How To Start A Sexual Revolution In China! Why British iPhone Users Face A Hilarious Challenge!
November 21st 2008 17:29
Category: No Category
I don't have time to comment on the below articles right now, but I would like to bring them to your attention... I will be updating this post to respond to them, so please come back shortly! (Edit: I ended up discussing them in the comments section.)
From Shanghaiist.com:
'Respected professor upsetting the sexual apple cart'
With a title like that, who could resist? The Shanghai Daily report in question discusses the recent controversy surrounding noted professor Li Yinhe of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). The article is an opinion piece written by Jiang Yunsheng and says that while he/she respects Li's research on sexuality ...
I think some of her opinions on marriage and sex are ill-timed. In fact, the following viewpoints issued a challenge to the present marriage system.
She thinks that one doesn't need to show his or her affection to only one person, or even to the same sex; one night stands are but a personal choice and it shouldn't be morally reprimanded if both participants are unmarried and, she suggests that the government should issue licenses to Chinese prostitutes.
Our interest piqued, we decided to search for information about Professor Li. The wife of late author Wang Xiaobo, Professor Li's research and controversial, public stances on matters of sexuality have earned her equal parts notoriety, applause and scorn. Back in 2004 she promoted the idea of legalizing sex work. Recently, Li has found herself facing a much heavier fusillade of criticism than ever before. Why? Because she openly advocates polygamy, one-night stands, homosexuality (including homosexual marriage), and even, in certain cases, incest.
The incident that upset the "sexual apple cart" was a report in the Nanjing paper Jinlin Wanbao that suggested that at a talk there, Li's espousal of uncommon sexual practices incited anger among the audience members. Professor Li does not deny her viewpoints, but claims that the newspaper report was false -- according to her, the atmosphere was of one of heated and lively debate, and people surrounded her, but not to condemn her but rathe to get her autograph and continue exchanging ideas with her.
Of course, many people are not going to care what did or didn't happen in Nanjing or if she was being wrongly vilified by the media -- what they want to know is how she, like Satan, could advocate polygamy, sodomy and incest. Li's replies are quite interesting -- she says that China's problem is that sexual mores are, for the most part, dominated by what she terms a pre-modern sexuality, meaning China's feudal past. What Li advocates is that there be greater sexual diversity in society -- meaning that we can choose the ways that we want relate to other human beings, including what kind of sexual relations we want to have with them.
Now you're going to get some flack for remarks like that, almost regardless of where you are. In fact, Li believes that there are but three necessary and sufficient conditions for determining if sexual relations or practices can be considered legitimate and therefore tolerated by society:
1. The sex is voluntary (consent).
2. The participants are all adults.
3. The sex occurs in a private place.
By her own admission, Li's principles negate a lot of moral restrictions that we're used to imposing on sexual activity. For example, if you and six or 18 of your close friends want to get together somewhere private and re-enact scenes from Eyes Wide Shut, you can do that -- that shouldn't be against the law (though in China, it is). Li's position is a fairly classical liberal position. When she says that the individual has an inviolable right to pursue certain kinds of behavior so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others to do, it becomes clear that her intellectual forebears are John Locke and J.S. Mill, and though her feminism and openness to "alternative" or marginalized forms of sexuality might have shocked those two Englishmen, her insistence that such rights inhere in the individual are merely elaborations of the points that these thinkers made so long ago.
In a recent interview, an interviewer asked Professor Li if she felt that her views were "ahead of her time", to which she replied (and we paraphrase ): "If I had said in 1900 that we shouldn't bind women's feet, I would have been 'ahead of the times,' and if I had said at that time that men and women could kiss before marriage I would have been 'ahead of my time' as well. If we wait for the appropriate time before making changes, then there is really no hope for social progress." (Italics are courtesy of Epiphanie of PmC) The interviewer asked Li why bother promoting these minority views, when mainstream society is not going to try all that kinky stuff anyway? Li replied, correctly we think, that it's not a matter of condoning this or that behavior, but rather one of protecting our rights to choose what kind of behavior to engage in -- and only such a framework can protect (sexual) minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
Li's steadfast adherence to classic liberalism and the universality of human rights has also drawn fire from the pomo camp, who have cast doubt on Reason and the Enlightenment project. Li's reply to that: The postmodern critique just doesn't fly when it comes to China. Generally speaking, China's economy is just getting into the swing of modernity, while sexual mores are, according to her, still stuck in the pre-modern phase. Now we know that she probably knows how much raunchy sex goes on Shanghai -- but she seems to feel that on the whole, China's still too conservative. She believes that a certain amount of repression is a necessary evil for civilization to occur (Freud in Civilization and its Discontents?）but that there is such a thing as too much (unnecessary) repression (Herbert Marcuse's notion of "surplus repression?"), and Li believes that China falls into the latter category. Li hopes that Chinese society will change, but she does set the bar rather high: A recent blog post claims that mere tolerance for sexual minorities and non-mainstream sexual practices is not enough -- there must also be a genuine respect for those members of society who prefer a sexuality that isn't heteronormal. We know that this ain't gonna happen unless the society as a whole becomes more open to alternative lifestyles and differences in general.
