EW!, OUCH!, and seriously fucked up!

A 75-year old woman in Russia, Nina M, got a “designer vagina” to help herself get a husband:

Dr Anna Uzunova said: “Usually such requests are from much younger women.
“But she wanted to have an active sex life despite her age so we agreed to do the operation and help her.”
After the operation, Nina delighting said: “I feel like a young woman again.”

It is disturbing that Nina M underwent vaginoplasty, intrusive surgery performed on female genitals to tighten vaginal muscles, just to make her vagina more appealing to and desirable for men and to help her snag a husband. Why do we live in a society where women consider male sexual pleasure a large factor in the decisions they make about themselves and their bodies? It’s my vagina, if you don’t like it, don’t go near it! And my vagina is for me and my pleasure, not for male sexual conquest.

What the press is focusing on is her age – yes, she is 75 years old – but the real issue is the pervasiveness of ageist and misogynist standards of beauty/standards of femininity and the extremes to which women venture in order to fulfill those unrealistic and unhealthy standards. This is both heartbreaking and infuriating. Furthermore, vaginoplasty is not a cheap surgery. The fact that Nina M had that much money and chose to spend it on this is unsettling.

Beauty is a commodity that decreases in value as time goes along. And since beauty is everything – women are taught that our value is based on our appearances alone, not our intelligence, sense of humor, compassion, or any other personality traits – many women fear aging. The anti-aging industry is booming. From anti-wrinkle creams in drug stores to Botox and plastic surgery (nose jobs, boob jobs, etc.), women will do whatever it takes to not appear old. Because old = ugly = non-sexual = undesirable. And no one wants to be a discarded good.

What this case also reaffirms is society’s male-centric view of sex. Sex is thought of in a highly heteronormative way in which female pleasure is missing from the equation. It’s all about male pleasure, and making sure that the man enjoys sex. Reconstructing the vagina for male consumption to enhance male sexual pleasure reflects heteronormative ideology that ascribes the vagina as solely the site for penile penetration.

There is a lot of dialogue in the feminist community about female genital mutilation and the health risks, pain, and trauma that it puts women through. However, licensed surgeons practice genital mutilation in the west as well. Just because it’s super expensive and performed by a licensed medical practitioner in a clean hospital bed does not take away from the fact that it too is harmful and another form of patriarchal colonization of female bodies.

Officials pull the plug on plans for a sex theme park in Chongqing

Via The New York Times and The Guardian:

A statue of a pair of female legs in a g-string stood over the park entrance...

...but was dismantled over the weekend along with the rest of the park.

The first sex theme park in China, “Love Land,” was under construction in the city of Chongqing until the weekend, when local officials shut the operation down mid-construction.  Officials deemed the sexually explicit park an “evil” influence.

Plans for the park had included naked human sculptures, giant models of genitals, sex-technique “workshops,” and a photo exhibit about sex history.  Lessons on safe sex and use of condoms were also part of the plans for the park attractions.

The park manager, Lu Xiaoqing, told China Daily that the park was “for the good of the public,” would be useful for sex education, and would help adults “enjoy a harmonious sex life.”  “Sex is a taboo subject in China, but people really need to have more access to information about it,” he said.

Developers had billed the attraction as tasteful, but public outcry over the park prompted an emergency tour last weekend by officials. “The investigation determined the park’s content was vulgar and that it was neither healthy nor educational. It had had an evil influence on society and had to be torn down immediately,” a municipal publicity official explained to the Global Times newspaper.

Whereas some argue that the park would have been socially beneficial and that officials were being too prudish, others viewed the park as a lewd and unhealthy influence on the community.  Whether the park was ahead of it’s time or just too obscene, it’s a pity that so much money was poured into constructing the park only to have it destroyed by wrecking balls.

Roadblocks to Health Care, and why our current system fails women

This week is National Women’s Health Week, and the Department of Health and Human Services just released a report titled Roadblocks to Health Care: Why the Current Health Care System does not work for Women.

The report outlines roadblocks to health care – “Women are more vulnerable to high health care costs than men“, how and why the health insurance system we have now is in need of reform – “The current health insurance framework leaves too many women uncovered”, how the individual insurance market fails women it should be serving – “Higher costs and inadequate benefits make the individual insurance market an unreliable choice for women”, and the implications of all this – “As a result, women are more likely than men to experience difficulty accessing care.”

The conclusion of the report? “Comprehensive health care reform is needed to level the playing field, and make health care accessible and affordable for all women.”

