skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Catholic Church continues to lose followers for awful decisions like the one it made last week to strip an Arizona hospital of its official religious status because it performed an emergency abortion to save the life of the mother.
The controversy has the ACLU appealing to the federal government to ensure that emergency contraceptives and abortions remain available at Catholic hospitals.
In a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the ACLU said "the refusal by religiously affiliated hospitals to provide abortion and other services was becoming an increasing problem."
Their complaint stems from a Catholic Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted's decision to strip St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix of its Catholic status after staff doctors performed an abortion to save a mother's life late last year.
The bishop who oversees the hospital excommunicated a nun who was involved in the decision-making process last Tuesday and announced that the hospital could no longer call itself Catholic because he discovered it had been providing women with "birth-control pills and other forms of contraception" and sterilizations and abortions in certain situations.
The medical center followed with a very brave announcement of its own last Tuesday, saying it will continue to provide life-saving abortion care to patients even though it means losing its affiliation with the local Roman Catholic Diocese.
This commendable decision by St. Joseph’s and the hospital network that oversees it, Catholic Healthcare West, upholds important legal and moral principles. It also underscores the need to ensure that religiously affiliated hospitals comply with their legal duty to provide emergency reproductive care.
Advocates for reproductive rights are concerned that as Catholic hospital chains take over more hospitals, it will become more difficult for women to access contraception and medically necessary abortions.
The controversy stems from an incident in November 2009, when a 27-year-old mother of four in her third month of pregnancy arrived at St. Joseph’s. She was diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension, a serious complication that might well have killed her if she had continued the pregnancy.
The hospital performed an abortion, leading Bishop Olmsted to declare Sister Margaret McBride, a member of the hospital’s ethics committee, “automatically excommunicated” because she had consented to the therapeutic abortion necessary to save the woman’s life.
Last week, Bishop Olmsted said he no longer had confidence that the administration of St. Joseph's Hospital would run it according to Catholic teachings, "and therefore this hospital cannot be considered Catholic."
Leaders of the institution, founded in 1895 by a Catholic order, the Sisters of Mercy, said it would continue to operate "in the Catholic tradition" but without the official sanction of the church.
"I have hoped and prayed that this day would not come," the bishop was quoted as saying at a news conference. "However, the faithful of the diocese have a right to know whether institutions of this importance are indeed Catholic in identity and practice."
Just last month, Bishop Olmsted threatened to remove his endorsement of the hospital unless he received a written acknowledgment that the abortion violated Catholic policy and “will never occur again at St. Joseph’s Hospital.”
The hospital has steadfastly refused to bow to these demands, summing up its position with elegant simplicity: “Morally, ethically, and legally we simply cannot stand by and let someone die whose life we might be able to save.”
It is hardly reassuring that following the incident at St. Joseph’s, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said Sister Margaret was properly punished and seconded Bishop Olmsted’s stance against providing the abortion, even to save a woman’s life.
No one has suggested that Catholic hospitals should be required to perform nonemergency abortions. But as St. Joseph’s recognized, the need to accommodate religious doctrine does not give health providers serving the general public license to jeopardize women’s lives.
The hospital's president, Linda Hunt, said she was "deeply saddened" by Olmsted's decision, adding, "The fact that this situation stems from our decision to save a young woman's life is particularly sad."
This is no small matter. Catholic hospitals account for about 15 percent of the nation’s hospital beds and are the only hospital facilities in many communities. Months ago, the American Civil Liberties Union asked the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services to investigate reported instances where religious doctrine prevailed over the need for emergency reproductive care, and to issue a formal clarification that denying such treatment violates federal law.
As previously mentioned, St. Joseph's is run by San Francisco-based Catholic Healthcare West, which operates more than 40 hospitals and clinics in California, Arizona and Nevada.
— The Curator
Gay men and women will soon be able to serve openly in the military for the first time in our nation's history, rather than hiding their sexuality or being forced to lie about it.
There are thousands upon thousands of blog posts across the globe about the repeal of the military's bigoted "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy against gays, so I hesitated adding my small voice to that growing cacophony.
What can I say, that hasn't been said? Then it dawned on me: I'm bisexual, so I HAVE to add my small voice.
Before becoming disabled, I worked in law enforcement, within an agency that mimicked many military practices. In fact, a huge percentage of my co-workers were retired police, military or reservists. After 9-11, a large number of them were re-activated or volunteered and were sent immediately to Iran and into combat.
I knew that many of those men and women were also members of the Lesbian-Gay-Tri-Gender community. They responded to the country's call to arms without hesitation, putting their civilian lives on hold indefinitely. They kissed their families and significant others good-bye, and donned their helmets, fatigues and loaded their automatic rifles.
As most know, the military code of conduct requires that each member practice and respect honesty in service. How then, could these brave heroes be told by their country that they must lie about the core truth of their lives, or they would be barred from serving, or drummed out of the military in disgrace?
So, all of the ones I knew lied by omission. They did not declare their sexuality, and refused to disclose it if asked. Some of them were wounded, some never came home. The ones that did, were often re-deployed more than once because they had advanced military training and skills. When they finally came home and stayed, many were scarred emotionally and/or physically, and most were forever changed — just like their heterosexual counterparts. No difference. No difference at all.
I don't know one LGBT man or woman who wants to "seduce" a heterosexual, especially during combat! They simply want equality, to live normal lives, free from the constant stereotyping and bigotry that they have had to endure for eons.
Sexuality is NOT a choice, or a lifestyle. It is simply a biological fact. There are rotten LGBTs, just like their are rotten heterosexuals. The person you sleep with is not someone's defining char-ac-ter-is-tic — no, that would be char-ac-ter! You know, like strength, perseverance, compassion, courage, and honesty!
Equal rights means, uh, equal rights, i.e., freedom. It remains shocking to me that LGBTs have been seeking the right to die for those rights by defending our country. Shouldn't we all be focused on working toward peace? Maybe now, we will be.
"By ending 'don't ask, don't tell,' no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay. And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love," President Obama said in a statement.
It is high time that America joins the rest of the developed world. LGBT's right to serve openly and without penalty or disdain in the military is a huge step in doing just that. Now, let us turn our attention to bringing our military service members home safely — and soon — from all wars.
— The Curator
Primetime TV shows that appeal to teenagers are promoting the "sexualization" of girls at an alarming rate, including more portrayals of underage females being objectified than adults, especially for laughs, according to the Parents Television Council.
The questionable watchdog group is calling on producers, advertisers and government regulators to take an honest assessment of the sexually provocative way girls are portrayed on TV and take it down a notch. Or two.
