Add your comment or send a letter to the editor

Posted: 2005-03-03 20:01:03
#1 - This is OUTRAGEOUS!!!1!

The female body is not natural. It should be covered with clothing and scorn.

–monica, complainer


Posted: 2005-03-04 01:35:46
#2 - I really hope you are kidding, "monica".

–John Leung Chung-Yin, The Australian


Posted: 2005-03-04 19:31:57
#3 - i am one of the girls that was in the show during sexual awarness week.the fact that you published that picture is an outrage. did you have her permission to publish that?i doubt it. She is a student in that school how could you embarress her in that way. the fact that she is an exotic dancer gives you no right to exploit her in that way. If i discover any picture of myself in your paper without written permission you will have a law suit on your hands. everyone in this industry uses an alias even supermodels do not use their real names. so therefore exploiting us because you may or may not agree with it gives you no right and i hope she sues your pants off.

–tanya, electrician


Posted: 2005-03-04 22:04:49
#4 - Whoa there Gloria Steinem...your sense of moral outrage is misplaced! Her name is not used (unless it's actually Honey Houston) and her face is in no way visible. I find it hilarious that you, as a fellow stripper, er, electrician, would be so prudish as to object to the publication of this photo. It's obvious from your spelling and grammar that you're not a law student, or you'd know that in Alberta, you don't need permission to publish a person's photo. That said, from your CV, it doesn't look like you need a law degree to sue anyone's pants off...;)

–Anonymous Coward


Posted: 2005-03-04 22:52:18
#5 - hee, hee, boobies!

–burt steinham


Posted: 2005-03-05 01:59:50
#6 - A woman's body is not titilating. It is not a sex object or something beautiful to be protected from corruption. It is only a body. Period. Sex is not an activity only for the young and beautiful. I sadly fail to see how young, beautiful women's bodies paraded around as sex objects helps to provide any perspectives that differ from what one could find on Muchmusic or in Playboy. It would be good if we could get past the prudes/"sexually liberated" women bind. Now that would really be a "different way" to "expand you mind", don't you think, Ms. Houston?

–The Exotic Laundry Basket


Posted: 2005-03-05 02:30:54
#7 - I agree, sex is clearly only for the most deranged of perverts. If I have to look at my filthy body one more time I think I will have to burn it. Filthy, filthy, filthy. Even rats have sex, the most base of the rodent clan. I am perturbed that such amoral activity occurs in a city so flocked with members of various religious cults.
Where is all the shame?
I am also appalled that people like me have nothing better to do than comment on lame stories, that do not contribute any quality form of journalism. Clearly this story was written purely for shock value, to cater to the most mediocre of individuals.
More importantly more articles should be written about menstruation.
Menstruation and copious amounts of hair is clearly very hot.
The end

–monica II


Posted: 2005-03-05 15:21:39
#8 - I didnít see the show, the only information I have about it is the article in the Gauntlet. Am I missing something? How is having a stripper (exotic dancer, whichever you prefer) do a show in Mac hall promoting sexual awareness? Donít get me wrong Iím all about having student strippers at school but doesnít this detract from what ever message you are trying to convey?

Aaron

–Aaron, Bored on Saturday Afternoon


Posted: 2005-03-05 20:45:05
#9 - It's obvious that the writer of this article is a man. Where is the naked male strippers? I see them in the background, but no penises? Boobs are seen everywhere now-a-days. Mr. Miller, if you really wanted shock value (which you obviously did), seeing a penis in the school paper would have done you much better.

–Nat, student...duh


Posted: 2005-03-05 21:28:37
#10 - Where is the naked male strippers? I see them in the background, but no penises? Boobs are seen everywhere now-a-days. Mr. Miller, if you really wanted shock value (which you obviously did),

If you claim to know so much about Mr. Miller, why do you need to ask him questions? Or are you just simply assuming things without basis?

–^^^MORON^^^


Posted: 2005-03-05 22:46:50
#11 - Nat,
Unfortunately, the male performers kept their pants on.
The issue here is with the SU allowing unlicenced adult entertainment in the form of nude females in Mac Hall. If you have a problem, bring it up with them.

–Dale Miller, News Editor


Posted: 2005-03-05 23:40:18
#12 - I'd like to be totally clear and say the "Nat" above is not me, Natalie Sit. I just want to clarify as most people call me Nat.

Besides, that "Nat" clearly has a short memory. Dicks: already been in this paper. I'm surprised it's taken the female counterparts this long to show up.

