Sex and Meaning

Source: Dr. Marty Klein’s Sexual Intelligence Newsletter

Last week I had the pleasure of sharing some time with psychologist Michael Bader. We were on TV together discussing various sexual issues, including male sexuality, the subject (and title) of his new book.

Michael challenges the common idea that men are selfish in bed, that they don’t much care about their partner and don’t really want to be close. He says, in fact, that the opposite is true: that most men face such a crushing sense of responsibility in bed that they are, understandably, insecure. This leads them to focus so much on their performance that a human connection is difficult.

Bravo. As a therapist, I’ve noticed this, too. Performance anxiety accounts for a lot of the erection problems I hear about in the office, as well as a lot of the low desire. In fact, there are guys who say “porn is easier than sex with my wife, because I never feel like I satisfy her.” That’s a far cry from “men are addicted to porn” or “men are afraid of intimacy.”

It’s ironic: when people are too concerned about their partner’s experience, they have trouble relaxing and enjoying sex. And while they think of this over-attention as caring, their partner more often describes it as distance or lack of caring.

And so I tell men AND women that rather than try to figure out what their partner wants in bed, looking obsessively for signs of reaction (positive or negative), they should instead do what they enjoy. When both people do that, AND communicate to each other what they like and don’t like, a couple will find the overlap in their interests, and live happily ever after. Or at least have decent sex periodically.

www.sexualintelligence.com

Massachusetts state representative Kathi-Anne Reinstein has introduced a bill making it a crime for anyone over 60 to pose nude or sexually for a film or photo. The person taking the photo—whether a lover, artist, or commercial porn maker—would also face jail time.

Adding insult to injury, the proposal amends a bill designed to punish those who make child pornography. It treats fully functional adults who happen to be over 60 the same as children under 18; it explicitly takes away their right to consent to be photographed in a lascivious way.

Reinstein’s office says she proposed this bill in response to requests from senior advocacy groups. They claim there’s an epidemic of “elder sexual abuse,” and cite a handful of ugly cases. What pressure groups and legislators fail to mention is that there are already laws criminalizing coercion, and protecting the mentally incompetent. Other than that, Massachusetts’ millions of older people have the right to make their own choices, poor or not.

By the way, those “older people” who would lose their right to take or pose for a nude photo of themselves include such decrepit ancients as Meryl Streep, Richard Gere, Bruce Springsteen, Stevie Nicks, Tom Brokaw, Barbara Walters, and Al Gore. Not to mention Sophia Loren. Elder porn anyone?

The law also criminalizes nude or sexual photography of the physically disabled—again, regardless of mental capacity. Apparently, in Massachusetts you lose control over your sexuality when you lose control over your legs. And don’t forget the small matter of the U.S. Constitution; see Marc Randazza’s excellent coverage of the legal aspects of this law.

Predictably, Reinstein said, “If we can extend protection to the elderly and the disabled, it’s a no-brainer.” But “protection” in the form of stealing people’s rights isn’t protection. This is the same argument that was used to deny women the right to vote 100 years ago: “protecting” them from the upset of digesting political information and the pressures of citizenship.

It is, of course, illegal for adults to have sex with vulnerable children; any photo of this activity is the record of a crime. In contrast, it is legal for adults over 60 to have sex with each other; photos of this sex document only legal activity.

The proposed law, under the guise of protecting adults who are already protected, is simply an attack on adult sexuality. Is this merely a bunch of middle-aged legislators repulsed when they think about their older mom and dad being sexual? Or is it just another flag-waving attack on the legal adult porn industry?

Since 60 is, as they say, the new 40, and given the millions of older adults in Massachusetts (each of whom has a cell phone with a camera), the state is bidding to become the sex crime capital of the world. A small price to pay, Rep. Reinstein would say, to “protect” a few vulnerable people.

Where is AARP while Massachusetts seniors are being persecuted—or are their rights less important when they’re sexual rights?

Source: Dr. Marty Klein www.sexualintelligence.com

Facebook (motto: “nothing is too boring for Facebook”) has banned photos of breast-feeding. Facebook claims the photos are “obscene” and threaten the safety of “children” who go to the site. Yeah, we all know how traumatizing it is for kids to learn that tits are for anything other than sex.

As a private company with Terms of Use, Facebook can do whatever it wants. It can even pretend it doesn’t know that “obscene” is a legal term, not applicable in this context. And like senators, priests, and Morality in Media, Facebook can lie and claim that pictures of children nursing are dangerous for children to see.

After removing the meal-time photos for a year (see banned photos here), Facebook has recently ramped up its nipple vigilance, threatening to close mothers’ accounts if they re-post the horrifyingly nutritious globes.

In response, some 97,000 milk-juggers have formed Mothers International Lactation Campaign (MILC), with a Facebook group called “Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene!”

These women and their non-lactating allies are justifiably upset–but for the wrong reason.

They say ‘Facebook should go after real obscenity.’ They say the real problem is photos of see-through bikinis and couples groping each others’ butts. They say Janet Jackson is the problem, and wholesome pics of breasts are the solution. They resent being lumped in with ‘pornographers.’

This false consciousness is what keeps America stuck in perpetual Ozzie & Harriet land. What’s actually bad for kids–and adults–is the idea that sexual imagery is bad for kids.