But, is this study legitimate, or simply another way for this group to manipulate the statistics for its established agenda? The PTC is known to use scare tactics and thin statistics to jump to huge conclusions and generalizations about sex in America. It often does so without the appropriate, neutral scientific research to back up any of its claims.
PTC president Tim Winter, armed with only a 20-page study that the group released today, hosted a conference call with journalists and others to ask Hollywood to treat sex much as it has smoking: Strip it out where possible, for children's sake.
"They can step up. They can tone it down," he said, during the media blitz.
PTC analysts looked only at the top 14 scripted shows that Nielsen identified as being popular among children 12-17, including "The Office," "NCIS," "Two and a Half Men," "The Big Bang Theory" and "The Vampire Diaries."
"Underage female characters are shown participating in a higher percentage of sexual depictions compared to adults," according to the study, called 'Sexualized Teen Girls: Tinseltown's New Target' — hardly neutral language for a legitimate study.
The PTC argues that girls are increasingly shown as having their worth dependent upon their sexuality, a media phenomenon it asserts leads to passivity, depression, eating disorders and low self-esteem. In other words, TV is the root of most of the sexual evils of our time.
The report claims that 73 percent of televised sexual incidents that involved girls under 18 were designed to be funny, thus using "laughter to desensitize and trivialize topics that might normally be viewed as disturbing."
The study says 98 percent of the portrayals of underage girls acting in a sexual manner occurred with partners with whom they have no committed relationship, and 75 percent of such shows don't include the "S" descriptor beforehand to warn parents what's coming.
To bolster the PTC's case, the group put several "experts" on its conference call today, including former model Nicole Clark, who made the 2008 documentary film "Cover Girl Culture: Awakening the Media Generation."
"Our girls are being sexually objectified as young as six," said Clark, who is pregnant and broke down into tears several times during her presentation. "How did things get so crazy?"
Television executives are robbing children of their innocence — "preying on them" — she asserted, and their victims aren't strong enough to reject the destructive messages.
"Why can't the media be on our side?" she asked.
The provocative question regarding the veracity of this study was addressed in detail in an excellent column written by Chris Kelly, which appeared in today's Huffington Post. Read the opinion editorial in its entirety below, or directly at the website:
TV is Smutty, but the Parents Television Council is a Disgrace
By Chris Kelly
"L. Brent Bozell is a cheap has-been who died years ago, but that doesn't mean his work-from-home pressure group, The Parents Television Council, can't still come up with the occasional hot title for a press release. Take, for example, this week's shocking study — more than 35 hours in the making —
Sexualized Teen Girls: Tinseltown's New Target (deep breath) A Study of Teen Female Sexualization in Primetime TV
Just looking at him, you'd guess that L. Brent Bozell's savvy with technology was limited to opening cans, but you've got to hand it to him — the man can manipulate a search engine.
If there's one thing L. Brent Bozell hates about our sleazy, lowest-common-denominator media, it's teen girl sex teen female teen teen sex girls.
Especially in that dern "Tinseltown," where a smooth-talking sharpie can turn a dizzy doll's head, pitch her some woo, love her up, and leave her table dancing in some gin joint.
L. Brent Bozell is a busted valise, and the PTC is a card table, but the report has already been covered, and taken seriously, by ABC News, the Los Angeles Times, and the New York Daily News. None of which mentioned that, just to give you a feel for where the PTC is coming from, this week they made a grid of every show on network television, and said only two were appropriate for family viewing — Extreme Makeover: Home Edition and Minute to Win It.
Here's the PTC's release about the teen sex sex teen sex thing:
LOS ANGELES (December 15, 2010) In a new report, the Parents Television Council details the nature and extent of Hollywood's obsession with sexualizing teen girls. PTC's report, Tinseltown's New Target: A study of Teen Female Sexualization on Primetime TV, is based on a content analysis of the most popular primetime broadcast shows among 12 to 17-year-olds during the 2009-2010 TV season.
This content analysis was limited to just 35 hours of TV — that's including commercial time — over two weeks. They only watched scripted shows on the four major networks, so the study doesn't include reality shows, which actually make up half of top 25, or whole channels, like MTV, TLC, Adult Swim or Comedy Central — the ones that air the shows teenagers actually watch. So remember, this study of modern TV trends has been prepared by people who've never seen American Idol and don't have cable. It's like getting a tsunami warning from a man listening to a seashell.
Pretty shocking, right, Grandma? Get out your checkbook. But let's take a closer look, claim by claim.
"When underage female characters appear on screen: more sexual content is depicted."
Than when? Than when underage female characters don't appear? Than during reruns of My Little Margie? Than when the Wright Brothers pioneered powered flight? Than when the TV is off?
Not only don't we know what any of these terms mean, we don't know to what, if anything, they're being compared. We just know it's MORE.
So we turn to the study itself, and find the PTC means more sexualized images of underage female characters than adult female characters.
This could be shocking, but remember, the PTC got to pick the shows it gets to talk about. And they picked the (network, scripted) shows that teenagers watch. So, it's not really that weird that they're about teenagers, and not about adults. Would it be less creepy if teenagers were watching shows where adult women had more sex than teenagers?
And what exactly is "sexual content?" According to the PTC, it includes dancing, nudity (partial, obscured or implied) and "scenes in which sexualization was intentionally ambiguous and communicated using subtle overtones and social cues" including scenes that "required knowledge of a previous storyline or history and/or knowledge of the characters' general disposition."
Your move, Taliban.
In other words, everything and anything. They don't know smut, but they know it when they see it, kind of see it, or don't see it at all. This, of course, is lunacy.
"The teen girls show next to no negative response to being sexualized."
According to the PTC report:
"Only 5% of the underage female characters communicated any form of dislike for being sexualized (excluding scenes depicting healthy sexuality)."
Again, remember: This announcement is being made based on the close study of less TV than the average teenager sees in a weekend, and deliberately excludes the shows the average teenager chooses to watch. And by "being sexualized" the PTC sometimes means sending subtle social cues about a willingness to dance.
Let's look at where they get their 5 percent. It's in Table 3 "Frequencies and Percentages of Female Characters' Attitudes Toward Being Sexualized Based on Age":
Participant's Attitude Positive 16 Negative 2 Unclear/Neutral 23 Total Incidents 41
Look at this another way: Even given their insane definition of sex, and their tiny sample of episodes of shows — that aren't really representative of anything — they still find that 25 out of 41 underage characters' responses to being sexualized are negative, unclear or neutral.
