skip to main |
skip to sidebar
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
