I’m tired of being ogled at while taking the SkyTrain

By

-

October 26, 2015

I’ve always had a big thing for public connection; catching a passerby’s eye in the habitual bustle, maybe offering a nod or — heaven forbid — a quick “good morning.” There’s something worthwhile in mustering the effort to reach out and acknowledge people. It’s important, savouring the subtle details that are so easy to dismiss but, at the end of the day, it gives you that extra little something. Cheesy, yes, but unmistakably true; to be connected is essentially to be human.

But then I became a SkyTrain commuter, and everything changed.

Put bluntly, people are perverts.

Okay, I can’t just say that. It’s unfair and a total generalization. But I will say this: in one week alone, I’ve become fed-up with accidentally snagging eye contact with someone who, in return, behaves intrusively and downright grossly. All too quickly, the encounter becomes a sexualized episode between the 18-year-old girl and the somehow-entitled man. Pardon me, sir, but I absentmindedly glanced at your face. I didn’t invite you to imagine me naked.

Confused? Allow me to give an example: I’m gazing through a bus window, my attention grazing over the wonders of Surrey Central and all its glory (sarcasm intended). I spot a man strolling by and, in the second I notice him, he notices me. He abruptly halts and, with his eyes fastened to mine, he smirks. But it wasn’t just any ol’ smirk; this smirk was slow and unforgiving. It was the most suggestive smirk I’d ever seen, and I had never felt so violated.

Believe it or not, the next day was a similar case. Except this particular man was sitting cross-legged on the sidewalk and slowly wiggled his fingers at me.

Pardon me, sir, but I absentmindedly glanced at your face. I didn’t invite you to imagine me naked.

And my last case (yes, there’s a third) involves a man who dedicated the ten minute skytrain ride to staring fixedly at my face. I went as far to change seats, but he either failed to decode the hint or couldn’t have cared less.

Upon telling this tale to a friend, they settled on a simple solution: “Just don’t look at people.”

Um.

I’m left grappling with these words, as they contradict the human communication spiel I’ve always held dear to my heart. Because of these few disrespectful commuters, must I sacrifice my values of public connection in order to feel safe and comfortable? I think we all know the commuters wouldn’t have acted like this if I’d been a middle-aged man. The fact that I was a young, unaccompanied girl made all the difference. So at what expense am I to make room for their absurd behaviour?

It doesn’t seem fair that, as a young woman, I ought to divert my eyes to the ground in order to avoid the smirking, staring, and wiggling fingers. I should be allowed to look at people, incidentally or not, without feeling degraded afterwards. And that’s that.

As I grapple with this, it’s understood that these sort of situations are not about to just evaporate. To all you women who put up with the same problems, I’d say learning to handle them with dignity and grace — that is, to keep your chin up high and to remember that you’re far superior to their weird sexualization game — is the decent, if not best way to approach this situation. To hold yourself to higher ground must count for something!

But get this. Just yesterday, someone tapped me on the shoulder at Production Way Station. A man held my Compass Card in his hand. I’d dropped it moments before. My guard automatically flew up, but I smiled nonetheless. And then he gave me a quick nod, wished me well and ambled away.

Suddenly, I remembered why I’d bothered smiling in the first place.

Decorative contact lenses have potential to cause infection

By

EIC

-

October 26, 2015

0

WEB-Contacts-Alfred Zhang — Many opt to wear decorative lenses as an addition to their Halloween costume. - Photo by Alfred Zhang

Having spiderwebs for irises eyes may seem like an easy and cheap way to give your Halloween costume some edge, but if you’re not careful about where you buy them and how you use them, those decorative lenses could cause serious damage.

“The eye is an extremely sensitive organ and can be damaged very easily,” explained Sureen Bachra, co-owner and chief optometrist at Lifetime Eyecare in New Westminster.

Contact lenses need to be properly fitted to the shape of your eye, and many decorative lenses don’t provide a lot of options in that regard. However, that is not the only trouble with these lenses. Bachra shared that “the biggest problem is improper insertion technique and care.” For these reasons, buying over-the-counter decorative lenses risks scratches to the cornea, infection, or in extreme cases, decreased vision or blindness.

All forms of contact lenses, including decorative and prescription lenses, are medical devices according to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Health Canada will be implementing similar regulations into effect in July. However, Bachra clarified that “federally, they are considered to be medical devices, but unfortunately, the province of British Columbia deregulated the purchasing and selling of contact lenses.”

