Body Politics: Sex Statues Cause Controversy In Berlin
Posted by: Simcha Whitehill
Filed in:
sex
10:50AM, Wednesday June 24th 2009
Creator of the infamous Body Worlds exhibitions, anatomist Gunther “Doctor Death” von Hagens, is the shock jock of dead peeps. While much controversy surrounded his displays with skinned corpses riding bikes and playing chess, his new show has an even more scandalous, ahem, position. In his most recent exhibit in Berlin, “Life Cycle,” there is a scene of two people having sex, reverse cowgirl style. But has he finally pushed things too far?
A group of German MP’s, across party lines, have called for the sexy cadavers to be removed. Kai Wegner, a rep for the Christian Democratic Union said, “I am firmly convinced that he just breaks taboos again and again in order to make money. It is not about medicine or scientific progress. It is marketing and money-making pure and simple.”
However, von Hagens argues that both bodies involved signed contracts while they were living to give him the legal rights to make them look like they’re humping their way through eternity. In fact, all of his models sign waivers while they’re alive so there is no question that they want him to us his special plasticization preserving technique on them. But does that give him cadaver cart blanche? It seems nearly every move he makes, from publicly dissecting a person in Britain to charging an entrance fee to watch him plasticize people, has cause an uproar.
Is this going to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and will he be forced to fold under the pressure and take down the fornicating bodies? Or is this public debate all part of his plan? As von Hagens himself says, “An anatomical exposition without publicity is like a theatre without a program.” [Trend Hunter]
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
GreenAura
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 10:54 am: [report]
I think its amazing and beautiful. Its like Alex Grey paintings in 3D. I went to the Bodies Exhibit in Vegas and it blew my mind. I love it when art and science mesh! And if these now deceased people gave their consent, then why not?
raqueleza
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 10:56 am: [report]
Of course he’s doing it for money! But that doesn’t make it any more awesome. He has that pregnant woman with an unborn fetus in her belly, and this is hardly more controversial than that. In fact, I’m now donating my own body to science in the off chance that I will be immortalized having sex with a stranger.
raqueleza
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 10:58 am: [report]
Ahem, I meant -less- awesome. That doesn’t make it any less awesome.
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 11:00 am: [report]
That is pretty sweet. Humping through eternity, classic.
lea322
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 11:06 am: [report]
Another controversy with the Body Works exhibits is that (from what I understand), not ALL of the bodies gave consent, because some were unclaimed bodies from the morgue, most likely homeless people. Seems a bit unethical.
I saw one of these exhibits in Vancouver, BC, and LOVED it. But I loved it for the science and learning aspect, the awe of the human body, NOT for the shock value. There are families with children that see these exhibits, and while I don’t think sex should be a taboo topic, I do think that exhibits in especially explicit sexual positions may be taking it too far. I’m not sure where I think the line is, but something about this particular set of bodies feels like it’s going to far, in my opinion.
Isabel K.
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 11:10 am: [report]
It seems a little sick…
mlyway
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 11:16 am: [report]
I went to the exhibit a few years ago in Boston and at first, I truly liked it because I am interested in art, but also interested in anatomy and the medical world. In the exhibit, they publicly display a sample consent form of someone who supposedly signed it at their own will. Well the truth is, many of the bodies are small, thin frames, and there has been much speculation that many Asian men and women were forced to sign these consent forms because they were laborers all their life and it was a chance to take advantage of them. I have seen specials on TV of secret footage of reporters going into China to try and find out if these ‘warehouses’ where the bodies originally come from is true and if it exists. I personally believe that Chinese workers are being exploited for money, but of course, none of the evidence is conclusive. These consent forms that people sign have to be much more specific detailing what the signee’s body will be truly used for.
GreenAura
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 11:18 am: [report]
@ lea322: I agree that this would be too much for children to see. But maybe they could put an 18 and over room for the sexually “explicit” figures, that way younger children are only exposed to the scientific portion of the exhibit.
GreenAura
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 11:21 am: [report]
@mlyway: The chinese figures that you are talking about also dated back to the 60’s, so I wonder if the possible exploitation is still going on???
mlyway
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 11:32 am: [report]
@GreenAura: I did not know that those were from the 60s. But I am positive the exploitation still continues. I was in China last summer and I had an opportunity to explore rural places most people would not get to. And just the way the government cruelly acts to its poorest citizens, many workers have nothing else in their life and there is also a major language barrier between the Chinese and the people who exploit them. I am against paying to see such an exhibit and to let Gunther von Hagens profit off of such behavior.
ScienceGal
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 12:12 pm: [report]
I’m kind of on the fence about this….I saw the Body Worlds exhibit and was really impressed. Preserving and dissecting cadavers in a way that makes them informative and educational while still being beautiful is a difficult task and takes real talent. But something about this one just seems….creepy.
DancerNinja
wrote on June 25 2009 @ 07:28 am: [report]
In this picture, the laughing man looks creepier then the filleted bodies do.
brandyalexander
wrote on June 25 2009 @ 01:18 pm: [report]
I know, Dancer Ninja, that’s Von Hagens!
I actually really like his work, although now that I hear about how some of the bodies were obtained, I have some questions about his ethics.
But back to the main article, I think the question was whether showing the dead having sex was crossing a line. Yet, if we are comfortable showing other natural processes with the cadavers, what is it about sex which makes us question whether or not it is acceptable?
lindssaurus
wrote on June 25 2009 @ 09:19 pm: [report]
I like the bodies exhibit but i think this is a little overdoing it. I already know what sex looks like. I dont see how bodies without skin provide more science while doing a reverse cow girl. Screw donating my body to science Im donating my body to magic!
Fast Eddie
wrote on June 28 2009 @ 08:18 am: [report]
Why are we so hung up about out children having knowledge about sex? I do think there is a limit to that part of their lives that is appropriate for every particular stage of maturity. The mechanics of the act should not be hidden nor forced upon them. They will take in that part of it that they are able to accept. As one person stated: I wouldn’t put my child in the drivers seat of a car without knowledge, and I’m not going to send them out into life without the means of conducting themselves responsibly. Sex education is as important as driver education and should be imparted in a like manner.
pragmatryst
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 10:02 am: [report]
We’re born, we procreate, we die. Seems like a lot of manufactured outrage over a natural human function that is necessary for the survival of our species. Sex certainly isn’t the only physical activity we engage in during a lifetime, but it sure seems like an important one to include in an exhibition about the body.
Katyuha
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 11:29 pm: [report]
I agree with pragmatryst. Sex is a part of life and just shows how “shy” we are about it when we try to exclude it from exhibits like these. But I also agree with GreenAura, children are generally not emotionally or physically ready to see these kinds of poses. So an age restriction is probably the most logical way of going about this. Still if an exhibit was to be solely centered on sexual poses you would have to wonder about the initial purpose of it. Is it for the sake of science, art or just porn?