Call it a stimulating study-abroad experience. An American exchange student sparked an “extraordinary rescue mission” when his leg became trapped inside a giant vagina sculpture. “It was a dare,” fire department squad leader Markus Mozer told NBC News. “The young man had tried to pose for an unusual photo and climbed into the artwork.”
A total of 22 rescue workers with special equipment were deployed to the scene in the southern Germany city of Tuebingen on Friday to free the 20-year-old but a “forceps delivery was not necessary,” local newspaper Schwaebisches Tagblatt noted. “We were able to pull the victim out with our bare hands after about 30 minutes,” Mozer added. The six-foot replica of female genitalia was installed 13 years ago outside the microbiology and virology department of the city’s university clinic. It is worth nearly $200,000.
AI Overview explains that
“Vagina sculptures” in public and academic settings have generated significant controversy and debate, with complaints in some cases alleging violations of sexual harassment policies or obscenity laws. However, these complaints have often been dismissed, and the artworks defended on grounds of artistic and educational merit, freedom of expression, or as a protest against gender-based violence and taboos.At the College of Wooster, “A student group’s art installation depicting female genitalia during “Sex Week” garnered a complaint that it violated the college’s sexual harassment policy. The college administration determined the installation had a genuine artistic/educational purpose and was not a violation.”
Milder things than vagina sculptures have triggered sexual harassment complaints. In the 1994 edition of People for the American Way’s Artistic Freedom Under Attack, 12% of all arts censorship cases were the result of sexual harassment charges brought against artwork, such as classical nude paintings that female students or professors claimed were sexually harassing them.
Sexual harassment laws are often vague, and are interpreted differently by different judges. The federal appeals court in Boston dismissed a sexual harassment lawsuit over a mandatory sex education assembly, even though it offended students and parents, citing the fact that the sex educator who offended them “intended to educate” students (even though the sex education assembly contained gratuitous sexual references to things like “erection wear” and messes caused by anal sex). (See Brown v. Hot Sexy & Safer Productions (1995)).
On the other hand, the federal appeals court in San Francisco suggested that a lack of intent to harass doesn’t matter, and ruled that a lack of harassing or discriminatory intent doesn’t keep communications between co-workers from being sexual harassment. (See Ellison v. Brady (1991)).
That’s an additional reason why a risk-averse employer might not want to install a vagina sculpture in the workplace.