Therefore, anywhere that sells them in the United States or elsewhere in Canada as cosmetic devices is breaking the law; this includes street vendors, novelty stores, and boutiques. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is actively trying to stop them. An investigation called Operation Double Vision, which is now in its third year, and has seized over 20,000 pairs of counterfeit and decorative lenses in 2014 alone.

Optometrist’s studies have shown that 11 per cent of consumers have worn decorative lenses, with most of them purchased from sources selling their wares illegally. Nearly 60 per cent of individuals using contact lenses admit to wearing them longer than recommended, according to the ICE.

The FDA recommends only purchasing lenses only from sellers that ask you to provide your prescription; they should also provide you directions for cleaning, disinfection, and lens usage. If you are using decorative lenses and experience any discomfort, redness, or decrease in vision, you are encouraged to contact an eye care professional as soon as possible.

In order to purchase decorative lenses safely this holiday season, Bachra advised, “Go see your eye care professional first,” regardless of whether you think you have perfect vision. “What you actually need is a professional to check and see if your eyes are healthy and they can tolerate a contact lens, and that they are they are actually fit by a professional — that’s the difference.”

SFU Vancouver showcases community engagement at Open House

By

EIC

-

October 26, 2015

0

WEB-Van Open Haus — Photo by Samaah Jaffer

SFU Vancouver opened its doors to the public at Harbour Centre last Wednesday as part of SFU’s 50th anniversary celebrations.

Nearly 800 people attended the event, which featured over 37 exhibitors representing various departments, programs, and offices from all five buildings that comprise the Vancouver campus.

The opening ceremony featured an address by President Andrew Petter, performances by the Woodward’s Community Singers, SFU Pipe Band, and William Lindsay from the Office for Aboriginal Peoples, the latter of which recently opened a First Peoples gathering space at the campus.

Event coordinator Kamilah Charters-Gabanek noted the performances were one of the highlights of the night. “The Woodward’s Community singers is a group out of Woodward’s that is open to anyone in the public, to come into the university space, [. . .] feel welcome into the institution, and make connections here to the community.

“[SFU Vancouver] is a pretty unique place concentrated in several blocks of the downtown core that has so many different groups of people,” Charters-Gabanek continued. “All of the programs that participated and everyone who came out and helped make the Open House a success did a great job of showcasing the types of community engagement that we offer here.”

Attendees were also able to join a guided tour of the Harbour Centre campus, as well as participate in over ten free workshops that were offered throughout the evening. The tours included a visit to a brand new 24,000-square-foot incubator space for the VentureLabs business accelerator on the 12th floor.

The workshops are normally offered with a fee; however, Charters-Gabanek explained that “because of our community engagement mandate, we wanted to offer them to everyone at no cost.

“We had workshops from Career and Volunteer Services on the relationship between a degree and a career,” said Charters-Gabanek. “We also had two of our Beedie professors from the downtown Segal Graduate School of Business, David Hannah and Ian McCarthy, host two workshops. One was on the fundamentals of effective negotiation, and the other was on learning from creative consumers.”

The rest of the workshops were hosted by SFU Continuing Studies, which was the original group of programs based in Vancouver when the campus opened 25 years ago. Altogether, Charters-Gabanek explained, the workshops gave people a sense of the variety of programs and courses offered at the Vancouver campus.

Laurie Anderson, Executive Director of SFU Vancouver, commented, “By any measure, the SFU Vancouver Open House was a successful evening: positive vibe, lots of interest at the program information tables, good attendance at the workshops and many people mingling until close.”

Said Charters-Gabanek, “I think we did a really good job of showcasing the variety of not only what we offer at our campus, but how we offer it, too — that people can come into the university in so many different capacities, whether they’re an undergraduate student, a graduate student, a lifelong learner, a mid-career professional, or honestly just anyone from the community, [they] could come in and connect.”

SFU students create fish-sitting system

By

EIC

-

October 26, 2015

0

Fishy Business Ariel Mitchell — When the owner's away, the fish will play. - Illustration by Ariel Mitchell

Five SFU students who joined Tech Entrepreneurship@SFU are making waves with their new fish tank monitor.

Leonie Tharratt, Kyle Tharratt, Spencer Arbour, Kevin Cruz, and Ivan Shchukin joined the program that helped them get their product started.

“This program was invaluable in enabling us to develop our own idea by providing support and funding to us and allowing us to maintain ownership of the idea,” Tharratt said in an email interview with The Peak.

At this phase in development, the device will be able to monitor temperature, ammonia levels, and water temperature. The team plans to develop it to monitor pH, nitrite, and TDS (total dissolved solids).

