In the process of relocating

moving

Hi there!

I haven’t been as active here as I would like to be, but hopefully that will be changing over the next few months. The two main reasons for my low-level activity here are (1) I’ve been in school full-time, so I have had to place heavier emphasis on my studies than time spent updating here, and (2) Weird Sex Ed, Inc., is in the process of relocating.

No, WSE isn’t leaving Georgia entirely. The business is (and will remain) incorporated in Cumming, GA (lol) – so the correspondence address and telephone number will both remain the same. Just the headquarters (administrative office) is relocating to Oregon over the summer. After my family has settled into our new place, and after I have had an opportunity to file the necessary paperwork with the Secretary of State office in Oregon, I’ll provide the additional information.

Until then, watch for updates and variety posts over in WSE’s Facebook page!

Cheers!

Mirrored Post from my personal blog

WSE is an apolitical organization. However I am not an apolitical person. Here in this blog, I tend largely to avoid the political nature of sex education, but that same topic is not without its own political realities. Here, I’m opting to post SCOTUS, Abortion, and Birth Control (aka Life with SCPLs)…and Kim Kardashian (just for “fun”) (be aware, profanity within).

SCOTUS, Abortion, and Birth Control (aka Life with SCPLs)…and Kim Kardashian (just for “fun”)

First and foremost, Happy Hump Day! Been a while since I’ve written a proper Hump Day entry. This one is a combination of what I hope is somewhat educational…and a bit of a rant.

Today, I’m going to start out by sharing a video of my friend Cara, and that embedded link on her name goes to a facebook post of hers that articulates much of what she expresses in the video below. Worth reading EVERY word, but if watching a video is easier, then that’s cool, too.

I share the above, not because I’m some massive fan of Kim Kardashian…I’m so not. I don’t care about anything related to any of the Kardashians, and the only reason I even know the name is because I have kids of a certain age who keep me up-to-date on celebrity currency. Even granting that I laughed at Bette Middler’s tweet…

…I recognized a joke from a comedienne, one for whom I’ve held much admiration for a long time. That being said, I also see a parallel between body shaming (predominantly directed at women), Kim Kardashian’s selfie, mansplainin’, what International Women’s Day is for and about, and the current abortion and birth control cases facing the Supreme Court of the United States. And before you start feeling bad for those sweet little old nuns and their hand-wringing, here is what you need to know about today’s birth control case before the high court.

There are (by far) more intersections, there is more than a small bit of religious (“faith-based”) interference in every single aspect of those intersections, and omigawd Kansas…really all over the country, but fucking Kansas…from bounty options to check genitals in public schools, to comparisons of birth control to eugenics, to attempting to criminalize (with fines AND jail time) for teaching sex ed in public schools (a throwback to Comstock laws) — while being broke! Kansas is fucking broke because of Gov Brownback’s idiotic attempts at Reagan-on-acid taxation experimentation. I can’t begin to express enough contempt for Kansas right now, but it’s in no way limited to Kansas. To be clear.

Before you think I’m demonizing Kansas…or men in general…I’d like to point you to one microcosmic cross-section of our society: Twitter. Even factoring for troll behavior, a study was conducted via Twitter, by Adobo, and to be clear, the overwhelming reality is that “[w]hen it comes to prejudice online, no group is more hated than women.” (yeah, emphasis added)

In an era when someone like Sarah Palin, with zero legal education, is poised to get a courtroom reality television show, when conspiracy theorists openly state they believe Jennifer Aniston and Michelle Obama are trans*women, and Phyllis fucking Schlafly (yes, that old bag of skin is still alive) is speaking (and being taken seriously) about not nominating a Supreme Court justice until a Republican is elected into the presidency, while yammering about anti-woman, white supremacist-consorting Fascist Donald Trump…it starts becoming a little more clear that what’s happening has precisely nothing to do with people’s feelings about abortion, or about birth control, or about fatness or thinness. It has nothing to do with anything but hatred of women, period, end of story.

These are the same idiots and assholes who -in one breath- yammer about 3-D printing of fetuses “for blind women” (presumably at taxpayer expense and for the “love” of fetuses)…while out of the other side of their mouths, screeching about not paying for birth control (which -when used consistently and correctly- usually prevents pregnancy, ergo abortion), not wanting public school sex ed outside of abstinence-only (which is demonstrably a spectacular failure), increasing restrictions on abortion access (and women’s healthcare in general), resulting in gestational rape and forced parenthood…THEN turning around and stripping funding for women, children, and families to keep food in those *precious* children’s bellies, roofs over their heads, and healthcare when they’re sick…THEN turning around and blaming the very women they forced to gestate that “if they didn’t want children, they should have been more ‘responsible’ about sex” — (circle back to the birth control debate…lather, rinse, repeat). All while continuing to ignore our human trafficking business we know casually as the (for-profit) adoption system AND the over-burdened foster system.

And they never seem to realize the abject irony of talking about children as precious, as gifts (which, no doubt, children ARE precious, they ARE gifts) — but telling women that children are “consequences”…that they are “punishment”…how “precious” is a consequence dressed up as a human child whose mother was forced against her will to gestate an unwanted pregnancy? I mean honestly?

…because really, it’s not about sex (no matter how much that stain of a Kansas legislator is uncomfortable saying the word “vagina” – I get it, for many women brought up in abstinence-based nonsense, speaking medical terminology is extremely uncomfortable…literally unspeakable, actually

“…It starts, whether intentionally or not, with parents. When my daughter was a baby, I remember reading somewhere that while labeling infants’ body parts (“here’s your nose,” “here are your toes”), parents often include a boy’s genitals but not a girl’s. Leaving something unnamed, of course, makes it quite literally unspeakable. Nor does that silence change much as girls get older…”

When the shame attached to possible “consequences” (and “conscientious” objections by pharmacists) lead to sideways methods of pregnancy prevention…and worse, the return and increase of self-induced abortions, which results in dead women. And all of this is championed by “so-called pro-life” people (aka SCPLs).

…but it’s not about that. It’s about punishing women for being women, for being human and daring to exist with the rights of being human. In a country with 319 million people, 51% of which are women, this is beyond a travesty. It’s dismissed frequently (even by women I know and respect, with casual remarks about “responsibility”), and often ignored is the connection with beauty and thinness and any/everything connected with our bodies and/or appearances…

“A culture fixated on female thinness is not an obsession about female beauty, but an obsession about female obedience. Dieting is the most potent political sedative in women’s history; a quietly mad population is a tractable one.” ― Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth

Which brings me back to Kim Kardashian and her selfie (which really amounts to *SO WHAT?!*)…and the staggering amount of insults hurled her way. It reminded me (quite a lot) of the same insults that have been hurled at Beyoncé for her “Formation” performance (the outrage was on multiple grounds from many quarters — all of which were ignorant to what she was/is addressing in that song, which is multifaceted, to say the very least – if you’re interested, start here, but this is merely one way of addressing the intersection of lived experience as a woman, Beyoncé is speaking one voice of the black female experience, which I am not qualified to speak to, but I cheer her on 100%). This ties in with a combination in-person and online discussion about intersectionality, but the point is, from a larger perspective, society condemns women by way of our bodies, and the how of that can vary distinctly, depending on color of skin, ethnic origin, size and shape, etc. And I even read that women should be -somehow- try to “be more like Marilyn” in terms of “beauty” — and while I’m not questioning the fact that she was beautiful, first – she was in many ways ahead of her time, true enough…but her public persona was nobody’s role model. Second – in her time, she was just as criticized for daring to exist as a human female in public (and still is by religious fanatics, lest you doubt). So that double-edged sword is hypocrisy that knows neither its own name or history.