And is ever going to happen? The Shanghai Daily piece closes with this:
The so-called "sexual pleasure rule" is a physiological terminology, but human sexuality is governed by implied rules of behavior and the status quo -- at all times and in all countries -- admits of no exception whatsoever.
Without question, the form of marriage and sexual relationships will change with social development.
But one cannot be too careful in dealing with these problems, especially while the entire nation has not reached an advanced level of ideological, ethical, scientific and cultural thinking yet.
There it is, folks -- the "our level isn't high enough yet" theory, which explains why China isn't ready for democracy either. Shanghaiist agrees with the author of this piece in saying that you can't be too cavalier about these things -- change of this sort never comes about easily. On the other hand, Li is also right in defending the function of those who are "ahead of their time," who say things that make decent people squirm but whose ideas and values just might set off the spark of positive social change.
The problem is that the "the people are not ready, their levels are not high enough" is a convenient way for the powers that be to arrogate to themselves a paternalistic role where they get to decide who makes the choices about how both the direction and the speed of social change. This is why, though not a huge fan of Super Voice Girls, she nonetheless defended its right to exist against those who wanted it stopped and banned. And while Professor Li often confines her work to sex and sexuality, what she really advocates, in the end, is the creation of an open society, where sexuality is like freedom of speech -- I may hate what you say, but I will defend your right to say it (and respect you as a human being the whole time through). And at least for us, that is an apple cart worth overturning.
and, from ABCNews.net.au:
Sex, kitchen sinks: iPhone baffled by British accents
Posted Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:45pm AEDT
A new voice-recognition search tool for the iPhone has problems understanding British accents, leading to some bizarre answers to spoken queries, a newspaper report and users said.
The free application, which allows iPhone owners to use the Google search engine with their voice, mistook the word "iPhone" variously for "sex," "Einstein" and "kitchen sink," said the Daily Telegraph.
Comments left by users on the application's website seemed to confirm the problem. "Awesome job Google. Only problem is every time I say the word 'fish' it registers as 'sex'," wrote one, identified as Kevin.
A video demonstration of the Google Mobile App on the online giant's website shows an American engineer successfully asking for pictures of the Golden Gate as well as cinema timetables and temperature conversions.
The website also includes a link to a video showing people with Irish, British and Chinese accents asking for relatively complicated searches, with apparent success.
But British iPhone owners had less luck when speaking the word "iPhone" into the application - a Scottish user was offered a porn website after it mistook his search for "sex," the Telegraph reported.
A user from Surrey, south of London, had his request mistaken for "Myspace" and "Einstein" was another option offered for "iPhone" spoken with a Kent accent, it said.
The only British accent which correctly understood the request was for a user from Yorkshire, northern England, although he was also offered "bonfire."
A Welsh accent gave the suggestions "gorillas" and "kitchen sink."
"I've got a traditional Kentish accent and the thing kept on spitting back ridiculous things," said Roger Ellinson, 26, from Maidstone in Kent, south-eastern England.
"I asked it to find my nearest pizza take away and it came back with something about volcanoes," he added.
"I asked it to find my nearest pub and it gave me a link to some kind of weird dating website," said Mr Ellinson. "I'll have to try to put on my best American accent to get it to work."
On its website, Google points out that the new voice search system "is currently available only in US English."
One British user, Edward Parsons, says on the site's comments board "This is fantastic, except for the North American accent bias.
"It actually works pretty well, but I have to disguise my [North London] accent with a terrible folksy Texan tourist voice to get results. I can see this is going to be the source of much amusement and confusion."
