Saturday, April 30, 2011

U.S. Tops Countries With Most Single-Parent Homes

A sizable minority of children in rich countries live with just one parent who is likely to be a working female — and the U.S. tops that list.

The U.S. has the developed world's highest proportion of single parents, with one in four children being raised by one parent, according to a study based on the analysis of ending with 2007-year statistics conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Usually, that parent is the mom or other female. In the U.S., as in every other industrialized country, most single-parent households are single-mother households.

I found this study supports my intuitive sense of an amazing shift that has occurred within the past few decades. When I was a kid in the late 50's, divorce was rare, births to unwed mothers even more rare. Back then, generally no single person was ever allowed to adopt, and never-ever same-sex couples, so single-parent homes generally occurred only through divorce or the death of a parent.

My parents were divorced in the 70's. Even then, it was somewhat scandalous. I distinctly remember my Junior High (Middle) School athletic coach calling me into her office. I was a female-jock throughout my youth, so she knew me well. I thought she was going to talk to me about one of our teams, but instead she asked me about my parents' divorce. In those days, their names were printed in the newspaper's "Vital Statistics" section, which listed births, deaths, separations and divorces. I was horrified. I answered her questions with one word when possible. I had the unmistakable feeling that she was more interested in gossip than she was worried about me (my father is well-known in my hometown.)

Now, there is no "Vital Statistics" in newspapers to embarrass the newly separated or divorced, and happily singles and same-sex couples can adopt children.

It is incredible that in our culture, as well as those of most of the other industrialized countries, the study found that the past has flipped completely over within such a short time. I also found it interesting that the study looked at what it was like for a single mom to raise children, but did not delve into the impact of being the child on a single-parent household.

My parents' divorce definitely had a negative impact on me.

Of 27 industrialized countries studied by the OECD, the U.S. had 25.8 percent of children raised by a single parent, compared with an average of 14.9 percent among the other countries in the study.

According to NewsOne, a news agency serving the African American community, the study found that 72 percent of black children in the U.S. are raised in single-parent households.

The only country in the study where single fathers look like more than a faint sliver is Belgium, where there are still nearly twice as many children living with single mothers as with single fathers.

Exactly what it means to be a single parent — for your lifestyle and how you spend your time — varies greatly by country. In some countries, including the United States and Japan, nearly all single parents work; in others, like Malta and Turkey, most single parents do not have jobs.

Ireland, in the U.K., was second with 24.3 percent; followed by New Zealand with 23.7 percent. Greece, Spain, Italy and Luxembourg had among the lowest percentages of children being raised in single-parent homes, according to the study.

Experts pointed to a variety of factors to explain the high U.S. percentage, including a cultural shift toward greater acceptance of single-parent child rearing.

Sadly, the study noted that the U.S. also lacks policies to help support families, including childcare at work and national paid maternity leave, which are commonplace in other countries.

"When our parents married, there was a sense that you were marrying for life," said Edward Zigler, founder and director of Yale's Edward Zigler Centre in Child Development and Social Policy. "That sense is not as prevalent."

Single parents in the U.S. were more likely to be employed — 35.8 percent compared to a 21.3 percent average — but they also had higher rates of poverty, the report found.

“The in-work poverty is higher in the U.S. than other OECD countries, because at the bottom end of the labor market, earnings are very low,” said Willem Adema, a senior economist in the group’s social policy division. “For parents, the risk is higher because they have to make expenditures on childcare costs.”

The Paris-based organization looked at a broad sector of indicators that affected families and children, including childhood poverty, early education and amount of time spent on parental care.

Across the nations examined, preschool enrollment has grown from 30 to 50 percent between 1998 and 2007. The average enrollment was 58.2 percent, while in the U.S. it was lower.

The report noted that public spending on child welfare and education is higher in the U.S. than in other countries — $160,000 per child compared to $149,000. However, the authors say most of that money is spent after the crucial early childhood years.

“This means early investment — including childcare and support for families around the time of birth — could be strengthened,” the authors wrote in a separate paper examining the United States.