That's 60 percent. Which could be better, but it's not bad.
"More sexual incidents occur outside of any form of a committed relationship."
Here the Parents Television Council jumps the tracks entirely. What do they imagine they want? We're talking about children. What sort of committed sexual relationships would L. Brent Bozell like eight year olds to enter? This isn't an argument; it's just dog noises.
"There is less accuracy in the TV content rating."
Goddamn it, here we go again. Than what? Less accuracy than what?
One last shocking figure from the report:
"The data show that 73% of the underage sexualized incidents were presented in a humorous manner or as a punch line to a joke."
Outrageous! Except the PTC only looked at 14 shows, and nine of them were comedies. I'm thinking the comedies were the ones making light.
By the way, of the 14 shows in the study, only six even have underage characters: Two and Half Men, Glee, The Cleveland Show, Family Guy, American Dad and The Simpsons. So by "Tinseltown," the Parents Television Council means one sitcom, one dramedy, and four cartoons, one of them over 20 years old.
Obviously sexualizing children is wrong. But so is talking nonsense about nothing in language designed to deceive. It's contemptible and obvious, and L. Brent Bozell should knock it off."
The sexualization of children is deplorable, and appears to be ans increasing phenomenon throughout our society. It is an important topic that should be looked at with neutrality, not by a group that has an established agenda and manipulates minimal statistics primarily to generate fear and its own sensational headlines and point of view.
— The Curator
Want to be a nicer person? If you're a man, then shacking up may help. A new study is lending credence to the idea that marriage helps combat antisocial behavior.
Earlier research has found evidence that tying the knot can make men less aggressive and even less likely to engage in criminal activity. But it wasn't clear whether antisocial men were simply more likely to remain single, or whether marriage actually makes them into nicer people.
Both reasons may apply, according to a study published this week in the Archives of General Psychiatry.
S. Alexandra Burt, a behavioral geneticist at Michigan State University and the study's lead researcher, examined 289 pairs of male twins to find out how they would differ if one of the twins got married, and the other remained single.
"The married men engaged in lower levels of antisocial behavior at all ages," which suggests that they were less antisocial people to begin with, Burt concluded.
"But once they got married it seemed like the behaviors go down even more," meaning that something about their marriage likely made them become "nicer," she said in an interview.
Researchers examined the twins at age 17, 20, 24 and 29. They found that those who were less aggressive or more likely to consider the well-being of others at age 17 and age 20 had a better chance of getting married by age 29.
Once married, they became even less likely to do something antisocial, like get into a brawl, compared to their single twin brothers.
The study didn't examine why it is that antisocial men are more likely to stay single, or why married men may become more responsible and laid-back.
But the findings raise some interesting questions, Burt says. "I can imagine if you're a guy who really likes to get in fights and steal things, marriage may not look all that attractive to you," she said. "On the other hand, it could be that if you're a woman looking to get married, the kind of guy that gets in fights and steals things doesn't look as attractive as a marital partner either. So it's hard to know who's doing the selecting."
It may also be that "when men are with their wives, they're just less likely to go out and do some of the stuff that they might do with their rowdy friends," she said.
Or perhaps marriage teaches men to better relate to others.
"Through getting married they're just learning better how to bond with people. Since antisocial behavior is really about disregarding the rights of others, they're less likely to do that," Burt said.
And once men get married, she added, "they also have more to lose."
This study clearly involved only marriages between heterosexual men and women. I would like to see the study replicated to see whether the results hold true in same-sex unions between men. I would expect the results to be exactly the same!
— The Curator
I hate this, hate this!
Breakups are agonizing. For both the heartbreaker and the heartbroken, the let's-not-do-this-anymore conversation is always awkward and very often painful, particularly for the person getting dumped.
Bradley Laborman knows this because he has probably been through more breakups than anyone else. That's because he runs the website iDUMP4U, which lets users hire a relationship hit man — i.e., Laborman — to do their dirty work for them. For $10, Laborman will make the breakup call, which he records for posterity — and for YouTube. That's right, customers can choose to broadcast these calls for their entertainment (or revenge) value.
Sound terrible? It really, really is. But, I think it also symbolizes just how far our society had devolved. People and relationships are beyond expendable, they have become simply 'objects' to be used then discarded along with the trash without a backward, emotional or responsible glance. So, why not use the new technology to keep your own hands clean? Dis-gusting.
But people do use the service. At $10 for a standard breakup, $25 for ending an engagement and $50 for demanding a divorce, iDUMP4U isn't turning a profit yet, but Laborman says he was surprised at how quickly business picked up after he launched the site in September 2009.
Originally starting it as a joke, Laborman so far has conducted more than 200 breakups, for almost every reason imaginable, from cheating partners to lazy lovers. And if last year's requests are any indication, Laborman's numbers are about to get a boost. The phenomenon known as the Turkey Dump — in which college freshmen break up with their hometown loves over the Thanksgiving holiday — provided Laborman with a lot of extra business last year. "Last year I had a lot of Turkey Dumps," he says. "I also had people who didn't want to buy a Christmas present [for their partner]. This time of year is the busiest."
Although Laborman may be the most extreme, he is not the only provider of third-party dumping services. There's BreakUpEmail.com, which asks users to fill out various details — their name, partner's name, reason for breaking up — and then produces a breakup e-mail to send to their soon-to-be-single sweetheart.
The site gets up to 5,000 visits a day, and its creator, Chris (who asks that we do not include his last name out of concern that moonlighting as a breakup facilitator might negatively impact his day job as a humanitarian-aid worker), says he has gotten thank-you e-mails from two types of people: those who find the site funny and those who actually use it.
And, of course, there's an app for breaking up. Erase Ur X can be used to create a form e-mail sent from your iPhone that breaks the news to your soon-to-be-ex. After that, the app does what creator Cory Wiles calls the hardest part of the breakup — deleting the now-ex's number from your phone. (If you aren't actually conducting the breakup yourself, that probably is the hardest part.)
For those of us who can still remember the time when breaking up over the phone, rather than in person, was thought to be in poor taste, services like these may seem an unimaginably impersonal way to end what should be your most intimate relationship. But for those who began their dating career in the age of texting, Twitter and Facebook, relationships have a whole new communication system. And so do breakups.
"We are so used to having standardized etiquette, and in some ways we are still waiting for that to emerge [online]," says Ilana Gershon, an assistant professor at Indiana University and the author of The Breakup 2.0: Disconnecting over New Media. "But no one has set out the rules of what's acceptable and what's not." So for a society that once lived by Emily Post's code of conduct, we now find ourselves navigating the social scene sans guidelines, and what may seem like horrific behavior to some is (borderline) acceptable to others.