So what if ANY woman posts a public nude selfie (or Playboy centerfold or calendar)? I mean seriously, so what?

Rather than link you back to all the variety blog entries I’ve written about the reality of today’s “conservatives” who believe they’re somehow “revolutionary” – I’ll just summarize by pointing out what they really are: Regressive Reactionary Republicans. Today’s version is yammering about “religious freedom” via birth control…but that’s just one tiny little piece of the hatred piled on women in the name of Eve.

To all of them, I raise Lilith’s fist (and more often than not, with a one-finger salute).

P/L/S
~dw

On the Chopping Block: Routine Male Infant Circumcision

chopping blockToday’s topic, by way of facebook discussion, is the matter of routine male infant circumcision. What started the discussion was an article about a movement to ban ear-piercing in infants because of “cruelty” — and it was an interesting conversation. As ought to be expected, male infant circumcision surfaced in the discussion, as did female genital mutilation — two topics I addressed previously . < — That link there is worth having a quick read-through before proceeding here, since it covers a few different things related to genital mutilation (and parental “choice” regarding the matter), but with respect to routine male infant circumcision (specifically newborn), this entry homes in on the history, the myths and the facts…the pseudo-justifications and the debunking of those things in particular.

Religious background

So, starting with the history…perhaps the oldest history is religious tradition. Specifically, the two major world religions that adhere to this practice are Judaism and Islam…and of course later into the American Christian tradition (but that is connected with American military history, which I will address next). Yes, the practice of male infant circumcision is arguably ancient. The justifications include a “covenant” with the appropriate deity, supposed hygiene arguments, and masturbation prevention (lest a man “waste his seed” — in the Bible, “Onanism,” from Genesis 38:9; and in the Quran, “Ḥarām,” Chapter 23: Al-Mu’minun – Verse: 5-7). Of course, there is the counter-argument that these verses (respectively) weren’t really about sin…they were about “hygiene” — and there may well be some truth to that argument, even while that argument ignores a couple of extremely important points. During the (stated) era of the Bible, and of the Quran, hygiene was…well, “primitive” is a harsh word to use (because I’m not keen on falsely anachronizing history), but comparative to modern hygienic practices, “primitive” is used in the technical sense (and not in a demeaning way) – meaning: “relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something.” Parallel discussion exist, for example, about why pork is off-limits to both Judaism and Islam (and technically Christianity). Rationales and justification provided include cloven hooves, doesn’t chew its own cud, garbage disposal, et cetera…and really, adherents of the food proscription frequently don’t ask whether there may be an actual, logical reason for the proscription (and yes, logical reasons exist! really!). Again, we’re talking about ancient times. Large animals fit for eating generally couldn’t be eaten all in one sitting (compared with, say, chicken or other small fowl that can be cooked and eaten within a day). Larger livestock animals like beef could be preserved more safely if salted…or if cooked very well-done, dried out & jerkied, even…without much risk of later consumption. Pork, however, doesn’t keep in the same way…and consumption of old pork products can and does lead to *big time* sickness, and death even. So, yeah, it makes sense that pork would be placed on a food proscription list, given the hygienic factors of the era. When viewed through a long lens of history, circumcision as a practice then, would make a type of sense, given the lens of available and comparably primitive hygiene access at the time. Also, sexually transmitted infections existed during the Biblical era (which is older than Islam), and is documented fully. So definitely, it would seem that lopping off a piece of skin that might house all sorts of infectious material would make sense. Then. Not now. Today, it’s simply a matter of tradition…with no logical basis for continuation beyond tradition.

Military background -particular to the United States- and into the current debates

Moving past the ancient history of the practice, and moving westward (to the United States specifically), let’s have a look at the practice of circumcision in the United States, and why that came to be the norm (surprise — circumcision in the U.S. is not ancient, but only about a century or so old). Within the History of Circumcision website, which has numerous embedded citation links (feel free to peruse them), there is a link within the United States’ subheading about the military history in the U.S. about the practice of male circumcision. The linked entry on this is short by comparison — and worth reading in its entirety — but here I’ll copy/paste a couple of pertinent quotes from it.

“For the past 130 years the American medical industry has been involved in the business of removing part or all of the external sexual organs of male and female children. While the origins of sexual mutilations among prehistoric and primitive peoples is a matter for theory and speculation, the origin and spread of sexual mutilation in American medical practice can be precisely documented. Seen in the proper context of the entire scope of western history, the modern American enigma of institutionalized sexual mutilation is an historic aberration of profound significance and degree, one that could never have been predicted, and one that perhaps could not have been avoided.”

[…]

“The early promoters of circumcision fully acknowledged  the sexual functions of the foreskin and advocated circumcision as the intentional destruction of those functions. One of many such acknowledgements was published in an issue of the Medical News in November 1900:

Finally, circumcision probably tends to increase the power of sexual control. The only physiological advantage which the prepuce can be supposed to confer is that of maintaining the penis in a condition susceptible of more acute sensation than would otherwise exist. It may be supposed to increase the pleasure of the act and the impulse to it. These are advantages, however, which in the present state of society can well be spared, and if in their loss some degree of increased sexual control should result, one should be thankful. [42]

In 1902 an editorial in the American Practitioner and News made clear the anti-sexual motivation behind the doctrine of circumcision as a hygienic measure:

Another advantage of circumcision is … the lessened liability to masturbation. A long foreskin is irritating per se, as it necessitates more manipulation of the parts in bathing. … This leads the child to handle the parts, and as a rule pleasurable sensations are elicited from the extremely sensitive mucous membrane, with resultant manipulation and masturbation. The exposure of the glans penis following circumcision … lessens the sensitiveness of the organ. It therefore lies with the physicians, the family adviser in affairs hygienic and medical, to urge its acceptance. [43]”

[…]

…and then read the entirety of part 5 (World War II), click through to Part 2 , and read through the remaining section, which explains a LOT of why there is so much “justification” for circumcision (it shouldn’t surprise you to know that money is directly involved).

So, nutshelled, as with the primitive practices…the rationale amounts to demonization of normal sexual behaviors like masturbation…along with supposed hygiene factors that are very easily destroyed on analysis.

Some of the various excuses given

What about appearance? An uncut penis looks “unnatural” and/or “gross”… I want my son’s penis to look like Daddy’s penis… et cetera ad nauseam/ad absurdum.

Rather than provide the numerous links available that refute these cosmetic claims, I’ll just point out the obvious retorts…

What *about* appearance?! What is the actual standard…and why? (This thought exercise is more in-depth than it sounds…)

Unnatural? A penis in its uncut and natural state is unnatural? How does that work?

Gross? Well, so are many things about the human body. Should we cut off our noses because we develop boogers? How about our ears because of earwax?