Tharratt added, “From there we can use an algorithm on the back-end to determine GH & KH trends. All this information is sent to the user’s app and will provide alerts when they exceed the specified acceptable ranges for each parameter.”

The team of students saw a need for this type of monitoring system both from first-hand experience with their own fish and from the experiences of others. Tharratt mentioned a situation in which an aquarium fish appeared healthy, but there was a problem with the water in the tank.

Said Tharratt, “I went to buy a few fish from someone and it turned out that he had none for sale because when he was on vacation his heater malfunctioned and killed everything in the tank. [That] cost him about $1000 in juvenile fish that he was planning to sell.”

Although the team is still in the prototyping and development phase of their project, they are expecting the cost of making their technology a reality to be between $300 and $400. Funding is their last hurdle towards selling their device on the wider market.

I have a lot of opinions. And I’m not changing.

By

EIC

-

October 26, 2015

0

Among my co-editors at The Peak and among my close friends, I’m known as a very opinionated guy. And that’s putting it lightly. Ask me what my opinion is about almost anything, and I’ll be sure to give you some sort of response.

What I’ve found is that I’ve formed strong opinions on things that, in the scheme of it all, don’t matter a whole hell of a lot. And if I do have an opinion on something that has some weight to it, it’s probably something pretty stupid. For example, I don’t care a lot about provincial politics other than “Christy Clark sucks,” but I will defend with vigour that NHL 06 has the best soundtrack of any video game ever.

Some may call this ‘trolling,’ but I really don’t see it that way. I call it simply ‘trying to stand out a bit.’ Maybe that’s a bit childish, but it’s a part of who I am.

Looking back, it’s hard to pinpoint when I started to take a hard stance on everything. Likely, it was just a gradual realization that I was just an incredibly average person; some would say painfully average. I’ve never seen myself as one who has any real talent; and admittedly, I have gone through periods where I doubt myself at every turn. I’ve never seen myself as unique so I felt that to adopt stupid opinions gave me something by which to define myself.

But enough of that sappy stuff. I’ll list you some of my opinions. I’m telling you, if I ran things, it would be a heck of a lot different.

The Highland Pub is one of the only places on campus where you can get a drink, and yet it is always in the red. The only thing this place is consistent at is losing money. But I have a remedy to this problem, and it’s two words: strip club. Not only would it provide jobs on campus to students, it would at the very least mitigate the pub’s losses to a manageable number.

A popular topic I hear discussed is sexual education in public schools. I say forget learning that stuff in the classroom. Kids should learn about sex on the playground, through word of mouth. What kid wants to suffer through a talk about the birds and the bees from a parent or teacher twice their age? Just Google what you want to know when your parents go to bed. It saves both parties from an embarrassing and awkward conversation.

Twirling spaghetti on a spoon before eating it is the correct way to eat spaghetti. Anyone who says otherwise or has differing views is a heathen and must be dealt with accordingly.

Official power rankings for root beer: 1) A&W Root Beer, 2) Barq’s Root Beer, and 999) Mug Root Beer. No one likes Mug — not even the people who make it.

No hockey player should wear a number over 35, because it just looks stupid. I can’t explain exactly why, but players who skate around as #91 don’t look as good as #19 or #9. Plus, choosing your number after the year you were born is incredibly unoriginal. What are players born in 1999 going to do when they make the NHL?

Anyways, like I said, I’m an opinionated guy. It’s an extension of myself, and if you disagree with me that’s fine. But I’m not changing.

Why academic debate has gone dismally downhill

By

EIC

-

October 26, 2015

0

Web-Hypersensitivity-Olivia Tsai — Political correctness has fostered needless intolerance.

The act of thinking has become a dangerous game. These days, you would never know that we actually enjoy a good debate; half the time, we can’t stop accusing each other of ignorance to have a proper conversation. Hop online, where anonymity and mob mentality reign supreme, and the expression of divergent opinions, especially regarding race, gender, ethnicity, politics, sex and the like, can make one a target for annihilation.

Such was the case at Wesleyan University in Connecticut last week, in which the student government voted to slice the school newspaper’s funding for having published criticism on the Black Lives Matter movement — a prime example of hypersensitive stifling in an academic setting.

Although it’s obvious that people love to tear each other down, I’d like to think that there’s a slightly more civil reason than this for why we’re always so sensitive to a challenge of thinking.

One conclusion that Sarah Niedoba of The Globe and Mail put forth in a recent article is that, in universities, the conflict stems from groups whose viewpoints differ, and whose viewpoints are inabile to coexist. The author’s theory makes a lot of sense, especially if you consider the role of personal values.