–Natalie, Student


Posted: 2005-03-06 07:52:45
#13 - There have been dicks in the Gauntlet. Remember the uproar caused by the penis on the front cover, for the Puppetry of the Penis story? Short memory, Nat, (not Sit) when it suits you?

–s, grunt work


Posted: 2005-03-06 17:16:59
#14 - C'mon Dale, the purpose of this story wasn't to expose the rampant moral corruption of the SU, but so that you could write about and interview a stripper and put her boobies in print. You can't fool us ;). As to the guy who asked how this furthers Sex Awareness, judging from some of the posts, it has become clear that many people have never seen a female naked. The SU must begin somewhere...

–Anonymous Coward


Posted: 2005-03-08 18:40:06
#15 - First of all who seen the comment from the Wiebe girl who is embarassed to be a U of C student. WoW talk about a drama queen. Lets be serious, its a naked girl. Unless you plan a life of celibacy (which is not a problem), your gonna have to see this one way or another. For all those so traumatized by this, heres the first step to recovery, take your head out of your ass. Lets be real, theres worse things taking place at this university than a naked chick in the paper (Which the SU who put this on,and if need be should be blamed, not the gauntlet. They filmed an SU UofC organized event.) We squable over crap like this and continue to pay more for tution, poor education and only add to a growing bad reputation among Canadian Universites. Think about this and then rationalize how "evil" this story and picture is. PS. Dale wrote a story that not only pretained to the event, but was worded quite nicely as well. Peace

–Im gonna help.


Posted: 2005-03-09 11:16:30
#16 - Why isn't the naked picture available on-line?

–The Dizzle, Student at Large


Posted: 2005-03-09 17:08:35
#17 - Hold on a second, why are we criticizing a liberal paper for being liberal. I don't complain when I see a boring story about dino's athletics. It doesn't bother me when they have job fairs at school(which usually suck ass). The gauntlet shouldn't apologize to anyone for printing pictures of an SU event, no matter how rediculous I or anyone else thinks it is. The girl opened herself up to this when she stripped in front of her fellow peers. I do feel sorry for her in a way, but at the same time she made the choice to strip in front of anyone who came to the show, the gauntlet just slighty increased the viewing audience.
The purpose of having the girls stripping there was to increase people's awareness about different aspects of sexuality, kudos to the SU for having an event that actually would attract people's interest.

Oh by the way I miseed the show, but man that girl is really pretty.

–Wohh, student


Posted: 2005-03-09 19:24:16
#18 - I think what everyone is missing here is the fact that a young women has been taken advantage of in order to raise the profile of a magazine that 90% of students do not read beyond the TLF's. What right does the gauntlet have to display a student at our university completely nude without her consent? This is what really disturbs me.


–C__J, student


Posted: 2005-03-09 20:24:51
#19 - Is this Honey Houston girl the same person whose nude photo stickers have been on some mechanic toolboxes at my workplace, for the past 12 or so months?
Did Gauntlet really infringe on someone's rights or did they simply cover a public event? Would a true responsible stripper take off her clothes at or in an unlicensed public place?

–Chaka B, mechanic


Posted: 2005-03-09 22:08:29
#20 - being on a bus at the university where your student paper (ad sic) is freely available and watching grade 7-9 students looking at your paper,I
guess it really proved you the point that you wanted to make. I hope the circulation does not go to the elementary schools, though this may be your intended audience. You have now usurped the Sun as the worst rag in Calgary. Perhaps, we need supervision of students trying to run a responsible paper. You disgust me.

–Bus Person, bus


Posted: 2005-03-10 00:16:49
#21 - Honey, Honey, Honey! Thats the hottest chick i've seen this term! I love Honey Huston!!! The more skin the better.

–shamon


Posted: 2005-03-10 00:20:19
#22 - Down with West. Honey Huston for President!

–shamon


Posted: 2005-03-10 08:32:21
#23 - That's bullshit about a lawsuit. She was in a public place. If they went and snapped picture in her house, that's certainly different. Absolutely tasteless to run the photo, though, shame on the Gauntlet and lack of journalistic sensibilities.

–Anonymous Coward


Posted: 2005-03-10 10:36:23
#24 - To eds: I would rather have my tax and tuition be used to block this kind of offensive bs than be used to print it.
Where can I get a refund??
I for one do not need to see porn in a school newspaper however liberal it maybe.

–fat


Posted: 2005-03-10 10:53:39
#25 - Kinda makes last year's whining about the mural in the Mac Hall/Science B link seem ridiculous, which it was.

