Sex and Meaning

A pair of transportation giants revealed last week that as parts of Western society become more comfortable acknowledging sexuality, discomfort and fear of sexuality are still as powerful as ever.

For starters, Carnival Cruises of Miami will not book another “cougar-cub cruise” (younger men and middle-aged women meeting for erotic connection, either temporary or long-term), even though the first sold out and demand for a second is high.

It’s not clear what Carnival objects to–middle-aged women having sex, middle-aged women having sex with people other than the crew, or simply all that legendary 24-hour-a-day food going uneaten.

On a more ominous note, British Airways has revealed its policy preventing men from sitting next to children to whom they are not related.

Mirko Fischer, a 33-year-old businessman, discovered the policy while flying with his wife. Six months pregnant, she had booked a window seat. Fischer was in the middle seat between her and a 12-year-old boy.

When all passengers were seated and buckled in, a flight attendant asked Fischer to change his seat. When he refused–explaining about his pregnant wife–the flight attendant raised his voice, warning that the plane could not take off unless Fischer obeyed. Apparently BA crew stalk the aisles of every plane before takeoff, demanding that men sitting next to kids move. Fischer has sued for the humiliation of being treated like a potential criminal.

BA’s failure to grasp the most simple dynamics of human interaction is breathtaking.

Molest a kid on a plane? There isn’t enough room in coach to move that much. Besides, most molestations are done by someone the victim knows. The more reasonable policy would be to prevent kids from sitting with their parents, not with strangers.

* * *

To understand the true problem here, let’s imagine slightly changing the two companies’ policies. Say Carnival’s policy was “no cruises focusing on older people meeting each other for companionship,” or “no cruises focusing on young people in the travel industry looking for professional mentors.”

Similarly, let’s alter BA’s policy. Say it was “no handicapped people allowed to sit next to children,” or “no African-Americans,” or “no Arabs,” or “no one over 60.”

Not only would such policies be condemned, they’d be considered bizarre. The problem with CC’s and BA’s policies isn’t merely that they’re discriminatory, it’s that they don’t make sense–but because the discrimination is based on sexuality (imagined or real), people tolerate it.

In the 20th century, civil rights were granted to blacks, women, and the handicapped when enough people complained that discriminating against these groups was unreasonable. In this century, we have to make the case that discrimination against people based on the fear of their sexuality is equally unreasonable (and equally unconstitutional).

Some will inevitably protest, “Some men do molest kids. Some cougar-cub pairings are unhealthy, or done in public.” And of course that’s true.

But imagine blocking anti-discrimination laws against blacks, women, and the handicapped by telling the parallel truth–that some blacks are criminals (true, of course); that some women are stupid or vapid (true, of course); or that some handicapped people are clumsy and selfish and aggressively in others’ way (true, of course).

As public policy, we don’t withhold rights from a group because of the behavior or characteristics of a few of its members. And this should be equally true regarding sexual-related issues.

Millions of Americans shouldn’t be punished because a few people misuse nude beaches or spend the rent money on lap dances. But if we’re going to scrub cruise ships, airlines, beaches, bookstores, and other places so Americans can’t use or misuse them sexually, let’s start with an institution that, while most participants engage it legally and peacefully, is a proven haven where thousands of people have sexually exploited children: the Catholic Church.

Meanwhile, if BA doesn’t trust me enough to let me fly next to a kid, I’ll take my business to some other bankrupt airline. United apparently trusts me much more–much to my dismay, they love to sit me next to kids.

Source: http://www.sexualintelligence.org/newsletters/issue120.html

Last week, Congressmember Henry Waxman (D-CA) released a superb, readable report, “The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs.” It’s a concise evaluation of the thirteen most popular abstinence-only sex ed programs.

So it’s now official; a government agency documents that “over 80% of the abstinence-only curricula used by 2/3 of [federally funded programs] contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health.” Especially common were:

False information about the effectiveness of contraception
False information about the risk of abortion
Blurring religion and science
Treating stereotypes of girls and boys as scientific fact
Scientific errors

Here are actual quotes from these federally-funded programs that actual children in actual American schools are now reading and hearing:

“In heterosexual sex, condoms fail to prevent HIV approximately 31% of the time”
Touching another person’s genitals “can result in pregnancy.”
“The popular claim that condoms help prevent the spread of STDs is not supported by the data.”
“Women gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships. Men’s happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments.”
“Couples who use condoms to avoid a pregnancy have a failure rate of 15%.”
“Following abortion, according to some studies, women are more prone to suicide.”
Personal problems “can be eliminated by being abstinent until marriage.”

The Religious Right’s response (e.g., Morality in Media, Focus on the Family, Agape Press) was predictable: they trashed Waxman. They link him to same-sex marriage. They attack him for quoting Planned Parenthood data. They criticize his acceptance of campaign contributions from “groups that financially benefit from abortion,” like the American Medical Association. They complain that he didn’t mention all the funding for safer sex programs. They say he’s being picky.