We live in an age where common societal values have been defined through the process of political correctness; we have a society with a desire to respect and treat everyone in a fair, understanding way. Subsequently, we take great pains to ensure that we do not offend anyone.

In our attempts to accept all peoples, we have become, ironically, intolerant.

The real conflict arises when we try to insert our personal beliefs into the process, which may or may not fit the politically correct mould. Nothing changes the fact that there is no universally accepted position on any issue; we remain divided by our personal viewpoints, and this division breeds automatic sensitivity because it draws us as individuals into the issue.

Political correctness has only implemented a standard of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in thinking. Those who choose to approach issues differently than the socially accepted way are not only frowned upon, but also viewed as incorrect and closed-minded. Take the abortion debate, for example: pro-lifers in the Lower Mainland face constant criticism from our dominant progressive society for their supposedly ‘callous’ beliefs.

On the other hand, those who agree with the norm are often criticized by ‘viewers of the alternative’ as impractical and narrow-minded. Our sense of openness and encouragement has long disappeared, and we are no longer a population that desires to expand our thinking. In our attempts to accept all peoples, we have become, ironically, intolerant.

Is there a quick fix for this issue? Unfortunately, no. What we should focus on, however, is keeping open minds.

As we decide which matters are black and white and which are in shades of gray, we cannot be afraid to question others’ opinions, and to step in and out of the bounds of political correctness for the sake of discovery.

Similarly, we must not criticise those who do the same. This does not excuse rudeness or disrespect, and it doesn’t mean that you can’t have your own strong opinions — it simply requires allowing others to have opinions, and to seek to understand before you judge.

The motivation behind the creation of universities as institutions was, in part, meant to encourage learning and the widening of our perspectives. As fellow students, we can’t let that goal escape us. The next time you encounter someone who opposes what you think, pause before letting your academically fueled indignation loose. Having different opinions is okay.

Unconvinced? Let’s just agree to disagree.

Woohoo, Boohoo

By

EIC

-

October 26, 2015

0

Woohoo: The Kraken

Every once in a while, a gloriously terrifying deep-sea creature will wash ashore somewhere, making us realize that mother nature hides some pretty terrifying things in the water’s deepest, darkest depths.

Take for instance the Kraken, a monstrous cephalopod capable of eating ships and striking fear into the hearts of even the saltiest of sea dogs.

What makes it so terrifying? Is it that we know there are monster squid lurking beneath the surface, or the fact that we can see first hand an octopus’s advanced intelligence? It isn’t much of a stretch to imagine the ‘small’ giant squid that wash on shore as baby versions of this ship-eating monster.

Until we know for sure what lurks beneath the surface of the ocean, to scream “Release the Kraken!” will continue to strike wonderful fear into the tiny, delicious hearts of men.

Boohoo: The Loch Ness Monster

The Loch Ness Monster is only one good publicity campaign away from becoming the new leader of a Scottish independence movement, and even has a cute nickname to accompany its less-than-fearful reputation.

‘Nessie’ is considered the Holy Grail for cryptozoologists. What makes it intriguing is not so much the fact that it eats entire ships for breakfast but the fact that it pops up for blurry, foggy, and sporadic photo ops, which keep people vaguely interested in finding it.

Nessie is the monster you would bring home to your parents; the one who would tell your mom she is amazing at cooking haggis, and your dad that he is the best bagpiper in the land, even when your mom burnt the haggis on the outside and left it raw on the inside, and your dad sounds like he is murdering a sack of cats.

The Loch Ness monster is less monster and more overgrown kitten.

Why many educators ban laptops from class

By

EIC

-

October 26, 2015

0

Over the past couple of years, a number of articles have been published in The Peak discussing the pros and cons of students using laptops in classes, including one earlier this fall titled “Don’t ban my laptop from class.” As a postdoctoral fellow and aspiring educator, I understand why many educators don’t allow laptops in lectures – that being, you learn better if you handwrite. Plain and simple.

A recent study found that students who handwrite notes in lecture retain more information, understand the material better, perform better on exams and enjoy their classes more than their keyboarding peers. During lecture, skilled note-takers filter out the important information and reframe it in their own words.

Handwriting forces movement. Your hand moves differently to form letters than it does when you are typing. For many, movement helps memory. My guess is that what you remember best about your day, your weekend or weeks gone by was the doing, the activity, or the engagement. Taking an active role in learning has been my core belief both as a student and as an educator.

