Sex. Justice. Change.

Failure in New York State Senate

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:28:00 +0000

"There's never a good time for civil rights... but the paradox is that it's always the right time to be on the right side of history."
The preceding quote was spoken by Senator Tom Duane referring to New York’s proposed Gay Marriage bill. As we all know now, the bill failed but that doesn’t mean the issue is over or that the bills proposal was a complete failure. Senators supporting the bill made impassionate and empowering speeches hopefully opening up the eyes of all New Yorkers and shaming those Senators who voted the bill down.

It is not the role or right of government to decide who people can or cannot marry. Separation of church and state is a fundamental value of the American constitution. If a church refuses to marry a couple then that is their right, for our government to deny a couple their legal right to obtain a marriage license though is a blatant disregard of our constitution as well as the American value equality.

Those opposed to gay marriage defend themselves by saying they are protecting the “sanctity of marriage”. I have a friend who, at age 20, married a 19 year old boy she met three weeks earlier. Did I approve of that marriage? Of course not. But they were able to do it because they were two legal, willing adults who decided to make the commitment to each other. How can we say that the two of them, being so young, barely knowing each other and having no real life plan can get married but two adults of the same sex who have been in a long term committed relationship cannot? Who are the ones that are really threatening the sanctity of marriage; those in same sex relationships or those who are too immature, selfish or ignorant to even know what a marriage is?

Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson summed it up best when she said her constituents did not elect her to be the moral arbiter of their decisions, everyone has the right to choose the way they want to live. Other senators pointed out how it was not too long ago that the color of a person’s skin determined who they could and could not marry and the same arguments were used then that are being used now.

According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, marriage is: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage . Look at that Senators, it appears we wouldn’t have been changing the definition of marriage after all, huh?

STOP STUPAK - National Day of Action

SammyLif@gmail.com (Sammy) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:37:00 +0000

Yesterday I had the good fortune to be able to attend the National Day of Action against the Stupak Amendment in Washington, DC.

When I got the first email about the event a few weeks ago, I lamented the fact the Wednesdays I have class straight from 9:30 until 3:35, and couldn't rationalize missing a Wednesday. But after receiving a few more emails, and reading up about Stupak, I couldn't rationalize NOT going down to DC. Skipping classes wasn't even a question once I thought about it. Exercising my right as a citizen, and participating in democracy is infinitely more important than one day of my classes. And what is college preparing me for, if not this? So we went. A group from my WGS 301 class with Minnie Bruce Pratt drove down with a bunch of other other students, totaling at 11!

After an eventful drive down at 4am -- I'll spare you the details, (OK I won't - we ran over a dead deer! It was so crazy! So we lost an hour off the drive waiting for AAA to come help us out. But the damage is very minor, don't worry) we made it into DC just in time for the noon rally. We were ushered to an overflow room since the main room was over capacity - and when we sat down, we noticed that our party was standing right behind the podium! Our friend Andrea was on screen the whole rally! She was directly behind so many famous and influential women, I couldn't believe it. We kept cursing that deer for making us late!

But the rally was incredible. So many women I admire so much! Cecile Richards was the emcee - it was weird seeing her right there - I'm so used to seeing her face as an icon at the bottom of all the emails I get from PPFA! Other memorable speakers were Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), who got the crowd really pumped, and Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), who showed us an old campaign poster, when her slogan was "Pro-Choice. Pro-Change." My own representative, Nita Lowey (D-NY!) gave a rousing call to action that made me proud to be from the great 18th district of the Empire State. She's very vocal and wonderful and I love her a lot (She also hooked me up with tickets to Obama's inauguration, back in January!).

Many other important people spoke, and one woman relayed another woman's extremely moving story. The woman was never hugely concerned with abortion rights, since she knew that if she got pregnant, she wouldn't consider getting an abortion. But when she got pregnant with twins, and they were diagnosed with a very dangerous fetal anomaly, she was thrust into the abortion debate. The odds were that both twins would die, unless they elected to abort one in the hopes that the other survived. If the Stupak Amendment passes, this procedure won't be covered by insurance. Luckily for her, 80% of it was covered, and it seemed that it went well - she just finished paying off the bills, 3 years later. She reminded us that these diseases don't choose wealthy people, and that if she wasn't fortunate enough to be covered by issuance and be able to pay for her share of the abortion, there is no way she would've been able to have it, and she would've buried both her twins, not just one. It was incredibly moving, and refocused my thoughts on abortion and why it's necessary that it be safe and legal.

Our room began clearing out for another meeting, and the main room was open, so we went down and saw the end of the rally in person, holding up our signs and waving the our party standing behind the podium. Then we met up with KaeLyn Rich, who I'd never met in person! She told us about a free youth lunch, and about our meeting at 3:15 with Senator Gillibrand.

The lunch was one of the highlights of the day for me. Everyone says that our generation is characterized by apathy and inaction, but this lunch proved that all very wrong. It was full of youth activists and feminists, all passionate and excited. The room was buzzing with excitement. And furthermore, a host of my idols were there. I had spotted Shelby Knox at the rally, and couldn't figure out where I knew her from - and then I realized she's awesome and famous and I've seen her movie! She was at the lunch, as well as Miriam and Jos - two editors from Feministing. Latoya Peterson was there too, from Racialicious and a host of other blogs and media. There were also representatives from a bunch of other organizations that cater to youth, who were willing to talk to us and make connections. It was really a power-lunch, and I met a lot of people I admire. A lot.