From Shanghaiist.com:
'Respected professor upsetting the sexual apple cart'
Lin Yinhe
With a title like that, who could resist? The Shanghai Daily report in question discusses the recent controversy surrounding noted professor Li Yinhe of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). The article is an opinion piece written by Jiang Yunsheng and says that while he/she respects Li's research on sexuality ...
I think some of her opinions on marriage and sex are ill-timed. In fact, the following viewpoints issued a challenge to the present marriage system.
She thinks that one doesn't need to show his or her affection to only one person, or even to the same sex; one night stands are but a personal choice and it shouldn't be morally reprimanded if both participants are unmarried and, she suggests that the government should issue licenses to Chinese prostitutes.
Our interest piqued, we decided to search for information about Professor Li. The wife of late author Wang Xiaobo, Professor Li's research and controversial, public stances on matters of sexuality have earned her equal parts notoriety, applause and scorn. Back in 2004 she promoted the idea of legalizing sex work. Recently, Li has found herself facing a much heavier fusillade of criticism than ever before. Why? Because she openly advocates polygamy, one-night stands, homosexuality (including homosexual marriage), and even, in certain cases, incest.
The incident that upset the "sexual apple cart" was a report in the Nanjing paper Jinlin Wanbao that suggested that at a talk there, Li's espousal of uncommon sexual practices incited anger among the audience members. Professor Li does not deny her viewpoints, but claims that the newspaper report was false -- according to her, the atmosphere was of one of heated and lively debate, and people surrounded her, but not to condemn her but rathe to get her autograph and continue exchanging ideas with her.
Of course, many people are not going to care what did or didn't happen in Nanjing or if she was being wrongly vilified by the media -- what they want to know is how she, like Satan, could advocate polygamy, sodomy and incest. Li's replies are quite interesting -- she says that China's problem is that sexual mores are, for the most part, dominated by what she terms a pre-modern sexuality, meaning China's feudal past. What Li advocates is that there be greater sexual diversity in society -- meaning that we can choose the ways that we want relate to other human beings, including what kind of sexual relations we want to have with them.
Now you're going to get some flack for remarks like that, almost regardless of where you are. In fact, Li believes that there are but three necessary and sufficient conditions for determining if sexual relations or practices can be considered legitimate and therefore tolerated by society:
1. The sex is voluntary (consent).
2. The participants are all adults.
3. The sex occurs in a private place.
By her own admission, Li's principles negate a lot of moral restrictions that we're used to imposing on sexual activity. For example, if you and six or 18 of your close friends want to get together somewhere private and re-enact scenes from Eyes Wide Shut, you can do that -- that shouldn't be against the law (though in China, it is). Li's position is a fairly classical liberal position. When she says that the individual has an inviolable right to pursue certain kinds of behavior so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others to do, it becomes clear that her intellectual forebears are John Locke and J.S. Mill, and though her feminism and openness to "alternative" or marginalized forms of sexuality might have shocked those two Englishmen, her insistence that such rights inhere in the individual are merely elaborations of the points that these thinkers made so long ago.
In a recent interview, an interviewer asked Professor Li if she felt that her views were "ahead of her time", to which she replied (and we paraphrase ): "If I had said in 1900 that we shouldn't bind women's feet, I would have been 'ahead of the times,' and if I had said at that time that men and women could kiss before marriage I would have been 'ahead of my time' as well. If we wait for the appropriate time before making changes, then there is really no hope for social progress." (Italics are courtesy of Epiphanie of PmC) The interviewer asked Li why bother promoting these minority views, when mainstream society is not going to try all that kinky stuff anyway? Li replied, correctly we think, that it's not a matter of condoning this or that behavior, but rather one of protecting our rights to choose what kind of behavior to engage in -- and only such a framework can protect (sexual) minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
Li's steadfast adherence to classic liberalism and the universality of human rights has also drawn fire from the pomo camp, who have cast doubt on Reason and the Enlightenment project. Li's reply to that: The postmodern critique just doesn't fly when it comes to China. Generally speaking, China's economy is just getting into the swing of modernity, while sexual mores are, according to her, still stuck in the pre-modern phase. Now we know that she probably knows how much raunchy sex goes on Shanghai -- but she seems to feel that on the whole, China's still too conservative. She believes that a certain amount of repression is a necessary evil for civilization to occur (Freud in Civilization and its Discontents?）but that there is such a thing as too much (unnecessary) repression (Herbert Marcuse's notion of "surplus repression?"), and Li believes that China falls into the latter category. Li hopes that Chinese society will change, but she does set the bar rather high: A recent blog post claims that mere tolerance for sexual minorities and non-mainstream sexual practices is not enough -- there must also be a genuine respect for those members of society who prefer a sexuality that isn't heteronormal. We know that this ain't gonna happen unless the society as a whole becomes more open to alternative lifestyles and differences in general.