Ironically, Erase Ur X's Wiles and the other guys who run third-party dumping services admit that they'd never want to be broken up with by their own companies. BreakUpEmail.com's Chris says he's never broken up with anyone over e-mail, which may explain why he's still friends with most of his ex-girlfriends (one of them even gave him advice on developing the site). And iDUMP4U's Laborman says he'd prefer a face-to-face breakup to any other method.
Yet each defends their services as having a practical role for today's relationships. Wiles says that social networking has changed our ideas about privacy. "It used to be that breakups were private," he says. "This is just the new trend, a natural progression."
Laborman contends that with all the ambiguity that new media can bring to a relationship — it's not officially over until your Facebook relationship status says it's over, right? — using a third-party dumping service can let your partner know how serious you are about the breakup, and therefore improve your communication.
"Or," he counters, "it's the perfect way to burn a bridge."
No kidding! Anyone who would use one of these services is not someone I would ever be interested in having a relationship with in the first place. Relationships mean taking risks, and they require mutual responsibility and have consequences. Sometimes they cause pain, but they can also produce a profound joy like nothing else in the entire universe. They are not iPod applications for God's sake, they are real life. You remember real life, right? Jesus, I am developing a real, honest hatred for this era!
— The Curator
This holiday season has brought up quite unexpectedly a lot of issues for me, one of them involving what sentimentality means in life and love.
As regular readers know, I have been enduring the abrupt loss of libido because of medication side-effects for treatment of Lupus. It is the first time in my adult life that my sex drive is virtually non-existent.
As a result, I have been reflecting on how integral my sex life has been in being able to express and receive love. I'm bi-sexual, and am in a long-term loving monogamous relationship with a woman. Currently, I am providing my partner with complete sexual attention, but want to cuddle afterward instead of receiving any sexual contact in return.
Surprisingly, I have been feeling really good about this arrangement, while my partner has felt some guilt. We've been trying to talk through it, since my lack of sexual interest has nothing to do with her, etc., and I really, really love being able to LOVE her to satisfaction.
Touch triggers so many memories of our lives together, a living link of connection and commitment. But, even if that were not so, we share a history that is parts sweet nostalgia and facing serious struggles – both losses and gains tallied on a ledger that has nothing to do with monetary value.
I was discussing the relative merits of our lives with my dear and very wise friend, SurvivingSurvival this week. Is sentimentality really so bad? No, he said, it's important to feel a sense of our past, and to hold it in our hands for as long as possible.
Being sentimental is not a sign of weakness, and does not have to be discarded as the flotsam and jetsam of an unproductive, unrealistic life. Rather, it can be viewed with perspective, underscoring all that we have done, and all that we have yet to do.
Like everyone on the planet of a certain age, I have loved my family, friends, partners. Every contact has left behind a memory, some through the senses, but others via a letter, or a greeting card to celebrate some distant milestone. These are personal treasures, and I choose to protect these vestiges of my life of love. They are as precious to me as the magical mist that swirls through our collective consciousness.
— The Curator
The global community has been holding its collective breath since it was reported that the execution by stoning of an Iranian woman sentenced to death for adultery was “imminent.”
Today, comes a new report from Tehran that there is a "good chance" that she could be spared, the head of Iran's High Human Rights Council said in an interview.
"Our judiciary made a lot of efforts (in reviewing the case) and we think there is a good chance her life could be saved," Mohammed Javad Larijani told Iran's English-language Press TV in an interview that aired today.
Larijani, who was speaking in English, did not give details of the judiciary's review of the Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani case or the basis of his optimism that her life would be spared.
His council works under the judiciary's auspices.
I, along with most other bloggers, have reported on this tragic case since it first came to the attention of the international community, continue to add my voice to theirs urging that this woman be spared.
The sentence handed down against Mohammadi-Ashtiani sparked international outrage and diplomatic intervention by several Western governments as well as the Vatican.
In July, Tehran said that the sentence to death by stoning had been stayed pending a full review of her case.
Mohammadi-Ashtiani, a 43-year-old mother of two, was initially given death sentences by two different courts in the northwestern city of Tabriz in separate trials in 2006.
A sentence to hang for her involvement in the murder of her husband was commuted to a 10-year jail term by an appeals court in 2007.
But a second sentence, to death by stoning on charges of adultery levelled over several relationships, notably with the man convicted of her husband's murder, was upheld by another appeals court the same year.
Larijani insisted Iran had never prevented Sakineh's lawyers from meeting with her but cautioned that legal representatives are not above the law.
"Anyone who conducts illegal activities must be held accountable before the law," he said, whether he is "a defender of human rights, a lawyer or a carpenter."
Sakineh's current lawyer, Javid Houtan Kian, was arrested in the northwestern city of Tabriz in September along with two Germans who were conducting an interview with her son.
The two Germans, who entered Iran on tourist visas, are accused of spying.
According to prosecutor general Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejeie, Houtan Kian's possible links with "anti-revolutionary groups based abroad" are being investigated.
Without naming him, Larijani also criticized Sakineh's first lawyer, Mohammad Mostafaie, for having "preferred to give interviews to foreigners" rather than defend his client.
Mostafaie gave a number of interviews with European media outlets after he fled Iran in July and sought refuge in Norway after Tehran issued an arrest warrant against him.
Rejecting the international outcry over the death sentence imposed on Mohammadi-Ashtiani, Larijani drew parallels between her case and that of Teresa Lewis, a 41-year-old American grandmother who was executed in the United States in late September for murder.
He said the two cases were "exactly the same" and that the West did not have the right to condemn the decision of Iran's judiciary.
— The Curator
The pope is at it again: Confusing the faithful and activists on whether the use of condoms to help stop the spread of AIDS is OK with the church.
I respect all religious views, but I want to be up-front here and happily disclose that I am a FORMER Catholic, and the most recent flap has only strengthened my resolve to never, ever go back.
How is it even possible to have to think about whether the use of condoms to help stop AIDS and all STD’s is advantageous? It is a no brainer, but apparently the Vatican remains stuck in the wrong century, as usual. It also remains blatantly homophobic and obviously bigoted, views it has held close to his hypocritical chest and has carefully nurtured for over 2,000 years.
While some AIDS activists welcomed the pope’s apparent softening of the Vatican’s opposition to the use of condoms, sex workers said his concession, directed only at infected prostitutes, demonstrated both his prejudice, and stark removal from reality. Not to mention, his apparent belief that sex workers are responsible for AIDS!