Kenyan Man Sues Over Sex Boycott

A Kenyan man has sued activists over the recent Lysistrata-like protest in which women were asked to boycott sex in protest of the growing divide in the nation’s coalition government.

Although the ban only lasted seven days, James Kimondo is claiming that the his lack of conjugal rights resulted in lack of sleep, backaches, stress, and mental anguish.  Kimondo is seeking unspecified damages from G-10, an umbrella group for woman’s activism organizations.

The ban began as a protest of the tense relationship between President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga. An unstable coalition government formed after post-election violence which killed more than 1,000 people in 2008. Relations between Kibaki and Odinga are increasingly tense, and many Kenyans fear that more violence is possible.

The ban called on all women, including sex workers and the wives of President Kibaki and Prime Minister Odinga, to join the cause and withhold sex for a week.  Odinga’s wife, Ida was fully in support of the protest, stating “I will not get into what my husband thinks, but I will say leaders need to focus on the things that affect our people, and I hope the publicity from this campaign will raise awareness on those issues. “

“We cannot allow our leaders to argue over non-issues while relegating the issues that affect this country to the back burner. When this happens, women suffer the most,” said Ann Njogu, director of Centers for Rights Education and Awareness.  The ban was meant to draw spouses into the political conversation and spur women to make political change.

Njogu is not worried about the lawsuit.  ”I have not been served with the papers, but I was told they are coming and I am eagerly waiting,  It will be interesting to see the face of a man who is not willing to abstain for the sake of his country,” she said.

Njogu insists that the ban was successful despite the lawsuit:  ”The principal leaders met as a result of the boycott, and I understand that they are setting up reforms to look into the country’s internal security.”

Boycotting sex appears to have terrified some power-holders enough to spur some change, and has brought the taboo topic of sex to the forefront of the discussion and politics in Kenya.  Hopefully the ridiculousness of Kimondo’s case will be realized in court.  However, his attitude about his entitlement to his wife’s body alludes to a larger global patriarchy in which women are so often treated as possessions and consent is not thought to be necessary (especially within marriage or relationships).

Oh no! If we teach boys to respect women it’ll hurt their feelings!

The New York Times has an article in its 18 and Under Section called “Another Awkward Sex Talk: Respect and Violence” by Dr.  Perri Klass.  She writes about how to talk to adolescent boys about sexual violence and healthy relationships.  What should you walk away with?  That it’s incredibly hard to teach boys to respect women because it hurts their feelings!

Dr. Klass writes:

We live with an endless parade of hypersexualized images — and a constant soundtrack of adults lamenting children’s exposure to that endless parade. There’s increasing knowledge of dating violence, including well-publicized celebrity incidents. And there’s always a new movie to see about how adolescent boys are clueless, sex-obsessed goofballs.

Just another reason that Sarah Palin is NOT a feminist

Let’s hark back to the lovely Sunday Stupidity post this week and the ridiculous idea that some people have about Sarah Palin being a feminist.  Now, It’s cool for feminists to have differing opinions (differing opinions can make feminist debates interesting), but Palin is most certainly not simply a feminist with a different opinion.  And here’s another reason why she is definitely NOT a feminist.  We can add this to the list right next to charging rape victims for evidence collection kits, censoring her family members, her anti-choice political stance (even in cases of rape and incest), the abstinence-only sex education bullshit, and so much more.

Student pornography

In the April 6th edition of the Tufts Daily, Logan Crane’s sex column, “If You Seek Amy,” discusses pornographic publications on other college campuses in “You say camera, I say dorm.”  While Crane’s ideas about reducing the taboo on discussing sex on campus have some merit, she makes some generalizations about pornography and Tufts students, and she also fails to examine the resources at Tufts.

First and foremost, Crane makes a sweeping generalization about student life here at Tufts:

[College] provides the opportunity to drink in excess without societal judgment, pursue personal goals and dreams that would otherwise not be possible and — more importantly — it grants us a stage to voice sexual expression.

Crane is ignoring the experiences of students who choose not to drink, and she also perpetuates the myth that college is a time to drink in excess.  In addition, the term “sexual expression” is quite vague, and from the article in full, she seems to be implying that students will all gain new sexual experience and find ways to talk about sexuality.  While I an others support open and honest discourse about sex and sexuality, many students at Tufts do not have sex, or do not “hook-up.”  Sexuality is a personal issue, and while that does not mean that we shouldn’t make it an accessible and open topic, it is not required of college students to be open about their sexualities.  Again, I’m not completely sure what Crane is implying when she says “sexual expression,” and so I invite her to clarify.  I certainly disagree, though, with her assertion that “[s]exual expression is a significant part of the university experience.”  Perhaps it has been a significant part of her university experience, but it is unreasonable to generalize about all students.