Then we walked back to the Senate building to see my senator - Kristen Gillibrand - I wasn't sure it going to actually be her, I heard a lot of people would be meeting with Aides - but sure enough, she walked right in. I sat in the front row, and it was really cool. I've never really seen a politician up close like that. I thought about how powerful she is and how much impact she has on my life, yet she's just a normal lady who is against the Stupak amendment like me. And thankfully, she made that crystal clear. She was unwavering is announcing her opposition to Stupak and her support of our cause. We asked her what we could be doing to help - she said to blog about it, and spread the word. So here I am.

Then Chuck Schumer walked in! I literally gasped when I saw him walk in, I'm not quite sure why. He has so much leverage in the Senate, and is so well-known, I just was so amazed that he was there. And he, too, was very firm and positive about Stupak. He loudly voiced his opposition to any healthcare bill that restricted abortion even further than current laws. He said that what we could do is call our Representatives and tell them that they should yield to the Senate wording (assuming that no Stupak-esque language makes it into the Senate version, which is not yet guaranteed…) of the bill. My friend Mary stood up and told him where our group was from, and thanked him for his work on these issues, and he said Go Orange! It was so exciting! Someone asked him what he would do if the Stupak amendment made it into the final version, after the discussions - would he vote for it? And he basically said No. He sad that he would try to get his colleagues to urge the bill to be sent back, and for that wording to be taken out, before voting yet for healthcare. That was very reassuring to me - I hope he sticks to his guns. I emailed him today urging him to be strong on that promise.

This post is getting long, let me wrap it up. All in all, it was a very cool day. Being in DC, walking around the house and senate office buildings, felt so good and right - this is what we should be doing: making our voices heard. Being surrounded by other pro-choice activists felt so right. It was such an amazing, empowering day. And I left feeling reassured by Schumer's comment - let's all urge our senators to put a stop to these restrictions. We can't let this language make it into the healthcare reform. Women's rights are human rights - it's as simple as that.

With liberty and healthcare for all,
Sammy

PS - read about some of the concerns I had about the day, and some of the tension we felt, over at Conscious Media, the blog for my "Race, Gender and Media" class!

Oh! And that's me on the left!

Should Teen Vogue have pulled this cover?

noreply@blogger.com (Nicole) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:38:00 +0000

Teen Vogue's November cover has caused quite a stir. Though it is not evident from the picture, one of the models on this cover is a teenager, and pregnant. Jourdan Dunn is not visibly pregnant on the cover, but the 19-year-old reveals this information inside the magazine.

Many parents, teens, and teen-pregnancy prevention groups were not happy that a popular publication like Teen Vogue, a magazine that many teenage girls read, had a pregnant model in the magazine, without an accompanying article that states that teen pregnancy is "not OK".

I personally think that they are blowing the issue out of proportion. The cover only shows the models from the chest up and does not show any physical evidence of Jourdan's pregnancy. While it is stated in the magazine, the article in no way advocates teen pregnancy.

Instead of reprimanding Teen Vogue, I think parents should actually use this cover as a "teachable moment" to talk to their daughters about how to prevent pregnancy until it is the right time in their lives. The average age of Teen Vogue readers is 18, so pregnancy is an applicable topic that they should be educated on and not be afraid to talk about. If parents are so afraid that the media their daughters are consuming will have an adverse affect on them, then they should intervene when they see a topic like this brought up and use it as an opportunity to open the lines of communication.

Stupak Attack

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:56:00 +0000

Upon hearing that the health care reform bill finally passed the House most of us shouted, “Victory!”; however, when I heard that the bill passed with the Stupak/Pitts amendment attached which leaves women worse off than they were before reform and blatantly violates President Obama’s promise that no man or woman would lose coverage they have today, I could not be more disappointed.

Abortion is a legal medical procedure in this country and should not be treated differently than any other medical procedure. In today’s health insurance system over 85% of private insurance companies cover abortion. The Stupak/Pitts amendment would restrict women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion, even if they pay for most of the premiums with their own money. I think what really bothers me the most though is our elected officials. Do we not live in America? The country that was founded on freedom and choice? The Stupak/Pitts amendment takes away that right to choose from millions of women because of the personal feelings of a select group of people who are against reproductive rights. The vast majority of House members who support the Stupak/Pitts amendment do not even support the health care reform bill. They are simply using health care reform to advance their extreme, ideological agenda at the expense of tens of millions of women.

Those who voted for the Stupak/Pitts amendment defend themselves by saying women who want comprehensive reproductive health care coverage can purchase a separate, single-service rider to cover abortion. The fact is that no one plans on having an unintended or medically complicated pregnancy that would require ending the pregnancy so why would anyone purchase separate insurance for it? That is like saying anyone who has ever smoked a cigarette should purchase separate insurance in case they get lung cancer because we don’t want to pay for it.

The Stupak/Pitts amendment violates the spirit of health care reform. Every American citizen should be outraged by the Stupak/Pitts amendment, no matter what your stance on abortion is. Our government is supposed to defend everyone’s right to make personal choices on what is best for them. It seems they have forgotten that and I think it is time for us to remind them.

