Showing posts with label sexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexuality. Show all posts

Sunday, December 28, 2008

Connect the Dots, Year-end Edition

Top!Secret G-woman's on top of things for me.





Happy Christmas, Papa Ratzi! Does the Vatican Daily Hat subscribe to the AP feed? If so, you may have noticed an interesting story this morning that probably qualifies as stunning, ground-breaking news to you despite falling squarely in the middle of No Shit, Sherlock-Land for most of the rest of us.

Young gay people whose parents or guardians responded negatively when they revealed their sexual orientation were more likely to attempt suicide, experience severe depression and use drugs than those whose families accepted the information, according to a new study.

The way in which parents or guardians respond to a youth's sexual orientation profoundly influences the child's mental health as an adult, say researchers at San Francisco State University, whose findings appear in today's journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Please note that the parents' response can only profoundly influence the child's adult mental health if said child survives into adulthood rather than taking an early exit in the face of impossible expectations from family and church.










Not the optimal outcome.

So please give it a rest, Joe (Benny? which do you prefer?), and give parents the space to follow their instincts and be parents rather than parrots of your favorite intrinsically-disordered cracker line. You do not have kids. You do not even have sex, except possibly with that hot Italian secretary of yours who has undoubtedly ground his perfect teeth to nubbins from all the clenching of that perfect jaw that would be required to get anywhere near your icy cold nethers. So stuff a sock in it, already, and muse a little about what the Jewish guy with a beard really thought about things.

In somewhat related Wow I Had No Idea news, yet another study has concluded that virginity pledges don't result in much more than pregnant teenagers, or at least a 90/10 split between pregnant teenage girls and teenage girls with really sore asses who think they're still virgins.

The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a "virginity pledge," but that the percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for non-pledgers.

The pope has yet to comment on this, and projecting his scorecard is not the easiest task. Major minus: sex before marriage, minor plus: no birth control, major plus: at least they're doin' it with the opposite gender. So while Ratzi may give a slight edge to the purity ringers, reality scores things very differently.

Friday, May 16, 2008

Boltgirl v. US Soccer, Part Three

The good news: they finally cranked out a new National Team commercial. Unfortunately, since they only put the games on TV once in three or four blue moons, you're not likely to see it. The oh-Christ-here-we-go-again-news: well, just watch for yourself and see if you can find the innocuous two-second sequence that had me throwing stuff at the monitor.

Hint: it just might be the portion of the video accompanying the intonation of "real values..." which just might show a wedding set on a hand manicured with red, white, and blue fingernail polish, which maybe kinda sorta hints that US Soccer believes (or at least thinks their target fanbase believes) that Real Values(TM) for women mean the holy trinity of femininity, patriotism, and heterosexuality.

Commenters on BigSoccer are pretty sure it wasn't intended to mean anything, really, that they used the wedding ring to symbolize loyalty in contrast to that skanky ho Paris Hilton (who gets mentioned over and over and over and...). Uh huh. The Fed haven't evidenced the brightest minds in the business, but do you honestly think they "didn't mean anything" by sticking the ring footage in there? Like, now, in the age of consumer and media research databases that rival anything held by the NIH? I think they knew exactly what message that would send, as surely as they've breathlessly hyped every engagement and wedding among the players, as they still desperately cast about for the next fresh face to sell the team to the country.

Friday, May 02, 2008

We Are Simply Humorless and Dour

Brian Fairrington draws pictures for the Arizona Republic, the rabidly right-wing rather conservative Phoenix newspaper. His cartoon below was printed in the Daily Star today. For this morning's Humorless Boner-killing Feminazi Quiz, identify the basic concept that eludes Mr. Fairrington. Bonus points for style commentary.



If you rolled your eyes and said, duh, "consent," you win. Bonus style points if you pointed out the juxtaposition of the FLDS people, carefully depicted as neatly dressed ladies gently shepherding their lovely, teddy bear-clutching charges, with the ambiguously gendered S&M couple in the foreground; the stippling on the asscheeks and legs of the figure facing away from the viewer suggests just a little that they're not only into masks and cattle prods but are gay too for good measure.

I'm sure if Mr. Fairrington had just a little more space on his canvas, he would have shown the inbred 50-year-old men marching the little girls into the temple bed for their ceremonial first banging while the rest of the gomers stand around watching, portraying the contradiction between appearance and substance within that FLDS culture and the disconnect between the same within our mainstream culture--and the irreconcilable friction between the two, and the immense difficulty faced by children raised within one sphere who will now have to navigate the other--with nuance and sensitivity, rather than going for the easy knee-jerk kink-bashing and gay-bashing fallback.