In a book-long interview entitled Light of the World to be published on Tuesday, the 83-year-old German pontiff suggests that using condoms could be justified in some cases on moral grounds to prevent infecting others with the virus causing AIDS, citing the example of a “male prostitute.”
In a book to be published this week, Benedict XVI said there could be “justified individual cases” in which condoms could be used, softening Rome’s blanket ban on contraception, one of the most controversial issues facing the Church.
"In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality," the head of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics said, giving as an example a male prostitute having sex with a client.
Of course, he gave no guidance on the long-standing moral and religious question of whether it would be permissible for a married couple, in which one partner is HIV positive, to use condoms in order to prevent the other partner from becoming infected. Not to mention, the millions of homosexuals worldwide who are sexually active and want to protect themselves and their partners from AIDS and any and all other STD’s.
If that is what he meant even in this very narrow area, it is quite a contradiction, since the pope spoke out against condom use as recently as March 2009 during a trip to Africa. At that time, the pope caused an international uproar by claiming that condoms “increase the problem” of AIDSs. Ridiculous, disgusting and incredibly dangerous, in my view.
Pressed yesterday by Peter Seewald, a German Catholic journalist, whether he meant that the Church was not opposed in principle to the use of condoms, Pope Benedict replied: “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.” Um, what?
While the Vatican’s ban on artificial birth control was set out in a 1968 encyclical, it has not formally documented its position on condoms as a means to combat AIDS.
“This is a significant and positive step forward taken by the Vatican,” Michel Sidibé, executive director of UNAids, said. “This move recognizes that responsible sexual behavior and the use of condoms have important roles in HIV prevention. This will help accelerate the HIV prevention revolution.”
Predictably, Jon O’Brien, head of Catholics for Choice, a U.S. group, commented quite positively, proclaiming, “It is a marvelous victory for common sense and reason, a major step forward towards recognizing that condom use can play a vital role in reducing the future impact of the HIV pandemic.”
O’Brien asserted that the pope’s words were especially significant for “the many, many people who work for Catholic aid agencies and have been secretly handing out condoms while fearing that they will lose their jobs.”
But, the Vatican today apparently contradicted that all-too rosy interpretation as well as its Pope! The Vatican's chief spokesman today said that the pope is neither "reforming or changing" the Catholic Church's position banning condom use. Reverend Federico Lombardi emphasized that the church does not consider condoms a "moral solution" to sexually transmitted diseases, such as AIDS.
Some activists, including dissident Catholics, were dismayed that the pope only specifically cited the narrow example of a male prostitute – although the Vatican’s own newspaper fueled confusion by translating his words in Italian as a female prostitute.
“Thirty years of Vatican prevarication and refusal to admit the gravity of the HIV pandemic – which has already claimed the lives of 25 million people and threatens not only the 33 million currently affected but their partners and offspring – cannot be wiped away by a narrow exception constructed by a papacy under fire,” commented Mark Harrington of Treatment Action Group.
The pope’s shift was also interpreted by some Vatican observers as a communications ploy to soften his image as an out-of-touch fundamentalist whose papacy has been tarnished by revelations of hundreds of cases of child abuse committed by priests, sometimes protected by their bishops.
Sex workers were equally unimpressed by the pope’s new insight. “What the pope said is not connected to reality,” said one 23-year-old male prostitute in Rome who asked not to reveal his name. “No one cares about him. Maybe it is interesting from the theological point of view but in practical terms it makes no difference.”
A representative of the International Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers in Europe said his remarks were a, “damn sight better than saying condoms are of no use, but still pins the blame for AIDS on sex workers who face discrimination and stigmatization.” She also questioned whether the pope was really directing Catholic social workers to do anything differently.
Catholic aid organizations account for some 25 per cent of AIDS programs in sub-Saharan Africa, providing education, treatment and working against the stigma attached to the disease.
— The Curator
One in six American men were sexually abused as children or in their youth.
That is a staggering statistic, which was discussed at length during a two-part Oprah Winfrey Show landmark presentation that brought together an in-studio audience of 200 men who had been abused. They had “come together to speak their truth,” and to encourage those males you are still being victimized, as well as male survivors of sexual abuse.
I was in the midst of preparing a post about this series, when a startling controversy overtook Amazon.com’s Kindle e-book department: A book that tries to present pedophilia in a more positive light!
"The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover's Code of Conduct" was pulled from Amazon.com, a spokesman confirmed yesterday, after thousands of users posted angry comments and even threats to boycott the site if the book remained on sale.
The self-published e-book, by Phillip R. Greaves II, was available on the site for download until late Wednesday for $4.79.
Greaves told news outlets that he published "The Pedophile's Guide" to address what he considers unfair portrayals of pedophiles in the media.
Before I present more information about the controversy, I believe it’s vital to point out that Greaves himself was a victim of sexual abuse by an “older female” when he was 7, and that he sexually abused a youngster when he was a teen. Most therapists who treat sexual abuse victims say that they may develop a variety of coping mechanisms, and that they are also at much greater risks to become pedophiles.
If our society is to ever stop the sexual abuse of its children, of both sexes, we must stop blaming the victims, even ones who write material that most of us find extremely offensive. It may be, that Greaves wrote this book to rationalize what happened to him, and the impulses he had and may still have to see children as sexually appealing.
As a survivor of sexual abuse, I find the "Guide" totally repugnant, but I urge compassion and not condemnation of Greaves.
In its product description, Greaves described it as, "my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certian [sic] rules for these adults to follow."
"I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals, with hope that their doing so will result in less hatred and perhaps liter [sic] sentences should they ever be caught," he said.
Greaves, 47, from Pueblo, Colorado, claimed that “true pedophiles love children and would never hurt them.”
He said he believed it was possible “to have a loving, sexual relationship with a child.”
Greaves told news outlets that he has not had sexual contact with a child as an adult, but did when he was a teenager. He also said he "was introduced to oral sex when I was 7" by an older female, but did not provide specifics.
After several big tech blogs wrote about the book, it raced into Amazon's Top 100 Bestsellers list before it was pulled.
Amazon spokesman Drew Herdener would not comment on the controversy or respond to questions about the company's guidelines for digital publication, nor would he comment on Amazon’s decision to reverse its decision and pull the book.
On Wednesday, Amazon defended selling the book in response to a report published on BusinessInsider.com., issuing the following statement:
"Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions.”
