qiaoqiao

The screen shot is the first statement sent out on 9/24:

When I discovered last December that Li Bowen—curator, writer, and editor of Ocula, also known as LB—was lying about the fact that he was seeing three women at the same time, I stayed silent for the sake of self-protection. At the time, I couldn't have imagined other women in the art world were suffering from identical forms of deception, repetitive, long-term emotional abuse, and physical trauma. Li used his lies to maintain overlapping relationships with many women and insist on having unprotected sex repeatedly, which led his partners to resort to emergency contraception or even repeated abortions. I feel the obligation to tell the truth about Li now because I don't want to see more women and colleagues suffer from his repeated patterns of deceit, gaslighting, and abuse. It is my hope that this statement can help prevent future harm and serve as a warning to his peers and colleagues.

For anyone with more information or stories to share, write to a20180924@126.com (identities will be protected)

__________________________________________

9月26日第二份声明：

关于李博文事件，我们几位知情者在对后续讨论的持续观察，并与事件的当事人们沟通之后，认为有必要发出一份声明：

1. 这不是一个法律意义上的公共事件，并不存在如典型的权利滥用、直接身体伤害、性骚扰和被迫性行为等现象；然而正因为它处在道德和法律之间的灰色地带，所以更为严重而广泛，因此亟待成为文化话语里的公共事件；

2. 当事人们发声的首要目的是使艺术行业里更多的女性知晓李博文的行为并产生警觉；

3. 让李博文受到公审，成为某些意识形态攻击的靶子不是当事人们的最终目的，甚至与原意背道而驰；

这起事件的复杂性在于涉及情感关系的公共结构，以及当这些夹在私人与公共之间的情感不被探讨时，会纵容和滋生的暴力和伤害；

4. 这件事在公共领域的发酵，我们希望能够导向的是对情感关系的公共结构的更深入的讨论和理解。

The second statement sent on 9/26:

As confidants of the silence breaker who spoke out against Li Bowen, we have closely followed the discussions that ensued from their initial statement. After consulting with the individuals involved, we find it necessary to release the following statement:

1. We don't consider the case of Li Bowen a "public incident" in a legal sense, as it does not involve typical abuse of power, direct physical harm, sexual harassment or non-consensual sexual conduct. The gravity and pervasiveness of Li's (mis)conduct is precisely due to the fact that it falls into the grey area between the jurisdictions of law and ethics. This is also the reason why this case urgently needs to enter the public sphere as cultural discourse. 

2. The primary motivation of the silence breakers is to alert more women in the art world to Li Bowen's (mis)conduct.

3. The silence breaker's end goal is not to judge Li Bowen in a court of public opinion, and definitely not to make him a target of certain ideological condemnation. In fact, such outcome would betray their initial intention. The complexity of this case arises from the social structures that affect personal feelings and relationships; violence and damage tend to occur and multiply where such emotions, deeply entangled between the private and the public, are left unexamined. 

4. It is our hope that the evolution of this case in the public sphere will lead to deeper and more engaged conversations and understanding of the public structures that affect, regulate and govern our affective relations.