Or maybe not.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Oh HELL No

Somebody left a few advertising postcards in the bathroom at Bookman's. For this:







Yes. It does say Milf. Maternity wear.

I just had to go to the website. Just to see if maybe they don't actually know what MILF means, although the logo strongly suggests they do. Maybe...



















This bold belly baring tank top say’s pregnant or not…I am hot! You will never want to take it off. This staple white tank will last you into post pardum.
Logo: “B2 Bare the Belly”


Or maybe not.

The proud mom of two who started this company claims MILF only means "Mothers In Love with Fashion," but rather disingenuously follows that up with

I hope you love my clothing line and you wear the Milf label with pride. Remember, you are "Always Hot... Pregnant or Not!"

Sincerely,

Stacey Latona
“A woman who personally considers being called a 'Milf' a compliment. You should too!"

Because nothing says pride like tying your self-worth to how you rate on a man's fuckability index, even--especially--if you've given birth or are on your way to the delivery room! Why settle for compliments like "nice" or "smart" or "stylish" when guys can--and should!--just cut to the chase and pronounce you someone they would Like To Fuck?

You can either let the world know you are "S2 Seriously Sexy" or declare yourself a "Knocked Up Knockout"! Can’t decide if you want to "Countdown to Cosmo's" or let your little belly be highlighted with the "My Pod" logo? Go for it and get one of everything. Isn't that what we women do when we can't decide?

Ha ha ha, we women are so darn incapable of making decisions, we better just grab up everything within our field of vision! Why, you'd almost think we didn't have brains! Would you Like To Fuck us now?

Lots of shops have maternity lines now that look like actual clothing rather than tents. I'm all for it. But Jesus Haploid Christ, can we do it because the women involved like the clothes on their own merits, rather than echoing the message that women need to define and maintain themselves in service of male sexual desire at all times?

I feel like vomiting a little, and it ain't morning sickness talking.

Friday, November 09, 2007

Emergency Contraception and Pharmacists, Again

Skimming the Daily Star this morning...

Court: Washington State Druggists May Refuse to Prescribe "Morning-After" Pill
In an injunction signed Thursday, U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton said pharmacists can refuse to sell the morning-after pill if they refer the customer to another nearby source. Pharmacists' employers also are protected by the order.

Two pharmacists and a drugstore owner sued the state in July over the new rule, saying it violates their civil rights. They asked the judge to halt forced Plan B sales while the lawsuit is in play.

Many critics consider the pill tantamount to abortion, although it is different from the abortion pill RU-486 and has no effect on women who are already pregnant.

In other words, many critics are fucking idiots. All together now, please. Emergency contraception. Does NOT. Cause. Abortion.

EC works, instead, by preventing ovulation. If you've already ovulated in the 72 or so hours prior to unprotected sex, EC will not help you, just as if you're already pregnant, EC will not terminate that pregnancy and will, in fact, probably give that pregnancy a helping hand by maintaining the richness of the uterine lining. If you have not ovulated, EC keeps your ovaries from releasing an egg into the hordes of sperm stampeding up your fallopian tubes for a few days until all the little buggers are dead.


That is not abortion. That is not the destruction of a fertilized egg. That is not even the frustration of an egg and sperm gazing at each other all moon-eyed through a veil of latex, because EC keeps the egg from being there in the first place. Sperm get to do their spermy thing, swimming in circles and snapping each other's butts with their flagellae and standing in the street looking wistfully up at the ovary and yelling yo, you coming down or what, but the egg stays snug up in the ovary reading Katha Pollitt with a cup of tea and says, no thanks, I'm busy tonight.


Not that it matters to the pharmacists trying to exercise what's pathetically titled a conscience clause. You know damn well they understand the physiological mechanism the EC pill triggers (considering that they got through pharmacy school and all), and that it's not even vaguely related to abortion. They are not attempting to escape being involved in an abortion. They're simply flexing a newly created muscle that allows them to intercede in a woman's life when she deigns to have sex in a context they disapprove of. That is, any context not precisely equal to married and desirous of producing children.


Pharmacy is not simply another service industry sector. The license required by state regulators does not simply indicate competence but grants pharmacists a quasi-monopoly on drug transactions. Because the only way people in this country can legally acquire the controlled medications they need is by (1) getting prescriptions from their doctors and then (2) having medications dispensed by a licensed pharmacist, pharmacists have an absolute duty to fill all prescriptions brought to them in a timely manner, and to stock all drugs that can be reasonably expected to be required by the populations they serve, particularly medications that respond to acute needs. Like nitroglycerine, or asthma inhalers, or emergency contraception.


