 10 percent Muslim, estimates are that fewer than 2,000 women wear the full veil.
Here’s a small sample of Letters/Op-Ed Columns regarding the issue:
Column, The Wall Street Journal
Nadra Poller
“The question is not if, but when and how France will banish full facial veiling from the streets of the République. Contrary to what has been reported in international media, the conclusions of the Parliamentary Commission are not the ‘government's’ decision. President Nicolas Sarkozy is asking Parliament for a ‘solemn declaration’ that veiled women do not belong in France, followed by an outright legal ban.
Paris is now concerned with crafting a law that will stand up to eventual challenges from the Conseil Constitutionnel and the European Court of Human Rights.
Polls show that a majority of French people support the maximalist ban. French Muslim intellectuals, activists, and community leaders who represent the promise of an enlightened European Islam are asking for an unambiguous ban on the niqab. Poet and scholar Abdelwahab Meddeb calls the niqab the ‘ideological sign of radical Islam.’ Psychoanalyst Fethi Benslama exposes the ‘masochism’ of the self-imposed veil, ‘unacceptable even in the name of individual freedom.’ Fadela Amara, undersecretary for Urban Affairs and former president of Ni Putes Ni Soumises [Neither Whores Nor Doormats] calls the niqab ‘the visible, physical expression of fundamentalists.’ This week NPNS activists dressed in burqas gathered in front of the National Assembly and major party headquarters, calling on lawmakers to protect them from this violation of women's rights.
Democracy means individual responsibility, which means showing our faces.
No one in France publicly supports the niqab – often inaccurately referred to as a burqa – except certain apologists hidden in yards of fabric finished off with a black veil that barely shows their eyes and thick gloves to hide their hands. The Islamist currents that propel this armada lurk behind the scenes or send out representatives in suits and ties who explain that the niqab is not a religious obligation, but that a legal ban would stigmatize Muslims.
The Socialist Party, in trying to define itself in opposition to Mr. Sarkozy without defending the garment, is tripping over the skirts of an extremist practice that is the antithesis of the feminism it supposedly defends. François Hollande, who is angling for the Socialists' presidential nomination in 2012, opposes facial veiling but claims a hasty law will provoke hostility and defiance. He wants more explanation, persuasion, and bipartisan consultation.
Socialist members of the parliamentary commission refused to so much as vote on the conclusions, in protest against the parallel debate on ‘national identity’ launched by the Sarkozy government and construed as hostile to immigrants. In fact, the problem is not ‘immigration.’ France has always been a land of immigration. The problem is a certain category of French people – immigrants and native born – who do not accept the essential values that define the Republic and ensure the general welfare.
Facial veiling was the focal point of a much broader phenomenon – what could be called ‘creeping sharia’ – that led Communist Deputy André Gerin to initiate the parliamentary investigation. As mayor of Venissieux, a troubled banlieue of Lyon, Mr. Gerin has witnessed a steady rise in Islamic assaults on social cohesion.
As the debate raged in the French media this week, journalists and TV cameras sought out veiled apologists who declared in muffled voices from the depths of the niqab that no one had imposed it and no one could force them to take it off. ‘Of course we lift the veil to be identified,’ declared one purist, ‘they don't even have to ask. As long as it's a woman.’ ‘And if it's a man?’ ‘Oh no, out of the question!’ Another ‘sister’ went to the heart of the matter: ‘If they pass a law I won't obey it. The law of Allah is above the law of men.’
There's the rub. And there's the message of defiance carried by these phantom women. How many are there? Two hundred? Two thousand? Has anyone gone door to door to locate them? Can you count them in the streets? How would you know if you were seeing five different women or the same woman five times? No one knows how many there are today and it doesn't matter. The issues are elsewhere.
For the French, the veil cannot be accepted as a religious accoutrement because it denies our democratic values. In a democracy the individual enjoys civil rights and accepts individual civil responsibility. This is why we show our faces, sign our names, look each other in the eyes. Moreover, integration into French society has always meant assimilation. The French do not want to follow what they see as the Anglo-Saxon model of juxtaposed ethnic ghettoes. Immigrants who master the French language, codes, style, tastes, and flair are sincerely accepted and flourish here. Today, the personal success stories of French Muslims could be swept away by a rising wave of radicalization.
The stakes are high and the debate could turn into a battlefield. Hassen Chalgoumi, the Imam of Drancy – known for his outreach to Christians and Jews – announced he is in favor of a ban on the niqab, which he calls ‘a prison for women, a tool of sexist domination and Islamist proselytism…incompatible with life in society.’ A few days later a ‘commando’ of 80 men burst into Chalgouni's mosque and threatened to get rid of ‘the imam of the Jews.’
In sharp contrast to the cohort of veiled apologists, the France-Soir daily on Tuesday published the chilling testimony of a young woman who was nudged and pushed by her husband from hijab to jilbeb to niqab to total seclusion. The couple's devout Muslim families and neighbors looked on with approval as the young woman disappeared behind the veil, hiding her despair and the bruises inflicted by her violent spouse. One day she turned for help to Ni Putes Ni Soumises, threw off her veil, divorced, and began to live again. But she is terrified that ‘they’ will find her and kill her.