The study pointed out that the U.S. is the only OECD country that does not have a national paid parental leave policy. Some states have started to adopt such policies, but most parents are offered 12 weeks of unpaid leave. This is particularly difficult for unwed mothers, who may not be able to afford to take time off, Zigler said.

“We have not built in the kind of national support systems for families and children that other countries have,” he said.

Childhood poverty rates in the U.S. are also expected to climb — 23.5 percent from 20 percent. Adema said the rise is a direct result of the financial crisis and higher unemployment rates.

“The financial strain causes all sorts of other strain, so ultimately it might contribute to family dissolution,” Adema said. “At the same time, it might bring some families together. I suspect that the response differs across families.”

The single parent phenomenon has been occurring over recent decades. The study noted that the U.S. and the U.K. have higher teenage birth-rates than other countries, partially contributing to the higher single-parent numbers, though the proportion of children born outside marriage was not significantly higher than the other countries.

Christina Gibson Davis, a professor at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Police, said changing gender roles, the rise of contraception, high incarceration rates in some communities and an acceptance of having children out of wedlock have all contributed to the growing number.

Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, added it isn't being a single parent in itself that raises difficulties, saying, "Single moms do a brilliant and amazing job raising their children. It is also true that single moms in this country are systemically underpaid, and systematically under-resourced and systemically unrespected. It's not the fact they are single moms that makes things difficult."

— The Curator

Saturday, April 23, 2011

It's About Time for 'Decency' to Return

I'm a liberal, sex-positive 54-year-old bisexual woman, but I have a fairly conservative core belief: That there should be some baseline standards that TV broadcasters must adhere to during hours that young children may be watching.

It is my belief that when young children are exposed to strong language, violence and gratuitous nudity, they begin to believe that these behaviors are acceptable behavior in the "real" world.

I also believe that when anything goes without restraint or societal reflection it not only cheapens the entire landscape of our culture, but that the underlying message is that each person is undeserving of basic human respect.

I know that many people argue that it is up to parents to censor these images/messages for their children, but it is clear that more and more children are raised without this monitoring. As a result, since broadcasters have continued to push the envelop further and further, it is the responsibility of the federal government to once again regulate them.

Paradoxically, I am also a strong supporter of free speech, but believe that there should be some limits placed during what used to be called the "family hours" of TV entertainment.

As a result, I was heartened this week when the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to reinstate a policy that allows federal regulators to fine broadcasters for showing nudity and airing curse words during those hours.

The issue has been in relative legal limbo after conflicting court rulings, all stemming from hefty fines leveled against a TV network — way back in 2003!

Now, the administration is seeking the high court's review of appeals court rulings that threw out the Federal Communications Commission's rules against the isolated use of expletives, as well as fines against broadcasters who showed a woman's nude buttocks on an episode of ABC's "NYPD Blue" that aired in 2003.

Last year, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York threw out the FCC policy, saying it was unconstitutionally vague and left broadcasters uncertain of what programming the agency will find offensive. The challenge to the FCC rules arose over celebrities' use of the F-word and S-word on live awards show programs.

In January, the same court said its ruling on the FCC policy compelled it to nullify a penalty of more than $1.2 million against ABC and 45 affiliates over less than seven seconds of airtime from "NYPD Blue" episode.

Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, said the justices should hear the case because the appeals court has stripped the FCC of its ability to adequately police the airwaves.

"The court of appeals' decisions preclude the commission from effectively implementing statutory restrictions on broadcast indecency that the agency has enforced since its creation in 1934," Katyal wrote. Katyal included a DVD of the "NYPD Blue" episode with the filing for the court's convenience.

The "NYPD Blue" episode led to fines only for stations in the Central and Mountain time zones, where the show aired at 9 p.m., a more child-friendly hour than the show's 10 p.m. time slot in the East.

In the "NYPD Blue" episode, actress Charlotte Ross played a police detective who had recently moved in with another detective. In the scene at issue, Ross disrobes as she prepares to shower. After her buttocks and the side of one of her breasts are briefly shown, the camera pans down and reveals her nude buttocks while she faces the shower.