If she didn't want to be seen naked by her peers she shouldn't have been naked in Mac Hall...I mean, the photo probably shouldn't have been published, but to sue over it is asinine. She even comments in the article!

–anon


Posted: 2005-03-10 10:57:59
#26 - I have to say, I am shocked that so many people are outraged by this picture. This girl voluntarily put herself out on display in a very public place. Why she would be surprised that her picture was taken, especially by the campus newspaper, is beyond me. That is what the paper is supposed to do, report campus news, and that was definitely news worthy. Also, I have heard it stated that perhaps the Gauntlet should have only published a picture of her breasts rather her full body. Really? Would that not classify as censorship? And if the Gauntlet gave into this demand, where would the censorship end?

I think the bottom line here is if you don't want your naked body published in the school newspaper, don't run around naked!

–Terrill


Posted: 2005-03-10 11:43:40
#27 - good luck suing, you'll never win. so, honey walks around campus naked and she's fine. she's in an article and her life is ruined? please. I say, as long as broads like that are walking around naked, then the paper has the obligation to report and show whats going on around campus.

–chainmailrox, pubic relations


Posted: 2005-03-10 11:44:14
#28 - Ladies & Gents, you've been Farked:

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1394092

Man, the only person to run around naked when I was in University was Gavin Preston.



–Robbie White, Volunteer Cordinator


Posted: 2005-03-10 11:54:28
#29 - The chick stripped in public and now she's all upset that her pic was taken? That's the dumbest thing I have heard all day.



–Sully


Posted: 2005-03-10 12:47:14
#30 - I have to say that after reading all of the comments here and listening carefully to both sides of this argument from U of C students, I must say that it doesn't seem like this is much of an issue. The "show" took place in the Student Center. Technically, the performers were not nude and obviously did not violate school policy or the event would not have been allowed to take place. The performers were there voluntarily. Pretty cut and dry. The paper took a photo at a public and "newsworthy" event and published it. Sounds a lot like journalism. If they can't print a photo from a news event, what else can't they print? Where do you draw the line? If people are that upset, why not change school policy regarding this type of event? Otherwise when a real news story comes along that, for one reason or another, someone at the school doesn't want you to know about, (sexual misconduct by an administrator or professor for example) the paper can be censored and what's the point of having a news outlet that only tells you the news it is "allowed" to tell. Freedom of speech is not a toy that can be taken away when you don't use it correctly. Sometimes it's good and other times it might not seem to be. Take the good with bad. If the paper has offended you so much, don't read it anymore. Thank you.

Norm Peterson
Livonia, Michigan, USA

–Norm Peterson, Internet Surfer


Posted: 2005-03-10 13:03:27
#31 - Since I'm off campus right now, I only learned about the article through the 'mainstream' Calgary press. The real problem is that the Gauntlet, and by extension U of C students come across as frivolous. As for the student's lawsuit: she was willingly naked in a public place in front of her peers. Did she really think no one was going to recognize her? I would say that agreeing to perform nude at the university would imply consent to be seen by the university community. And if she really believes that stripping is mind-expanding and is something she is proud of doing, why all the fuss?

–nursing student, nursing student


Posted: 2005-03-10 13:21:41
#32 - Norm> We have no First Amendment in Canada.

–AC


Posted: 2005-03-10 13:35:47
#33 - Yes it is true you don't have a first amendment but you do have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the Canadian Bill of Rights. Many of the ideas and the cases that shaped these documents as they relate to freedom of speech, expression and press came from the American Constitution and the First Amendment to the American Constitution. I know we are talking about Canada and I know I am from the U.S. but does that have anything to do with the issue at hand? Do you know what the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is about? It's about freedom and it's about the government not having the right to tell us what we can and cannot say. That's the point I was trying to make. Thank you for the Canadian civics lesson. I had to do a little research on this one. Now focus on the issue. I enjoy having these discussions.

–Norm Peterson, Internet Surfer


Posted: 2005-03-10 15:57:55
#34 - Hey, wtf guys? Put her pic back up, I didn't get to see it, UofM newspaper isn't brave enough for nudity.

–Anonymous Coward


Posted: 2005-03-10 16:49:49
#35 - From the Herald article:

All patrons to the event had to be over the age of 18 and pass through security

So then it wasn't a public event.

–who knows


Posted: 2005-03-10 17:54:10
#36 - whoknows...

She was walking around in Mac hall, buying a taco, dressed in her chainmail. That's pretty public.