The veiled saleswoman, in a shop near the radical Omar mosque on Paris's rue Jean-Pierre Timbaud, says the debate has boosted sales of jilbeb, ‘as if the girls were buying it just to stoke controversy.’
The woman in niqab is the figurehead of a subversive movement that threatens all democratic nations. A French ban that would clearly make full facial veiling unwelcome and out of bounds could be a hopeful sign for European citizens – in all their diversity.”
(Poller is an American novelist living in Paris since 1972.)
Column, The Guardian, UK
Nabila Ramdani
“Has Nicolas Sarkozy lost face in his battle against the burqa? One might think so considering his latest compromise on the issue. While the French president firmly believes that these allegedly Islamic veils are ‘a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement’ which are ‘not welcome’ anywhere in the Fifth Republic, he now thinks the only workable ban would be on public transport or in civic buildings.
In a country which is meant to champion secularism and gender equality, it really is quite a climbdown. The vast majority of French people, including most Muslims, believe that face coverings should be banned completely. They're not only intimidating and divisive, but actually have very little to do with Islam, and far more to do with central Asian and Middle Eastern traditions. They certainly engender more than a sneaking suspicion that they've been imposed by men intent on keeping their spouses or daughters away from the common gaze.
Sarkozy clearly laid out the popular view with the words: ‘The full veil is not welcome in France because it is contrary to our values and contrary to the ideals we have of a woman's dignity.’ A ban would be an entirely democratic one which would not stigmatise anyone, least of all members of France's six millon-strong Muslim community, Sarkozy argued.
Despite this, Sarkozy left us in little doubt that all those who wear face coverings – whether burqa or niqab – are Muslims living in a country which increasingly expects everyone to ‘adapt’ to the Gallic way. It was certainly no coincidence that the clampdown on religious symbols in state schools which began in 1994 centred on Muslim headscarves. Sixteen years on, the only reason Sarkozy has stopped short of a full burqa ban is because he thinks it would be thrown out by appeal courts under European human rights legislation.
Such legal challenges would be a huge embarrassment to Sarkozy, especially during his rightwing government's ill-conceived national identity debate which is allowing racist and Islamophobic views to masquerade as 21st-century patriotism. Even anti-terrorism judges have captured the increasingly hostile nature of the arguments by saying that a full ban on the veil would lead to an increase in Islamic extremism.
Under such circumstances the real issue raised by Sarkozy's burqa ban – and especially the watered down version – is not the freedom of the handful of few women who wear full veils (less than 2000 and most of them confined to isolated housing estates, according to all reliable estimates), but the very place of Islam in modern France. By targeting his tokenistic policies and soundbites at a harmless minority, Sarkozy and his cronies succeed in linking Islam with everything from sexism to national security threats. If these associations are genuine, then they should be dealt with in a manner which is honest and unambiguous. Anything less results in weak compromises engendering nothing but fear and suspicion, often without anybody really understanding why."
Letter to the International Herald Tribune
Anne Charlotte Hinet, Paris
“...France is a republic and one of the nation’s most important tenets is secularism.
Some see French secularism as intolerance toward religion, but French republicans will explain that secularism is the only way to respect all religions and let none of them dominate another. Secularism is not a rejection of religion but an attempt to make religion disappear from public life.
I disagree with President Sarkozy’s politics and approve of your editorial’s view that his support for a ban on the burqa is to ‘deflect public anger over high unemployment’ as elections approach. But it is dangerous to say the government ban is a violation of individual liberties.
The vast majority of French people – across the political spectrum – agree on the need to ban the burqa. Also, some Muslim leaders will say that wearing the burqa is not required by the Koran. And even if the burqa was required for women by the Koran, no religious law should overtake Republican law.
Another thing to keep in mind: Anglo-Saxon countries place the individual above society. In France, it’s the opposite.”
Letter to The Guardian, UK
Ken Livingstone, Susan Kramer MP, Claude Moraes MEP, Jenny Jones Green party, Cllr Salma Yaqoob, Edie Friedman Jewish Council for Racial Equality, Anas Altikiriti British Muslim Initiative, Billy Hayes General secretary, Communication Workers, Bellavia Ribeiro-Addy NUS Black Students Officer, Weyman Bennett and Sabby Dhalu Joint national secretaries, Unite Against Fascism, Lindsey German National convener, Stop the War
“Shutting down the right to choose to wear the veil will only further embolden Islamophobia, the far right and fascist parties. The debate has had the net effect of demonising a minority of Muslim women, who number less than 2,000 in France. It will mean the only option for many of these women will be to stay confined to their homes. All this, ironically, in the name of integration and the liberation of women. We are one society and many cultures; respecting and allowing all cultures freedom of expression, as long as this does not impinge on the rights of others, means all communities can fully contribute to society. The debate in France is already impacting here, with Ukip calling for a ban on the burka and niqab.”