Join Planned Parenthood in the fight against the Stupak Ban and for women's rights by signing this petition addressed to President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and Speaker Pelosi. You can also share your stories illustrating why it is important to you for health care insurance to cover abortion services by emailing them to krich@pprsr.org.

FEMINISM - The Other F Word

SammyLif@gmail.com (Sammy) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:45:00 +0000

I know that title is cliche and overdone - everyone even remotely involved in feminist circles knows that feminism is a "dirty word" to those who don't self-identify. It conjures up images of radical, petty, bra-burning, hairy-legged lesbians ("what's so wrong about that?!" says the radical, hairy-legged women's studies major). I've been thinking a lot about THE WORD recently, because of my most recent endeavor, a feminist magazine startup here at Syracuse University, Medusa. (Check out our blog!)

We decided (or maybe we didn't decide, maybe it just happened organically) to overtly identify our magazine as feminist. We labeled it as a "feminist publication," and we made one of our goals to "demystify the word." We want women to recognize that their goals are in line with feminism and "convince" women that feminism isn't scary, and explain how the reasons we find it threatening are related the same forces that keep women oppressed in the first place. But even with all that talk, I get confused as to why the word is important. And I need to bear in mind that we don't want to indoctrinate people or try and "convert" them to feminism; that wouldn't solve anything either.

It gets confusing! And it's easy to get lost in the rhetoric, and to get caught up in the controversies. That's why it was refreshing to see this analysis of the word, among other topics. At a recent PPNYC event, three awesome feminists had a panel-type discussion that touched on these exact issues.

I especially like Jessica Valenti's takedown (I tend to think that everything Jessica Valenti touches turns to gold)

Valenti said she embraced the word [feminism], and that there was no point in picking another, less loaded term because "I think any word you use to talk about women's rights is going to become a dirty word."

It's kind of sad to think about, but I think it's true. It can't be a coincidence that the word that many of the strongest, most empowered and autonomous women I know identify as is also a bad word. It keeps people from embracing those ideals, and that framing is what keeps women apart, keeps women pitted against each other.

To paraphrase Valenti, any word you use to talk about a woman's control over her own body is going to become, for some people, a dirty word.

I am still working this out, and trying to balance out my own beliefs about feminism with running a feminist magazine. And figuring out how to explain to people why feminism is amazing, and not something to be feared. And while I work all this out, I'm going to keep identifying as feminist, and hopefully changing peoples misconceptions about what that means. (h/t Hannah Warren, my amazing Medusa co-founder and editor-in-chief; I'll keep everyone posted when the first issue drops next semester!)

What is Sexually Explicit About this Photo?

noreply@blogger.com (Nicole) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:54:00 +0000

Celebrating a woman’s body has always been a controversial thought. However, many would like to think that our world is becoming increasingly open to the human form in all of its glory, including a woman’s pregnant body. Unfortunately, the ever-evolving world of Facebook (most of whose users are of college age), does not agree.

Cary Curran, a member of a New York City based dance troupe, recently had her Facebook account deleted without her knowledge or consent by the administrators of the popular social networking site. This was due to the fact that Curran decided to upload a picture of her semi-nude pregnant body as her profile picture. Curran, who celebrates the often semi-naked body daily as part of her profession, saw nothing wrong with the picture that featured her in simply “gold pasties, a thong bikini bottom and a liberal sprinkling of gold body glitter”.

Facebook decided this picture constituted sexually explicit material, which is banned by Facebook user's Statements of Rights and Responsibilities. Though parts of Curran’s breasts are exposed in the picture, she is not fully nude. In addition to her not being fully nude in the picture, so again, the question can be posed, what is sexually explicit about her picture? Her genitalia is not exposed, and no sexual acts are being performed in the picture. Therefore, Facebook seems to be defining any form of nudity as sexually explicit, thereby further reinforcing our country’s outlook that the naked woman form is shameful and should not be exposed.

This makes me wonder if Facebook applies this view of nudity being sexually explicit material to other cultures where unlike America, nudity is embraced. Last semester as I traveled around Europe, I was time and time again exposed to nudity on numerous beaches from Spain to Italy. Women everywhere sunbathed topless and no one gave a second glance. As I pondered how everyone seemed to be so comfortable with their bodies, I realized the reason why I would never think about taking my top off was the fact that I was raised in a country where nudity and celebrating the woman’s body is looked down upon, and not talked about often. By deleting Curran’s account, Facebook is reinforcing this thought process. I would in fact like to see how European Facebook account holders would react to this profile picture of Curran. My bet is they would see nothing wrong with it, and in fact, it would not faze them in the slightest.

The fact of the matter is, we are all exposed to far more explicit material everyday on primetime television. Tune in at anytime to an episode of Grey’s Anatomy, and while body parts are not fully exposed, the actions they are portraying during sex scenes are far more sexually explicit than a picture of a semi-nude, pregnant, female body. Or, how about this weeks upcoming attraction for the latest Gossip Girl episode which apparently is featuring a threesome?! Sexually explicit material? Guess we will see.

