Letters to the Editor

Female sexuality misrepresented

I’m afraid I have some sad news for Lana Yoo
(“Victoria holds the secrets of sexuality,” Jan. 16):
Victoria’s Secret models represent neither “modern
woman’s autonomy” nor female sexuality.

On the contrary, the rise of sexually objectifying images of
women is part of a cultural backlash against our “growing
independence.”

The more strides women make in previously male-dominated arenas,
such as academia, the more we must be reminded that we exist only
as sub-human sex objects created for male pleasure.

For evidence of this, observe the way female beauty standards
have gotten infinitely more rigid since the women’s movement
of the 1970s.

Then there is the rise of materials such as “Girls Gone
Wild,” designed to degrade and humiliate young women,
especially college girls.

It is no coincidence that misogynistic images proliferate
precisely when women are competing with men and perceived as
threatening to their privileges.

The idea that female sexuality is promoted within the mainstream
media is preposterous.

While there might be a few women who get excited from looking at
photographs of bras and underwear, female sexuality is richer and
more complicated than that.

Rarely will you find evidence of something as complex and
profound as human sexuality in an image designed to sell you a
product.

Also, the idea that prostitutes are all actually desperate
victims is a myth.

Although the sex industry certainly contains coercive and
exploitative elements, sex workers have been fighting for quite
some time to have society recognize their agency and ability to
make informed decisions in their own best interests.

Separating the models from the prostitutes is just another
example of dividing women into “good” and
“bad.”

I suppose these misconceptions are a result of reading
“post-feminist” texts ““ one begins to believe we
are living in a post-patriarchy.

Sascha Cohen

Fourth-year,

Women’s studies

Universal health care good for country

I picked up the Daily Bruin on Tuesday and saw David
Lazar’s column, “Universal care would hurt, not
help” (Jan. 16).

Lazar states that universal health care is “absolutely
un-American.”

He moves on to use the outdated catchphrase “socialized
health care” and intimates that universal health care would
limit the availability of services and destroy innovation by
removing the motive for profit.

Isn’t that what universal health care does ““ puts
people before profit?

David calls England and Canada socialistic places. Since when is
this true? Lazar’s whole column is filled with sophomoric
opinions such as this.

In addition, he leaves us with the statement that the supporters
of universal health are “misleading the population”
““ there is nothing like the pot calling the kettle black.

I am left with just one question: Every member of the U.S.
military receives universal health care ““ are they
socialists?

Ron Lowe

Santa Monica