As you can imagine, social networking websites have been inundated with voices condemning and praising the French proposal, with some people actually forming Facebook groups specifically to react to the news.
Scores of readers also sent in their views to the Arab-based Al Jazeera, which published the following in its English edition:
Sherpa, from India, was among those who felt the proposal to ban women from wearing the niqab or burqa from schools, hospitals and government buildings, was a “direct attack on Islam.”
"If a woman feels comfortable covered up and that's her norm, what right do supposed advanced civilised societies like France have to dictate what a woman does or doesn't do?" she asks.
Yusuf, from Brazil said the move sent a clear message to all Islamic countries that the French government "cannot tolerate its Muslim population."
"I am amazed how the French strut around the Middle East on peace and reconciliation missions. When clearly they have serious misconceptions and prejudices against Muslims," he wrote.
Others felt the proposal, which follows a 2004 ban on Muslim children wearing the hijab in schools, revealed the French to be more critical than Muslim nations when it came to different dress codes.
"I wore a French beret all day and night in Pakistan, in masjids around the world, and no muslim ever objected," Omar from Pakistan wrote.
The panel's description of all-encompassing veils to be "contrary to the values of the republic" triggered further outrage.
"Do they want Muslim women to adopt the ‘values’ of many French or western women...who choose to publicly pose nude or nearly nude for money or attention?" Ishmael from the U.S. asked.
Others labeled the proposal, which will be put to a vote in the French parliament, a suppression of human rights.
"Sometimes you get astonished, when you think of any western or pro-western country talking about human rights. Human rights in West, means the right to suppress muslims and defame Islam by any means," Waheed, from Afghanistan, wrote.
Another reader, Omar from the U.S., added: "It doesn't seem very liberating to tell a woman what she cannot (or can) wear. Is it supposed to be progressive to tell women they can not wear certain clothing?"
But many readers have agreed with the French recommendation, saying that the niqab has no place in a civilized society.
"Hopefully this will lead to a full public ban. The veils are symptomatic of creeping Islamisation in France and the rest of Europe, which has been disastrous in many respects.
"They have no place in open, secular, egalitarian societies. The French are to be commended for taking this step," Jerry Philipson from Canada wrote.
Other viewers took the view that one who lives in a Western country must abide by Western dress codes.
"When I'm a guest in somebody's house (country) I respect them and live by their rules. I don't impose my views, rules, etc. on them," Alvaro from Spain said.
Lila from the U.S. echoed the sentiment: "If I were to live in a Muslim country I would bow to their dress code. I live in a free country and people can practice their Muslim religion without the burqa or the hajib. When you move to another country, be part of that country."
Another drew on history to suggest wearing a face-covering veil is not a necessary part of Islam.
"During the heydays of Islam in Spain (a 1000 years ago!) when Spanish-Arabic medicine and philosophy laid the foundations for the Christian Renaissance, women only loosely covered their heads," Geert Kliphuis from Brussels argued.
Elise from the U.S. doubted wearing the niqab or burqa to be an expression of religion, but instead said it constituted a threat.
"People who will not represent who they are are sneaky in all respects and I personally don't trust them. It is not possible to have a relationship with someone who is untrustworthy, hides themself."
But perhaps Irfan from France should have the last word, who retaliates: "Try smiling when you talk over phone and the person on other will know that you are happy."
It is clear that this issue will continue to be debated worldwide. While I understand the arguments the French have put forth, I urge extreme caution: This is not a dress-code issue, and I believe they should go no further than they already have. I also urge Italy to tread lightly, and if intent on imposing a restriction, follow France’s fall-back position and enact a partial ban only.
I am sorry to say that I find this to be is a very thinly "veiled" attempt to control the spread of Islamic fundamentalism.
While terrorism should be deplored and vigorously resisted whether it's based on religious or ethnic reasons, freedom of religion must be protected just as staunchly – even if we don’t understand or even like a specific faith. As a westerner, I have no right to seek the reduction of religious followers of Islam, or any other religion. If the true intent of the proposed ban is to protect the rights or women, there are many other ways to accomplish that without restricting religious freedom. I very much fear that this is not a woman's issue at all.
— The Curator
Sex doesn’t just put a smile on a man’s face, it may help keep a song in his heart, too!
A new study in the American Journal of Cardiology finds that men who have sex at least twice a week can almost halve their risk of developing serious heart disease.
Women weren't part of the study but many experts think the results would hold true for women, too.
And sex has already shown to have other health benefits, too. Other studies have shown that sexual activity may ease depression and pain by releasing natural chemicals such as endorphins in both sexes, by possibly decreasing the risk of prostate cancer in men, and boosting the immune system in both sexes by boosting immunoglobulin, which destroys invading organisms.