–Mav


Posted: 2005-03-10 18:41:30
#37 - Awesome! If it wasn't for younger people, the world would be a sterile sucking mess in two generations.

;)

–Gary Ce, Consultant


Posted: 2005-03-10 20:17:48
#38 - FYI: All the traffic has nothing to do with a Denail of Service. You've been Farked. www.fark.com

Also, sad that people get upset about naked bodies.


–GATEkeeper


Posted: 2005-03-10 21:32:17
#39 - Man, I wish we had nekkid girls that walked around on campus at UofM. I'm confused though, how the fuck was she able to get away with walking around naked??? Seriously though, that rocks, and put the fucking pic back up.

–gfsdg


Posted: 2005-03-10 21:34:28
#40 - Note, I was the anonymouse coward that mentioned UofM before, just wanted to let the idiot(s) admin(s) that the guy saying it wasn't a DoS was right, you've been farked morons. Now put the fucking pic back up.

–gfsdg


Posted: 2005-03-10 21:41:03
#41 - One more thing, a comment on the controversy.
Understandable that she didn't want to be photographed, but what's with the idiocy? When you purposefully bare yourself in front of others, THAT IS THE CHANCE YOU TAKE YOU FUCING MORONS. The decision to do in front of somebody you trust or in front of a crowd lies with "honey houston", she made a decision that she regrets, but it was her stupid decision to make. How dare she get angry a photo was snapped? She got naked on campus anyways, only diff is now she got slightly more exposure, I'd say this immature moron needs this lesson so that she learns not to do stupid things and hope lawyers can sort it out afterwards.
So....ELO rocks, later.
skomes/ko123

–gfsdg


Posted: 2005-03-10 22:07:30
#42 - Oh, and before anybody points it out, I obviously meant fucking, not fucing.
Oh, and show the fucking pic you farking twits.

–gfsdg


Posted: 2005-03-11 21:23:42
#43 - The National Enquirer covers up its exotic dancer stories. Club Confidential gets model releases first. Nude photos in the workplace are sexual harassment. What part of unethical do you fail to understand?

–BicycleRob, Computer Consultant


Posted: 2005-03-11 21:43:27
#44 - And what part of taking responsability for your own decisions don't you understand? It's understandably upsetting if somebody had seen their naked body in a newspaper, but how can somebody that walked around naked on campus and decided to take her clothes off in a public show be surprised and refuse to accept the blame? It's ridiculous, kind of like in the US where people file frivolous lawsuits when they commit some stupid error of judgement, then again, as it has been said before and shall be said again, alberta is canada's hick-state.

–gfsdg


Posted: 2005-03-12 02:59:29
#45 - While I'm not pleased with this whole deal, the thing that is bothering me most is the increadibly negative comments coming out of some of the boys (and I mean 'boys', you're not worthy of the term 'men', it implies maturity you obviously lack), about Honey Houston's being a stripper justifying her photograph, that if she is an exotic dancer she should be used to having her body displayed. This is similar to the old 'she wore revealing clothes so she asked to be raped' defense (although obviously not as extreme in situation or degree of stupidity or as frightening)- that the woman is always responsible if she doesn't cover her body & conform. Just because she is a stripper doesn't mean that she does not have the right to control her own image, protect her privacy, and feel violated. It is HER body, and it is her choice what she does with it, no one else's. Your argument that 'she asked for it because she stripped' and that she and her fellow strippers are somehow below other people / not as intelligent or worthy of concern is sickening. ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUAL, and ALL PEOPLE deserve RESPECT, although you've certainly lost any I could ever have for you.
btw, 'monica', if you are reading this, and you seriously meant what you said in your posts, you need counciling- the female body is NOT dirty, it is natural and beautiful, and you need to learn to love your own body (and sex, with the right partner that you love, is pretty amazing too).

–JoF, student


Posted: 2005-03-12 13:07:40
#46 - It seems the Gauntlet succeeded. As to the student 'Honey Houston', this may be a good time to apply what she may have learned in philosophy and apply it to the situation. Every action has a consequence. Live and learn.