But the company was forced to reverse it’s stance after continued outrage demading it pull the book by U.S. and U.K. customers, as well as a growing protest on Facebook, Twitter, and even on its own site from disgusted customers threatening a boycott.
Now, the FBI is said to be investigating to determine whether the electronic book contains any illegal content. It was pulled from the Amazon site two weeks after it was published.
“It is deeply worrying that books like this, which could encourage adults to commit sex offences against children, are in circulation,” said Chris Cloke of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. “They are abhorrent.”
The company, which allows authors to submit their own works and shares revenue with them, issues guidelines banning certain materials, including those deemed offensive.
However, Amazon doesn't elaborate precisely what constitutes offensive content, saying simply that it is “probably what you would expect.”
Amazon also doesn't promise to remove or protect any one category of books.
In reaction to Amazon's statement, one blogger said: “These pathetic statements Amazon made absolutely disgusted me to the core. Amazon you most certainly did support and promote hatred and criminal acts as you allowed this ‘author’ to have a forum to sell and promote this product, this hideous book geared towards the victimization of innocent children since October! SHAME ON YOU AMAZON.COM!!!!!”
Before it disappeared from the site Wednesday night, the listing had more than 2,000 user comments. The vast majority of them condemned the book's stated content, as well as Amazon's decision to make it available.
"It is ILLEGAL to molest children, and for Amazon to promote such is insane. I'm an abuse survivor, and am OUTRAGED Amazon would choose to promote this nonsense. I will not be purchasing anything from your website until this is removed," one user wrote in a comment that summed up the feelings of many others.
A small contingent of Amazon.com users defended the author's right to free speech, and a discussion on the site titled "Why Amazon is Right" delved into the constitutional implications of the controversy. Others floated the possibility that the e-book was a hoax or a law enforcement trap for pedophiles.
"While I think 99.9 percent of us object to pedophilia (even though I think this particular book was a publicity stunt/joke), I think we can all agree that we don't want someone else censoring a subject matter that we may be interested in. Religion, atheism, homosexuality, etc. are some subjects that spring to mind ...and they have been censored in the past until we realized that it's best to let all information in (even if we don't like some of it), rather than allow some authority or individual decide what we can and can't know about based on their own opinions or motivations," one user wrote.
In its form as a written piece, "The Pedophile's Guide" is protected under the First Amendment right to free speech, a CNN legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin said.
Child pornography is illegal as images. But text, which can be considered "works of advocacy," has won protection in the courts under the First Amendment, Toobin said.
"There is an argument that some works of advocacy are incitement, but the courts have been very, very narrow in interpreting that as a crime," Toobin said. "I think this one is well safe under the protection of the First Amendment."
I, too, believe that this book is protected under the free speech provision of the First Amendment. But, I believe that just because material can be legally published, does not mean that it HAS to be sold by a book seller. Amazon should have turned this book down – end of story.
Each and every day publishers decide what to sell and not to sell based on content, quality and commercial potential. I think by looking at this issue through the lens of the First Amendment is to miss the point. Greaves has every right to write and publish his own book; and booksellers have every right to sell it or not.
I sincerely hope that Greaves will not be vilified, but will instead be offered voluntary professional psychological help for his serious sexual issues.
— The Curator
An urgent petition has been launched to save the life of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the Iranian woman sentenced to death by stoning, after reports that she was to be hanged for murder TODAY!
Mohammadi Ashtiani was convicted of the double charge of adultery and conspiring to kill her husband, and received 99 lashes. Her case provoked an international outcry when it first came to light earlier this year. Iran suspended her sentence to be stoned to death in September, but the country’s judiciary chief made it clear she could still face execution by hanging for an alleged role in the plot to kill her former husband.
In August, Iranian television aired an interview in which she admitted to a relationship with a man accused of murdering her husband, but rights groups have said the confession was coerced. Mohammadi Ashtiani is awaiting her fate in a prison in Tabriz, a city in north-west Iran. Her lawyer was arrested in October.
Even though the 43-year-old mother of two's sentence was suspended in the face of an international outcry the International Committee against Stoning said on its website that Mohammadi Ashtiani "is to be executed this Wednesday 3 November."
I, along with most other bloggers, have reported on this tragic case since it first came to the attention of the international community, adding my voice to thousands of others urging her to be spared.
A spokeswoman for the German-based organization said this morning that it now understood Mohammadi Ashtiani would not be executed today, but said Iran was still planning to go ahead with the execution, which could take place in the next few days.
"The International Committees against Stoning and Execution call on international bodies and the people of the world to come out in full force against the state-sponsored murder of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani," she said.
In addition, governments here and abroad also appealed to Iran to spare Mohammadi Ashtiani.
The global civic advocacy network Avaaz.org responded to the reports by launching an online petition urging people "to send an emergency message directly to the leaders of Turkey, Brazil and key UN nations who could sway Iran to halt the execution."
The goal is to reach 500,000 names. When I signed the petition, the total number of names was almost at 450,000. It's no wonder that "Ashtiani" has become one of the most widely discussed subjects on Twitter.
The boiler plate language of the petition follows, but anyone signing it can change the wording to reflect their own views:
“To leaders who can influence Iran:
I urge you to do all you can to save the life of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani.
Reports state she could be executed on November 3rd. Your help could sway the government of Iran to halt her execution, just as it did this July and August.
Please take immediate action today to persuade Iran to spare her life.
Sincerely...”
In the U.S., Canada and in Great Britain leaders spoke out against the threatened execution.
The White House condemned the planned execution and called on Tehran to "provide Ms. Ashtiani with the due process and fair treatment she deserves."
In a separate statement, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Iran's leaders "have failed once again to protect the fundamental rights of their own citizens, particularly women."
"Ms. Ashtiani's case has not proceeded with the transparency and due process guaranteed under Iranian law, and we are concerned about reports of coerced confessions and other mistreatment," Secretary Clinton said.
British Foreign Office Minister for the Middle East Alistair Burt echoed those views yesterday, saying "I am deeply disturbed by suggestions that Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani could be executed imminently. Any move to execute her would be utterly unacceptable and would be condemned widely and in the strongest terms. The world watches and waits."
Minister Burt later spoke to the charge d'affaires at the Iranian embassy in London, who was unable to confirm or deny reports of Mohammadi Ashtiani's imminent execution. He told the diplomat that her death would be condemned throughout Europe.
A letter signed by 119 British MPs, calling on Iran to live up to its commitments as a signatory of the International Declaration of Human Rights, was delivered to the Iranian embassy in London.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague warned Iranian authorities against going ahead with the punishment, saying it would hurt Iran's international relations.