The idea that ANY sexuality is expendable makes all of us vulnerable to having OUR sexuality declared expendable. Your right to watch South Park ultimately depends on someone else’s right to go to a strip club. Your right to breast-feed in public ultimately depends on someone else’s right to buy a vibrator. MILC may be willing to sacrifice “real” obscenity like CSI or swing clubs to keep its own photos acceptable, but this short-sighted strategy has never worked.

The 100,000 women outraged about the censorship of breastfeeding should be equally outraged by a state legislature outlawing lap-dancing, a Congress requiring filters on library computers used by adults, by Delta Airlines disabling access to internet material it deems “offensive.”

THAT’S how you protect the right to breastfeed in public, and to post photos thereof on Facebook. Saving one’s butt (or boobs) by telling authorities “The bad sexuality you’re looking to restrict isn’t mine, it’s his or hers over there” may work today, but not tomorrow.

The time to protect YOUR sexual expression is when SOMEONE ELSE’S is being threatened.
Source: Dr. Marty Klein

http://www.sexualintelligence.org/

President Bush has proposed one last set of new regulations carefully designed to damage Americans’ right to sexual health care.

The proposed rule would require recipients of federal money to allow doctors and other health care workers to refuse to participate in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their "religious beliefs or moral convictions."

Worse, it would also prevent hospitals, drugstores, and other healthcare locations from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to "assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity" financed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

To put it another way, this law would allow every person in the healthcare system to decide what services he or she would deliver to you–based on whatever internal belief system they have. It’s a recipe for chaos, dignified by the term "religion."

The regulation is opposed by the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, over 100 members of Congress, and the attorneys general of 13 states.

But the proposal is supported by the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals. Its president Carol Keehan claims "we have seen a variety of efforts to force Catholic and other health care providers to perform or refer for abortions and sterilizations."

Yes, that’s exactly right. In secular, pluralistic America, the public demands that people and corporations entering the health care business actually offer health care. We also expect that any enterprise buying sports stadiums will offer sporting events, and anyone buying the right to manage an airport (as in Chicago, New Orleans, and London) will actually operate an airport.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue fears that the Church might be "forced" to close its hospitals if they actually have to offer state-of-the-art, legal, medical care to patients.

And so the proposed HHS rule would require any health care entity receiving federal money to certify that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable. This is terrible. This puts the internal beliefs of individuals at odds with the reasonable needs of the public.

And it’s the obvious consequence of letting the Catholic Church buy hospitals. Lots of hospitals. In fact, they now operate more hospitals than any other company in the U.S.. And the care at these facilities is getting narrower and narrower.

This is a crucial, missing part of the conversation about health care and health insurance. What does "access" to the health care system matter if it’s "access" to incomplete services? If the only hospitals within 100 miles of my house won’t offer the full range of legal, safe procedures–for non-medical reasons–what does it matter who will reimburse me for this non-existent care?

If it’s increasingly unacceptable that health care is allocated by money and social class, why is it acceptable if health care is allocated by religion? And why is "religion" a good enough reason to excuse licensed professionals from doing their jobs? What if a nurse’s "religion" forbids her from washing her hands at work?

There’s an ethical, spiritually correct option for bus drivers who get carsick, teachers who don’t like children, chefs who can’t stand the sight of meat, and health care professionals who can’t honestly serve all patients with all needs.

Source: Dr. Marty Klein

http://www.sexualintelligence.org/

For months, I’ve been predicting that when you win, nothing will change regarding sex. I’ve said you won’t stop the government’s War On Sex; you won’t demand respect for sexual rights as human rights; you won’t prevent religious fanatics from controlling non-believers’ sex lives.

You now have your big chance: prove me wrong. Here’s what you need to do:

* End funding for abstinence-only training in public schools.
* End the Department of Justice’s war on adult entertainment. Keep the war on child porn. Make it clear they’re two different things.
* Decriminalize all consensual sex that teens have with other teens. Decriminalize teens sharing photos of themselves having sex.
* Increase financial support for Planned Parenthood, an investment proven to reduce poverty and domestic violence.
* Take the moral leadership to decrease abortion–by funding contraception services and comprehensive sex education, not by criminalizing abortion.
* Require all sex education programs to be scientifically accurate. Isn’t that required by the policies of car manufacturers, meat-packing plants, and toothpaste makers?
* Require all municipalities that want to restrict commercial sexual expression (strip clubs, adult bookstores, swing clubs, etc.) to actually demonstrate a need to do so, rather than simply claim "effects like crime, disease, and blight are well-established." Because they’re not.
* Require all federal judges to take a Continuing Education course about sexuality. Healthy sexuality, not "sex addiction" or child molestation. Make this education mandatory for anyone aspiring to be a judge.
* Get the FCC out of the censorship business. Let Americans use the "off" and "change channel" buttons on their TV remotes whenever they want; it’s good practice for voting.
* Remove the blocking software from every federally-funded computer in America–libraries, universities, airports. Start with the computers in the White House and Congress.

I’ve said in dozens of lectures this year that you won’t make a difference in America’s War On Sex.

Please, prove me wrong.

Dr. Marty Klein

Source: http://www.sexualintelligence.org/