Letters for June 20, 2002

I am very sad that some people are disturbed by the photo of Sherry Asp with her breasts showing. This photo does not disturb me in any way because the breasts weren’t displayed to get a sexual reaction from the viewers. The people disturbed by this photo are confusing this photo with our cultural propensity to sexualize the female breast. The concern of the writer of that letter was that children have access to this publication, and could easily sneak a peek at a half-naked woman, which could potentially hurt or offend the child in some way. This type of logic is very harmful to our children and our culture as Americans.

One example of the negative consequences of the breast being viewed as a sexual object is that this has resulted in many mothers choosing to bottle feed their children formula instead of breastfeeding them because [they may consider it] shameful to expose the breast in public. This alone is extremely detrimental to our children.

Another negative result of sexualizing the breast is that many women feel inadequate because their breasts aren’t huge and round like so many of the images we see that sexualize women and their breasts. Many women then feel the need to go get implants and thus further perpetuate this problem.

In many other cultures, the breast is simply a part of the female anatomy, which is not disturbing to them in any way. Yes, breasts can be sexual, but only in context of the situation. The primary function of the female breast is to feed offspring. Are you embarrassed when your child notices a pregnant dog’s breasts? Is it disturbing for your child to look at a cow’s udder?

If you imply to your children that the photo is shameful, you are perpetuating the concept that the breast is for sexual purposes only. I think this concept should concern you more than your fear of children viewing a woman’s breast.

Rhonda Berning
Carson City

Mumia as cop-killer, con guy
Re “On UNR’s Campus With Mumia” [RN&R Guest Comment, May 9]:

In his latest book, Uncivil Wars, ex-radical turned conservative David Horowitz mentions the case of Dan Flynn of Accuracy in Academia, author of a pamphlet titled “Cop-killer: How Mumia Abu-Jamal Conned Millions Into Believing He Was Framed.” Flynn was invited to speak at UC-Berkeley by a conservative group in the spring semester of 2000. A mob of protesters positioned themselves at the front of the auditorium, shouted Flynn down, physically intimidated his supporters and stole and destroyed his pamphlets. Campus police (on orders?) watched and did nothing.

This raises a question: If the case for Mumia’s innocence is as incontrovertible as Joshua Sauvie presents it, why should his supporters have any problem discrediting the opposition? Why do they find it necessary to deprive their opponents of free speech?

I suppose Sauvie’s answer will be the same as that of the kid he spoke with in the library. No, he doesn’t know.

Bill Hamma
Reno

Marring the Bard
Re “The Bard Gone Mad” [RN&R Theater, May 30]:

“Nobody’s ever done it,” Adam Whitney says. “Nobody’s come up with the idea of men playing Shakespearean women.”

Adam Whitney struck me as a complete idiot when he stated that his idea was original. The reason being that he is writing a show about an insane man playing Shakespearean women and stated in the article that this has never been thought of! That is absurd! Shakespeare’s women were originally played by men (or young boys), and Whitney is just attempting to throw this “original idea” at us for shock value. I do not want to go into a history lesson here, but ANY actor knows that!

If Adam Whitney wanted a truly original idea, he should have written the script as an insane woman regressing and playing Shakespearean MEN.

Name withheld
via e-mail