"This is a barbaric punishment and it will damage Iran in the eyes of the world. It will be much better not to proceed with it," Hague told reporters in the West Bank city of Ramallah, during a visit to Israel and the Palestinian Territories.
The EU high representative, Lady Ashton, was said to be "deeply concerned" about the reports. "She demands that Iran halts the execution and converts her sentence," a spokesman said.
The U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office said it had also been unable to confirm whether the reports of Mohammadi Ashtiani's imminent execution were true.
The Canadian government too was “deeply troubled” by these reports. Addressing Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad directly, Laureen Harper, the wife of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper wrote: "We urge you to take a progressive step towards improving the lives of Iranian women, mothers, daughters and sisters by unconditionally releasing Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani. Certainly, this would be welcomed by women around the world as seen as a deeply symbolic gesture toward the betterment of all Iranian women."
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon responded to the news in the House of Commons yesterday.
“Our government is deeply troubled by reports that Iran may be moving forward with its plans to execute this woman,” Cannon said. “The appalling treatment of her is completely out of line with international standards and the rule of law.”
Marina Nemat, an Iranian-Canadian author who was tortured in Iran and has campaigned with Indigo Books and Music CEO Heather Reisman to save Mohammadi Ashtiani, said the execution may or may not be imminent, as little is clear when dealing with Iran.
“I’m keeping my hopes up because the question is what the Iranian regime would gain from killing this woman,” Nemat said. “The world would be outraged.”
Canada has imposed several rounds of sanctions on Iran stemming from United Nations Security Council resolutions, and in July announced unilateral sanctions that, among other things, ban Canadian investment in Iranian oil and gas projects. Canada has also issued several statements condemning Iran, and for the last seven years presented an Iran resolution at the U.N. General Assembly that highlights the country’s record of human-rights failures.
Payam Akhavan, an Iranian-born international law professor at McGill University, said the stoning case reflects a broader conflict in Iran, as a hard-line regime under threat from a democracy movement tries to maintain its hold on power. He said Mohammadi Ashtiani is one of more than 30 women threatened by stoning in a country that now has the world’s highest per-capita rate of executions.
“This is part of the terrorization of the people,” Prof. Akhavan said. “When you start executing large numbers of people in heinous ways, you’re sending a message to the public at large.”
Prof. Akhavan said Canada should follow the lead of the United States, which in September issued an executive order against eight senior members of the Iranian regime, including the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, which allows the U.S. to seize their assets, block their travel to the U.S. and prevent Americans from doing business with them.
“The signal that it sends is that we’re not just issuing a U.N. resolution condemning the government,” Prof. Akhavan said. “We are blaming you, individually, and your name has now been carved in stone and one day when you’re not in power everyone will know who you are.”
As could be predicted, Tehran accused the West of trying to pressure it over the case, while a judiciary official said she was in "perfect health" and her case was still being reviewed.
"They (Western nations) have become so shameless that they have turned the case of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani, who has committed crime and treason, into a human rights case against our nation," foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said.
"It has become a symbol of women's freedom in Western nations and with impudence they want to free her. Thus, they are trying to use this ordinary case as a pressure lever against our nation," the ISNA news agency quoted him as saying.
"The other side is only looking for pretexts against the Islamic establishment and if...we give into their demands they will assert, so there will be nothing left of the revolution and the establishment," state news agency IRNA quoted him as saying.
The sentence of death by stoning was suspended after it was condemned by the U.S., Britain and international human rights groups. The outgoing Brazilian president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, an ally of Iran, offered asylum to Mohammadi Ashtiani but was rebuffed by the Tehran regime.
Human Rights Watch says Mohammadi Ashtiani was first convicted in May 2006 of having an "illicit relationship" with two men following the death of her husband and was sentenced by a court to 99 lashes. She was later sentenced to death by stoning.
In August, Mohammadi Ashtiani was put on state-run TV where she "confessed" to adultery and involvement in the murder of her husband, but her lawyer, Houtan Kian, said she had been tortured beforehand.
At the end of August she was subjected to a mock execution, according to her 22-year-old son, Sajad Ghaderzadeh. The following month, she was allegedly given 99 lashes after a British newspaper ran a picture of an unveiled woman mistakenly identified as her, Kian said at the time.
Ghaderzadeh, who launched the international campaign to save his mother in June, was arrested in Iran last month with two German journalists who had interviewed him about his mother's case. The International Committee against Stoning is also demanding their release and that of Kian, who is also believed to have been detained.
This account remains shocking, and beyond tragic. I deeply respect Islamic law, but this decision appears to be purely a political reaction to the furor that the initial sentence caused.
When I began this blog, I created my alter ego, “The Curator,” who would lead readers through the amazing and varied world of sexual behavior and beliefs without judgment, with as much neutrality as possible.
Not this time.
I had done this because I felt there were too many loud opinions about anything and everything and not enough information conveyed in markedly egocentric blogs. I wanted readers to decide how they felt, working hard to make The Curator as unobtrusive as possible, even invisible rather than a part of the process.
Not this time.
Enough! Enough fear. Enough pain. Enough agony. Enough torture. Enough death. E-NOUGH misery imposed by cowardly dictators hiding behind the safety net of blind religious tradition and the faithful.
I am a tolerant person. I believe that all countries have the right of autonomy, that religion is personal and should be left to believers to choose or reject, and that WEST does not always equal BEST.
I am not a Christian; I am not a Jew; I am not a Muslim. I do not follow any of the Abrahamic faith paths. I am not speaking out as an American, or a proponent of any political ideology. I am speaking simply as a human being, reaching out to other human beings. I am literally on my knees. I beg Iran and all Iranians to spare this woman as was promised. Please. Please.
— The Curator
When parents talk to their kids about sex, most match gender to gender – moms talk to daughters, and dads talk to sons.
That’s why a new study out of New York University has gotten a lot of attention recently because it suggested that young girls could actually benefit from talking about sex with their father.
Previous studies have concluded that girls who have open communication with their fathers — about everything — tend to have intercourse later in life and also have fewer sexual partners, both of which can be very good for sexual and mental health. But do they actually have to talk about sex to have this effect?
While young women are still mostly influenced and informed on this subject by their mothers, Katherine Hutchinson, associate professor at the NYU College of Nursing, wanted to figure out whether fathers had a role to play. As part of a larger study examining family influences on adolescent sexual risk, she asked a representative sample of 250 or so women aged 19 to 21 what kind of impact their fathers had on their sex education.