You want your son’s penis to look like his dad’s? Again, how about his nose? His ears? His eyes? If you don’t apply the same “justification” for other body parts, then why is his penis somehow different?

There are numerous logical retorts for the (many ridiculous) cosmetic justifications for circumcision, of course…but one must first actually ask the question of how they would deal with any other body part first.

Risk of UTI, STIs, and the *scary hashtag* #PENISCANCER !!!

Within this subheading, I’ll provide a few of the “justifying” links given to me during the aforementioned facebook discussion…starting with the Mayo Clinic’s recommendations on the topic.

Within that link, the justifications given are:

Hygiene, UTI prevention, STI prevention, prevention of “penile problems”, and decreased risk of penile cancer — WOW!! It must be really awesome to have such a strong recommendation from the Mayo Clinic, right? Well hold on there, partner…read the disclaimers in there VERY carefully. Each of the explanations are weaselly, with plenty of “howevers” and “mights” and “coulds” and such –and NO supporting citation…though surely the citations come from somewhere, right? Right…they come from…

…the American Academy of Pediatrics! Another well-known and well-trusted source (yes, I agree, they certainly are, actually) — complete with the noteworthy endorsement from ACoG and the American Cancer Society — so why on earth would I dare to challenge such well-respected sources? Well, part of the reason has to do with their own transparency. If you click through the link provided and scroll down below the abstract, you will find a huge list of articles that not only refute, but provide scientific explanation for refutation of the AAP statement. This is important, for many reasons, but I would argue that transparency within a scientific organization is necessary — and a perusal of the refutations is in order if you’re not familiar.

For example…the University of Oxford presents a full article with loads of embedded citations (back to MORE scientific sources) of why the AAP’s *new* policy statement on circumcision is embarrassingly out of date AND is in direct conflict with global medical opinion on the topic. Specifically, one of the criticisms actually noted IN the AAP files says THIS:

“The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released its new Technical Report and Policy Statement on male circumcision, concluding that current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks. The technical report is based on the scrutiny of a large number of complex scientific articles. Therefore, while striving for objectivity, the conclusions drawn by the 8 task force members reflect what these individual physicians perceived as trustworthy evidence. Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of nontherapeutic male circumcision in the United States seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by physicians in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia. In this commentary, a different view is presented by non–US-based physicians and representatives of general medical associations and societies for pediatrics, pediatric surgery, and pediatric urology in Northern Europe. To these authors, only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves.” (emphasis added)

So, the big “news flash” in the United States is that male infant circumcision should be routine (ask where the money is in that count), while ignoring that right in the *very same source* there is acknowledgment that ALL of the reasons provided are NOT equivalent in a American (Western) context as where the substantiating studies transpired…and for VERY similar reasons as provided in the religious history context above.

For further reading on the demolishing of the AAP’s updated stance on the subject of routine male infant circumcision, read here, here, and here.

For information about evolutionary thoughts on the human male foreskin, read here, here, and here. (I have more links to biological & evolutionary thoughts on this topic; if interested, email me.)

Closing thoughts

My stance is not actually opposed to male circumcision in general (if it is voluntary and consenting)…but I am opposed to routine male infant circumcision specifically. All of the claims made by variety sources justifying the practice are easily refuted (in many cases, outright debunked in terms of Western practice). In cases where circumcision IS actually medically indicated (where other, non-invasive measures do not resolve the issue in a child where the parents have to make a decision in their child’s best interest), then sure…no problem. Of course, medical indication makes sense. I also do not believe in demonizing parents for the decision to circumcise their sons. As I said in my original blog entry about this topic: “I don’t think that telling parents who made that choice for their sons that they “damaged” their sons is a good thing either. In fact, I think it’s cruel to do that, because chances are, they thought they were doing what was right for their child. Even if it meant permanent removal of something like foreskin.”

However, in the VAST majority of cases, I do not view routine male infant circumcision as anything other than cosmetic…and IF that male human DESIRES to be circumcised later in life, then he owns his own body, and has the right to that CHOICE. It should be his choice…in the end.

With that, Happy Fried Day!
~dw

On the topic of Josh Duggar, pedophilia, sexual crimes, and family matters

nope1

Note up front: This is not a WSE “official” position. This is my personal position on the topic. I am including it in a WSE entry because of its connection with sex education, communication, and boundaries.

I’ve been approached a few different times, and in a few different ways, about my thoughts/insights to the Josh Duggar fiasco. Most comments have been made to me publicly in various threads on my facebook timeline, some in comments on people’s own timelines, a few privately…and one post from a friend directly to my wall with a question. Or really, a set of questions.

It’s probably not altogether surprising that I would be approached with questions like this, given my education and exactly what it is that I do. The question, although singularly phrased, is layered…“what are the moral, ethical, and legal responsibilities of a (normal) family that encounters this kind of abuse among siblings?” — and it is definitely a very nuanced question to try to answer in any meaningful way. I needed time to really think about it, given the various conversations I’ve had the opportunity to be involved with, and the different things I’ve read by different people regarding the Duggar situation itself.

Rather than try to answer the question within the confines of a facebook thread, I decided to bring the discussion into my own space, where I can try to expand on the thoughts that surfaced. Teasing out the different strands is a challenge, because this is not an easy subject to write about. So, up front, I’ll open with what I’m going to address: the matter of actual pedophilia (what it is, what it isn’t, etc); a comparatively recent story of friend of mine, along with a bit of family history; the matter of what the law has to say on this subject; morals and ethics; my personal take on the topic as a parent; and how I feel about serial child molesters, rapists, and anyone who tries to make excuses for them. Those are the different strands that will be addressed. You have the choice to read…or move on to something else…because this will be a lengthy entry.

What I do, and why I get asked the question.

Parent-child communication is vital -and at the earliest stages- to later decision-making during the tumultuous teenage and young adult years. This parent-child communication is also the foundation for establishing and fostering healthy boundaries in children. My general approach to this subject is directed to parents, not to children or teens, because the origin of discomfort begins with parents (again, generally). My focus as an educator is to help guide parents toward open, honest, and healthy communication with their children about anatomy first by helping parents become more comfortable with medically-accurate terminology. The aim of WSE in this regard, in the long-term, is to hopefully elevate awareness about the prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and hopefully reduce that prevalence through (1) education, (2) communication, and (3) knowing where to access tools (such as preventive measures and treatment services if necessary). Because STI awareness and education is my primary focus, I have not gone into many other areas of education at this point. That said, I have connected with a local organization that fights sex trafficking and plan to attend a meeting in the near future where I may address matters of sex and communication from a parental standpoint, also.

I share these things to make clear that the matter of child molestation is not far off of my radar, but neither it is my area of expertise. While I can speak to the subject professionally where the matter of parent-child communication intersects with my focus, it would be dishonest to attempt to speak to the subject of child molestation or predatory sexual behavior as though it is something I specialize in – because I do not. And I’m glad that I do not. I deal with some messy topics, but the matter of child molestation is one that is beyond my scope professionally. I probably never would have chosen it as an area of concentration because it intersects with my personal history in such a way that it is a topic that is difficult to speak to objectively. The only way that I can speak to the topic is from a more personal level. In this entry, I’m not speaking as Dr. Alvarado-Wirtz…but as Denise. With these things in mind…

Distinguishing lines.