The fact that EC may now be purchased without a prescription doesn't change this basic argument, because, while no prescription is needed, the drug still must be dispensed from behind the pharmacy counter.


The pharmacist's job is to check dosages and potential drug interactions the physician may have missed, and to make sure the patient is informed about use instructions and side effects. It is not to increasingly interfere in people's lives under the banner of morality, or to make value judgments predicated solely on the medication prescribed or sought without the context of the life of the person seeking the medication. RU-486 opened the gate to pharmacists who were able to make an accepted argument against being required to participate in abortion, and now that gate is in danger of being flung wide open by those who would us the RU-486 precendent as justification for refusing to dispense any medication to be used in circumstances that run afoul of their own personal standards of conduct. That alone is cause enough for concern. But when the focus is consistently narrowed down from any morally ambiguous circumstances to those specifically and exclusively relevant to sexually active women, and adjudicated on the basis of one particular strain of one religious sect, it's completely unacceptable and abhorrent.

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

In Other News: Water Wet; Fire Hot

Abstinence-only Sex Ed Ineffective, Study Finds
Programs that focus exclusively on abstinence have not been shown to affect teenager sexual behavior, although they are eligible for tens of millions of dollars in federal grants, according to a study released by a nonpartisan group that seeks to reduce teen pregnancies.

"At present there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence or reduces the number of sexual partners" among teenagers, the study concluded.

The study found that while abstinence-only efforts appear to have little positive impact, more comprehensive sex-education programs were having "positive outcomes," including teenagers "delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use."

The study flatly contradicts the usual bogeymen trotted out by the abstinence crowd that giving teenagers accurate information about physiology, reproduction, and sexual health is akin to shoving them into a room with a rotating bed, mirrored ceiling, and chucka chucka bwow music playing. Kids who get that information actually tend to wait longer before having sex and use contraception when they do.


What's this tell us? Besides the fact that knowledge is the first, best line of defense against the crap life throws at you, it's instructive--at least to me-- in another direction I don't often see commented on. While federally funded abstinence-only instruction cannot include explicitly religious content, it places a great deal of emphasis on moral imperatives regarding sexuality and is most fervently supported by (and adopted primarily in areas that are home to) evangelical Christians.













The problem.

When kids from conservative Christian backgrounds stray from what they've been taught and have sex, a lot of them don't bother with contraception. The overwhelming reason for this is likely because they haven't learned accurate facts about their options, but instead have been told that condoms don't work to prevent pregnancy and work even less to prevent HIV. I suspect that a contributing factor, however, is the belief that simply hitting your knees after the deed and telling God you're sorry gives you a great big do-over that wipes your slate, penis, and uterus clean along with your soul.


The abstinence movement likes to be a big tent operation that welcomes even non-virgin people in, which is a good thing since it has to be in order to guarantee its continuing solvency in the face of the sky-high rates of teen sex, pregnancy, and repeat teenage pregnancy posted by its adherents. If you're not a physiological virgin, you can still re-pledge abstinence and get your virginity back in the eyes of God. While extending the olive branch to less-than-perfect people and declining to kick them out of the club for behaving like sexually functional beings is laudable, the availability of nightly get-right-with-God sessions likely goes a long way toward the development of a consequences-free mindset when it comes to sex.


We saw it with David "I Have Requested And Received Forgiveness From God" Vitter. We saw it with Ted "I Am One Hundred Percent Heterosexual" Haggard. We see it in statements from kids who regret past promiscuity and promise Jesus to be virgins forever this time, really. Until the next time. I have had conversations with people who readily admit to all manner of minor sins every day--'cause nobody's perfect--but believe they are washed clean each night because they tell God they're really, really, really sorry. Preventative measures don't go very far against that mindset.

Friday, October 19, 2007

Homosexuality: It's not only Wild, It's INSANE!

Oh god. Liss put this up at Shakesville and I just may never be able to have sex again. At least not with a straight face. Or lesbian face. Or, or, uh, um, oh nooooooo...

Friday, March 02, 2007

Measles shot? Check. TB? Check check. HPV? Aaaaaiiiieeee!!!!