She goes on to say:

[T]here are several groups and social networks on campus that are specifically targeted toward issues of sexual representation, Tufts’ efforts are inferior to other elite universities in this respect.

Whoa, now.  After using another vague term, “sexual representation,” Crane claims that Tufts is behind other elite schools.  Well, what does “sexual representation” mean?  I’m not claiming that she’s inaccurate, but she needs to be much more clear about what she’s talking about, especially since Tufts students are currently trying to make sexuality a much more accessible topic (for example, through VOX or PACT).  So, in what ways are we specifically lagging behind?

Apparently, Tufts is lagging because we don’t have student produced pornography.

What?

“Pornography” does not equal “sexual expression/sexual representation/sexual discourse.”  That is not to say that pornography cannot be used for sexual expression, representation, or discourse.  But it does not equal those things.  Does Tufts need student pornography to lift the taboos on sexual discourse?  Absolutely not!

This blog post is not intended to spur the discussion of whether or not pornography can be feminist or not; some feminists firmly believe that pornography can be an amazing form of sexual expression, while others equate it to rape.  From what I’ve experienced, pornography can be a fabulous way to induce arousal, for both men and women, but as a way to spread messages about sexual norms, it’s much less than ideal.

Crane does not seem to be advocating for student porn near the end of her column, but by claiming that Tufts lags behind other schools, and by having student porn as the topic of this week’s column, she certainly seems to be implying it would be beneficial.

So, I ask Miss Crane: Why exactly do we need student pornography here at Tufts?  Your column has not convinced me of anything.

Do colleges and universities benefit from student produced pornography?  What are the issues that need to be addressed on campuses in order to improve sexual discourse?  How does pornography address these issues?  Is there another way to address these issues on campus, besides porn?  Why might pornography be problematic in terms of the discourse it incurs?  In terms of the process of creating such material on campus?

Crane was onto something when she said that sexual discourse needs to be much less taboo on campuses.  But to claim that sexuality is a major part in every college experience (and to say the same about binge drinking–what?), that Tufts is behind other comparable schools because of its lack of student pornography, and to imply that pornography will be a step towards improving sexual discourse on campus are all major problems with her column this week.

Repro Rights Conference

I am super excited.  I will be at the 2009 Civil Liberties and Public Policy (CLPP) Reproductive Rights Conference: From Abortion Rights to Social Justice: Building the Movement for Reproductive Freedom at Hampshire College this weekend.  Tonight I’ll be at an abortion speak-out for women and tomorrow I’ll be  at workshops all day.  Topics include: Abortion Access Internationally, Abortion Access in the US, Assisted Reproductive Technologies, transgender and genderqueer issues and allyship, the link between Climate Justice and Reproductive Justice, sex work and feminism, how the Right took power, masculinities, the new eugenics, sex positivity, and a lot more of really interesting and engaging topics.  I’ll be back with more after the conference.

You forgot about masturbation, Logan

In Logan Crane’s column in the Daily today, “The art of O”, she writes about how few women achieve orgasm during sexual intercourse and then proceeds to give advice on how women can achieve orgasm when having sex with men.  Like many of her other articles, this one is also very heteronormative.

She writes:

Women know all too well that we can easily lose motivation to have sex. One thing comes up, and we are suddenly fixated on the issue at hand. A woman will never be able to come if she isn’t in the mood.

It is unfair to generalize that women easily lose motivation to have sex.  This rests on the assumption that women are not very sexual beings and do not feel sexual desire as much as men do.  Moreover, “one thing comes up, and we are suddenly fixated on the issue at hand”?  Is this to suggest that women (and women only?) have such short attention spans and can’t fully concentrate on anything?  It is difficult for both women and men to come if they aren’t in the mood.

And one oversight in her list of ways for women to orgasm during sex: what about masturbation?! Women can achieve orgasm while they are masturbating more easily than when they have intercourse.  Furthermore, masturbation is something every woman can do, not just heterosexual women who are sexually active.  Orgasm through masturbation is something we can all do ourselves so we don’t have to rely on a partner to get it right for us.