The researchers in this study, which was published yesterday, said the benefits of sex could stem from its physical and emotional effects on the body. Don't forget, sex can be good exercise, which might serve to protect the heart. Estimates are you burn around 60 calories during sex. So, let's say you have sex 12 times a month: Twelve times 60 is the equivalent of running seven miles!
But doctors think there is also an emotional component: Men with a desire for more sexual activity and who are able to engage in sex are likely to be healthier and might be more likely to be in a supportive intimate relationship with a regular partner, and this might improve health through stress reduction and social support.
So, doctors should ask about their patients' sex lives and vice versa: Men should consult with their doctors if they experience any sexual difficulties, because it could be a sign of heart disease.
Reporting in the American Journal of Cardiology, the researchers concluded that men with a low frequency of sexual activity have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.
Men who reported sexual activity of once a month or less had a higher risk of cardiovascular disease than men who reported having sex twice a week or more, writes study researcher Susan A. Hall, PhD, of the department of epidemiology at the New England Research Institutes.
Previous studies have examined the link between erectile dysfunction (ED) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), but the new study is the first to look at frequency of sexual activity and heart risk independently from ED, the researchers say.
Hall and colleagues analyzed men taking part in the Massachusetts Male Aging Study, looking at erectile dysfunction plus other sexual function variables, such as libido.
The study included 1,165 men (average age in the 50s) without any history of cardiovascular disease (such as heart disease, stroke, peripheral arterial disease) at the start of the study. Of the participants, 213 had ED at the start of the study. The men were followed for 16 years, on average.
The researchers found that there was an increasing risk of cardiovascular disease with decreasing frequency of reported sexual activity. Compared to men who reported sexual activity at least 2-3 times a week, men with sexual activity of once per month or less had a 45 percent increased risk of cardiovascular disease during the study period. The findings took into account factors such as age and ED status.
"Our results suggest that a low frequency of sexual activity predicts [cardiovascular disease] independently of [erectile dysfunction] and that screening for sexual activity might be clinically useful," the researchers write.
The researchers also looked at the role of sexual desire and the capacity for sexual activity as possible factors in heart risk. Hall said that "men who are sexually active likely have libido and the capacity for physical activity. So the ability to have sex might be a marker for overall health."
Hall also says that "men who are having regular [sexual] activity might be more likely to be in a supportive intimate relationship with a regular partner; this might improve health through stress reduction and social support."
The study suggests that doctors could get clues about the cardiovascular condition and risk of patients by asking questions about their sex lives, sexual interest, and activities.
"The take-home message for men is that sexual health may predict cardiovascular health and men should consult with their doctors if they experience erectile dysfunction or sexual difficulties," Hall said.
— The Curator
In an important action, 34 Islamic scholars in Mauritania, West Africa, have signed a “fatwa,” or religious opinion, banning the practice of female genital mutilation.
Cheikh Ould Zein, head of the Forum of Islamic Thought, said the scholars believe the Qur'an does not endorse cutting young girls' genitals to limit their sexual activity as women. He said yesterday that the leaders also agreed to preach against the practice at their mosques.
The process, also called female circumcision, is common in parts of Africa and involves the surgical removal of the clitoris or other female genital parts. The procedure is often performed by women with little or no medical training. It can eliminate pleasure for women during sex and cause lasting pain and complications in childbirth.
The fatwa, signed in the Mauritanian capital Nouakchott, states that the procedure has been proven to be harmful either at the time or subsequently to those girls and young women who have undergone the practice.
Many Mauritanian women have welcomed the move, one in Nouakchott saying it has truly smashed an ancient taboo. However, it seems vital that a significant publicity campaign will now be needed if the fatwa's message is to be spread into outlying areas where genital mutilation is most common. It is very encouraging that religious leaders have promised to present the new fatwa in their mosques.
Female genital mutilation has been recognized globally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. But that message has been slow to filter down in parts of north, east and west Africa where the practice is still widespread.
Health campaigners estimate that more than 70 percent of Mauritanian girls undergo the partial or total removal of their external genitalia for non-medical reasons.
The World Health Organization says there are no health benefits and many potentially damaging consequences, from severe pain and blood loss to recurrent infections, infertility and an increased risk of complications in childbirth – not to mention the inability of many of these females to ever again feel any clitoral pleasure or to reach an orgasm as a result of the procedure.
Shockingly, I found only one news article reporting this new fatwa that mentioned, or even eluded to, the loss of a woman’s innate ability to experience sexual pleasure FOR LIFE as a result of undergoing genital mutilation.
Mutilations are carried out for a mix of cultural and social reasons, and many believe the practice has Islamic religious support, even if this isn't always the case.
A law professor at Nouakchott University said the collective fatwa would greatly reduce female genital mutilation in Mauritania because it would remove what he called “the religious mask” that the practice hides behind.
In November 2006, an Egyptian conference of Muslim scholars from around the world declared female circumcision to be contrary to Islam and an attack on women, and called for those who practice it to be punished.