So, to start with, I want to ensure that there are very clear distinguishing lines drawn between three things: Mistakes of youth, pedophilia, and predatory sexual behavior. I want to be very clear about these things, because they all exist, they all matter, they may intersect but not necessarily, and the lines quickly blur when emotions are hot. I also want to draw the distinctions because I am sick to death of reading variations of “but he was just a horny teenager.” I’m sick to death of apologetics that focus on the abuser and disregard the victims. So Josh Duggar is “sorry”…now, that it’s out in the open. He’s “sorry”…now that the reality TV family’s skeleton has been put on public display after repeatedly chastising the LGBTQ community in the name of “family values.” He’s…sorry. Victimizing multiple children (to include his sisters) was a “mistake.” And of course, now, the discussion of pedophilia coming forth from members of the mental health community in the face of details about this family nightmare unfolding like the reality TV show that the Duggars ironically created.

Let’s separate out the strands here. Let’s talk about mistakes first. We all make them. Many of us, during our youths, made plenty of mistakes…sexually and otherwise. Things that we might go back and change if we could. Things we’re genuinely remorseful about. Things that we have tried to make right. A good example is a situation a friend of mine endured just a few years ago with her son. When he was about 13 years old or so, he made a mistake. He was visiting his non-custodial family, and violated the boundaries of his younger half-sister. There was no touching involved whatsoever, nothing physical occurred. There was simply a boundary violation, sexual in nature but not in action. There was an emotional explosion that occurred after he went home to his custodial family, when his younger sister said something to the non-custodial parent. My friend was called, chewed out, the son called every imaginable name by his non-custodial parent, told that he was never allowed in their home again (never mind that there was little involvement to begin with). It was horrifying for my friend, who immediately confronted her son. He was deeply ashamed, embarrassed, and above all, remorseful. She got him into counseling immediately. She wasn’t worried about whether or not he would violate her other children’s boundaries (and that has never happened). It was an extraordinarily stressful time for the family for many different reasons, but he received love and support, necessary counseling, and…above all…he was held accountable. He wanted to apologize directly to his half-sibling (though that opportunity was never afforded by the non-custodial parent at the time). Years have passed since this incident occurred, and the other parent is only now saying that maybe he handled it improperly. He was (understandably) concerned for his daughter, but had no concern for his son. He has since tried to reach out to his son…only to discover that the window of opportunity to make right with his son slammed shut. It is unfortunate, but that is how it happened. Thankfully, this young man’s mistake…and it was a mistake…didn’t wind up turning his life upside-down. He’s now in a very loving relationship, is extremely close to his mom, is equally protective of his younger siblings. That situation…a one-time event in his life…was a mistake. Nothing will ever undo it, but he’s working to make right.

Now let’s talk about pedophilia. Pedophilia in the clinical sense is comparatively rare, but unlike other conditions that people seek out treatment for, pedophiles are not likely to seek treatment because of the social realities connected with the condition. Pedophilia, as a fantasy, is not a choice (catch your knee)…but pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It is what is known as a paraphilia. The decision to act on the fantasy is a choice, a choice that causes deep and longstanding harm in its victims. Pedophilia is the most common paraphilia, but the vast majority of sexual predators and child molestors are not actually pedophiles in the clinical sense (again, we’ll return to those folks shortly). For this reason, people who attempt to create a parallel between pedophilia and homosexuality are being (knowingly or unknowingly) dishonest. While it may be difficult to wrap around, a case worth reading (listening to also) and working to understand is this one.  For pedophiles who do not act on the impulse, having an avenue for therapy and treatment, a support group, however anonymously, is vital. For people who do not act on those urges, who actively seek help and support and consistently refrain from being in situations that put children at risk, I support their efforts. I am opposed to the notion of thought crime. As human animals, we can and do fantasize about any number of things, and often never act on those fantasies. Fantasies are neither right nor wrong…they just are. However, acting on those fantasies may not only be wrong…it is criminal if it violates consent.

Before moving to sexual predators, I want to ensure that there is explicit clarification here. There are people who go the opposite direction of the examples above. There are people and organizations (internationally) that seek to lower or abolish the age of consent, who advocate making adult-child sexual interaction completely legal. (Note, wiki links are used here so that you, gentle reader, can drop to the bottom of the pages for original source citations, if desired.)  I do NOT support those. Not now, not ever. Just…NOPE. Although some European countries have a more generally neutral stance on pedophilia (in this sense, the fantasy not acted upon, the absence of harm done to children), and the Netherlands is typically the country pointed to as an example. This point ignores the laws there that remain in place to protect the rights of people who have pedophilia unacted upon AND to protect the rights of children. In 2014, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands banned the online group Vereniging Martijn.

The court’s ruling “held that the dangers of pedophilia are too great to allow the group to continue. This is because, the court reasoned, children are particularly vulnerable, and the protections they require justifies using the extraordinary relief of disbanding Martijn. In addition, the court agreed with the prosecutor’s arguments that victims of pedophilia should not be forced to be exposed to the group’s message. The ruling overturned a lower court decision that said only groups that threaten to cause social disruption are eligible to be banned.” I’ll return to the question of law shortly.

Next, let’s talk about sexual predators. Child molesters. Rapists. Let’s talk about these folks. I’ll grant that they may have made a mistake or two. I’ll grant that they might have a few snippets in common with pedophiles in the loosest of senses. I will grant that there are intersectional areas. But when it comes down to predatory sexual behavior of the sort that actively preys on people who do not and/or cannot consent, we’re talking about people with control issues, people who use sex as a weapon. I’ll even grant that they may have started out as untreated pedophiles who were possibly abused themselves, who knew what happened to them was wrong, who knew that the urge to harm others was wrong…but who chose to act upon the impulse to violate another person’s bodily autonomy without consent anyway. These people are criminals, period. This is a particularly difficult topic for me, personally, because I know many people for whom this is a lived experience. People who knowingly, willingly, and repeatedly violate another person’s bodily autonomy sexually are not “making a mistake” — they aren’t “just horny teenagers” — they are predators, criminals, who take something irreplacable from someone else for their own gratification. They are, typically, unrepentant about their actions. And while I know (anecdotally) that these behaviors manifest generationally and cyclically within families, there is not definitive causal connection in the research about abused children eventually becoming abusers themselves (the majority do not); the research remains inconclusive about whether serial sexual abusers were themselves abused as children.

A bit of personal perspective.

The movie “A Time to Kill” has this line in it that, if you haven’t ever heard it outside of the movie, it’s easy to think it was made up for a script to put a couple of redneck child rapists in the audience’s disfavor. Thing is, I knew that line…I’d heard it before I ever saw the movie…it stood out for me, and I’ve never forgotten it. In the movie, a young black girl (12 or so years old in the scene) is walking home after having gone to a local store to pick up a few groceries. Two drunk rednecks see her and decide to have some “fun” with her…the exchange in the movie was:

Redneck #1: Isn’t she a bit young?

Redneck #2: If she’s old enough to crawl, she’s in the right position.