–hornedog, living life


Posted: 2005-03-12 13:51:02
#47 - JoF, you seem to very misinformed, nobody said she asked for it because she was a stripper, she asked for it BECAUSE SHE STRIPPED IN PUBLIC AND WALKED AROUND NAKED ON A PUBLIC CAMPUS! Dumbass.
Besides, rape and photographing a naked person are two completely different things, one involves assault, one involves supposed privacy invasion, but how is this an invasion or privacy when she had no right to expect any on the campus? I don't think she's got much of a case, unless the judge's a twit, as she should only be able to get the pics removed if she had a reasonable expectation to privacy, and stripping in front of a crowd is very public.
The problem is that she made a stupid decision, and now regrets it, and that's her problem, shit happens.
Of course all people deserve respect, and nobody's disrespecting her just because she's in the photo, maybe now because she's decided she wants to file a frivolous lawsuit or something to get the pics taken away, note though, that even if some people don't respect her, it doesn't mean anything, respect is earned not given, and she hasn't done anything but prove she's a foolish kid, many of us are, but "honey houston" perhaps more so than most.
Having seen the pics, and having heard that she walked around in that outfit, I'm amazed that you really think that she deserved privacy. Care to explain?
You made some grandiose remarks about respect and blah blah, but never backed any of it up.

–gfsdg


Posted: 2005-03-13 06:27:29
#48 - what would mr miller say if someone took a picture of his girlfriends snatch and stuck in on a handout then threw it all over campus. I think he would be pretty pissed.

–Anonymous Coward, plumber


Posted: 2005-03-13 13:37:05
#49 - There's the difference between normal people and idiots. If his girlfriend decided to get naked on campus in front of a crowd and let them all see her completely naked, who should he be mad at? Everybody in the crowd or his stupid girlfriend? Anybody with half a brain would say the latter, anybody who's american or a hick or in this case, albertan would pick the former. Apparently, you would rather get mad at people whose fault it is not, rather than get mad at the idiot who made the bad decision to strip naked and is ultimately responsible.

–gfsdg


Posted: 2005-03-13 14:10:49
#50 - Academic Hypocrites

As someone over 50 years of age and not connected at all to the University, I donít understand why everyone is ñ once again ñ shooting the messenger. In the original Herald story, U of C's Rebecca Sullivan, in the faculty of communication and culture, was quoted as saying the Gauntlet had a responsibility to the community. ìThey (the Gauntlet) are refusing to take a responsible, mature position on these issues." "It is gratuitous, graphic and entirely unacceptable," said Roman Cooney, vice-president external relations. "They have offended many people on campus."

Wait a moment. Why the double standards? Why do they expect the Gauntlet writers to be more mature and responsible than anyone else in the case at hand? Wasnít it the Studentís Union who felt it was responsible and mature to recruit exotic dancers to promote ìSexual Awareness Weekî. Where is the public outcry about such a juvenile decision, spending studentís union fees and possibly taxpayerís money on strippers? What are University of Calgary administrators doing about that?

And the poor student/stripper, who feels so marginalized and humiliated, that she can't even face campus anymore. Why did she not think about the consequences when she accepted to work in the nude on her own Universityís campus. Can anyone after last yearís events on the ìRed Mileî reasonably expect not to be photographed (after all camera phones are everywhere). And now, after most of the Gauntletís 15,000 copies containing ìthe pictureî had been stolen or censored thus not allowing her picture to be seen by too many people, she is posing freely for the Herald, thereby distributing her picture all over town. Now that smells fishy. I hope she will not earn her degree since she clearly demonstrated not to be mature enough, even at age 28.

–Norbert Franzen


Posted: 2005-03-13 17:37:55
#51 - Honey Houston might be able to sue the Gaunlet for violation of privacy, and emotional distress!!! If she gets a judge with a sense of hunour, she might win. But, how distressed was she? See this guy's blog www.civitatensis.ca/2005/03/sex-awareness.html

He's done his homework. The Gaunlet should hire him.

–michelle, Typist


Posted: 2005-03-13 18:00:33
#52 - Michelle you twit, don't you understand? She had no right to expect privacy while performing nude and parading around publicly on campus nude, it's not about honour, don't be such a moron. Look at the facts before jumping to idiotic conclusions. They didn't violate her privacy if he was, of her own accord, walking around and performing nude, she had no reasonable expectation of privacy in that instance, which is why she shouldn't win her case, and probably won't.

–gfsdg


Posted: 2005-03-13 19:17:38
#53 - Are they real?

–jimmy


Posted: 2005-03-13 20:26:58
#54 - Hey, gfsdg.

Are your hormone levels okay? You sure have a lot pent up aggression, buddy. Was the language in my post too subtle for u? My post said "might." You can get your boxers in a knot all you want, but I also said that a lawsuit with a certain type of judge might win it for her.

You seem to believe that all lawsuits have something to do with facts, and you seem to have the naive view that the law is always on the side of what is right, that judges always act impartially. For someone who believes all that stuff, I see why you throw the word "moron" around like you owned it.