But they couldn’t attack the science–because it’s clear as an Iowa day after a summer thundershower.

How did the Bush Administration, obsessed with whether or not kids are doing it, respond? With thunderous silence–except for one delicious, if terrifying, moment.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist happened to be on ABC-TV News’ “This Week” after the report’s release. Asked whether tears and sweat can transmit HIV (as falsely claimed in some abstinence curricula), physician Frist (who insists on being addressed as Doctor) first said, “I don’t know;” when pressed several times, he finally said, “You can get the virus in tears and sweat. But in terms of infecting somebody, it would be very hard.” The federal CDC website is absolutely clear: “Contact with saliva, tears, or sweat has never been shown to result in transmission of HIV.” Frist also repeated the abstinence-education lie that condoms fail 15% of the time, when the actual rate is less than 3%.

Ironically, Frist’s website boasts that he is “particularly passionate about confronting the global AIDS pandemic, frequently taking medical mission trips to Africa” and continuing “to raise awareness about the HIV/AIDS crisis throughout the world.” Frist is a disgrace to the MD that follows his name. And he is in clear violation of the AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics requiring doctors to “be honest in all professional interactions” and to “make relevant information available to the public.”

Waxman’s historic report may help undercut the federal crusade that has lavished hundreds of millions of dollars on the fantasy of sexless kids. Contempt for science should have no place in public policy.

Source: Dr. Marty Klein
http://www.sexualintelligence.org/newsletters/issue59.html

Gay Priests? No, Confused Priests

Social scientists at New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice have been researching the causes of the Catholic Church’s modern tradition of priests sexualizing boys. In releasing their initial findings, researchers said they can not attribute it to gay priests or seminaries for teenagers.

“We do not have data to support those assertions,” said Karen Terry, lead researcher for the $2 million study commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. She believes that the priests had sex primarily with boys mainly because they had access to boys. “Even though there was sexual abuse of many boys, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the [priest] had a homosexual identity,” she said.

Correct.

After all, male soccer coaches who have sex with teen girls, and step-fathers who have sex with their step-daughters don’t do it because of “heterosexuality.” Such adult sexual behavior is caused by internal torment about sexuality, a collapse of boundaries, lack of empathy, a breakdown of ethics, and confusion about power…just like priests sexually exploiting boys.

The question of what defines a person as gay is interesting, and relevant to people of every persuasion, including straights. Many male public figures who have been caught being interested in other men have loudly denied they’re gay. Some are (understandably) frightened liars, but many others, such as Senator Larry Craig, are clearly telling the truth.

As Alfred Kinsey first showed Americans a half-century ago, same-gender fantasies, curiosity, desire, and the occasional fling, do not alone define someone as gay. And if an adult has sex with children who happen to be the same gender, that doesn’t define him (or her) as gay, either. It defines him (or her) as interested in children, which is its own orientation (permanent or otherwise).

The Church has more than a bad-apple-gay-priest problem. It has a who-becomes-a-supposedly-celibate-priest-anyway problem. Like the French Foreign Legion, the job description itself cannot possibly attract enough psychologically healthy people. And given the Church’s tortured, inhumane attitude about sexuality, it’s hardly the institution to heal any sexual problems revealed or developed by its shepherds (much less its flock).

What Dr. Terry’s project is almost certain to find is that the priests who sexually exploited children are a heterogeneous lot–some of them gay, most of them straight, some of them angry (some surely angry at their god), many of them lonely, and some developmentally primitive. That last sub-group will have experienced their sex with kids as a peer activity. Psychologically (although not biologically, ethically, or legally), that would be accurate.

Astonishingly, many so-called morality groups used the revelations of 2002 and beyond as an opportunity to demonize homosexuality–blithely overlooking the Church setting that was the dominant feature of every one of these exploitative interactions. Talk about chutzpah. That’s like discussing car accidents without discussing cars, or alcoholism without discussing alcohol.

People don’t do bad things because they’re gay. People do bad things because of who they are. Some of those people are blond, some are left-handed, and some are gay. Many of them lack empathy–the ability to truly understand the experience (including the pain) of others. That’s the place to start cleaning up the Church.

At the top, by the way.

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

10 Ways to Observe Pornography Awareness Week

Today starts WRAP Week: White Ribbons Against Pornography.

Sponsored by groups including Concerned Women for America (CWA) and Morality in Media (MIM), the goal of the week is “to educate the public about the extent of the pornography problem and what can constitutionally be done about it.” The groups involved suggest activities for observing the week, such as urging the Attorney General to enforce obscenity laws.

I totally agree with the idea behind WRAP. I support increasing everyone’s awareness of pornography use in this country–how many people watch it, who these people typically are, how it affects them and their relationships, what are rights are regarding pornography, etc. Of course, I have a different, more scientific take on the “problem,” so I propose a different set of activities to observe the Week.