That conference, organized by the German human rights group TARGET, recommended that governments pass laws to prohibit the tradition and that judicial bodies prosecute those who mutilate female genitals.
"The conference appeals to all Muslims to stop practicing this habit, according to Islam's teachings which prohibit inflicting harm on any human being," the participants said in their final statement.
Egypt's two top Islamic clerics, Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, the Grand Sheik of Al-Azhar, the foremost theological institute in the Sunni Muslim world, and Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, attended the conference, which drew scholars from as far afield as Russia.
Tantawi's and Gomaa's edicts are considered binding.
Nonetheless, female circumcision continues to be practiced in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa as well as Egypt, Yemen and Oman, despite numerous campaigns against it.
Frequently, those men who support the tradition believe it lowers a girl's sexual desire and therefore helps maintain her honor. They also believe it is required by Islam.
The scholars said circumcision inflicts physical and mental harm on women. Furthermore, they said, Islam considers it to be an aggression against women. Concluding that those who perform it should be punished.
"The conference reminds all teaching and media institutions of their role to explain to the people the harmful effects of this habit in order to eliminate it," the scholars said in their 2006 recommendations.
"The conference calls on judicial institutions to issue laws that prohibit and criminalize this habit...which appeared in several societies and was adopted by some Muslims although it is not sanctioned by the Quran or the Sunna," the scholars said, referring to Islam's holy book and the sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad.
Although many countries have outlawed female circumcision, the law is poorly enforced and prosecutions are rare.
As far back as the 1950s, the Egyptian government tried to stop midwives from performing the custom, while allowing doctors to do so – fearing that otherwise families who insisted on circumcising their daughters would have the operation carried out in unsafe conditions. But in 1996, the health minister imposed a total ban on the practice.
The Female Genital Cutting Education and Networking Project is a non-profit group organized to promote the dissemination of material related to female genital mutilation. The Project seeks to form an online clearinghouse and a community for researchers, activists, attorneys, and health care practitioners to obtain information and network with others involved in similar projects.
The following information comes from the FGCENP website:
“As you are reading this article, there are between eight and ten million women and girls in the Middle East and in Africa who are at risk of undergoing one form or another of genital cutting. In the United States it is estimated that about ten thousand girls are at risk of this practice. FGC in a variety of its forms is practiced in Middle Eastern countries (the two Yemens, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and Southern Algeria). In Africa it is practiced in the majority of the continent including Kenya, Nigeria, Mali, Upper Volta, Ivory Coast, Egypt, Mozambique, and Sudan.”
“Even though FGC is practiced in mostly Islamic countries, it is not an Islamic practice. FGC is a cross-cultural and cross-religious ritual. In Africa and the Middle East it is performed by Muslims, Coptic Christians, members of various indigenous groups, Protestants, and Catholics, to name a few.”
The FGCENP states there primarily three methods of female genital mutilation/circumcision that has been reported in the U.S., and around the world.
“The first and mildest type of FGC is called 'sunna circumcision' or Type I. The term 'Sunna' refers to tradition as taught by the prophet Muhammad. This involves the 'removal of the prepuce with or without the excision of part or all of the clitoris.' Type I is practiced in a broad area all across Africa parallel to the equator. Fran Hosken enumerates the following countries: Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, and Tanzania in East Africa to the West African coast, from Sierra Leone to Mauritania, and in all countries in-between including Nigeria, the most populous one. There are also reports of Type I taking place in areas of the Middle East such as in Oman, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates.”
“The second type of FGC, Type II, involves the partial or entire removal of the clitoris, as well as the scraping off of the labia majora and labia minora . This takes place in countries where infibulation has been outlawed such as Sudan. Clitoridectomy was invented by Sudanese midwives as a compromise when British legislation forbade the most extreme operations in 1946.”
“The third and most drastic type of FGC is Type III. This most extreme form, consists of the removal of the clitoris, the adjacent labia (majora and minora), and the joining of the scraped sides of the vulva across the vagina, where they are secured with thorns or sewn with catgut or thread. A small opening is kept to allow passage of urine and menstrual blood. An infibulated woman must be cut open to allow intercourse on the wedding night and is closed again afterwards to secure fidelity to the husband. Hosken also reports that infibulation is 'practiced on all females, almost without exception, in all of Somalia and wherever ethnic Somalis live (Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti).' It is also performed throughout the Nile Valley, including Southern Egypt, and all along the Red Seas Coast.”
“FGC is mostly done in unsanitary conditions in which a midwife uses unclean sharp instruments such as razor blades, scissors, kitchen knives, and pieces of glass. These instruments are frequently used on several girls in succession and are rarely cleaned, causing the transmission of a variety of viruses such as the HIV virus, and other infections. Antiseptic techniques and anesthesia are generally not used, or for that matter, heard of. This is akin to a doctor who uses the same surgical instrument on a number of women at the same time without cleaning any of them.”
