In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Presidential Protection

China will be selling “Clinton” and “Lewinsky” brand condoms — his go for $3.70, hers for $2.25 (ouch).

We chose the name because we think Clinton is a symbol of success and a man of responsibility. And Lewinsky is a woman who dares to love and dares to hate,” said Liu Wenhua, the company’s general manager.

“We haven’t told Clinton about this yet, but maybe you could help us find him,” Liu added. “We’d like to tell him how respected he is in China, so we can boost his confidence and help his career.”

Liu said he settled on the Clinton name after a year of research sparked by the news that the former president had been named to head an international initiative to combat HIV and AIDS. Some of the other names he considered and rejected included “First Night,” “18 Years Old” and “I Miss You.” They didn’t have the same aura of respectability, he said.

Why do I feel like Bill might be strangely flattered by this?

Take Issue, Take Charge

The ACLU has launched a national campaign against abstinence-only education:

In recent years, we have witnessed an unprecedented attack on civil liberties with reproductive rights as a prime target. It is time to push back. Use this website to find out how you can join the ACLU’s nationwide effort to protect your reproductive freedom. Take Issue, Take Charge today.

In the coming months, Take Issue, Take Charge will start at the beginning: sex ed. Since 1997, the federal government has poured nearly a billion dollars into abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that deny teenagers the information they need to prevent pregnancy and protect themselves from sexually transmitted disease. In addition, many of these programs promote gender stereotypes, discriminate against gay and lesbian youth, and too often proselytize on the public’s dime.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, research indicates that these programs are not only ineffective they’re dangerous. Studies show that most abstinence-only programs do not prevent teens from having sex before marriage and actually deter teens who become sexually active from using condoms and being tested and treated for sexually transmitted diseases.

On the other hand, evidence shows that teaching teens the importance of abstinence as well as the importance of effectively using contraceptives helps teens delay sex and increases condom use among sexually active teens. Nevertheless, no federal program is dedicated to supporting this commonsense approach to sexuality education.

Related Reading:
Newsflash: Abstinence-Only Education Misleads
Thy Virginity Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks
The Battle Over Birth Control

Additionally, Feministing reports that Maine has refused federal funding for abstinence “education” programs in their schools because the funds cannot be used to provide information on safer sex practices. Maine joins California and Pennsylvania in being the only states to refuse these federal funds.

Where The Truth Lies

The following is an actual transcript of my coming-out conversation with Dina.

Me: “Blah blah blah I’m a lesbian.”
Her: “Oh, I love Melissa Etheridge!”

So begins an often hilarious but poignant look into homophobia, self-doubt, and sexuality in the work environment. Emily DePrang writes about her experience being a lesbian fired from a corporate loans office for sexual harassment.

I used to think I’d escaped the self-loathing that plagues most gays. I’d grown up well-loved and free of religious condemnation. I had moved to New York City from Austin, Texas, where you can’t throw a rock without hitting a lesbian. But sitting in Ms. HR’s office, I felt like I did when I got busted playing doctor with Eileen Gospel in fifth grade: that I was bad in a way so base that doors had to be closed before I could be reprimanded.

She continued. “I’ll be meeting with the management to decide how to proceed. And we’ll need to make your placement agency aware of the situation.”

The stain grew. I wasn’t just losing my job — I was losing my means to get another one. I’d have to start over. I saw her reading my file to the lazy boss who loved me, and to Andy, the jokey guy at OfficeTeam who once considered me his finest temp. I saw their faces change as they listened to her. I saw myself change in their minds. I saw Andy explaining to his bosses why my file was being terminated. And everyone, in my mind, regarded me like the plague. Sexual harassment is too dire for the benefit of the doubt. No one would associate with me now. Shit, shit, was this really happening?

via Paul

Teen Pregnancy Rate Drops

For the 12th year in a row. Good work. The birth rate among single women has gone up — which some consider a bad thing, and make ridiculous statements about. Example A: Bridget Maher, from the Family Research Council, who “said another possible reason for the higher birth rate among single women is that they depend too much on contraception instead of abstinence to prevent pregnancy. Maher added, ‘Behavioral change — and not pharmaceuticals — will solve this problem.”‘

But who says it’s a problem?

Many researchers link the rise in the number of births to single women to an increase in unmarried cohabitation, later-in-life marriage and an increase in childbearing by older, single women, according to the Times. NCHS researcher and report author Stephanie Ventura said that because the number of births to teens has decreased, the increase in the number of births to single women is occurring among women ages 20 and older.