All in all, if Facebook insists on counting Curran’s picture as sexually explicit material, they could have at least given her a warning so that she could take appropriate action such as removing the picture, instead of deleting her entire account. Really Facebook, do you know how much time it takes to accumulate all of those “friends” and upload all of those pictures? Work with us here.

Abstinence-Only MISeducation

SammyLif@gmail.com (Sammy) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:35:00 +0000

I went to high school in diverse, liberal White Plains, New York. The health classes I had were more honest and less shameful than most of my friends went through. I remember my teacher putting a condom on my friend's head in 7th grade, to show how strong and durable they were (and to prove that nobody is "too big" for a normal sized condom, but that's another story). I learned all about birth control and contraception very early on, and although it wasn't always gay-friendly or perfect in all respects, I was happy with my sexual education, especially after it was supplemented by my openminded mother.

That is, until high school. Which is strange. We still had the openminded curriculum, the table full of different birth control methods (so many choices!), but we also had a textbook. A textbook from Texas. ok. And in the index, the word "condom" was not found.

I wrote an editorial for the my high school newspaper, The Orange, about how misleading this was. And how even though my teacher supplemented the curriculum with that table covered in birth control choices, it wasn't right to have that abstinence-only textbook. Not in my liberal school district. My editorial was met with scorn from the health department - my teacher cornered me in the hallway and reminded me about how well they taught birth control. And I reminded her that I really appreciated that - and that if we support teaching that, we shouldn't have been using a textbook that didn't uphold those beliefs. I'm still kind of impressed that my highschool-self had the foresight to feel so strongly about that. I wonder if they still use those textbooks.

Ok, what am I trying to say? I remember from that textbook, the chapter on STDs said, under the heading "how to avoid contracting an STD" something along the lines of "have a high self esteem! So you can't be coerced into having sex." There wasn't anything overt about shame, or about how sex is bad and dirty (not that I remember, anyway) - but even so, I couldn't take it.

Abstinence-only sex education is unacceptable. Not only does it not work (which ought to be enough, right?) but it instills shame and fear in everyone. And it's dangerous! Even if everyone listened and decided to be abstinent until marriage (63% of high school seniors have had sex), they wouldn't know how to use a condom when they got around to it. STDs and unplanned pregnancies don't just go away once you get married. IF you get married.

That's why we need REAL sex ed! This post over at RHrealitycheck details some of the more shameful tactics abstinence-only people are using, and explains how the industry is changing. As more people reject abstinence-only sex ed, the less government money goes toward it, the people proliferating it are going to have to change their tactics - and we need to watch out for that underlying shame!

UN Report on Human Rights Takes Gender Binaries and Shatters 'em!

noreply@blogger.com (Kaitlin) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:33:00 +0000

An article today on Feministing.com shared that a UN study titled "Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism" was released that focuses primarily on gender discrimination within the issue. It takes a fluid and flexible approach to gender as a social structure and uses inclusive language to also recognize transgender identity and experience.

Most important, in my opinion, is that the report acknowledges the ways by which national security measures negatively impact transgender people. This is a quote straight from the UN report:

"Counter-terrorism measures disproportionately affect women and transgender asylum-seekers, refugees and immigrants in specific ways. For example, enhanced immigration controls that focus attention on male bombers who may be dressing as females to avoid scrutiny make transgender persons susceptible to increased harassment and suspicion. Similarly, counter-terrorism measures that involve increased travel document security, such as stricter procedures for issuing, changing and verifying identity documents, risk unduly penalizing transgender persons whose personal appearance and data are subject to change."

Click the title above to link to the full story.

International Sex-Ed

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:03:00 +0000

UNESCO, an education based agency of the United Nations has proposed setting voluntary universal sexual education guidelines for all UN members in what is titled International Guidelines for Sexuality Education. The initiative aims at reducing H.I.V. infections as well as other STI’s among young people, teaching the right to obtain an abortion as a fundamental human value, instructing on the different ways to have safe sex and educating on sexualities other than heterosexual as well as on masturbation. UNESCO states the guidelines are based on 87 studies from around the world and review curriculum's from 12 different countries. The guidelines, which are evidence-informed and rights-based in content, explain what sexual education is and why it is important to teach.

According to International Planned Parenthood Federation, at least 111 million new cases of curable sexually transmitted diseases occur among young people (ages 15-24) every single year which many, including UNESCO officials, believe is due to lack of education on safe sex. “Math and Science are valued as important knowledge for young people to have for their own sake, a sound sexuality education should be equally valued” states co-author Nanette Ecker. And she makes a valid point; education is recognized as progress in any country so why should sexual education be any different?

The guidelines have raised a lot of criticism from conservative and religious groups stating the content counters their personal beliefs and therefore is culturally insensitive. Strange, I was not aware of any culture that prescribed to ignorance. Teaching acceptance, safe sex practices and educating for safe healthy abortion rights simply means that those who want to exercise these rights will be better informed and lead healthier lives. No where in the guidelines does it advocate for young people to do anything except make healthy and safe life choices of their own and accept the choices of others. The simple purpose of these proposed guidelines is to educate kids on all the alternatives they have when it comes to their sexual health and everyone should be educated on their right to choose, what they choose is up to them.