And is ever going to happen? The Shanghai Daily piece closes with this:
The so-called "sexual pleasure rule" is a physiological terminology, but human sexuality is governed by implied rules of behavior and the status quo -- at all times and in all countries -- admits of no exception whatsoever.
Without question, the form of marriage and sexual relationships will change with social development.
But one cannot be too careful in dealing with these problems, especially while the entire nation has not reached an advanced level of ideological, ethical, scientific and cultural thinking yet.
There it is, folks -- the "our level isn't high enough yet" theory, which explains why China isn't ready for democracy either. Shanghaiist agrees with the author of this piece in saying that you can't be too cavalier about these things -- change of this sort never comes about easily. On the other hand, Li is also right in defending the function of those who are "ahead of their time," who say things that make decent people squirm but whose ideas and values just might set off the spark of positive social change.
The problem is that the "the people are not ready, their levels are not high enough" is a convenient way for the powers that be to arrogate to themselves a paternalistic role where they get to decide who makes the choices about how both the direction and the speed of social change. This is why, though not a huge fan of Super Voice Girls, she nonetheless defended its right to exist against those who wanted it stopped and banned. And while Professor Li often confines her work to sex and sexuality, what she really advocates, in the end, is the creation of an open society, where sexuality is like freedom of speech -- I may hate what you say, but I will defend your right to say it (and respect you as a human being the whole time through). And at least for us, that is an apple cart worth overturning.
and, from ABCNews.net.au:
Sex, kitchen sinks: iPhone baffled by British accents
Posted Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:45pm AEDT
A new voice-recognition search tool for the iPhone has problems understanding British accents, leading to some bizarre answers to spoken queries, a newspaper report and users said.
The free application, which allows iPhone owners to use the Google search engine with their voice, mistook the word "iPhone" variously for "sex," "Einstein" and "kitchen sink," said the Daily Telegraph.
Comments left by users on the application's website seemed to confirm the problem. "Awesome job Google. Only problem is every time I say the word 'fish' it registers as 'sex'," wrote one, identified as Kevin.
A video demonstration of the Google Mobile App on the online giant's website shows an American engineer successfully asking for pictures of the Golden Gate as well as cinema timetables and temperature conversions.
The website also includes a link to a video showing people with Irish, British and Chinese accents asking for relatively complicated searches, with apparent success.
But British iPhone owners had less luck when speaking the word "iPhone" into the application - a Scottish user was offered a porn website after it mistook his search for "sex," the Telegraph reported.
A user from Surrey, south of London, had his request mistaken for "Myspace" and "Einstein" was another option offered for "iPhone" spoken with a Kent accent, it said.
The only British accent which correctly understood the request was for a user from Yorkshire, northern England, although he was also offered "bonfire."
A Welsh accent gave the suggestions "gorillas" and "kitchen sink."
"I've got a traditional Kentish accent and the thing kept on spitting back ridiculous things," said Roger Ellinson, 26, from Maidstone in Kent, south-eastern England.
"I asked it to find my nearest pizza take away and it came back with something about volcanoes," he added.
"I asked it to find my nearest pub and it gave me a link to some kind of weird dating website," said Mr Ellinson. "I'll have to try to put on my best American accent to get it to work."
On its website, Google points out that the new voice search system "is currently available only in US English."
One British user, Edward Parsons, says on the site's comments board "This is fantastic, except for the North American accent bias.
"It actually works pretty well, but I have to disguise my [North London] accent with a terrible folksy Texan tourist voice to get results. I can see this is going to be the source of much amusement and confusion."
| 37 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
great info Epiphanie, i was not aware that you could not do things like that in China - this whole post has been a very interesting read!
Comment by Postmodern Critic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
I laughed out loud over "I asked it to find my nearest pizza take away and it came back with something about volcanoes." Come to think of it, volcanoes could be seen as suggestive...
The differences in the way citizens all over the world speak English fascinate me...