Chalk this one in the column of ongoing things I just don't understand. This would be the Gardasil kerfuffle, the consternation raised by Merck's introduction of a vaccine that has tested at near-100% effectiveness in preventing two of the most common strains of cervical-cancer-causing HPV. One in four women carry the virus, which can be identified as causal of nearly 70% of all cervical cancers.

The rational world short version: get the vaccine before becoming sexually active and dramatically decrease your chances of contracting cervical cancer.

The fundamentalist short version: get the vaccine and have carte blanche for a lifetime promiscuous, unprotected sex starting right now.

Actually, that's not really fair to fundamentalists, since they're not the only ones balking at vaccinating preteen girls against a sexually transmitted disease. Some people object to the cost ($400 for the three-shot regimen), others to the addition of another mandatory vaccine to a growing list of requirements for their kids to attend school, others to the sense of a creeping nanny state... and some otherwise rational folks just get the willies when faced with the need to dovetail "sex" and "my daughter" into the same thought. Even the revered Ellen Goodman isn't completely immune:
Nor am I surprised that parents are queasy. It's not easy for any parent to accept that their middle-schooler should get protection from a sexually transmitted disease, even with the risk of cancer.

This queasiness is shared by other people I have talked to, people who, again, are usually more in line with what I consider clear thinking [disclaimer: granted, I'm a generally leftish nutter, but still].

Me: What's the problem with it?
Them: 12-year-olds? They shouldn't even be thinking about sex.
Me: That's exactly the point. You need to administer the vaccine before they're sexually active for it to have the best chance of working.
Them: Yeah, but 12?!?
Me: ...

If HPV were spread as innocuously as mononucleosis or viral meningitis, in morally neutral ways such as getting sneezed on or sharing a can of soda or--brace yourself--kissing someone, as even abstinent teenagers are wont to do, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There might be outrage at the cost, but not at the mere idea of vaccinating children against a virus that can lead to suffering and death when they become adults.

People who don't skip a beat when talking about their dreams for their far-in-the-future grandkids or wonder how much they'll have to pay for their daughters' weddings suddenly get green around the gills when forced to think about the sexual implications of those dreams and plans. Look, here it is. Your sweet little girl, god willing, is going to grow up someday, and will most likely engage in sexual intercourse with at least one person in her lifetime. Even if she completely abstains from sexual contact of any kind until she's in a committed relationship, there is absolutely no guarantee that her eventual partner will be HPV free.

And if you don't want to think about your daughter having consensual sex, should I even bring up the possibility that she will be sexually assaulted at some point? How about the fact that one in three victims is under the age of 12?

Cervical cancer is only one of a myriad of health concerns facing adult women in the US. But the vaccine has given us the chance to scratch one big bogeyman off the list. Uneasiness with the reality of your daughters' sexuality is a sorry excuse for balking at the opportunity to protect them against a completely preventable condition. The next time you dream about your grandkids, dream about them having a healthy mother.

Friday, June 09, 2006

Special Report: Purity Pledges and Rape Reporting

When pressed for time and needing to gather your thoughts (World Cup starts in 45 minutes! Ex gets re-married in 30 hours!), post stuff from your dailyKos diary. Sure recipe for success. So now I reach back to April and rescue a piece I apparently never got around to putting up here...

Continuing the theme of purity pledges and a level of paternal involvement in pre-adolescent girls' sexuality, we turn to the wide world of chastity jewelry, divergent symbolism for girls and boys, and some of the unsettling implications for those kids' lives once they grow up. This was spurred by yet another Digby post, this one discussing the purity jewelry offered by a guy loosely connected to Operation Rescue’s Randall Terry.

The Heart to Heart jewelry guy provides the material manifestation of the queasy pseudo-incest imagery suggested by the Purity Ball's vows between daughter and father involving (1) saving the girl's purity as a gift to the future husband and (2) the father "covering" his daughter and protecting her purity until handing her off to the husband. Visitors to the H2H website can find a heart-shaped locket with a key for Daddy to keep until the wedding day, at which point he gives the key to the groom, who inserts it in his wife's keyhole (wink, nudge) and opens her heart. As a nifty bonus, the locket is designed to hold a note written by the girl to her future husband, promising to love and serve him faithfully despite never having laid eyes on him at the time the note was written. At least there's a "masculine cross" option for boys, giving equal time to genitalia depictions now adopted as symbols of religious sexual purity. No similar note-writing provision is made for the boy's locket, however; while his future bride will be given the key to the cross, the boy isn't expected to literally commit himself on paper to a woman he won't meet for several years.