How do you love it?

noreply@blogger.com (Jenna) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:51:00 +0000

I wanted to post this early so that you could have enough time to plan your celebration! October 21st is Love Your Body Day and, yes, it seems sad that in our busy lives we must set aside a day to be conscious of loving your body, but it's so hard to LOVE YOUR BODY when often all you see in ads are incredibly hard to attain bodies. So, on Wednesday, take a moment with yourself or with your friends to ruminate on your curvy hips, your yummy legs, lovely tummy or that scar you got from falling off your bike when you were chasing the neighborhood boys down the street.

Leave a comment and let us know how you are celebrating!

"Be my date for my abortion?"

noreply@blogger.com (Jenna) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:27:00 +0000

Lots of blog chatter about a short film directed by Gillian Robespierre, called Obvious Child. It captures the essence of Juno and Knocked Up but does what neither of them could: presents a meaningful representation of abortion.

A touch of unbelievable romantic comedy? Yes. Dialogue very similar to Juno? Yes. If these things bother you, get past it and quickly realize that your watching a conversation about abortion that is very similar to the experience that a majority of people have when it comes to unintended pregnancy. Guttmacher states that 1 in 3 women will have an abortion before age 45. That means many of us have someone in our lives who has experienced abortion. It's something that we don't talk about in our culture. The truth is, women have a wide range of feelings when it comes to unintended pregnancy and abortion. What to do following a postive pregnancy test may be simple for some and complicated for others.

Another great thing about this film is that it sheds some light on the actual process of abortion which is often mystified. Not only do some people make assumptions of what it's like for someone to decide to have an abortion but they also have assumptions of what the actual medical process is like. People may wonder what the clinic looks like or what the clinic "feels" like. This short film provides insight to the realities of abortion. When it comes to women's health and reproductive rights, demystifying abortion is an important step in educating others.

If you get an abortion in Oklahoma, your information will be published on the world wide web.

SammyLif@gmail.com (Sammy) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 00:51:00 +0000

I thought Roe vs. Wade upheld that abortions fall under our constitutional right to privacy? Then HOW is THIS allowed?

The law...mandates that a 34-item questionnaire be filled out by abortion providers for each procedure. The questionnaire doesn't include the woman's name or "any information specifically identifying the patient," but it does ask for age, race, level of education, marital status, number of previous pregnancies, and the county in which the abortion was performed, information which opponents of the bill argue would be enough to identify a woman in a small town. The questionnaire also asks about the mother's reason for the abortion, her method of payment, and even what type of insurance she has, as well as whether the fetus received anaesthetic and whether there was "an infant born alive as a result of the abortion." (emphasis mine)

I suppose the makers of this law (which will be enacted November 1 - it has already passed) think that by leaving out a woman's name, all published information is completely anonymous, and can't in any way be incriminating or identifying? I am so disgusted.

They are saying the new laws will help get information to prevent future abortions, but I just don't see the correlation. All I can see is that women are going to be scared. And it's yet another hurdle women must get over before they are allowed to have this legal procedure.

Miriam at Feministing says:

Imagine these kinds of requirements for other medical procedures? Plastic surgeries, or vasectomies, or anything else? It's absurd beyond belief.

Luckily, lots of organizations have already begun fighting this new law. Let's hope it never goes into effect...

For now, here are some links to check out what others are saying:
Salon
Feminists for Choice
Feministing
Jezebel
Think Progress
And you can read the full version of the law here(pdf).

Georgia teen told by school officials to dress more "manly"

noreply@blogger.com (Kaitlin) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:44:00 +0000

This is outrageous.

Dr. Phil: Another Irresponsible Talking Head

noreply@blogger.com (Jenna) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:39:00 +0000

I’m on a forever media watch. We have lies about health care, propaganda of political agendas. I’m confused: is it the media’s job to relay information that is happening among the everyday people or is it to find little tidbits of material to sensationalize and broadcast over the air?

Dr. Phil’s latest episode Teen Sex Trends, has done an enormous disservice to people who are raising and caring for young adults in our society. Jezebel sums up the episode very well with an edited video clip. Dr. Phil's opening is infuriating, referencing “your” young daughters as these little stuffed animal toting powder puffs that are being destroyed by sex. He says he will “arm” and “prepare” you to “inoculate your daughter against getting caught up in this.” Ugh. He goes on misconstrue statistics to support his argument that “teen whoring” is every where.

His view, unfortunately, goes along with how a majority of our society approaches sexuality: that, in this case, young girls need to be “protected” from the evil ways of sex. Disease, disaster and dysfunction are is often the framework of how people think of sexuality and here is a prime example of it in the mainstream media.

Educating about sexuality is the answer here. Talking to kids and young adults is the answer. Making assumptions about why young people are participating in oral sex is not the answer. For some amazing commentary on this topic check out the Sex Positions blog on the National Sexuality Resource Center website (one of my fav sites!).

P.S. I'm excited for my first post here! I'm an outreach and education specialist here at PPRSR. You'll be hearing more from me soon.

College regulates student sex..

noreply@blogger.com (Kaitlin) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:15:00 +0000

So, a new policy at Tufts University regulates sex in dorms, which actually (to me) seems fair enough:

"The Office of Residential Life and Learning (ResLife) has added a new stipulation to its guest policy that prohibits any sex act in a dorm room while one's roommate is present. The stipulation further states that any sexual activity in the room should not interfere with a roommate's privacy, study habits or sleep."

