Would a naked man have gotten the same sort of reaction, I wonder? (I bet a GAY naked man would have, at the very least...)

Anyway, I am not sure what to make of this, either. I can't say I have much "respect" for sympbols to begin with. I am an American and have no problems with someone burning on a flag. Or pissing on it, for that matter. It's just a fucking flag -- just some fabric.

But not everyone agrees with this view.

I've lived in Lima, and it seems to me that, while lots of Peruvians are very proud of their country, they aren't so plastically patriotic as to be squeamish about protests or critiques. The harshness of the response surprises me. I'm going to guess that, while Leysi Suarez might have known this could cause a controversy, to be threatened with jail time was not what she was expecting either.

Not to be nitpicky but if she could get her vagina on the flag I'd be impressed.

Second I think it is probably the fact that she is sitting on it, which is like stepping on it in many places, and is a huge sign of disrespect.

Does it warrant outrageous jail time? No.

Oh fer the love of God, do I even have to do this on a feminist blog?

vagina = internal. i.e. Cannot be put on anything.

The word you are looking for is vulva.

Technically speaking, had she done this in America with an American flag, it would have been breach of numerous clauses of the Flag Code. And the Flag Code has the curious status of being law without any penalties attached for breaking it (and your right to break it enshrined in the First Amendment).

I don't know what constitutes insulting the flag in Peru, but in America, displaying the flag horizontally, using it as a drape or covering for a person or animal and using it in a way that would allow it to become marked or soiled would all qualify. Even if the rider in question was a man. Yes, it's a stupid thing to arrest someone for, but I don't see any evidence that people are upset that the rider didn't put their penis on the flag.

Luna:

I was thinking it could have been her anus that people were pissed about. I don't know why it was automatically assumed that it had to do with her reproductive organs rather than her evacuative orifice.

Barring some indication or evidence that this was actually a gender based arrest I really don't get why this is a feminist issue rather than an issue of artistic expression.

I agree with NF, sitting on a flag is disrespectful whether one is naked or clothed.

Didn't Larry Flynt get in similar trouble for using the American flag as a diaper? Or was that just in the movie?

Marilove,

I believe a naked man would receive the same treatment. Have you really thought of how utterly ridiculous that would look? I think it's outrageous that she could face jail time for what she did, but to think that a straight man or a gay man would be treated better is absurd. A man would be rediculed by everyone, regardless of his looks. An attractive women would at least garner support. Don’t automatically make everything out to be a gender issue.

I have to agree that this smacks of nationlism and not sexism.

Not to say the situation is without sexism, it'd be hard to argue the case. But the more interesting issue with regards to sexism in this case is not rubbing one's vulva all over flag. Or penis. Rather, the issue is introduced by Matthew with his statement: A man would be rediculed by everyone, regardless of his looks. An attractive women would at least garner support.

Actually, that is a considerable gender issue. I think it is fair to say a naked woman is universally regarded as a symbol of beauty and art whereas a naked man is viewed as silly, clumsy, and fodder for every joke under the sun.

Definitely a gender issue.

"Actually, that is a considerable gender issue. I think it is fair to say a naked woman is universally regarded as a symbol of beauty and art whereas a naked man is viewed as silly, clumsy, and fodder for every joke under the sun."

Really? "Universally" is a strong word suggesting that something spans time and space. I say this because the county I live in happens to have a considerable number of statues, carvings, engravings, etc, of naked men. These items are considered powerful, beautiful and artistic. Furthermore there are sculptures from African cultures (to give a non-western example) that show great appreciation of male nudity.

Sometimes men do things like streaking across fields during ball games or writing on their asses and mooning a live camera--and these are the acts usually are meant be playful and silly. I just can't see the sentiment of naked men being silly and clumsy as being universal, though.

If anything it's a certain non-conforming body type, male or female, that becomes fodder for jokes: think Chris Farley's routine with Patrick Swazee on SNL.

You're definitely right, "universal" was too strong a word to use. I certainly did not mean that such gender conceptions regarding art have existed forever. A more apt description for what I was referencing would gave been "modern America" or even just "modern times."

I guess my point is too simple for the argument I tried to make: The advertising and art of today is typically produced for the 25-45 year old American male, resulting in lots of women who are more often than not nude or nearly there. The instances of a sexualized male are few and far between. They certainly exist, as Daniel Craig fans are the first to acknowledge. However, how many more Frank the Tanks are there in media than 007's? A significant margin. eh, it's a simple point.