You probably also believe in the Charter of Rights, I bet.

I also said that her claim of not showing up on campus because she is embarrassed has been debunked by the dude I mentioned. But you seem to have missed that as well.

Have a good night, sweetheart.

–michelle, Typist


Posted: 2005-03-13 23:44:43
#55 - What was subtle in any of your posts?
I attacked you for your clear moral position, saying any judge with honour would side with her, which is silly. Note that I said shouldn't, not wouldn't, instead of attacking me and pretending I somehow misunderstood your post, perhaps you should re-read mine...

"I also said that her claim of not showing up on campus because she is embarrassed has been debunked by the dude I mentioned."

What was debunked?

"One of the stories I read (which I am trying to locate for the reference) said that Houston would have to finish her semester by correspondence due to the embarrassment the Gaunlet picture caused her. Miss Nude Canada, her Fan Club page says, is booked solid for the remainder of the month of March (pdf file) and early April (pfd file) in a few strip Clubs in Quebec."

That's from the blog, she might be too humiliated to come to campus, it's possible, the blog didn't prove anything contrary to that, only that she's got more strip club bookings.

–gfsdg


Posted: 2005-03-14 03:26:56
#56 - So, what i gather from a lot of the comments here, strippers deserve no privacy because they choose to perform in the nude in a place open to the public.

that's such a load of crap.

performing nude is different than having your picture all over a magazine/paper/article. published pictures can be circulated to those who weren't at the event, possibly family members that may not KNOW the dancer's occupation. or other such scenarios.

yes, dancers are people, too. i've seen plenty of girls come into strip-cubs, sit front row, and flash their boobs, or jump on stage, and any other given scenario. should they be photgraphed? should thoe photographs be displayed for all to see?

should we maybe start printing off pictures of every single patron in a strip-bar? because, they're "asking" for it by being there?

there's a line between privacy, liberal reporting, and harrassment.

it's usually COMMON COURTESY to ask a person if they'd mind having their picture published somewhere. it goes beyond that when it's a naked picture.

–Mika, dancer


Posted: 2005-03-14 16:41:36
#57 - Hey, gfsdg, thanks for bringing dow the tone in your message. It's much nicer to "talk" to a man that way. I am not very fund of being called a twit.

I think that you are still not getting what I said. I made no moral statement. I had no moral position, nor immoral position. "Would" is no moral imperative. "Shoud" is though, and there are plenty of those in your writing.

I made an observation about how a certain type of judge in this country might react. It's an opinion, based on what I have observed and studied about judges in Canada. It is not an endorsement --which you have read into.


Judge with honour? When did I say judge with honour. See, that is really where you lost me. I never said that. If you can show where I said "judge with honour" I will buy you a Guiness on St. Patty's. I did not say that. I checked, so I am cheating in a way. But I just don't speak like that about judges.

Sorry.

Oh, and about that blog. The guy changed his posting. But that's not my fault.


–michelle, Typist


Posted: 2005-03-14 17:17:40
#58 - Frivolous lawsuit. Students are neither blind nor stupid, well mabey some. Granted permission would have been a show of professionalism by the Guantlet as opposed to sensationalism, still if she wanted to keep her profession 'low key' why take the chance and prance around your own campus. Mabey she should have thought of the risk and not performed in the capacity that she did.

–hornedog, living life


Posted: 2005-03-15 11:14:02
#59 - You may have the right to control your image and what people do with that image as long as you are in the safety of a strip club, but once you go on public display you surely must forfeit that right. If I am photographed fully clothed in public and that photo is published can I then claim legal action because I don't want people to see me in an old pair of jeans?

You have the freedom to choose the face you present to the public, but once you have made the choice you must realise that you have given that image to the public, and you can no longer control it.

This wasn't a spy camera. Nobody tricked her.

Besides, isn't one nude photo a bit of a non-issue in the face of the violent attrocities that are carried out every day in every country around the world?

Still, I'd expect that the paper editor and SU rep will be in a lot of trouble all the same for showing a lack of maturity and bringing bad publicity to the university. And rightfully so.

(p.s. I live in a much more liberal country - Italy - and only found out about this ridiculous story thanks to Fark)

–Paul Howie, Computer programmer


Posted: 2005-03-15 13:16:42
#60 - She's got you all snowed. She is an exhibitionist getting a ton of free publicity. She won't have to set foot on Campus now, she'll be busy 'working' for a looong time to come. Perhaps that was what she was after all along

–Howie


Posted: 2005-03-15 23:19:37
#61 - I dance part time to when I am a stylist. I would be devistated if someone printed a picture for all to see. What I choose to do with my life should be up to me. Too bad people are soooo damn sad in their own life that they have to try to ruin someone elses. You people are the most sorry pathetic losers I ever heard of. I won't waste another breath. Secondly, for all you know, I probably cut your hair. Think about that?!