The new regulations also state that non-Tufts overnight guests must be registered with the student's resident assistant ("RA") and the roommate must consent to the guest's stay.

You can read the full article here, but I'll give you my two cents if yer just not feeling like it.

According to Tufts, the new rule is meant to address a common conflict between roommates in dorms: sex and sexual activity. It claims to help open the floor for dialogue about sex, something that officials think students are uncomfortable about discussing.

Personally, I think it's a good idea. Now, normally I am pretty anti-rules and regulations, but as a former dorm resident I think that this type of rule is necessary in protecting the individual rights of students to have a comfortable living space (and the right to study and sleep!). In the two years I lived on campus there were numerous times where partners staying the night was an issue, and unfortunately sometimes mere reasoning and compromise is not enough. It's pretty amazing and unfortunate how stubborn and disrespectful people are.

Now, I'm all about sex. And I'm all about college. But when we must share small spaces with people who we don't really know... mutual respect has gotta come first. Wait... shouldn't mutual respect always come first for EVERYTHING? Ding ding ding - we have a winner!

So... what do you think???

Sexual Satisfaction May Lead to Greater Well-Being in Women

SammyLif@gmail.com (Sammy) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:08:00 +0000

This article is really interesting, and at first glance, makes me want to say "of course! I'm so glad a study is finding this out!"

But upon further investigation, it kind of leaves me confused. From the headline, I think the article would go in details about how a new study proves that sex is good for women's self-esteem and health - but instead, most of the article is spent wondering if this could actually be the case.

Of course, the data needs to be scrutinized - and it's fair enough to say that the cause-and-effect here isn't so clear -

...it is impossible to determine if dissatisfied women had lower well-being because they were sexually dissatisfied, or if the reverse is true, such that women who started with lower well-being tended to secondarily have sexual dissatisfaction.

Ok. So this is in a journal of medicine - it's going to be critical of data, as it should be. But why can't we focus on the benefits of having a healthy sex life - not the doubts that this claim brings up? I appreciate a good analysis of data, but I'm tired of people not being ready to say "SEX IS GOOD! DO IT!" There's always a caveat, it seems there's never any decisive reporting on these types of issues.

And furthermore, I wonder why this is even a study to begin with. By focusing it just on women, it insinuates that there are certain scientific doubts about women having sex in the first place (has anyone noticed this article that keeps showing on the CCN homepage? jeez). Why are we questioning why women have sex, and whether it is good for women? Nobody seems to be asking these questions about male sexual behaviors...hmmm....

I guess this study is important to dispel beliefs about female pleasure and women being sexually active, but the tone just puts me off, somehow. There has got to be a better way to report on these issues, and a more unambiguous, frank way to present this data.

Cecile Richards Is Awesome

SammyLif@gmail.com (Sammy) — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 03:11:00 +0000

I've always had a cool-person crush on Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Aside from seeing her name the bottom of emails I get from PP, she's always right there, on the front lines, doing the crucial work that Planned Parenthood does every day. If you want to know why I call Cecile Richards one of my heroes, read this interview.

It's important to remind people how important Planned Parenthood actually is - beyond the politics. When I was tabling at the State Fair, if people looked skeptical, we reminded them that it's about Women's Rights! And Women's Health! Cecile Richards does that for a living (and much much more!) and she is wonderful.

Here are some of my favorite parts:

Planned Parenthood is this incredible organization that is a legacy organization – it's 92 years old – and yet, as relevant today as it was when Margaret Sanger started it.

The incredible thing about Planned Parenthood is we're in every state. We're not just in blue states or just red states or just in in-between states. We're everywhere.

We are the largest reproductive healthcare provider in the country…Ninety-seven percent of our work is preventive care—contraception, STI testing and treatment…Last year we did 1.3 million cervical cancer screenings.

During the last few years, we've seen this country [USA] with the highest teen pregnancy rate in the Western industrialized world, and we have now one in four teenage girls in America has a sexually transmitted infection. So this is like, it's not just a theoretical problem, it's a healthcare problem.

And if you love her like I do, follow her on Twitter!

Working together to prevent rape.

noreply@blogger.com (Kaitlin) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:15:00 +0000

Check out this article on Jezebel, talking about rape prevention and different approaches on college campuses.

The article discusses the ways in which the weight falls on the shoulders of women to prevent rape. Oftentimes, the target group to educate is women, with the message being: "YOU have to avoid rape by not drinking, not dressing sexy, don't drink, don't be alone, don't stay out late..."

But (the article asks), what about educating men about rape, too?
The author of the article quotes Jaclyn Friedman:

"Schools would stop telling girls to mind their liquor so they don't "get themselves" raped and start teaching young men that alcohol is never an excuse to "get away" with anything. They would offer bystander training, so that all students on campus know what it looks like when someone's sexual boundaries are being violated and what to do if they see that happening. They would teach students that the only real consent is the kind that's freely and enthusiastically given, removing the "she didn't exactly say no" excuse that too many rapists hide behind. And their campus policies would support prevention, recovery, and justice, not dismissiveness, victim-blaming, and denial."