As for China, I find it hard to believe that any legislator would make group sex illegal... but then China has a repressive agenda of a very unique kind, being that something as mostly innocuous as Brokeback Mountain was officially banned (of course, anyone who was interested in obtaining a copy through the ubiquitous black market would have done so with great ease), and so was Mission Impossible 3 (due to, get this, the representation of incompetence amongst the Chinese police force).
I was in 'the bookshop' on Saturday night and I found a book on gay and lesbian life in Asia. According to one of the essays, Chinese people are often amazed at the Western phenomenon of homophobia, because, while homosexuality is not readily accepted, it is not usually seen as such a bad thing either. At the same time, the author argued that the Chinese understanding of sexuality was closely related to the understanding of social relationships. So while homosexuality wouldn't make you an outcast, most people would think you were very unconventional. Despite the fact that homoeroticism is rampant in every society, if less consciously so that heteroeroticism. In a pre-modern world, homosexuality wasn't attempted to be understood or defined, which often meant that it people would engage in very homoerotic behaviour without questioning their commitment to being part of the heterosexual status quo.
It's all very fascinating and I so would have bought the book if I had the money... instead, I bought myself a ticket to the only movie playing in the area - Quantum of Solace - and wondered during which year will James Bond find himself seducing a good-looking male. I don't particularly care for the franchise, but when that happens it will be indicative that Western society has become a lot more open-minded about sexuality.
The Lin Yinhe article also talked about incest, i.e. sexual relations between closely related people which is technically illegal (in many countries) or seen as taboo. I personally think that being sexually attracted to a family member is remarkable in that is so little remarked upon. It seems most people don't act on whatever attraction someone related to them can bring, but I think the attraction itself is very common, and shouldn't be anything to be ashamed of. After all, family members are often people that nurture you and you have constant physical contact with - it's not hard to see how an element of sexual affinity could develop between them. I would like to be however unpopular this view will make me, and say that what we refer to as 'incest' is just another form of human sexuality, and seems as natural as any other. I don't see anything wrong with any two people developing any form of sexual bond, conscious or unconscious, no matter how closely they are related, does anyone here? As long as nobody gets hurt, it shouldn't be socially unacceptable.
I think this quote:
If I had said in 1900 that we shouldn't bind women's feet, I would have been 'ahead of the times,' and if I had said at that time that men and women could kiss before marriage I would have been 'ahead of my time' as well. If we wait for the appropriate time before making changes, then there is really no hope for social progress.
is the quote of an innovative soul. The appropriate time to drop the stigmatisation of the behaviours listed in the article was yesterday.
I'm not going to sit around waiting for the world to change. I am the change I want to see in the world. Join me; liberate yourself - prematurely: you know there's never been a better time to take a stance which will raise the respect you have for yourself, and give you the opportunity to take an active role in shaping society for the better. You know that all else is a result of hesitation and fear. Embrace your progress-loving nature, and dare to evolve at a different speed to those around you.
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
one, the law and the appearance of conservative values.
two, what people actually do. They are having a lot of sex.
What I found fascinating in China: as you mentioned, homosexuality is taboo - not illegal, but definitely frowned upon, or even thought not to exist?
In reality, though, there's a huge homosexual culture, but one that escapes notice, for now. Where I lived in China, there was a lesbian bar, and I knew several. Because no one knows about homosexuality, in a way, they're relatively free.
Similarly, though the official position of the govt is that prostitution is illegal, there are sexual services on sale everywhere, and Chinese men are definitely having it on the side.
I would compare this to Canada, where the police seem to spend so much time busting prostitutes, and the street workers live in dangerous, peril-ridden environments.
Comment by Postmodern Critic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Haha, yeah - Italy has so many rules that people are more likely to prone to breaking the law. They either think they're too ridiculous or ignore them altogether.
Because no one knows about homosexuality, in a way, they're relatively free.
It's just incredible, isn't it? And everybody is as informed by homosexuality in other cultures as they choose, incorporating it into their personal lifestyle. I would love to do intensive research in China one day, but there are so many topics to explore, how would I be able to choose just one?
I hope you have an excellent time in China - are you with your gf? I'd love to hear all about your trip when you come back, because I am incredibly intrigued by Chinese culture, and I would be very interested in what you saw and what you made of it upon your return!
I think Holland has the best policy towards prostitution: Legalise it! Let everyone see how ugly it is! Take all the mystery out of it! Flaunt it in people's faces. From everything I've heard, the Dutch prostitutes are much safer and happier as a result, and we should protect people who serve society in just one of many ways.