Now, the trajectory of the movie was about whether or not a black man could receive a fair trial in the South (for murdering the child rapists who violated his daughter), but my focus is on that particular exchange in the movie. The redneck rapists in the movie weren’t pedophiles…they were sexual predators. They were the same ilk of people, the world over, that seek out children to violate. As earlier mentioned, certain matters occur within families generationally – and in my case, I made the conscious decision that for my own children, the cycle stopped at my own doorstep. I have, over the course of my experience as a parent, deliberately kept emotional and geographic distance between myself and my family, much as I love my family members. The distance remains firm, even while I do go to visit…if infrequently.

I remember an exchange between two of my family members (both female), where the subject of childhood sexual molestation surfaced. The older female relative looked at the younger female relative and said, “If I could live through it, so can you.” The refusal to hold the offenders accountable is something that I recognize from where it can stem…but I personally find it inexcusable. Put more bluntly, because of this particular dynamic within my own family tree, even when I lived with my family as an adult with a young child, I never left my child unattended with certain other family members. Ever. Just…NOPE. I witnessed too much as a kid, experienced too much, knew too much of the history to ever-ever-ever leave my child unattended. That is just the way it was. At my first opportunity, I moved away permanently (which brought with it its own sets of problems, but those problems aren’t directly relevant to this particular topic). As an adult survivor, I have met many people over the intervening years (both male and female) who have lived through similar experiences, who have similar family histories, and like me, the deliberate, conscious decision is that the cycle of abuse stopped at their doorstep.

I’ve written before, extensively, about where religious harm intersects with sexual predatory behavior with children – and how this manifests in the prevalence of church “youth pastors” (in the United States, specifically, and this is directly connected with the Duggar fiasco because of how religion can and does warp healthy sexuality); but this is not a problem limited to religion (and I would argue that the majority of religious people find sexual exploitation of children repellant, so I’m not browbeating religion here, in and of itself). This is a problem that is not limited to my family (many of whom happen to be religious) or the United States; it is a global concern. I hesitate to draw any specific conclusions or make any direct assertions, but I will admit that I find the matter of American and European businessmen being the dominant group of people who go to other countries (on multiple continents), seeking out children to have sex with. I find it telling because of the religiously-rooted societies from which these men spring (and they are typically men), and the religious distortions of sexuality. But again, this is NOT about singling out people who identify religiously, because people of various social, cultural, and religious backgrounds engage in this behavior.

On a very local level, I support Stop Exploiting Children Task Force of Forsyth County (SECTFF), because I am a firm believer that practical advocacy begins in one’s own backyard. When I initially met with some of the folks at SECTFF (at a local fair), I was asked if I would consider speaking at an upcoming meeting, given what I do. I am of course interested, and plan to attend an upcoming meeting this summer unless my calendar explodes the way it has been doing over the past few months. The group is one of many around the United States that works to fight sexual exploitation of children, with the goal of ending sex trafficking of children and women.

So…to answer the question.

Having addressed the three distinguishing lines between “mistakes,” pedophilia, and predatory sexual behavior; my friend’s story; and a bit of personal history, it’s time to return to the question asked by my friend: “what are the moral, ethical, and legal responsibilities of a (normal) family that encounters this kind of abuse among siblings?”

I can only hope that all of what has preceded my broaching answering this question has allowed for some dimensional/nuanced understanding of where I’m coming from when I attempt to actually answer my friend’s question.

Legally, the matter of sexual molestation of children, particularly within a family (by siblings or other family members), is complex. You can go to the wiki page on this topic (this is United States-specific), read through it, read through the 28 different source citations in there. I could pull out the criminal law casebooks, websites, call on legal eagle friends of mine to help me with explaining the complexities of our legal justice system with respect to incest and child molestation. Here, I will simply say that the matter is extremely complex. I’m one person, and if you’ve managed to make it this far reading this entry, I hope it is clear that my thoughts on this subject are extremely complex and not in any way lacking in personal bias…and I won’t pretend otherwise. There are laws that I understand cognitively, and there are laws that while I might understand, I don’t necessarily agree with. But trying to explain them here would take longer than this entry already is entirely, and would be easier and faster to look up for yourself, depending on your specific jurisdiction.

The matter of morals and ethics as even more hinky. I don’t define others’ moral compasses, only my own. Ethics is a realm of philosophy that flows into our (and other countries’) laws, and I do not define these things for anyone but myself. That being said, I suspect what my friend is asking me is a question that steps beyond a matter of simple definitions…and what the question is actually asking is, “What would you do if your son molested your daughter?” (or daughter-son…either way) THAT is the question I actually hear being asked. This is a very difficult question, and one that I have thought about before. More than once. Given my own history on the subject, it would seem impossible that the thought would never cross my mind.

The inclination that I have, as a parent (presumably shared by most parents) is to protect my children. ALL of my children. The notion of my son molesting my daughter (or vice versa) is one that sickens me. The very thought is repugnant. But the inclination is still to protect ALL of my children. What this means to me personally includes the matter of full accountability. Much, I suspect, of how I would respond to a horrifying situation like that would be to ask pertinent questions – what level of molestation? How many times? etc… Depending on the answers to those questions, my immediate course of action, hypothetically, would be two-fold. First, I would reach out to people in the healthcare community (medical AND mental, depending on how far the molestation went) — to ensure that my daughter received immediate treatment for any medical concerns (pregnancy comes to mind for example), along with treatment for emotional trauma. Alongside that, I would reach out to an attorney, because I would want BOTH mental health evaluation for my son, along with ensuring that he had some sort of legal backing. The notion of my son going to jail for molesting my daughter (again, or vice versa) would be simply awful (particularly understanding how the hierarchy in the jail/prison system works), and I would ideally want him (or her) in a treatment facility rather than in a jail cell. (Note: I’m placing the male child in the position of the offender primarily…because that is standard in the overwhelming majority of cases; but to be clear, my hypothetical approach would be the same, regardless of who was the offender and who was the victim.)

I can certainly understand (though not excuse) why parents hide the actions of their sons who molest a sibling or siblings; I do not understand how parents can (and frequently do) go into victim-blaming games with their daughters. If I were to discover that my son had molested several children…? Again, the matter of accountability. Serial sexual molestation, predatory sexual behavior that violates others’ rights to bodily autonomy, is criminal…and for a crime committed (whether against others’ children, or against another of my own children), is a matter that must be dealt with in terms of legal accountability. Checks and balances. And…as a parent, it is extremely difficult for me to say that, because I love and desire to protect ALL of my children.

That being said, this hypothetical scenario stated, though not impossible, is extremely unlikely in my own household. In my household, because of what I do for a living, the matter of open, honest, and respectful communication on ALL matters (including sexual matters) is one that I don’t simply talk about and educate others about…I live by it. Communication about body space, personal boundaries (and our right to enforce those boundaries), the differences between private and secret, etc etc etc…these things are openly discussed in my household. My children…my daughter and both of my sons…know that they own their own bodies. Every bit of their bodies. They have the absolute right to say “no” to any unwanted physical contact — all the way down to something as innocuous as tickling. It is that simple.