To counter the obscene lies our media and legislators will be hearing this week, perhaps you could do one (or more!) of the following:

1. If you use porn, talk about it with your partner.
2. Thank the clerk in your local convenience store for carrying porn magazines or videos.
3. Write a letter to the editor of your local paper explaining that most people who use porn have no problem with it.
4. Invite your partner to share her/his concerns about porn with you.
5. Instead of a White Ribbon, wear a Plaid Ribbon. When people ask, say it’s for Porn Awareness Week and your gratitude for the First Amendment.
6. Start a conversation with someone: “Did you know that the Bill of Rights says nothing about an exception for porn, obscenity, or indecency?
7. Send a few bucks to the ACLU, National Coalition Against Censorship or Woodhull Freedom Foundation. They protect your right to read, watch, and jack off to whatever adult material you like.
8. Write your mayor or governor reminding them that you vote, and you have no problem with porn.
9. Memorize these facts: in the real world, porn is NOT connected with violence against women, child molestation, or divorce. In fact, according to the FBI, these have all declined since the country was flooded with internet porn in 2000.
10. Use some.

Bonus: What to say to people who claim that pornography causes most of America’s problems:

“Of course some rapists and wife-beaters use pornography. So do 50,000,000 other Americans, and it doesn’t make them rape or beat anyone.”
“Of course some people watch way too much porn. Other people watch way too much football, reality TV, or the Weather Channel. That doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with any of them.”
“Porn doesn’t make men withdraw from their wives and girlfriends. Men withdraw for a variety of reasons. No pictures or stories can compete with a satisfying sexual & emotional relationship with a live person.”

Source: Dr. Marty Klein’s Sexual Intelligence Newsletter
http://www.sexualintelligence.org/

I’m returning from New York, where I keynoted a big Planned Parenthood event.

It’s wonderful to speak to groups of people who support sexual rights. It always feels like visiting family. (The family that makes you feel welcome, not the family that wonders if you were switched with their “real” child at birth.)

After I spoke, I saw an old friend, and the subject of pornography came up (I hardly go anywhere anymore that it doesn’t). An influential sex-positive researcher, she told me she favored full access to sexually explicit materials–”except, of course, snuff films,” she said.

That brought me up short. Here’s a world-class sociologist, a tremendous force for good in the world, and she’s talking about snuff films–movies where actual people actually die while making the film, which very sick viewers then watch for sexual pleasure.

I told her there’s no such thing.

“Of course there is,” she said.

I asked if she’d ever seen one. She hadn’t.
I asked if she knew anyone who’d ever seen one. She hadn’t.
I asked if she knew anyone who knew anyone who’d ever seen one. She hadn’t.

“But various law enforcement people talk about it, and they say they exist,” she said. I totally believe that they say that. But I asked her if any of these prosecutors, detectives, or cops had ever seized one, shown her one, or even seen one. She said no.

She and I travel in very different professional circles which only overlap slightly. So between the two of us, we’ve got most of the sex profession covered. And together we’ve been at it over half a century. To top it off, she’s one of the world’s experts on sexual violence.

So if neither of us has seen a snuff film, or knows someone who has, I’m certain they don’t exist.

What’s interesting, though, is the enduring power of this myth. Like Bigfoot, delicious fat-free lasagna, or moderate Republicans, people insist there is such a thing. Nobody’s seen one, but the myth is so persistent that somehow it’s up to the non-believers to prove the thing doesn’t exist–which, of course, can’t be done.

People are especially prone to believing myths about sex. Part of my job is to challenge such beliefs: That the internet is full of pedophiles waiting to kidnap our kids. That porn is a gateway drug that leads to watching kiddie porn. That masturbation within marriage is a form of infidelity. That love always leads to desire, and that lack of desire reflects a lack of love. That condoms don’t work. That abstinence does.

What’s even more interesting than challenging these myths, though, is asking why these ideas persist in the face of people’s actual, contrary experience. In most marriages, at least one partner masturbates. Most Americans who pledge abstinence until marriage have sex before marriage. At some point most people love someone and yet have insufficient desire. And so on.

Everyone agrees that we desperately need more communication about sex–between partners, between parents and children, among physicians, psychologists, and sex therapists. But communication with inaccurate information is worse than no communication at all.

That’s a main disadvantage of do-it-yourself sex education websites and blogs–where people write in with their problems, and others offer their “opinion” and “experience.” This advice is often gender-biased (”most women are selfish in bed”), fear-and-danger oriented (”never let your daughter go to frat parties”) moralistic (”porn is an evil intrusion into the sanctity of your relationship”), or just plain wrong (”sooner or later, menopause kills everyone’s sex life”).

The internet is the sex educator’s worst nightmare–a chance for everyone to reinforce everyone else’s ignorance. So this week, do yourself a favor–just ask yourself, “When it comes to sex, how do I know what I know? Why do I believe what I believe, anyway?”

Dr. Marty Klein

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