The answer was: very little. And, surprisingly, a lot of the women, most of whom were sexually active, wished their fathers had told them more. Specifically, they wanted to hear stuff only guys would know, about how to communicate with men and what the carnal landscape looked like from a male's vantage point.
"They felt that if they could have been more comfortable talking with their fathers about issues around sex, they might have been more comfortable talking to boyfriends or potential sexual partners about them," says Hutchinson, whose study was published in the Journal of Family Issues. "And they wanted to know how to negotiate intimacy issues with men."
So does this mean dads should be the ones sitting down and explaining where we all come from? "I'm not a big proponent of The Talk, whether it's from a mother or a father," says Hutchinson. "It takes away from the normalcy of sexuality." She advocates instead for ongoing communication with kids about their bodies, sexual development and sexual issues, so that the subject is not so fraught. But she feels dads could weigh in on how to politely tell a guy you don't want to have sex with him, or that you're not ready for sex with anyone right now, or that you want him to wear a condom.
I couldn’t agree more with Hutchinson. I think when sex is treated with normalcy and without shame, embarrassment or judgment within a family, kids will have far fewer hangups when they become sexually active adults. They will also be armed with facts and not euphemisms that can lead to an unexpected pregnancy, STD or even AIDs. It will also bolster their self-esteem when they are taught about their amazing bodies.
A sex-positive attitude, expressed by BOTH parents consistently while children grow, will go a long way to encourage their children development is healthy and happy. Issues of sexual orientation when accepted and discussed within a loving family dynamic will help homosexual, bisexual and transgendered teens cope with the societal road ahead.
This study did not address whether it would be equally beneficial for moms to talk to their sons about sex, but I bet you’d get the same encouraging results.
One note of warning to dads: Probably best not to bring the subject up while the guy or girl your daughter likes is in the room! Awkward.
Here’s some helpful advice when talking to kids about sex:
— Be open and honest. Don’t just repeat phrases, or slogans but be frank and truthful.
— Let your child consistently know how you feel about sex and relationships so they will be comfortable to talk about their feelings, and ask questions when they have them.
— Do your homework. Be sure you are sexually well-versed so that you’ll be able to offer great advice and real information throughout the developmental stages of your child.
— Talk consistently about the responsibility and consequences of being sexually active as your children grow.
— Be very careful to take time and understand your own views. If you are homophobic, admit it to yourself, and try to work through it as soon a possible. Try everything possible not put your sexual baggage on your kids.
— The Curator
Sadly, my Mojo remains a no-show.
I have Lupus, which I refer to as “Mr. Wolf,” because lupus is the Latin word for wolf, and because it has devastated my life sufficiently to have more than earned his own pronoun.
A recent insurance nightmare forced me off of a key medication because of cost. It’s an injectable bio-medication that alters my cells so that my immune system is less whacky. Eventually, the medication was restored but not until I’d gone off of it for about three months and gotten really, really sick. I was thrilled to have the medicine again but something unexpected and unpleasant – ’natch – happened. I suffered and am suffering from horrendous side-effects. It had never occurred to me that would happen simply by resuming the medication, since I’d used it for about 10 years.
I have endured the nausea, aches, hot flashes (I’m 54 – well past menopause) and fainting spells like a trooper. But, the worst side-effect totally blind sided me: In the twinkling of an eye, my libido disappeared without even the courtesy of an adieu!
Frankly, desire has never been a problem for me, at all. My sexual issues all related to being able to perform despite the physical limitations, disability, imposed by Mr. Wolf, which not only includes losing range of motion, a lot of pain, but also debilitating fatigue. So, I had no problem getting revved, but rather staying revved at certain...critical...times.
As regular readers know, sex has been saving my life – or more precisely, has helped me decide to hold onto it for as long as I can. When I’m having sex, I am no longer disabled. The pain and misery that has been Mr. Wolf’s calling card transcends into pleasure. Touch and intimacy has been my link to life, and to the divine. In those moments, I am my true self again. Not a disabled person on her way out, but a vibrant woman who was put on this planet for some purpose beyond her finite understanding. (I have always lived my life as a sex-positive person, but if I hadn’t, Mr. Wolf would have converted me at the very first orgasm!)
Now, desire seems a foreign concept. The doctor has said she does not know when my sexuality will reassert itself. I refused to accept that and launched Project Desire, in an attempt to rekindle the ’ole fire down below.
Thus far, re-igniting desire’s flame as been a very slippery – or in my case a very non-slippery – slope.
The usual suggestions to increase desire in women who have lost or lower libido don’t really apply to me, because I’ve lost it as a result of medication issues, not through poor self-image, or some other emotional factor.
What I have been doing is:
— Continuing my usual masturbation routine, making sure that I use plenty of vulva-friendly lube! I have been an enormous proponent of solo sex for decades. It allows women, who generally have little experience with it compared to men, to take charge of their own sexuality and needs. Masturbation can teach women how they like to be touched and what they don’t like. It also teaches how to accept and love our wondrous female bodies, especially if you’ve suffered abuse in the past (I was molested when I was a young girl.) I remain committed to masturbation, even if it doesn’t lead to orgasm, it is still a very erotic, sensual practice. FYI: Let me be very clear, masturbation is REAL sex!
— Reading erotica by my favorite authors including Alison Tyler, Alison's Wonderland
, and Radclyffe, Trauma Alert
. There are so many great women writers who pen erotica. If you’ve not taken time to read any of it, do yourself a favor and experiment. Read some reviews, then jump right in. There is something for everyone’s tastes, from mild romantic fare to hard-core, explicit, fetish, kink and everything in between. If you like to fantasize about BDSM but don’t want to actually try it, reading erotica with that theme might be the perfect solution.
— Watching female produced porn, including the fabulous Crash Pad series featuring the amazing Jiz Lee and others, and the erotic DVD’s by the Welcomed Consensus. Like masturbation, fewer women than men watch porn, but the number of adult women viewers is the largest growing demographic in the field. Just like reading erotica, there is porn for every person’s tastes.
(I’m bisexual, so I like erotica and porn that is either focused on straights, gays, or a combination of the two – isn’t that so cool!)
— Doing as much sensual touch, kissing and foreplay as possible. Receiving a massage can be both sensual and a pain-reliever for me. I love this, even if it doesn’t end up in bed.
The result of the above strategy? Thus far, my libido remains in very cold storage.
I hereby make the following promise: I refuse to just give up! Damn it to hell, Mr. Wolf can have my joints, and even my ability to walk, and eventually my life, but he will not take away my sexuality forever. He will not because I WILL NOT LET HIM! Period.
— The Curator