How does race play into hook-up culture?

PACT (Prevention, Awareness and Community at Tufts) is in the process of filming a documentary about hook-up culture at Tufts. We heard from many different people and their thoughts on various issues related to hook-up culture: whether hook-up culture exists here at Tufts, the advantages and disadvantages of hooking up, how race/racism factors into hook-up culture, how to be an active bystander, how technology enables/facilitates hook-up culture, where sexual assault plays into hook-up culture, etc.

What interested me the most was the whole race/racism issue. People may think that we are beyond race and racism now, that we are “color-blind”, but that is not necessarily true. People spoke about their experiences and thoughts on hooking up with or dating people who exclusively hook up or date people of a certain ethnicity. Like white males who only hook up with or date black women, or Asian women, etc.

Exclusively hooking up with or dating people of a certain ethnicity (like only Latinos/Latinas, or Asians, or blacks, etc.) is problematic and racist because in these scenarios, that ethnicity is being eroticized, fetishized and otherized. People project ideas and assumptions about the behavior of certain ethnicities based on racist stereotypes about that ethnic group. It further groups the people of that ethnicity together and tokenizes people – that one person is representative of the whole ethnic group.

But is it racist to hook up with or date only within your own ethnicity or to purposely avoid hooking up with and dating people of your own ethnicity? Some people mentioned having friends or knowing people who refuse to date within their ethnicity because they don’t want to be seen as people who only date within their race. Like how some Asian men make it a point to NOT hook up with or date Asian women because they don’t want to be that stereotypical Asian who only dates Asians. Or how some black women never hook up with or date black men.

I can understand why some people may choose to date exclusively within their own ethnicity – some parents may be very intolerant of interracial dating. Therefore it may be easier to date within your own ethnicity to avoid any parental/family drama. Parental pressure can be a strong force factoring into people’s decisions of who they date or become romantically involved with. Then again, some people just don’t give a damn what their parents think and date whoever they want to regardless of ethnicity.

I have a hard time believing people who say that they only date certain ethnicities because they are simply attracted to certain features. Like if they find blond hair and blue eyes extremely attractive. Or if they find dark skin and dark hair sexy and attractive. What lies behind the attraction? I feel like there’s got to be a lot more than just really liking blue eyes.

I am also slightly skeptical of the argument that it’s better to date within your own ethnicity because “people like you understand you better”. This relates back to the whole why do all the black kids sit together in the cafeteria question. People are conditioned to believe that it’s a personal issue, that people of your skin color just get you in ways that other people can’t. This ignores the underlying structural forces that come into play that shape these relations. It is no coincidence that wealthier suburbs and neighborhoods tend to be predominantly white while housing developments and projects tend to consist of people of color.

It’s easier to convince yourself and accept that it’s a personal, individual thing where people from your ethnic background get you better, but it’s never that simple. It’s also problematic because it lumps all people of a certain ethnicity together. Since you guys are all black, Asian, Hispanic, etc., obviously you are all the same and get each other.

The whole issue of race and romance, how race and racism influence who you choose to hook up with and/or date, is part of an ongoing dialogue that I have with my friends. Despite the many number of times I’ve talked about this and the many number of people I’ve discussed this with, I still haven’t come to any concrete conclusion. What are people’s thoughts and feelings on this?

Women are hooking up! Blame feminism!

I had the displeasure of stumbling upon an article that was in Marie Claire magazine titles “No Strings Attached Sex” by Colleen Oakley. Basically it’s an article saying that women shouldn’t have sex with men with whom they’re not in a relationship. Of course the starts off being heteronormative — what about in homosexual relationships? Are we members of the LGBT community “wired” differently, which makes this null in void for us? Unfortunately, it all goes downhill from there.

The article starts off with

Kimberly, a 27-year-old nanny in Atlanta, has had sex with three men in the past month. “I have a job, hobbies, and friends I love. A monogamous relationship is the only component of my life that is lacking — but I love it!” she says. “I want Mr. Right eventually, but for the time being, I’ve got needs, and Mr. Right Now will do just fine.”
Welcome to the hookup culture — or as Washington Post reporter Laura Sessions Stepp puts it, “the most confusing sexual landscape any generation has faced.” Stepp spent the past year hanging out with eight young women and learning about their sexual escapades. She reveals what she discovered in her provocative new book, Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both.