Tying this thought back to the subject of Josh Duggar, his family’s blatant hiding of his criminal history of serial molestation (including his sisters) until the statute of limitations expired…? Spewing “family values” nonsense in the name of their particular flavor of religious dogma, condemning homosexuality, parading their lives in reality TV while doing so, cozying up to conservative politicians to try to enact laws against consenting adults KNOWING this was in their own family tree?

My feeling, honestly? Fuck that guy. Fuck Josh Duggar…fuck his entire family (except for his victims)…and fuck ANYONE who attempts to wrongly defend him in the name of their god, in the name of “youthful mistakes,” in the name of pedophilia, all that. He’s not a pedophile in the clinical sense noted above. He was and remains an unpunished serial child molester. He will likely not be held accountable for his crimes…nor will his family for covering for him all these years. Seriously just fuck them.

And for anyone attempting to defend him while talking out of both sides of their mouths? Just…all the nopes. Fuck them, too. Yes, the subject of pedophilia is nuanced. Yes, my perspective as a sex educator (professionally), as a survivor and as a parent (privately) is nuanced. I hope that I’ve adequately answered my friend’s question in a way that makes sense to her. But my position on Josh Duggar and others like him is pretty black & white.

nope2

With that, Happy Sunday.

P/L/S

Happy STI Awareness Month: HPV

Happy Monday! I hope everyone had a restful holiday weekend (for those who celebrate the various holidays around the vernal equinox by whatever name).

April is STI Awareness Month, and over the course of this month, I’m going to post some entries about some of the sexually transmitted infections (STIs) out there. (Note: STD stands for sexually transmitted disease, and the meaning is the same as STI.) Each entry (I’m hoping) will ideally present one or two individual stories (to include this one), along with symptoms and available treatments.

HPV_Logoimage from CDC page

Today’s entry is about human papillomavirus, or HPV for short. Before I get into details about HPV, let me share two instances with you. The first is about me.

Yep, me. I was married when I contracted HPV. I had been married for the better part of a decade at that point and I turned up with an abnormal Pap test result. (Pap is short for Papanicolaou and the test screens for cervical cancer). Turned out, I was positive for HPV and I had precancerous (“squamous”) cells. I knew that I had only been with one person sexually during the entire time I had been with my ex-husband, and from the time that he and I met…so at that point, almost 12 years. I had suspected many times that he had stepped out, but never made the accusation. Despite suspicions of unfaithfulness, I had no reason to think I had any sexually transmitted infection. I had no discernible symptoms of anything, and the abnormal Pap was my first indication that something was amiss.

The second instance is about a friend of mine (straight male, HIV-negative, no other STIs contracted ever) who thought he had hemorrhoids off and on for a couple of years, just based upon the discernible symptoms that he had. It wasn’t until the lesions went beyond his rectum, and a physician was able to visibly see them, did the correct diagnosis (and appropriate treatment) get given. He had no idea what he had was actually an STI, and he had no reason to think that he had contracted an STI because he considered himself a “responsible” sexual person. Today, he probably knows more about HPV than he never really wanted to know. Turns out, his condition was precancerous. In some ways, it’s good the growths happened because he could’ve possibly been cancerous within 5 years

Both instances noted above present HPV in two of its different strains. There are more than 150 strains of HPV (not all related to sex), and HPV has what are known as high-risk and low-risk strains. In my noted situation above, I contracted one of the high-risk strains of HPV. There are no discernible symptoms, and it must be diagnosed by a physician (for women, typically by a gynecologist during a Pap and pelvic examination). In the noted instance of what happened with my friend, he contracted genital warts, which are generally  from a low-risk strain of HPV, though not necessarily (as his case clearly shows). Generally speaking, genital warts presents as the only strains of HPV with visible symptoms; for other strains of HPV (low- or high-risk), there is no testing currently available for men.

Treatment of HPV depends on the strain involved, and remember — here, I am talking specifically about sexually transmitted HPV (which can also be passed on to a newborn during childbirth). In my circumstances, I underwent a colposcopy and a LEEP procedure to cut out the precancerous cells. In my friend’s case, he underwent surgical removal (since the lesions were not only external, but deep into his rectum and lower colon). These are two possible treatment options available (specific to the strains involved). For genital warts, there are other available treatment options, depending on how mild or severe the case may be. For other strains, there are different treatment options available also.

Most importantly, HPV is extremely common, and needs to be discussed openly and without shame. Particularly now that we have vaccinations available to prevent against a few of the most common low- and high-risk strains. These vaccines (most notably Gardisil) are available to adolescent boys and girls, for prior to sexual initiation. The vaccine is a 3-shot series that the CDC recommends should be given to ALL kids starting between ages 11 and 12.

This entry just touches the surface of the topic of HPV. If you’re interested in learning more about HPV, please visit the CDC’s page dedicated to HPV.

Cheers!

The Kerfuffle in Ontario about Sex Education

sex-makes-babies

There’s been quite a bit in the news of late about sex education and the regressive pushback (globally) regarding sex ed. You can read bits of it here, and here, and here, and here, here, here, and even here. Let’s just say sex ed has been topical and trending in a big way.

Now we have LifeSite “news” in the game. It should go without saying that pretty much anything LifeSite has to say about anything in the realm of reproductive health should be thrown into the garbage can…BUT…I understand that there are plenty of folks out there who identify as “pro-life” who really, really, really want to believe what is put forth by the organization. Because this blog is apolitical generally (even though the author is far from it), I won’t go into the various issues I have with LifeSite.

BUT…when they deign to step into sex education (which is not new), then I believe it’s necessary to respond. This morning, there is an article that addresses what’s going on (specifically) in Canada, and referring to it as the “Liberal Government’s Sex Education Curriculum.” I could…could…go into what all is so very wrong with that particular characterization, but that again would delve into the raw politics that LifeSite is so keen on misrepresenting in the article. Instead, I’d like to focus on the content presented and explain why every single bit of it is so spectacularly wrong on so many different levels that it would be laughable…except that people here read it and believe it.

What follow here will be excerpts from the article, in italics, and my response to those specific things.

“…this program, which is slated to be implemented this September, is:

    *Completely age-inappropriate
    *Erroneous and unscientific
    *Contains more psychological manipulation than education
    *Fails to address the negative consequences of the acts described in the curriculum
    *Takes a position on the nature of the family that is at odds with many parents’ beliefs and    
       faith traditions…”

First, it’s important to understand what happened in 2010. Comprehensive sex education that was previously provided to Ontario students was pulled because of religious objections. Canada faces the same serious problems with STIs and such that the U.S. faces, and this is documented fact. From the same provided link, “…over 85% of parents agreed with the statement “Sexual health education should be provided in the schools” and a majority of these parents approved of schools providing young people with information on a wide range of sexual health topics including puberty, reproduction, healthy relationships, STI/AIDS prevention, birth control, abstinence, sexual orientation, and sexual abuse/coercion…” Note here, it doesn’t say religious parents…it says parents. That is 85%…an overwhelming majority of Canadian parents want sex education providing the wide-range scope of information available to children. This isn’t “at odds” with parents’ beliefs and “faith traditions” – like in the U.S. (and anywhere, really), if parents wish for their children to know their “faith traditions,” the place for that is not in public school, but in the parents’ respective faith institutions…aka church.