“In many cultures, FGC serves as an initiation rite, and any efforts to eradicate it must take this into consideration. Some of the most successful eradication efforts have taken place in areas where FGC was replaced with 'initiation without cutting' programs whereas a girl still goes through some initiation rites but this time, without any blood.”
“Alternative rituals are currently being implemented in countries like Ghana and Kenya, that do not include any bloodletting. A girl will still undergoes the celebrations and the rituals that usually accompany the circumcision ritual , however, the procedure itself is either replaced with a small pricking elsewhere on the body to let out a small drop of water, or bloodletting is completely done away with.”
“Other successful programs have also experimented with giving midwives monthly salaries for putting down their knives and becoming health care workers. They are now trained in various aspects of female health, and go from village to village educating women about the harmful effects of female circumcision, and the importance of proper nutrition during pregnancy, how to protect from sexually transmitted diseases and HIV, and proper usages of condoms, among other health topics.”
“It is also important to note that even though FGC is currently illegal in many countries in Africa and the Middle East, this has not reduced the number of the girls that are mutilated every year. The governments of these countries have no way of monitoring the spread and practice of FGC. The United Nations, UNICEF, and the World Health Organization has considered FGC to be a violation of Human Rights and have made recommendations to eradicate this practice. However, trying to fight FGC on legal terms is ineffective since those who practice it oftentimes do not report it. FGC is also widely practiced in villages and remote places where the government does not have an easy access.”
“In the United States level, there are many efforts that are being made in order to abolish the practice locally and internationally. The National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC), a networking organization have brought together social scientists and medical practitioners from all over the world who are fighting FGC as well as male circumcision. NOCIRC has also founded the FGC Awareness and Education Project in August 1996. One of the goals of the project is to create an FGC Module which will provide information and training material to health care professionals.”
— The Curator
Once again proving why she remains an award winning writer, the incomparable Belle de Jour has just posted a very moving blog entry about real beauty that EVER female (and man, for that matter) should read.
It’s no secret that I LOVE Belle de Jour – her wit, intelligence and humor along with her personal courage and insight continue to be very inspirational to me.
Her current blog posting is a perfect example of what makes this remarkable woman so very compelling. She exposes her life in such a profound way that readers will remember what they've read long after they’ve left her blog and the Internet.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with her, Belle de Jour had been the nom de plume of a celebrated British erotic author, who was also a London call girl for two years.
Last year, Belle revealed her true identity is Dr. Brooke Magnanti, of Bristol, England, a noted scientist. She disclosed her identity in a voluntary interview with the London Sunday Times. Brooke’s specialist areas are developmental neurotoxicology and cancer epidemiology. She has a PhD in informatics, epidemiology and forensic science and is now working at the Bristol Initiative for Research of Child Health. She is currently part of a team researching the potential effects on babies of their mothers' exposure to toxic chemicals.
But, from 2003 to late 2004, Brooke worked as a prostitute via a London escort agency; she started blogging as Belle de Jour — after the Buñuel film starring Catherine Deneuve as a well-to-do housewife who has sex for money because she’s bored — shortly into her career as a call girl, after an incident she thought funny enough to write down.
She charged £300 an hour for her services, of which she got £200. The average appointment lasted two hours; she saw clients two or three times a week, “sometimes less, sometimes a great deal more,” she has said.
I do not have the skills to adequately describe her latest post, so here it is in full. Read it here, or read it on Brooke’s blog, but whatever you do, just read it:
“mercredi, janvier 13
Let me tell you about the best gift I ever received. And it's not a bit of sparkly jewellery, or a shiny car, or even a thoughtful trinket of affection.
I'm talking about my scars.
I had terrible acne as a teenager. By the age of 16 it was so bad a dermatologist said it was the worst she'd ever seen, which, ya know, is not super encouraging. At the hospital where I volunteered mothers pulled their children away from me, convinced I was plagued with something contagious. Strangers avoided making eye contact.
It was so bad I could not wash my face without bleeding. Many mornings I woke up stuck to the pillowcase. And oh yeah, it was only on my face. Not one blemish anywhere else on my body. To this day, I still never have seen a photo of anything like it - apart from some daguerrotypes of smallpox patients.
It was a very long, and very expensive, journey to improving my skin - remember, this all went down in America, where having a disfiguring condition you have no control over is not covered by health insurance, and duh, there's no NHS.
Long story short, a lot of Roaccutane and Dianette did for the acne. And more importantly, here's what I learned:
1. Beauty is fleeting. Thank fuck for that.
I had a narrow escape from being just another boring blonde - not to mention an early release from the cycle of self-hatred and frantic desperation that plagues many women as they age. Corollary 1a: The larger part of how people perceive you is how you present yourself.
2. People can be hurtful to strangers. That's their problem.
My best childhood mate had spina bifida. She walked on sticks and refused to use a wheelchair for reasons I only started to appreciate years later. Looking like a medical oddity gave me, for a very brief time, a very small taste of what she encounters every day of her life. It made me pity people who equate someone's appearance with their value as a person. This generalises magnificently to strangers judging you for, in fact, anything at all. Corollary 2a: The most vocal critics are often the most insecure.