You hear that, ladies? Even if you’re doing what you want to do with your own body– IT IS A MISTAKE. YOU’RE GOING TO LOSE. NOT ONLY AT SEX, BUT LOVE, TOO! I forgot, every woman out there wants to settle down with a man and have a family. Thanks for that reminder, Marie Claire.

Q: You grew up in the ’60s and ’70s, the free-sex era. How is that time period different from what we’re seeing now?
A: In my generation, we wanted to have free sex, but we actually didn’t. There was a line that you only crossed under certain circumstances. For instance, you would open your window a crack in your dorm room and let your boyfriend in, but you wouldn’t announce to the world that you were doing it. Back then, we knew what the rules were. Today, there aren’t any, so women don’t have anything to break. They’re making it up as they go along. The women’s movement argued — and I was right there — that women need to be as sexually free as men. I think it’s only now, with some age and experience on us, that we’re looking at our daughters and seeing that maybe that wasn’t such a great thing.

I like how this woman is speaking for her entire generation.  Maybe her version of free sex was only opening her dorm window at night, but that doesn’t mean other people weren’t having no-strings-attached sex. What are these rules that she speaks of that don’t exist day? “Men can sleep around, but women can’t because no one likes a slut?”

Q: Are you saying that feminism is to blame?
A: I think sometimes feminism leads women to believe they can’t have both a loving relationship and a hard-driving career. A lot of the women I interviewed for my book say one of the reasons they have casual sex is the fear that if they get tied up emotionally with someone, they won’t be able to do their work or get ahead in their jobs. That’s just not true. A truly good relationship puts a spring in your step; you can work more, have more energy, and feel better. You can soften your edges without softening your drive.

Oh great! Yes! Let’s blame FEMINISM! I can’t be surprised about this. Whenever someone out there is trying to impose a double standard on women, they like to imply that feminism is at fault for leading women on that they *gasp* can be equal! I don’t understand how believing in equality between men and women leads to “I can’t be in a relationship and can’t have a career.” I think this author needs to learn what feminism is. Also the author is only speaking about “truly good” relationships. There are unhealthy relationships out there, too. Just because you’re with your “dream man,” it is not guaranteed to just make your life instantly 100x better, with a spring in your step! Did you hear that, ladies? Once you get a MAN, your energy increases! he makes you feel better! you gives you better job performance! THANKS SO MUCH FOR OPENING MY EYES. All I needed was a MAN for me to have a better life.

Q: But if women don’t want a relationship, shouldn’t they be able to have no-strings-attached sex as easily as men?
A: They can. But just because they can doesn’t mean they should. The way chemicals are released in the brain during intercourse is very different in men and women. In women, oxytocin is released. It’s a chemical that makes women want to nurture their young and stay close. Men get a huge jolt of testosterone, which suppresses oxytocin, and that’s nature’s way of saying, “Leave the nest and go sire offspring somewhere else.” So when women think they can have sex and walk away just like guys do, they’re having to suppress thousands of years of evolution that tells them to cuddle, stay in bed, and look forward to tomorrow. When they get up and walk out, they feel depressed and don’t know why.

What the mother fuck? Now we’re going to blame biology? Every woman is depressed after NSA sex? Really?

Q: Do you think it’s ever possible for women to have sex like men?
A: Sure, but nine times out of 10 they’re going to feel something afterward. I have no data to back this up, but I am convinced that one reason we’re seeing alcohol-consumption rates go up in women is that they are taking part in these sexual encounters, believing they should do so and be strong about it. And they’re having to do it over and over again. At some point it denies their own biology and desires, so of course they drink in order to prepare for it, because it’s not what they want to do. One of the girls in my book, Alicia, says hookup sex is very scripted. You turn off everything except your body and make yourself emotionally invulnerable. Who wants that? It’s like saying I’m going to plunge down the roller coaster without anticipating the ride to the top. It’s a cheap thrill.

WAIT WAIT WAIT CAN WE REPEAT THIS? “

I have no data to back this up” “

I have no data to back this up”

“I have no data to back this up”

WOW, so Stepp just threw statistics out there AND HAS NO DATA BEHIND IT. Basically this entire book is full of anecdata that I’m sure she has picked out to support her point of view and just her opinions that she’s just so SURE is true for all women. We women are drinking more because we want to sleep with men and aren’t comfortable with it. This article doesn’t show any statistics whether more women are drinking more alcohol more often, but the author believes so and one of the reasons HAS to be because women are doing this to be with men.