While I certainly agree with Friedman and the Jezebel.com article, I think that Jezebel fails to ackownledge the campuses that already have active rape prevention programs that involve many men.

What's also important to note is that while a large percentage of reported rapes are by men and the victims are women, we must remember that women can rape and men can be raped.

I think the main point, and one that we can all agree on, is that we all (as women, men, and otherwise) need to be watching out for eachother.. be it ensuring that our friends are safe from rape and that (as hard as it may be for some of us to imagine) our friends are not commiting rape or sexual assault. It's about being safe and watchful, but also making sure that we all are intolerant of any kind of sexual assault.

Asexuality is hot

SammyLif@gmail.com (Sammy) — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:51:00 +0000

In my "Queer Fictions" class at Syracuse University last week, we talked about what the "binary" means for sexual orientation - "straight vs. gay" transforming into "straight vs. LGBT." And we talked about how even by using the word "binary," we're somewhat negating the differences between L, G, B, and T. And Q and Q and A and everything else in between.

The idea was that by enforcing the binary, in saying that "there's straight people, and then there's everyone else," we leave out a lot of nuances and diversity within all those categories. And when I read this article about the asexual movement, I realized how asexuality didn't even come into the picture. Even by talking about a sexual orientation binary, and proposing to broaden how we view that spectrum, we were still leaving people out.

And yeah, I guess I'm not sure what that means. But this article is one step in trying to figure it out...

Talking about abortion.

noreply@blogger.com (Kaitlin) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:13:00 +0000

Great article on feministing.com (full link here) discussing one woman's abortion story and how we all talk about abortion:

"But as I began to tell the relevant people in my life—my friends, my boyfriend, my family—I felt myself falling back on euphemisms. I was avoiding a word I say every day, and I didn’t like it. So I stopped. I made a conscious decision to talk frankly and directly about my abortion...

...It’s not that anyone I told was unsupportive. In fact, many even exceeded my expectations. When I called my Dad, I didn’t beat around the bush: “I have some health insurance questions because I need to get an abortion.” To his immense credit, he responded with the same matter-of-factness, answering my questions and asking none of his own. My boyfriend, after asking about the procedure, what was done, how I would feel, articulated what I considered a great stance to take: “I’m going to be as stressed out about this as you are.”

But I was thrown by so many hushed voices, the consistent tone of oh-my-god-this-must-be-the-end-of-the-world, the many utterances of “I don’t know what to say.”"

Proper Attire: Required for Entry

SammyLif@gmail.com (Sammy) — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 04:42:00 +0000

Were you at the New York State Fair today? Well, I was! You may have spotted me volunteering at the Planned Parenthood booth in the Center of Progress (I thought a lot about how appropriate this name was for the location of our booth) from 3 till 8.

First of all, everyone should go to the fair. As if the butter sculpture isn't enough to tempt you, there's always the sand sculpture and fresh milk, and hundreds of other attractions, rides, and stands, and FOOD. Tonight there was Darius Rucker of Hootie and the Blowfish.

Being at the fair was somewhat exhilarating for me. It's fun to meet people, and it's really rewarding and nice to hear people say how important PPRSR is to them. People walked up to our booth and begin signing our petition before we had even explained what it was. Teenagers brought all their friends over to take a look at our pins and condoms. It was also fun to see old women pick up one of our snazzy "proper attire" condoms, thinking they were moist towelettes or sunscreen packets (and then dropping them with a gasp when we told them what they really were!). It was empowering to be there for all these people, providing info and condoms and temporary tattoos!

Part of me feels like volunteering with Planned Parenthood is common sense, a duty that seems required to do because of how important it is - it feels second nature, because of how many women rely on Planned Parenthood. But sometimes it feels like radical and revolutionary, like today when the Right to Life people came over and heckled us, and we kept our cool. Volunteering today made me feel really in touch with women in general, and part of something really big and important - especially when women walked by and simply said "thanks for all the work you do" or when men came over proudly and struck up a conversation with us, unashamed of aligning themselves with us (as they should be!).

Today I think we gave away close to 2,500 condoms, which is remarkable. I kept thinking about this article from Cosmopolitan. Now, it's not perfect (it's in Cosmo!) but it has a lot of good information, and even mentioned Planned Parenthood! It is attempting to stop "accidents waiting to happen" before they do.

A shocking stat recently caught Cosmo's eye: Nearly half of all unplanned pregnancies among young, sexually active women are due to birth-control lapses and screwups,

The funny thing about all the mindsets mentioned that can lead to pregnancy, is that they can mostly be stopped with a simple condom. Just by having a condom at arm's length, you can stop yourself from making a decision you might regret. How many of those 2,500 that we gave away today will stop an "accident waiting to happen?" or start a conversation? or just get someone thinking? It seems like a pretty powerful thing to have a huge bowl on condoms out in the open like we did today, when you really think about it. By putting contraception on that table, we put it right into people's minds - right at the forefront - where it belongs!

If you go to the Fair, make sure you stop by our booth and give us a wave, because we appreciate it. And make sure you grab some condoms too, while you're at it.

noreply@blogger.com (Kaitlin) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:09:00 +0000

Check out Colbert on Archie comics, sexism, and his defense of Hillary Clinton.

Judd Apatow: Funny People? or Funny Men.