3. Other people have things you don't. Big deal.
There is no such thing as the Most Beautiful Woman in the World (sorry Buttercup). Who cares? What is considered desirable is not especially worth getting hung up on. You may not be a six-foot Amazon so will never have legs up to your neck - but for all you know, that same supermodel would give her left arm to have your hair. This concept generalises to wealth, success, talent, and intelligence as well. Corollary 3a: Envy of other women's looks is a zero-sum game, and uses far too much time and energy to be bothered with.
4. Quality of love is not a function of attractiveness.
Elizabeth Taylor, for instance, has been married eight times. Beautiful people have dry spells and get their hearts broken like everyone else. The most worthwhile and loving relationships in my life all happened after my skin problems. And for what it's worth, I've been fortunate to date some pretty nice, smart (and attractive) men in my time. See Corollary 1a above.
5. Confidence doesn't come overnight.
It also doesn't happen in a vacuum; it requires nurturing. As with anything else worth having it's work. But let me tell you, it is so worth the work. A mate recently told me about a magazine 'happiness quiz' in which one of the questions was, "are you comfortable with your body, and do you exercise regularly?" If you can see why this should not have been a single question, you're on the way. Corollary 5a: Confidence happens when you let it happen. No one gives it to you, which is great, because it also means they can't take it from you.
6. When someone says I am beautiful, they really, really mean it.
There is something about knowing someone sees you, quirks and all, and likes what they see... something rare and kind of overwhelming (in a good way). 'Beautiful' is one of those words (a bit like 'awesome') that has lost meaning in being overused as a generic affirmative. We call all sorts of people beautiful in one sentence and tear them down in the next. I'm happy to be different enough that anyone who uses it to describe me sees more than just hair and makeup.
POSTED BY BELLE AT 7:29 PM”
Wow. I am still blown away by this post. How many women do you know who would disclose this type of experience, especially in an era when a woman's physical looks too often trumps talent and character?
Brooke deserves more than kudos and our respect, she deserves to have her fans take a "look" at themselves in the honesty of her mirror, and consider making some deep changes.
As Belle de Jour, Brooke has written four books in addition to her always fabulous blog about her work in the sex industry. Her fifth book, Belle's Best Bits: A London Call Girl Reveals Her Favourite Adventures, will be widely available across the pond soon and at Amazon’s UK division.
Here is the description of the book, as provided by Orion Books:
“From the summer of 2003 Belle charted her day-to-day adventures on and off the field in a frank, funny and award-winning diaries. She was the first to reveal (among other things) how she became a working girl, what it feels like to do it for money, and where to buy the best knickers for the job. She also discusses her efforts to change from 'working girl' to working girl, whilst sneaking off to visit clients in her lunch hour. From debating the literary merits of Martin Amis with naked clients to smuggling whips into luxury hotels, this is a no-holds barred account of the high-class sex-trade, and an insight into the secret life of an extraordinary woman.”
Her other books are Belle de Jour’s Guide to Men, 2009; The Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl, September 2005; The Further Adventures of a London Call Girl, May 2007; and Playing the Game, June 2009. There is not a ringer in the bunch – trust me!
Her writing has been so popular that it became the basis for the international hit TV series, Secret Diary of a Call Girl, starring Billie Piper. It can be seen on Showtime in the U.S., and the first two seasons are also available on DVD.
(Note: Since she disclosed her true identity, Brooke took part in a photo shoot for a promotional spot that will appear in the U.K. when the new season of the show premieres. I have included the photo she posted on her blog from that shoot at top here.)
— The Curator
This time, they hope what happens in Vegas doesn’t stay in Vegas: ROXXXY the sex robot had her cumming-out party in Sin City, so to speak, and all that was missing was an after-smoke.
In what is billed as a world first, a life-size robotic girlfriend complete with artificial intelligence and flesh-like synthetic skin was introduced by a New Jersey company to adoring fans at the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas. It seems that Roxxxy is poised to revolutionize the sex toy industry.
Can anyone say Stepford Wives?
"She can't vacuum, she can't cook but she can do almost anything else if you know what I mean," TrueCompanion's Douglas Hines said, clearly devoid of any subtlety whatsoever. "She's a companion. She has a personality. She hears you. She listens to you. She speaks. She feels your touch. She goes to sleep. We are trying to replicate a personality of a person."
A male sex robot named Rocky is in development by TrueCompanion.
Can anyone say Stepford Husbands?
At the Expo demonstration, the sexrobot said, "I love holding hands with you" when it sensed that its creator touched its hand. Another action, this one unprintable, elicited quite a different vocal response from Roxxxy.
The level of sophistication demonstrated was not beyond that of a child's talking toy, but Roxxxy has a lot more brains than that – there's a laptop computer (which is included with every purchase) connected to cables coming out of its back. It has touch sensors at strategic locations and can sense when it's being moved. But it can't move on its own, not even to turn its head or move its lips. The sound comes out of an internal loudspeaker.