Next, insofar as age appropriateness, psychological manipulation, and “unscientific” information, the author is asserting that using anatomically correct terminology (you know, those medical science-y words, noted below), the notion that teaching children correct names of body parts (as opposed to “hoo-hoo” and “ding-dong”…or even the more innocuous “private parts”) indicates that these religious parents are objecting to reality-based education based on their own discomfort, denial, and shame regarding their own bodies. I’ll return to this point, though, when I get to where the author gripes about correct names for body parts.

“…And, equally importantly, this curriculum obliterates the parents’ right to be the first educators of their children….”

Okay. In this, I agree that parents are the first educator of their children. School curricula that focuses on sex education does not, in any way, “obliterate” that. To suggest that is nothing short of fear-mongering.

“…The problems begin with the curriculum’s Grade 1 proposition of teaching the correct names for human genitalia.

As a parent of 3 children and a grandparent of 5, I can tell you that most children master the toddler pounding bench by the age of 3. Round pegs go in round holes.

Couple this with Wynne’s Grade 1 description and naming of human genitals and – voila – your child implicitly knows how to have sex – all by the age of 6! The rest of it – the “consent”, the masturbation, the oral and anal sex, the gender identity, and so on – is just the icing on the cake. This so-called “sex ed” curriculum begins by making your child aware of the act of sexual intercourse….”

Yes, the author actually complains about teaching children the correct names for their body parts…and justifies it as “because parent/grandparent.” As though one has anything to do with the other. When we teach our children the names of their hands, or their noses, or their eyes, we don’t give those body parts nicknames. We call them by their correct names. We don’t necessarily delve into minutiae or anything (such as “nostrils” when referring to the holes in our noses, or “knuckes” when referring to the joints of our fingers and toes), but the basics.

But this author takes the idea of correct anatomical terminology and tries then to turn it into something it absolutely is not…that because children are taught correct anatomy names, they somehow “implicitly [know] how to have sex – all by the age of 6!” – complete with the exclamation point, as though to underscore the outrage.

think of the children

This ignores completely that implicitly, children already know about sex. Not nitty-gritty detail or anything, but as a mother and a grandmother, the author must know that small children walk in on their parents, for example. As a mother and a grandmother, the author must know that children touch themselves and find pleasure in doing so (more on that to come).

Then the author takes the importance of consent, and tries to connect it with oral and anal sex in a rather disingenuous way. The importance of teaching consent goes necessarily to earliest childhood. That is, after all, the very springboard from which “good touch/bad touch” became a method of teaching for kindergarteners. I have my own concerns about “good touch/bad touch” – mainly for the responsibility it places on small children for their own sexual safety…though I agree with the push to fight against sexual abuse of children. This is the very heart of the discussion of consent — not instruction on oral and anal sex. But again, more on that in a bit.

“…And this is the problem with Wynne’s sex ed; while it may discuss sexual intercourse and other sexual activities, it really isn’t about sex.

To understand this, please note the item to the right [image of a ballpoint pen]. We all can identify it as a pen. But if I were to ask you to define “pen”, you’d probably hesitate.Definitions have two parts; one: identify the structure; and two: identify the function.

A pen, in its most simplistic form is therefore: one: a thin, hollow cylinder filled with ink; and two: that is used for writing.

But if I were to take this pen and drive it into the neck of a person standing near me, the pen would cease to exist; it would now become a weapon.

The point being that once you fail to honour the definition of something or use it for some other purpose, it ceases to be what it was meant to be and it becomes something else….”

Well, talk about convoluted, word salad analogies here. I have said before, and I will say here again (as a very small point of agreement with something the author points out). Sex education is not (entirely) about sex (as she’s attempting to define it). Sex education is predominantly about hygiene…but that’s a full blog entry for another day. For now, I just want to point out that the author is taking the “problem” with “Wynne’s sex ed” and attempting to turn it into something that it most certainly isn’t. In Ontario (where this entire discussion is happening), as a result of trying to turn back the clock on comprehensive sex ed, a great disservice was done to those youths, and that was expressed in unequivocal terms…with increases in unplanned pregnancies and STI transmission across Ontario youths as -what I believe to be- a direct result of the decision in 2010.

But sure, let’s talk about how a pen can be used in terms of “structure” and “function”…then proceed to describe it as a “weapon.” Because that isn’t completely meaningless. Any single thing on this planet that we can name has a structure and function. Most things can also be used as weapons. Such as penises…during rape…where the act of sex is turned into a matter of power and control, rather than something that should be done only with…….wait for it……..

…consent. But talking to children about consent amounts to discussions of anal sex somehow, rather than about teaching children that their bodies belong solely to them.

“…So let’s go back to Wynne’s so-called “sex ed” curriculum. If its purpose is sex education, then, obviously, it needs to be about sex. So what is the definition of sex?

Sex is a life-giving force that unites the man and woman through total mutual self-giving.

Don’t like my definition? Truth is it’s not mine. Neither is it the definition of the Christian faith (though that faith does honour the definition), nor that of any other faith for that matter. Nor is it a construct of any society or culture that either exists now or has existed in the past. No. This is nature’s definition: is, was and always will be….”

Let’s dig further into that claim, shall we? The author would like ALL of us to define sex as a “life-giving force” strictly between a man and a woman…because “nature” says so. Well, that small 3-letter word that the author wants to force into a singular definition (speaking of pegs & holes, to use her very own phrases here) has multiple definitions. But sure, let’s keep it to “nature.” While we’re discussing “nature” in a heteronormative context (because of course), let’s ignore that in nature, same-sex activity really and truly exists…in lots and lots of different species. More than 1,500 according to some reports…and that’s just in the animal kingdom. Doesn’t even touch into plants. But sure, let’s just say that the author’s chosen definition of faith is the immutable truth and ignore the science…and then try to deny that said chosen definition is religiously-driven (which is precisely what the author is driving at with full-on denial in the process).

homophobia

“…The very anatomical, physiological, and biochemical nature of the human male and female gives testimony to this truth. Sex is the attraction that draws male and female together, and it is meant to generate new life through the couple’s physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual union. Moreover, it is that union which will allow the couple to remain bonded when raising the children of their union, things get tough. Sex is so much more than just sexual intercourse or other sexual activities; it’s about responsibility, self-sacrifice, becoming one, and ultimately, about children….”

Let’s be very honest here. I don’t rightly care about “spiritual union” — I do care that the author attempts to completely dismiss anyone other than her heteronormative ideals. There are, quite literally, hundreds of sex acts in the human compendium…there is only one specific sex act that can result in pregnancy. And only at certain times, under certain precise conditions, and only during childbearing years. Heck, I’ll keep it to heteronormative terms, if that’ll make the author feel a smidge better. Let’s say a couple who cannot have children, for whatever reason, choose to get married…let’s say one or both are infertile for medical reasons, or the woman is postmenopausal, or they’re child-free by choice…whatever. Their lack of ability to conceive somehow diminishes the aspect of having sex? Really? That is an utter falsehood, disingenuous on its face…even setting aside its crap heteronormative stance…which is only a tiny fraction of the problem with her assertions.

“…So what about pleasure? you might ask. It’s part of sex, but it’s not in the definition.