–McKayla Cox, Hairstylist/Dancer


Posted: 2005-03-15 23:31:48
#62 - yeah, because the gauntlet published this photo with the sole intent of ruining someone's career.... go back to SAIT.

–coward


Posted: 2005-03-16 03:48:27
#63 - Do you people realize McKayla Cox is actually a pro/am pornstar? Check her out on Redclouds.com

As for posting the nude picture of Honey -- who cares? She is a strippper!

(Was she hot?)

–Peter North, Hairstylist/Human Jackhammer


Posted: 2005-03-16 08:19:43
#64 - No, she was not hot.

–Fred


Posted: 2005-03-16 09:24:47
#65 - If the young lady did not wish to have her photograph published, there's a simple cure: Don't be naked in front of people, especially those with cameras. Remember, do not kill the messenger.

–News Observer, Journalist


Posted: 2005-03-16 17:04:52
#66 - You do realize it's just increased traffic because of being linked by Fark, right?

–Anonymous Coward


Posted: 2005-03-16 21:37:41
#67 - No DoS attack. Your page was linked from FARK.com. Their user's just want to look at the pretty picture.

–schithaid


Posted: 2005-03-17 13:37:14
#68 - Girls like these are always welcome in New Orleans.

–Robert Reed


Posted: 2005-03-19 13:01:01
#69 - I'm not sure it's that big an issue, but it's good to see someone trying to get rid of Ben Li. I applaud that.

–Old School, Does it matter?


Posted: 2005-03-22 12:41:56
#70 - I find it very amusing that freedom of expression and opinion is limited everything but nudity. According to what I have read, this was a show open to the public. The University papers have never been the typical censored papers, publishing many public and personal opinions, and reporting campus events. I say, good for you! And to the stripper, give me a break! Just because no one paid $5 to see your show doesn't mean that Gauntlet should be shut down.

–Dan Koziak, U of A Student


Posted: 2005-04-07 11:34:01
#71 - I am writing to you to express my opinion regarding the suspension of Ben Li and Dale Miller. I am strongly opposed to a young sensual student who thinks that her picture should not have been published even though a story was being told. Here is my take on this conundrum for your newspaper. Feel free to edit and print as a backing to your editors Ben Li and Dale Miller.

Honey Houston... Your philosophy is skewed immensely. You are not afraid to dance "freely" on the confines of a public place (a University) promoting Sexual Awareness, yet you find it humiliating that your picture covers a story about sexuality.

I have three problems with your philosophy:

A. MONEY: You were "hired" to dance in chain links on a University Campus that you attend on a regular basis. You say you were "humiliated" that the photos were published of your "Sexual Dance". From what I hear and read in the newspapers as well, is that you "Sexually Dance" for money in other venues, which may or may not be part of "Nasty Girls Entertainment". You make money through sensually explicit dancing routines. How can you be humiliated this time around and not when you degrade yourself through self promotion of your body to many men and woman around the Calgary area? (I'm not sure if this is your home town, but you are using an Alias for a name, so you must be hiding your profession from someone). My point is this... Your philosophy is skewed because you want to show yourself off, but because Ben Li and Dave Miller didn't "pay you" for the picture in the paper, you shouldn't be exposing yourself. You should hold your head up high nasty girl... You're getting everything you asked for.

B. INTEGRITY: As a student of philosophy, I'm sure integrity in your work and life is of utmost importance. Your resume must reflect this: Miss Nude Canada, Exotic Dancer, employee of "Nasty Girls Entertainment". You must take great pride in using an a.k.a. to keep your real family name hidden. It certainly helps your family from the "humiliation" it would face if you were to actually use your real name. My point is this... Integrity is an integral part of philosophy... Back your words with appropriate action. It seems you already do this. Thus, your name "Honey Houston" gains great integrity.

C. EDUCATION: I thought it was an urban myth that many female students use their body's to gain mind expansion. You attend an education facility, yet you showcased your body on campus to promote "Sexual Awareness Week". By the way, there is a difference between "Sensuality" and "Sexuality". Sexuality is defined as :

1. The condition of being characterized and distinguished by sex.
2. Concern with or interest in sexual activity.
3. Sexual character or potency.