Q: Besides the commonly known risks of casual sex, like STDs and AIDS, what are some of the other consequences of rampant hooking up?
A: Besides alcoholism? Depression. We know from surveys that have been done over the years that — again, due to oxytocin — the shorter a relationship, the more likely it is for depression to occur afterward. Breaking up a longer relationship tends to be less painful, and hookups are nothing if not brief. So this means that girls who hook up have to work really hard to squash or deny those natural feelings of connection, which again leads to depression. Also, casual sex may make later relationships more difficult, particularly if it becomes a pattern, because cheating is common. Trust is elusive. You don’t learn how to trust someone; you don’t learn how to treat someone in a caring way. And I think if you don’t get to practice those things, it’s going to be harder down the road to have a successful relationship or marriage.

Pack some Prozac next to your condoms, ladies! “Rampant” hooking up (whatever the fuck that means) makes you DEPRESSED! Also breaking up longer relationships tend to be less painful? Really? I…can’t really believe that. In my personal experience and the experiences of my friends, we tend to be more upset about breaking up with a SO of a longer period of time. And how is a hookup equal to a short break up? When someone is hooking up theyre not in a RELATIONSHIP. Sleeping with someone for one night is not going to hurl every woman into a depression because she just “broke up” with a man.
And she goes further to say that having casual sex makes you more prone to cheat? Incapable of caring or trusting? Can I have more statistics on that? Stepp makes it seem like the only way to learn how to love or trust is to be with a man. What about friendships? Family ties? I guess we have to stay pure for our partners if we’re EVER going to have a successful relationship. Great to know.

Q: What’s your advice to women who are planning to go out tonight and get it on with a stranger?
A: Besides packing a Trojan? I would advise them not to. Go out and find some guy who turns you on and have fun with him, but leave him wanting more. Wait until you know him better, and believe me, the sex is going to be better.

You can only have good sex with men you know better! Don’t have stranger sex! Go look for some guy and DONT PUT OUT. Remember, no man wants some easy girl.

Q: Doesn’t that seem terribly old-fashioned?
A: Maybe, but I think in our rush to condone or not be seen as disapproving of young women’s independence — which I’m very much in favor of — we have gone too far in the opposite direction. We just need to put the brakes on a little bit. I wouldn’t argue that you should never have casual sex. I just think that women need to think through how they’re going to do it and with whom. Why cheat yourself out of a great relationship and great sex?

How are we preventing ourselves from a great relationship with a guy and great sex by sleeping with people we’re not committed to? Does hooking up make my ciltoris numb? Ugh. And apparently we’ve given young women TOO MUCH FREEDOM? What the fuck? Men can go around fucking anything, but women can’t? Well, the men have to sleep with someone! I don’t get how you can get too far from disapproving independence…so then on the other end of the spectrum you’re…completely approving it? and HOW is this bad?

This is just one of many articles out there where women are just self-imposing old cultural guidelines that men created to control women. Why can’t women say “I love you” first? Why can’t a woman not want a relationship? Using scare tactics like saying that you’ll become depressed or a cheater is ridiculous. Also blaming feminism for this “new movement” of hookup culture is just wrong. We have every right to do whatever we want with our bodies…whether it is only to be in relationships or to never be in one. Shouldn’t women support each other, regardless of their decisions?

What the new Council on Women and Girls can do to be radical and transformative

The American Prospect has an article up by Courtney Martin, one of the feministing bloggers, called A Radical Vision for the Council on Women and Girls. She mentions several important things worth mentioning.

The council was created to address and support bourgeoisie women and their interests/issues, like afforded quality child care, family leave, and flexible work schedules. Meanwhile, women not pertaining to the upper-middle and upper classes and their needs/interests tend to get ignored. What about women who struggle daily living paycheck to paycheck?

As Martin writes:

We need to shift our priorities, and the White House Council on Women and Children can be the catalyst. There are some long-neglected issues that I’d like to challenge the council to take on, namely domestic sex trafficking, the HIV/AIDS infection rate among black women, and a federally funded, comprehensive sexual-education policy.

This is absolutely true – yes, family leave, affordable quality child care, and workplace flexibility are important issues. But gender/sexuality based violence, comprehensive sex ed, human trafficking/sexual slavery, affordable quality housing, HIV/AIDS and other STDs, should also rise to the forefront. These are legitimate issues that often get overlooked. It’s time to stop otherizing certain issues and thinking that they don’t happen as frequently in America, like child prostitution, violence against the LGBTQ community, etc.