You are correct. Pleasure is a by-product of sex, in the same way that creating wood chips and saw dust is a by-product of using a chainsaw. The purpose of a chainsaw is to cut wood not to produce wood chips and saw dust; nevertheless, with every use, the chain saw not only cuts the wood, but also produces wood chips and saw dust as well. So it is with sex and pleasure.  

But pleasure is the foundation of Wynne’s “sex ed” curriculum, and therefore, where it goes wrong. This new curriculum ignores the life-giving facet of sex, other than to suggest that the creation of children is something to be avoided. It denies that sex is meant only for a man and a woman, and it ignores the union that sex creates. In short, Wynne’s “sex ed” curriculum totally distorts the true definition of sex, and attempts to replace it instead with one that emphasizes pleasure and autonomy.

So what happens when the definition of something is ignored? It becomes something else….”

Again…word salad. Yes, sex is pleasurable…but it is not a by-product of sex. It is actually a direct part of biological anatomy. There is no other purpose or function, for example, for a woman’s clitoris other than sexual pleasure. It is not a “genital” in the sense of reproductive capacity – but it is very much a sex organ. The only purpose the author’s “chainsaw” analogy has here is to serve to confuse…or to suggest that reproduction is the only purpose of sex. Which I’ve already stated quite plainly where the author has it completely backwards. But yeah, sawdust…or something.

“…So if Wynne’s new curriculum isn’t about sex, what is it about? In truth, it’s about Predatory Pleasure-Seeking –obtaining sexual gratification however, whenever, with whomever, or with no one other than yourself. Don’t believe me? Read the curriculum for yourself and see if what is being offered to your children meets with the true definition of sex, or is a grotesque distortion of it. And please be aware of just who is responsible for the framing of this new curriculum, Dr. Benjamin Levin, now convicted of 3 counts of child pornography.

One: I agree that all parents should read any sex education curriculum being provided to their children. Including this one. Two, yes, Professor Levin has been charged with crimes related to exploitation and child pornography. This is certainly true. What isn’t true is that he is “responsible for the framing of this new curriculum” — THAT would be a “grotesque distortion” if there is one. And, it amounts to what is known as ad hominem attack…working to undermine the argument FOR something by attacking a person involved in that something. Professor Levin was involved in the framework (he’s a former education minister in Canada, and was a successful one, whatever his current legal troubles happen to be). His “fingerprint” is on the curriculum, as stated in a different conservative article that is critical of Levin, but doesn’t go so far as the LifeSite author in claiming he was solely responsible as a weak attempt to discredit the curriculum itself. (Note, a “fingerprint” in something doesn’t even imply that one had a hand in something…as pointed out here. My suspicion is, more or less, that said “fingerprint” has to do with Prof Levin’s time as a former education minister, and given that he was retired, he had absolutely no hand in the updated curriculum.) Three, it’s interesting to me that the LifeSite “news” author (Janet E. Smith) is busily trying to claim that Prof Levin was responsible for the framework, yet her entire “news article” diatribe addresses Kathleen Wynne…I wonder why that might be. Hmmmm.

So if Kathleen Wynne and her Liberal government really want to create a new sex education curriculum, the first place they need to get back to is the true definition of sex.”

The “true” definition. Well, before we can get to any true definition of anything, we actually have to understand what the word “true” means…and truth is a concept that organizations like LifeSite “news” have a real problem with.

The Reality of AOUM and Abstinence-Based Sex Ed

abstinence
image credit

Reading the news in sex education this morning has been interesting. Not surprising, but interesting.

Back when I was still writing my dissertation, and exploring the differences between approach and outcomes of abstinence-only-until-marriage (AOUM) & abstinence-based sex education programs with comprehensive sex education programs, I noted the following:

Current research and literature suggests that abstinence-only and abstinence-plus education is not working, and has had the unfortunate opposite effect of its aim (citations). Reasons for opposite effect are speculative (citations). However, the main reason believed to explain the opposite outcomes is that abstinence-based education’s refusal to communicate success rates of STI prevention with correct use of condoms (citations). This omission of information increases the likelihood that teenagers will not use condoms when they have sex because the only information provided to them are the failure rates of condoms (citation). […] Abstinence-based education legislation has seen in its wake a rise in unplanned teen pregnancies and STIs for the first time since 1984, when unplanned pregnancies and STI transmission saw their peak (citation)…”

In my dissertation, I explained (both the what and the why of) abstinence-based actually has the opposite outcomes of its stated desired aims. I went on to expand why the stated aims have little to do with the actual aims, come to it…but that is a topic for another entry.

For today, I want to focus on those opposite outcomes. Last night, I read a ThinkProgress article about a study conducted which shows conclusively that abstinence-based education is a complete failure in preventing the spread of HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) in Africa. Even though the Bush administration threw $1.3 billion at the effort toward abstinence education, the outcomes show how abstinence education works. There has been little response from the conservative community supporting abstinence education:

While the study challenged a conservative notion that sexual education centered on abstinence could quell the spread of HIV on the Motherland, former and current affiliates of PEPFAR remain reluctant to acknowledge Lo’s findings, citing a need to further examine his research before making a comment.

The above isn’t surprising, really. During Bush’s time in office, his administration was presented with preliminary findings showing the reality of the outcomes. Rather than acknowledging the potential for further disastrous outcomes, his administration doubled down, changing the definition of “success” to mean a “change in attitudes,” rather than acknowledging any positive change in outcomes. (Note here: I’m not pointing a blame-y finger solely at former President GW Bush. It was former President Clinton who signed abstinence education into the Title V program, after all.)

After we boil down all the language, distill AOUM and abstinence-based purpose/aims to their very core, and sweep away all the clutter, what abstinence-based sex education is really about is morality dictating of sex (religiously-rooted, to be clear). It has little-to-nothing to do with actual prevention of pregnancies and STI transmission.

So, returning to the study showing the actual outcomes in Africa (22 countries in Africa, actually), there is now more evidence demonstrating what those of us in this field already know: AOUM and abstinence-based sex education does not work. Abstinence is an important thing to teach, of course, as one preventive tool of many…but an entire curriculum based on a single tool is ineffective, and frankly, outright irresponsible.

This is not just confined to “somewhere over there in Africa,” either. This fact is just as true here in the United States. Here in Georgia (along with other states), the statistical outcomes demonstrate the same basic facts:

“…According to a Georgia Public Broadcasting report on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, in Georgia, 41 out of every teenage 1,000 girls will experience teenage pregnancy, but that number in Bibb County is 60 out of every 1,000. In addition, Macon saw about 80 new cases of HIV as well as 2,500 people already living with the virus in Macon. Macon-Bibb County has a problem it needs to get serious about addressing…”

This is not news. This is not shocking. This is the reality.

Cheers!
Dr. Weird

WSE is Officially a 501(c)(3) Charitable Organization!

501c3-Seal1

I’m VERY excited to announce that Weird Sex Ed, Inc. has received its official 501(c)(3) status from the IRS.

While I don’t expect that all funding will come from donations (as I continue to seek federal grant monies to offset continued research, resource development, and network-building), I am asking that if you can support WSE’s efforts, please do. I won’t flood requests (ever!), but I will periodically be seeking donations.

To donate, click here.

With many, many thanks!
Dr. Weird