Sensuality is defined as:

a. Of, relating to, given to, or providing gratification of the physical and especially the sexual appetites.
b. Suggesting sexuality; voluptuous.
c. Physical rather than spiritual or intellectual.
d. Lacking in moral or spiritual interests; worldly.

Your exposure during the "Nasty Girl Session" on campus was sensual, not sexual. Your actions were physical and lack the pure spiritual and intellectual actions that sex can provide amongst consenting adults. Students and faculty who may have seen you in action on campus were more sensually stimulated then sexually involved. My point is this: Your philosophy about sex is skewed and does not meet the human nature code of ethics that sexuality is to be educational, not to be portrayed as a source of monthly income from sensual arousal.

My disdain for your actions is enormous. You have shone a new light on educated woman around Calgary and the remainder of Canada. Your nudity is clearly rewarded by becoming Miss Nude Canada, yet you won't allow exposure of physical truths that you cannot control. It was a picture. Could you imagine if you had said nothing. Could you imagine your future colleagues and peers who didn't know about your hidden escapades, become friends and partners who could eventually have their reputation tarnished due to your hidden agenda. Best of luck to you in fixing your reputation, but your actions in life follow suit. Own up to it and don't shy away from being what you truly are... A Nasty Girl!!!!

Sincerely,

Norm Beaver

–Norm Beaver, Music Coordinator


Posted: 2005-05-29 15:50:32
#72 - Taking advice from strippers and porn star/whores about a healthy sex life is like listening to a crack head about the dangers of drugs



–Porn Stars are Cinematic Hookers, Educating Liberals


Posted: 2005-07-01 11:32:20
#73 - Makayla Cox is the porn star, McKayla Cox isn't. Easy mistake. They're both at
http://indart.ca/dancers/atoz.cfm?anchor=M

–BicycleRob, Computer Consultant


Posted: 2005-07-01 11:42:41
#74 - Honey Houston was on Fox's "A Current Affair" June 7th. To see the trailer, start Windows Media Player, hit Ctrl-U, and enter the URL:

http://media1.acurrentaffair.mw.zerolag.com/80/yoga_with_a_bullet_6_8_05_30sec_small.wmv

Announcer: "Also, psychology student by day, stripper by night. Until she was exposed in the university newspaper."

Honey Houston: "They treated me like a piece of meat."

Announcer: "Naked Rage, on the next A Current Affair."

–BicycleRob, Computer Consultant


Posted: 2005-07-01 16:52:48
#75 - Hey, the link to the promo doesn't work. Got another?

–gfsdg


Posted: 2005-07-02 22:59:49
#76 - Never mind, works fine. WMP9 wouldn't play it for me, but WMP6 would. Thanks for the link. I doubt anybody has video of that piece, but if anybody does I'd appreciate a link.

–gfsdg


Posted: 2005-09-09 11:04:14
#77 - i think it is ridiculous that a girl cannot go to school in the day and live her own life out of the classroom. Honey should be commended for going to school, paying her own way, and being brave enough to stand up for something she believes in. I wonder, how many other girls are dancers paying their tuition, and are just too afraid too speak up

–austin phillips, ex-dancer


Posted: 2005-09-21 20:54:57
#78 - Working as a stripper is nothing to be ashamed of. It's admirable to work towards your degree. This is different, you don't seem to have read the story at all.

–gfsdg


Posted: 2006-06-29 01:14:13
#79 - You know, I think I have seen some of you guys at the club snapping pictures with your camera-phones. haha. Go rent a porn!

–McKayla Cox, dancer


Posted: 2009-03-30 22:46:16
#80 - I am absolutely appalled by what many of you have to say. This is a PERSON you are talking about, and you are destroying her livlihood! I fear the day I ever am "discovered" for showing my body in clubs at night and teach in schools by day. I worked very hard for my education, and dancing is what paid for it. I am proud to say that I am a highly educated person, and I am also proud to know many of the women who put up with this shit. It is a "dog-eat-dog world", but whatever happened to common courtesy? Obviously, our society is not as tolerant as one would hope. Our society has CLEARLY not come that far with terms of "sexuality". I can't believe that some of you could treat a real human being this way. This could be your sister, mother, or daughter. In fact, I AM A MOTHER, A SISTER, A DAUGHTER, AND A TEACHER!!! Shame on all of you for treating someone with such disgust.

–Geri, Dancer - PHD.

 Views expressed are those of the posters and do not necessarily reflect that of the Gauntlet.