Back in my days as an undergraduate I found immense value in my active, handwritten note taking. Not only did I quickly learn my own shorthand, but I also learned to embellish the important points with stories and examples that resonated with me. One of the biology educators I had as an undergrad was able to turn mundane facts about life cycles into shocking stories with pictures and activities that kept me captivated and interested throughout his courses.

In a survey I designed prior to writing this response, I discovered that, like most university educators, this educator has learners who spend their time online, distracted rather than immersing themselves in his lectures. This is not new. I’ve taken some pretty boring courses; I’ve seen students sleeping in class or reading a novel — rude, but only self-impeding — not a distraction to students around them (40 per cent of students surveyed said they get distracted by other people using laptops in lecture).

I quickly learned my own shorthand, and to embellish the important points with examples that resonated with me.

In my opinion, laptops are too passive for note-taking and the Internet is too alluring (14 per cent of students I surveyed agree, and 54 per cent said they go online or work on other projects if the lecture is slow or boring), thus laptops (and other digital devices) may prevent students from learning.

I’m not alone in this opinion. The majority of the educators and students I surveyed agree that laptops are both distracting and poor learning tools. One educator commented that “laptops are ‘black holes’ for student attention.” Another wrote: “I actively discourage the use of laptops. I tell [students] about the studies linking note taking to retention and understanding, and impress upon them that the screen is for when I am not there. [. . .] They have to engage with me and the material, not a screen.”

However, both of these educators, like the vast majority of their peers, allow laptops in lectures.

As the world becomes more digitized, educators are learning to incorporate digital devices into their teaching. A second survey I conducted of elementary, middle, and high school teachers revealed that while most educators only allow students to use devices to listen to music up until grade six, others have started incorporating tablets into lessons at grade two.

What will this mean for our ‘modern’ quality of learning? Will we become better learners or more stagnant? The benefits of learning by active handwriting outweigh the convenience and distractions of typing. But is it my right, as an educator, to determine whether or not your style or ability to learn conforms to the majority? Clearly, more studies need to be done in order to determine how benefits of traditional learning can be incorporated into a digital style of learning.

SFU students honoured at We Day

By

EIC

-

October 26, 2015

0

WEB-WE Day-Deeya Bhardwaj — Thousands of youth gathered at Rogers Arena to celebrate and encourage social development. - Photo by Deeya Bhardwaj

20,000 students and educators from over 700 schools gathered in Rogers Arena on October 21 to celebrate We Day, one of a series of events around the world commending youth making a difference in their communities.

Tickets to this event granted access to a five-hour-long musical spectacular, with performances and presentations from notable celebrities, activists, and Canadian icons.

The stacked guest list included Chris Hadfield, Colbie Caillat, Hedley, Kardinal Offishall, and the Barenaked Ladies. The aim of the event was to not just entertain, but to educate, and many of the presenters and performers brought with them a message for the students.

Among the special guests was actor Henry Winkler, best known for his roles on Happy Days and Arrested Development, who shared his long list of triumphs, including having published 31 books despite being dyslexic and in the bottom three per cent of the nation academically. “You are not defined by your challenges,” said Winkler. “You are defined by your power.”

Since the event functioned as both a learning experience and reward, entry was free to all students with only one caveat: they must have participated in one local and one global action aimed at making a positive change in the community.

This year marks We Day’s eighth anniversary. It was originally started by Craig and Marc Kielburger, co-founders of Free the Children, an international charitable organization that aims to empower people to transform themselves, their communities, and the world through social development and outreach programs.

Said Kielburger, “The whole purpose of We Day [. . .] is to have the 20,000 students at the event and hundreds of thousands watching the live stream come out of the experience having discovered their cause.”

This year’s event also marks the first time SFU was represented at We Day. Among the invited participants was a group of SFU students who were being rewarded for their efforts with SFU’s own Free the Children (FTC) club. Three years ago, SFU student and founder of the club Puneet Mann decided that there was a need for this kind of presence on campus.

“FTC, at its heart, is about proactive youth empowerment. It is about creating globally and locally aware citizens who are passionate about creating change — not with financial handouts — but by using the sustainable tools that we have within ourselves along with the relationships that support us.

She noticed that this form of engagement was missing at SFU and wanted to create a place where “like-minded and passionate students who want to create change locally and globally [can] come together to tackle problems creatively and in a holistic manner.”

The club has received a favourable response from the SFU community, doubling in size since its creation. It also participated in a number of initiatives to help children worldwide, including food drives, bake sales, and fundraising events.