Many single women are now choosing to have children without being married. Is that necessarily a bad thing? The ideal situation for a lot of women may be the husband and the baby, but a lot of others either may not have the husband or may not want one (and there are certainly a lot who have a same-sex partner instead). I don’t think telling women in their 20s and 30s that they should toss out their pills and be abstinent will be very successful.

Sex Survey Sez: It’s Just Like You Thought

NEWSFLASH: Teenagers have oral sex. Some people have same-sex relationships. Most people who have vaginal/anal sex have had oral sex, too.

Sarcasm aside, some of the results are interesting. For example, men aged 30-44 have an average of six to eight sexual partners in their lifetime, while women have four (I wonder to what extent self-reporting influenced these numbers). On the LGBT front,

About 4 percent of men and women described themselves as homosexual or bisexual, but in a finding that surprised the researchers, 14 percent of the women aged 18 to 29 reported at least one homosexual experience, more than twice the proportion for young men.

The report offers new information about homosexuality in the United States. Among adults ages 15 to 44, almost 3 percent of men and 4 percent of women reported having a sexual experience with a member of the same sex within the past year, and over their lifetimes, 6 percent of men and 11 percent of women had such experiences. About 1 percent of men and 3 percent of women had had both male and female sexual partners in the previous 12 months.

Nearly 6 percent of all men ages 15 to 44 reported having oral sex with another man at some time in their lives, and nearly 4 percent reported having anal sex with another man.

Again, I wonder where self-reporting comes into play here. I also wonder how the recent emphasis on lesbianism for male viewing pleasure is influencing actual behavior.

As for teenagers and oral sex:

The proportion of teenagers who have given or received oral sex was slightly higher than the proportion who have had intercourse, the survey found, with 55 percent of the boys and 54 percent of the girls having given or received oral sex, while 49 percent of the boys and 53 percent of the girls have had intercourse.

“One thing that surprised me is that we expected, based on anecdotal evidence, that girls might be more likely to give oral sex and boys more likely to receive it, but we didn’t find that at all,” said Dr. Jennifer Manlove, of Child Trends, which, like Ms. Brown’s group, released an analysis of the data, “There’s more gender equality than we expected.”

Posted in Sex

Why Buy the Cow?

Well, first of all, if I were to buy a cow, I’d want to make sure I got one whose milk I enjoyed. It would be pretty unfortunate to purchase a cow with no prior knowledge of said cow’s milk, and end up dehydrated and unhappy.

But my thoughts on this whole issue aren’t quite as eloquent as Hugo’s, so check out his post, which is sex-positive from the view of a married heterosexual progressive Christian male. He does a great job of pointing out the inherent sexism to the “Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free” argument, and dismisses a lot of conservative claims (“Back in the day, people waited till they were married,” “Waitng until you’re married makes you less likely to divorce,” etc).

I have to say that as a Christian, a married person, and as a man, I find the notion that women ought to withhold sex in order to convince men to marry them to be profoundly objectionable. It certainly reflects a very limited view of men, women, and the nature of marriage! It also ignores what I think is the real reason for falling marriage rates: not sex, but economics. As more and more middle-class women become financially independent, more and more of us of both sexes can choose to be “picky” about whom we marry. We can make it on our own in a way that earlier generations could not; that means that marriages are more likely to be reflect our romantic and spiritual choices than our need and our dependence. On the whole, I tend to think that’s a good thing for both men and women.

and

I’d go so far as to suggest that for those of us raised in a more sexually tolerant and affluent culture, when we go to the altar with our college degrees and our IRAs and our own set of past physical experiences, we can offer our new spouse the radical assurance that we are truly marrying them for who they are, not for what we will finally be allowed to do!

Word.

If you want to get married, that is. Or as one commenter added, Why buy the pig when all you want is a little sausage? Ha.

NYC Women Have The Sex, Use Protection

From Ryan at Liberal Serving comes this odd little story, that New York City women have 23% more sex than women elsewhere in the country, and 93% use protection during their first time with a new person (and the other times?). This information was gathered by the condom company Trojan using a super-extra-scientific web survey.