She concludes:

What will make this proposed White House Council truly radical is if it doesn’t just serve the self-interest of the women with a seat at the table but the young women and struggling mothers who have been given the scraps of governmental goodwill for far too long. With these women as a top priority rather than an afterthought, this council could demonstrate effective cooperation among departments and agencies, acknowledge that you can’t look at gender without also considering class and race (and vice versa), and connect with grass-roots groups doing work on the ground, within their own communities. In short, it could be that transformative.

What could make the council truly groundbreaking and transformative is if it addresses the entire citizenship base, not just those at the upper echelons of society, if it acknowledges the existence, voices, concerns, and demands of disenfranchised women who are lower class or of color, if it acknowledges these women and the struggles they face in their daily lives and tries to work on ways to help them or improve their situations. Helping out those who are at the lower rungs of society will ultimately lift society up as a whole.

This is the crap our tax dollars are funding?!

Needless to say, abstinence-only sex education, sadly the dominant kind of sex education in America, demonizes sex, condoms and all forms of birth control and is rife with false statistics and so called facts. It also enables slut-shaming and demonizes any girl or young woman who dares explore her sexuality and engage in sexual activity instead of remaining virginal, chaste and pure. This is not sex “education” but rather the imposition of conservative ideology, heteronormativity and patriarchal gender roles / norms.

So much of this ineffective and unrealistic maleducation relies on fear tactics. Much of the stuff abstinence-only curricula teaches and the material they use are simply laughable. It’s just too bad that that’s what young people are learning (or not learning) about sex. Here are some examples:

In South Carolina, Heritage Community Services teaches girls that boys simply cannot control themselves when they are sexually aroused and that unless girls cover up their bodies, those poor boys turn into sex monsters and just jump on them.

“Males and females are aroused at different levels of intimacy. Males are more sight orientated whereas females are more touch orientated. This is why girls need to be careful with what they wear, because males are looking! The girl might be thinking fashion, while the boy is thinking sex. For this reason, girls have a responsibility to wear modest clothing that doesn’t invite lustful thoughts.” (Heritage Keepers, Student Manual, p. 46)

Right, because girls and women are not sexual beings. They’re just passive receivers. This also reinforces victim-blaming because if a woman is wearing revealing clothing and gets raped, it’s because she asked for it – what else was she expecting wearing skimpy clothing? This also insults boys and men by saying that they virtually have no self control.

On the Teen FAQs section of their website, in response to the question “how far can you go with the opposite sex?” it says:

A good minimum guideline is to declare everything covered by a bathing suit as off-limits. Everyone needs to know his or her boundaries before getting in a risky situation. Once someone is excited physically, it can be difficult to stop.

Apparently boys will be boys, right? They simply can’t control themselves once they’re around one of “those” girls. The Heritage Community Services Curriculum also relies on scare tactics to scare young people into not having sex. In the student manual it says:

“Circle the consequences that you DO NOT want in your life”: “Sexually Transmitted Viruses, Sexually Transmitted Bacteria, Cervical Cancer, AIDS, Legal and financial responsibility for a child until he or she is at least 18, Raising a child alone, Emotional hurt and regret, Increased chance of abuse from a partner.” (Heritage Keepers, Student Manual, p. 35)

Because sex is bad, bad, BAD! Also, suggesting that “increased chance of abuse from a partner” is a likely outcome of sex is an utterly distortion of relationship abuse. Where is the sex-positivity? The possibilities that it can bring you closer to your partner, that it can actually feel good (gasp!), that it burns calories?

Meanwhile in Kansas, abstinence-only organization Women’s Clinic of Kansas City/Life Guard says on their website: “Being able to have sex does not make you any different from a rat in a warehouse. They have sex too. Is that what you want to compare yourself with?” WHAAAAAT?!!!! So basically teenagers who have sex are just like rats? Sex is a normal, natural part of humanity and biology, not just something that rats in warehouses do.

This is what tax dollars have been going to. Ridiculous, absurd, and untrue claims like the aforementioned that just try to reinforce heteronormativity, gender stereotypes and the policing of female sexuality.

“Open Sexuality” and “Orgasmic Meditation”

If you search the New York Times “fashion and style” section, you are sure to find interesting information about women that has absolutely nothing to do with fashion or style. One such article, published yesterday, stood out to me as especially intriguing.  In San Francisco, Nicole Daedone has founded the One Taste Urban Retreat Center.  This live-in co-ed commune focuses explicitly of female sexual pleasure, separate from love and romance.  The center also offers classes for men and women focusing on relationships, communication, and spirituality.