We Day was particularly significant for the club this year because not only was it their first time going as a group, it was also a way to honour a member whom they lost to an unfortunate accident earlier this year.

Mann shared, “Syed Wajahat Ali, or as he was more commonly known to his FTC SFU friends, Ali, [was] always smiling and ready to offer an extending hand. [He] pushed the club to be more inclusive, fun and successful and always looked forward to attending We Day and celebrating our collective achievements.

“This year, we took to We Day all our previous successes and kept Ali in our hearts.”

The club hopes to continue to increase their presence in the SFU community by engaging with the school through various fundraising initiatives. They also wish to reach their global cause of rebuilding a school in the central plateau region of Haiti.

Point/Counterpoint: Should Playboy ditch its nude photos?

By

EIC

-

October 26, 2015

0

Yes, and Playboy must seek a feminist route in doing so!

By Nathan Ross

After 62 years, Playboy has decided that it will no longer feature fully nude images of naked women in its pages, which has become known as their trademark.

So what?

This doesn’t mean anything except that Playboy is trying to stay relevant. It isn’t about not featuring erotic women, as it’s basically going to become a glorified version of Maxim, GQ, or one of several men’s-focused magazines out there. It really isn’t that different or groundbreaking.

In a world where naked photos of men, women, and people of identities between or off the gender binary are available for free in a second, seeing Playboy no longer dedicate a centerfold to nudes doesn’t really feel like that big of a deal.

The move was done to boost the magazine’s sales and online hits, which had reportedly been dropping fast over the last while.

Sure, if Hugh Hefner and company want to give Playboy a spark, this is definitely a quick fix that will generate good press for a little bit, which will parlay into raised sales. However, if Playboy Enterprises Inc. really want to give their flagship a permanent boost, there is something else they should really consider doing.

Make Playboy an openly feminist magazine.

Recently, writers like Noah Berlatsky have been saying that they are writing for the magazine because they are trying to promote women’s issues from within. Whether or not this is actually true or just another marketing technique, women’s issues are in some way on their radar.

Even though the way they’ve been going at it has so far been questionable, I think there’s a real market for Playboy, and that is those “He for She” feminists that want to be a part of the fight but understand that they aren’t the core of the issues. A large part of feminism is built around ‘women only’ safe spaces — as they rightfully should be — but in the last few years, there is a growing acknowledgement that what feminism is fighting for would also benefit men, and Playboy could help illustrate that in mainstream media.

A magazine to help uneducated males learn about toxic masculinity, how patriarchy actually hinders them, how to co-exist with the people in their lives, and so on is a valuable resource that we don’t have right now. It could be like the Terry Crews of magazines — the muscular, ex-NFL player, and ‘alpha male’-turned-actor who has also penned Manhood: How To Be A Better Man or Just Live With One.

Playboy removing its nudes is just step one, but unless it truly commits to taking this journey, it really isn’t that much of a difference at this point.

No, Playboy should actually keep its nudes to empower women!

By Jessica Whitesel

When I think of Playboy two things instantly come to mind: the classic “I only read it for the articles” line, and wondering which model was given the opportunity to grace the hallowed domain of the centerfold. With the recent decision to remove nudity from the legendary magazine, I’ve been left with a somewhat empty, quizzical feeling.

While in recent years the Internet porn business has boomed, and leaked celebrity nude shots have set the world buzzing, can these really take the place of a well-curated gentlemen’s magazine? I really don’t think they can.

Playboy began in 1953 with nude Marilyn Monroe in the centerfold. And while the magazine has taken a turn from the celebrity centerfold in recent years, it shocks me that more female celebrities who’ve had leaked photos chose not to re-take possession of their nudity and do a centerfold spread with the magazine. While it would be fueling the fire, so to speak, if one’s body is made ‘objectified,’ taking ownership of your nudity would coincide nicely with the movement to reclaim labels — and the actions associated with them — that are derogatory towards women.

Human trafficking and sexual exploitation are real problems that women face, but these women are not the ones who are represented in the pages of Playboy. The women in Playboy chose to be portrayed in a certain way, and as such, they made a personal choice to take ownership of their bodies. The issue that I take with removing nudity from Playboy is that there will no longer be this unique and potentially empowering avenue for women to take ownership of their own bodies.

I am not saying that all Internet porn is bad and filled with women who are part of human trafficking rings, but to remove Playboy’s nudity removes a publicly available (and relatively affordable) means for women to exert some form of sexual agency within an industry based largely on the desires of a male gaze.