Pumpkinseed Press carries even more incongruous gender-specific jewelry to go with their complete purity ceremony in a box. For the girls, a heart-shaped ring with a keyhole in the middle. For dad, a key-shaped lapel pin for him "to wear until the wedding day in which he places it on the lapel of the groom, signifying transition of protection and authority." Also included is a pre-printed covenant for father and daughter to sign. And for the boys? They get a wristwatch. Printed with "I will wait for God's timing." No accompanying symbol of parental control, no totem to be transferred to his future wife, no covenant to sign. Just... a watch. And the implicit assumption that, having decided to remain chaste, the boy is perfectly capable of seeing after that himself. Or not; apparently it doesn't matter much given the lack of a public vow and corroborating paperwork.


In both cases, the fathers are given the power and control over the girl's sexuality; the Heart to Heart folks at least make a half-hearted stab at trusting the boy's key to both parents. While the protection aspect is certainly appopriate in thinking about young children--as well as, let's admit it, the emotionally unready portion of the teenage population--the model falls apart when extended to adults of marriageable age. In fact, the entire program and the movement behind it looks geared to a social system that moves children directly from school to marriage. Explicitly--the "masculine cross" aside--it is a system designed to move a girl directly from her father's home to her husband's, with no intervening alone time during which she may venture out into the world, be exposed to dangerous new ideas, and, even worse, risk sullying her purity, which would render her potential as a gift to her husband void.


How does this translate to a world in which a girl graduates high school, graduates from college, and gets a job for a few years before settling down with Mr. Right? She is no longer a girl. She is a woman, an independent adult. Unfortunately for her, she is also an adult whose parents still claim sole authority to her sexuality, a claim they are likely to expect to see reinforced by the girl-woman continuing to wear the locket that only Daddy can open. What happens when this putatively independent adult woman runs into situations she was unprepared for or is unable to control?

I wasn't able to find anything dealing with how these newbie women cope when they find themselves in a guilt-inducing but nonetheless consensual sexual relationship before marriage, but I did find two rape accounts that underscore the additional emotional burden the Purity mindset can bring to a sexual assault. One woman was raped by a short-term acquaintance she met at a campus church group in Texas, the other by a long-term friend in Illinois. Both are religious; both made statements about how much they valued their virginity and feared their parents' disapproval for having been compromised, although it is unclear whether either formally made a purity pledge. The Texan filed charges and went through the trial:

During opening statements Tuesday, defense attorney David Barron described a different scenario in which the woman was a willing participant who made up the rape claims in order to save her religious reputation... Meanwhile, Barron urged jurors to question the woman's credibility. He described her demeanor on the stand as "flippant" and said the presence of her father - a youth minister - in the courtroom motivated her to minimize her involvement that night...

The woman in Illinois did neither:
Maybe it was the embarrassment. "I wanted to tell my parents, I wanted to tell a lot of other people. But I knew that one of the things my mom and dad thought was really great about me was the fact that I was a virgin, and I was very ashamed that this happened to me."

The stories are admittedly anecdotal, and reliable documentation of the effects of chastity vows on rape reporting are scarce on the Web. In fact, documentation of all sexual assault regardless of individual victim attributes is uneven at best, given the lack of consensus on what percentage of rapes are reported and what percentage of those may be false claims (sources here and here). The second complicating factor is the relative youth of the abstinence movement; while religious and social conservatives have essentially always expected chastity from their daughters, that expectation has only recently become formalized in public displays through ritual and adornment with specific jewelry.

The anecdotes related here do demonstrate, however, two different potential unintended effects of the chastity program stemming from the same cause; the additional guilt and turmoil injected into an unwanted sexual encounted by heavy parental expectations and praise of virginity are argued, by different parties, to lead to either false reporting or no reporting at all. In each case, the male involved did not have his behavior constrained by similar expectations, even when he came from essentially the same religious demographic as the woman.

This is not an indictment of the purity program. My personal biases and family background make me highly skeptical that a promise made at ten years of age to remain sexually pure is anything but a naive fantasy that places unrealistic pressure on post-adolescent women who end up outside the protective barriers put in place by their families. In an age of plentiful and deadly STDs and ever-decreasing abortion (and, in some places, even contraception) availability, chastity is not an option to be snorted at. But it should be an option that is chosen based on the individual's informed conscience (yup, I broke from the Catholic Church long ago, but I've always found that phrasing very useful), irrespective of gender, rather than being coerced only from girls by symbolically giving their fathers the sole authority over their bodies.