As Ryan sez:

So apparently, wrapping condoms in pastel colors and soft, flowing shapes (and anorexic figures – take a look) will get them to buy more condoms. Well, can’t get too down on promoting condom use, even if it is through the inefficient filter of weird marketing. Sex ed would be a nice start. Maybe calming the hoards of condom-haters debating failure rates would help. Empowering individual women to take control of their sexual lives… well, I’m the last to know how to do that, though lesbian erotica is a gift of choice for me (giving – to others!). Regardless of the intent, pro-sex, pro-condom messages are good – even if creepy, and I’m anxious to see how this will all pan out.

Unfortunately I can’t see the article at the NYPost, so we’ll just have to take his word for it. Anyone who thinks Midwestern girls aren’t having enough sex to make the baby Jesus cry needs to come for a visit.

No pun intended, I swear.

Quiet War On Abortion, Plus Dems

The Dems are signing on for their support of national Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP laws). If the acronym is new to you, here is a background:

For years, the anti-abortion movement has pressed its case with noisy demonstrations that blocked clinics, with high-profile legislation that directly challenged the U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, and in some cases with violence, including the assassination of physicians. But 28 years after Roe, with public support of abortion rights running high, the movement has adopted what might be called a stealth strategy: to chip away at abortion rights, slowly and discreetly, with low-profile legislation and lawsuits that stop short of trying to outlaw the procedure.

The new tactic is to bombard providers with a barrage of costly rules. In addition to the civil-liability law, Louisiana has tried to slap abortion providers with extra-stringent building codes that regulate everything from the width of hallways in clinics to the angles and jet types for drinking fountains. Abortion opponents want to create small, expensive obstacles that cumulatively make it harder for clinics to offer services—or, in the words of one right-to-life leader, to create an environment “where abortion may indeed be perfectly legal, but no one can get one.” Not only does the tactic have the benefit of generating little public attention, but it also allows anti-abortion activists to couch the issue in terms of a woman’s welfare—for example, the right of a patient to sue her physician for unlimited sums.

“This is certainly one campaign that’s gaining increasing popularity as a way to hammer at abortion providers: to do it under the guise of caring about women’s health,” says Linda Rosenthal, a staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy in New York. “That’s a pretty palatable starting point. Of course, everybody cares about women’s health. But the way these regulations translate is onerous.”

The stealth strategy is being deployed nationwide, from Utah to Connecticut. But it’s Louisiana that serves as the incubator for the rest of the nation, the state where anti-abortion activists develop innovative measures to test on a state legislature where Catholics and Southern Baptists predominate.

An attempted example includes a “civil-liability” law that would have allowed any woman who regretted her abortion to sue the providing doctors any time within the ten years afterward, not only for any emotional or physical damages she may have faced, but also for “damages occasioned by the unborn child.” With no limits to the amount doctors could be ordered to pay, one big judgment in favor of a woman who regretted her abortion could drive an entire clinic out of business. In some cases they exempt abortion providers who perform less than some specified number or percentage of abortions in their practices, thus exempting private practices and faulting free clinics.

Other examples that have passed include excluding midwives and nurse practitioners from those qualified to perform abortions, even though their training with abortion is that of a physician. In other cases, they require all private and free clinics that provide abortion to have facilities comparable to a hospital, which are unnecessary to the procedure and often too expensive for clinics to procure.

Plenty of Democrats are in support of these measures, in part because it doesn’t look outright anti-choice to voters undereducated on anti practices, and in part because it sends a coded message of “morality” to anti-choice voters who might vote Democratic. If you’ll notice, all of these Democrats pictured are men, perfectly willing to sacrifice women’s rights and autonomy for political gain.

All of this is so maddening — morality exists in the hearts and minds of people, it cannot be legislated. Keep this in mind as the John Roberts nomination moves toward confirmation. He is no friend of women, no friend of minorities.

via Media Girl

Susan Wood, an Interview

The Village Voice has a great interview with Susan Wood, the former director of the FDA’s Office of Women’s Health, who resigned after a sneaky move to keep the morning-after pill, called Plan B, off pharmacy shelves even after some called it the “safest product they had seen in years.”

Who made the decision to postpone selling Plan B in pharmacies?
I don’t know. It did not appear to me that any of the professional staff were involved. At every level of the review process, we agreed that this was safe, effective, and appropriate for over-the-counter use. The decision was not made in the usual passage.

Opponents call Plan B an “abortion pill.” Is there any logic to this?
The only connection this product has with abortions is that it prevents them. The public debate baffles me. It’s extraordinary. Plan B delays ovulation. No matter when you believe life or pregnancy begins, this product is unlikely to ever involve a fertilized egg.

Italicized emphasis mine.

via Feministing