“In our culture,” says Daedone, “women have been conditioned to have closed sexuality and open feelings, and men to have open sexuality and closed feelings. There’s this whole area of resistance and shame.”

In total, 38 men and women live full-time at the center.  They eat, meditate, and practice yoga together.  The core members also lead workshops for outside groups as large as 60 people.  The “morning practice” ritual is at the heart of the group’s activity, and is closed to all but the 38 core members.  In this ritual, the women lie half-clothed in a room, and clothed men kneel over them and stroke the women to orgasm.  The couples may or may not be romantically involved, and call each other “research partners.”  The residents call the ritual “orgasmic meditation.”  There is no eye contact during the meditation.

The goal of the commune is to help women to be more empowered and public with their sexuality.  Daedone focuses on both spirituality and sexuality, and the center also offers lectures by rabbis and Tibetan monks.

Detractors from One Taste call Daedone a cult-like leader and a master manipulator.  One of the commune’s ex-members warns: “You stop trusting yourself and start trusting Nicole.”  But others view Nicole Daedone as a sort of sexuality guru and an empowering force in their spiritual and sexual lives.  Daedone insists that she realizes the potential for the commune to become a cult, and is making every effort to keep her status humble.  She recently moved out of the living quarters because “Whenever I was in the space, everybody treated me like a guru,” she said. “I’d wake up and people would come sit on my bed.”

In my opinion, reclaiming female sexuality is great.  Teaching classes on female pleasure is a brave and admirable pursuit.  The premise of One Taste empowers women sexually.  I of course cannot speak to the validity of the claims that Daedone is manipulative or controlling, since I have no expertise on the organization.

Although I do not know much about the center’s practices besides what was in the Times article, I do worry that “orgasmic meditation” might be hetero-centric.  The “morning practice” focuses on female pleasure, but the Times article suggests that men are the ones pleasuring the women.  It seems like the center does in fact offer classes on masturbation and self-pleasuring, but what about lesbian pleasure?  I wonder how/if lesbians are incorporated into the community.

Here is an awesome link to the One Taste site, where you can learn more about what the New York and San Francisco centers have to offer.

What are your opinions on One Taste and the reclaiming of female pleasure?  Is a commune focused on female pleasure a good idea, or is the separatist nature of the live-in commune missing the point?  Should we instead focus more on incorporating more emphasis on female pleasure into our relationships on an everyday personal level?  Is One Taste focusing on female pleasure to the exclusion of male pleasure?  Or are the classes that One Taste offers informative and beneficial to all people regardless of sexual orientation, gender, or relationship status?

People are going to have sex anyway, so just help them have safe sex

At Stonehill, a private Catholic college, in Easton, Massachusetts, senior Katie Freitas was frustrated at her school’s failure to distribute birth control and decided to take matters into her own hands. She and around twenty of her classmates gathered free condoms from family planning agencies and left them in dorms across campus. Their efforts were shut down after the administration heard of their efforts and reiterated that as Stonehill is a Catholic institution, distributing birth control on campus is forbidden.

Freitas is not Catholic and wanted to make sure that condoms were available and accessible because she was worried about the risks of students having unprotected sex. She said:

“Abstinence can be part of sex-ed, and should be. But college students are going to have sex, and they should be encouraged to have safe sex. In certain moments, students aren’t going to stop to run to CVS, so I think they should be available on campus…I expected some resistance, but I think this is a debate that should be out in the open.”

Freitas is absolutely right – if college students are going to have sex, they should be encouraged to have safe sex and they should have the information and resources they need to have safe sex. Abstinence-only sex education has dominated sex education in this country for too long and needless to say, it’s ineffective.

Stonehill is not the only Catholic college/university where there has been student activism concerning issues around sex and sexual health. At Boston College, students just passed a referendum that urged their school to provide access to contraception and affordable testing for sexually transmitted infections. Who knows best about student body’s wants and/or needs, the administration or students? Definitely the students. So if they’re demanding access to sexual health resources, they deserve it.

Yes these institutions may be grounded in Catholicism, but the reality is that not everyone at these institutions are practicing Catholics and college students are going to have sex anyway. It’s in the school’s best interest to provide information and resources about sexual health, such as condoms, birth control, testing for sexually transmitted infections and diseases, etc.