SammyLif@gmail.com (Sammy) — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:18:00 +0000

I am a fan of Judd Apatow's films. I loved Forgetting Sarah Marshall, I loved The 40-year old Virgin, and I think I loved Funny People. I'm not sure yet. But overall, I think Apatow's new brand of somewhat-sentimental comedy is genius - they are consistently the funniest movies coming out these days.

But -- that doesn't mean I haven't noticed that Apatow's movies aren't perfect. The feminist-conscious, women-studies major side of me is always grappling with the part of me laughing out loud. To be honest, most of my favorite movies have some serious gender issues (see: Fight Club). My boyfriend will hate me for saying this, but Pixar, Judd Apatow and Wes Anderson, while all being faves of mine, each have definite problems creating strong female leads. It's nearly impossible to find a (mainstream), funny, successful film with a female lead I can relate to, and that's pretty messed up.

In her RHrealitycheck.org essay, "Men Are From Apatow-Land, Women Are From Venus," Sarah Seltzer tries to deal with the problems found in Funny People in a constructive way, while dissecting why they are problems to begin with:

"In Apatow's movies, men bond, fight, smoke pot and get drunk, laugh, fight, cry, make up and eventually grow up. Women exist mostly as the objects of lasting affection or the punchlines of dirty jokes."

It's hard to argue that Apatow's movies all deal with men. The men perform the actions that move the plot, without exception. Despite the occasional strong female characters, the leads are never ladies - they are generally peripheral, emotional, and annoying. The women are never the focus of the movie. The men are the stars - everyone who has gotten famous through Apatow's movies is male (with the exception of his wife, perhaps). Even if his depictions of masculinity can be critical and interesting, the movies are all about the bros.

But does that mean we should dismiss Apatow as inherently misogynistic? I don't think so. I don't think I can excuse his complete lack of adequate female - not even close - but I can try to enjoy the other aspects of his movies - like the perfect satire of Walk Hard, and the perfect dysfunction of Stepbrothers. I can even appreciate the bro-on-bro action, to some extent. I can't be blind to Apatow's problematic gender representations, but I want to give him another shot.

All in all? I love Judd Apatow's movies, but I think Seltzer said it best...

"Apatow needs to turn his female characters into actual characters, rather than rewards given to men who have proven able to resist their libidos and outgrow their immaturity. Even if those women exist on the periphery of a male-centric comedy, they should be engaged with as people, not grappled with as a concept."

What did you think of Funny People? Am I way off? I'm not entirely sure yet. I think I need to see Knocked Up again before I conclude.

Being Honest About Sex When Teaching Kids

noreply@blogger.com (Kaitlin) — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:57:00 +0000

I first heard about this new sex-ed approach happening in the UK from Jenna, PPRSR's Education and Outreach specialist, who provided an article that you can link to through the title of this entry.

But, here's the gist for you: the Center for HIV and Sexual Health at NHS Sheffield published a booklet on talking with youth about sex and sexual pleasure.

Wow! I think this is great. The booklet promotes masturbation, age-appropriate attention to anatomy (i.e. not just talking about vaginas but also the clitoris), breaking traditional views of sex (i.e. sex=penetration), and condom use. I think that this type of sex-ed can help foster dialogue among young people about sex and make it more comfortable for them to talk about sex with each other and their partners.

As Simon Blake, cheif executive of the young people's sexual health charity Brook, says "We need to do more to find out why people are so afraid to talk about sexual pleasure."

Furthermore, Roger Ingham, professor of health psychology at the University of Southampton's Center for Sexual Health Research, says that countries who approach education about sex and relationships in a more open and positive way have much better sexual health outcomes.

So let's hear it for sex-positive, honest, open discussion. Horay!

Green Sex, Green Birth Control, Green Me, Green You.

noreply@blogger.com (Kaitlin) — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 02:06:00 +0000

Yeah, I just said that. I'm here, I'm saying stupid green phrases, and I'm rounding up all the info I can find from RH Reality Check, Huffington Post, Planet Green, and random blogs.

Apparently the "green" catch-phrase that has been EVERYWHERE for the past couple years has even made its way into our sex lives. While I for one cringe and get ready to throw fists of granola every time I hear someone utter "green" anything, I can totally support the ideology.

And yes, you can make your sex and your birth control green. But how? Well, the act of using birth control is a green sex choice on its own. By not adding an unplanned pregnancy to the overpopulated earth, you do not add more strain to the other.

Speaking of condoms, how do you green those up? Well, avoid condoms made with polyurethane, a plastic that does not break down. Also, did you know that you can buy vegan, fair-trade condoms? French Letter Condoms (http://www.frenchlettercondoms.co.uk/) sells them on their website. Another good source for vegan condoms is Glyde (http://www.glydehealth.com/products.htm). Many people don't realize that often latex condoms are not vegan because there is an added milk enzyme.

If you want to be even more green than that, try an IUD. IUD's create barely any waste - a little implant that can last up to 10 years!

What are other ways to be green and sexy? Try out the crank operated vibrator at http://www.holisticwisdom.com. Use organic/all natural lubes. Shower together (saves water!.. I think).

Mainly, the idea here (as is so with any green whatever) is to reduce waste and decrease the potential strains you may cause for the earth.