Hines, founder of the Lincoln Park, N.J.-based TrueCompanion LLC, said Roxxxy can carry on simple conversations. The real aim, he said, is to make the doll someone the owner can talk to and relate to.
"Sex only goes so far – then you want to be able to talk to the person," Hines said.
The phrases that were demonstrated were prerecorded, but the robot will also be able to synthesize phrases out of prerecorded words and sounds, Hines said. The laptop will receive updates over the Internet to expand the robot's capabilities and vocabulary. Since Hines is a soccer fan, it can already discuss Manchester United, he said. It snores, too.
A Japanese company, Honey Dolls, makes life-size silicon sex dolls that can play recorded sounds, but Roxxxy's sensors and speech capabilities appear to be more sophisticated. Hines' goals are certainly more far-reaching.
An electrical engineer and computer scientist who formerly worked on artificial intelligence at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Hines said he was inspired to create the robot after a friend died in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. That got him thinking about preserving his friend's personality, to give his children a chance to interact with him as they're growing up. Looking around for commercial applications for artificial personalities, he initially thought he might create a home health care aide for the elderly.
"But there was tremendous regulatory and bureaucratic paperwork to get through. We were stuck," Hines said. "So I looked at other markets."
In 1993, Hines designed "Trudy," his first sexbot that the inventor admits was not as "user friendly" as the current model. It was during his work at Bell that Hines learned the latest artificial intelligence systems, which assisted him in the development of the robot.
He unveiled Roxxxy with a lot of fanfare, which cost between $1 and $5 million to develop and took about two and a half years to produce. Hines said he combined his background with the expertise of 18 artists and engineers from three countries to create a robot designed to "deliver the best in robot sex."
"It's really a labor of love," he said.
But, the broader goal of the company is still to take artificial personalities into the mainstream, beyond sex toys, Hines said.
"The sex robot thing is marketing – it's really about making a companion," he said.
In a 2007 book, "Love and Sex with Robots," British chess player and artificial intelligence expert David Levy argues that robots will become significant sexual partners for humans, answering needs that other people are unable or unwilling to satisfy.
But even though Roxxxy is "always on," her attraction isn't supposed to be about only sex.
According to TrueCompanion's Web site, she "can carry on a discussion and express her love to you and be your loving friend. She can talk to you, listen to you and feel your touch."
The dark-haired, lingerie-clad Roxxxy prototype robot is modeled after a Caucasian fine arts student and is 5 feet 7 inches (170cm) tall and weighs 120 (54.43kg) pounds, and "has a full C cup and is ready for action," according to Hines. Owners can customize Roxxxy's features and change her race, hair and eye color, and breast size.
The anatomically-correct robot has an articulated skeleton that can move like a REAL woman but, as previously mentioned, can't walk or independently move its limbs. The Robotic movement is built into "the three inputs" and a mechanical heart that powers a liquid cooling system.
“She knows exactly what you like. If you like Porsches, she likes Porsches. If you like soccer, she likes soccer," Hines said.
Prospective owners can pick from the five different "personalities" depending on their individual preference. There is Wild Wendy, who is outgoing and adventurous; Frigid Farah, who is reserved and shy; Mature Martha, who provides the matriarchal kind of caring; a young unnamed doll with a naïve personality; and S&M Susan, who is...uh...available for more adventurous types.
Customers ordering the robot online detail their tastes and interests much like online dating sites but here, the information is used to get the mechanical girlfriend in synch with her mate.
"She knows exactly what you like," Hines said of Roxxxy, noting that Rocky will also come with personalities.
Roxxxy will chat with her flesh-and-blood mate, and touching her elicits comments varying according to personalities. She is wirelessly linked to the internet for software updates, technical support and to send her man email messages.
Roxxxy is also Wi-Fi capable, and her little quirks, like the way she holds your hand, can be shared with other sexbot owners through the True Companion Web site. Wi-Fi also makes Roxxxy easily upgrade-able, in case a new OS debuts, or – shudder to think – she catches a computer virus!
After customizing their TrueCompanion personalities, owners can then share the programs with others online on the company's website, according to Hines.
"Just think about wife or girlfriend swapping without actually giving the person to someone else," Hines said. "You can share the personality online."
Hines sees his creation as not only a recreational innovation but as an outlet for the shy, people with sexual dysfunction, and those who want to experiment without risk.
Roxxxy versions are priced from $7,000 ($A7,634) to $9,000 ($A9,815), depending on features. The sex robot is available in the U.S. and Europe and will eventually be available globally, according to Hines.
The AVN Adult Entertainment Exposition takes place annually in Sin City, side-by-side with the Consumer Electronics Show. As technology fans convene on Vegas for the gadgetfest, they're also given the opportunity to visit AVN for a dose of the content that drives is often assumed to drive technology adoption.
—The Curator