Then the other detective's young son enters the bathroom and sees the naked woman. Embarrassment ensues as the child retreats from the room.

The appeals court said ABC said the scene was intended to portray the awkwardness between a child and his parent's new romantic partner, and the difficulty of adjusting to the situation.

The part of the case involving the awards shows has been to the high court before.

Three years ago, the justices narrowly upheld the policy, but in a ruling that pointedly avoided dealing with First Amendment issues. Instead, the court directed the appeals court to undertake a constitutional review.

For many years, the FCC did not take action against broadcasters for one-time uses of curse words. The policy flowed from a 1978 Supreme Court decision that upheld the FCC's reprimand of a New York radio station for airing a George Carlin monologue containing a 12-minute string of expletives in the middle of the afternoon.

But, following several awards shows with cursing celebrities in 2002 and 2003, the FCC toughened its long-standing policy after it concluded that a one-free-expletive rule did not make sense in the context of keeping the air waves free of indecency when children are likely to be watching television.

The FCC said that some words are deemed to be so offensive that they always evoke sexual or excretory images. The policy essentially excluded news programming and some other broadcasts, including ABC's airing of "Saving Private Ryan" in 2004.

— The Curator

Friday, April 22, 2011

Belle de Jour on the Imapct of Sexualization

Are there profound negative effects on children due to increased sexualization, or is that an assumption based on deep-seated fears by parents and others?

That is the provocative question addressed in today's post by Dr. Brooke L. Magnanti, the real woman behind the award-winning British erotic author Belle de Jour.

Magnanti, who is also a respected scientist, discusses the evidence on her new blog, Sexonomics.

"Various claims have been made around this issue. But are we being given evidence and solid policy, or assumptions and sloppy analysis? More worryingly, is the outcome being decided without even consulting parents about what’s best for their children?" she asks.

In the thought-provoking post, Brooke urges readers to approach the topic in a more rational, less emotional fashion.

"What the people making claims about the harmful effects of ‘hypersexualisation’ need to do is demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship. Then they need to show that early exposure to sexualised imagery causes the outcomes they are claiming, such as violence against women," she writes.

"Unfortunately, broad conclusions and limited data are just about all that's been offered up to this point," Brooke writes, after offering an analysis of the possibility of just such a relationship.

"The main problem with the sexualisation "debate" is that when it comes to solid proof that sexualised media and products cause harmful effects to children, the only honest response is we don't know," she concludes.

I admit that I have assumed such a relationship existed for a very long time. I am frankly dumbfounded that the actual evidence fails to back up what my gut has been telling me. I believe that Brooke's careful, thoughtful and knowledgeable post is a must-read analysis for every adult interested in this important topic.

I believe that it is time to put aside assumptions based on emotion — including mine — and consider that those of us who have held onto this belief might just be wrong.

I have reprinted her post in its entirety below, or read it directly at her blog.
FRIDAY, 22 APRIL 2011

Sexualisation Reports: Same Old, Same Old?


At first glance, the worries about children and sexualisation seem to have reached consensus. Pretty much everyone believes it causes harm – everything from low self-esteem and early sexual activity to sexual and gender-related violence. Government, news media, and an array of non-profits agree. The research evidence, they claim, is staggering. Are they correct? Or does examining the issue from another perspective give us a different picture entirely?

Probably the hardest part of being a parent these days is negotiating what is appropriate in world where much has changed.

Parents, and people in general, are rightly concerned about the effects of an increasingly consumerist society on their kids. I fully support the rights of parents to enforce their own standards – deciding what is and isn’t appropriate is a complex balancing act. Age of the child, cultural background, and all kinds of variables can only really be appreciated on a family-by-family basis. And importantly, there need to be better support systems to educate and inform concerned parents, so they can make the appropriate decisions.

What rarely gets reported, however, is that the data around the supposed trend are very shaky. When you look at the problems most people fear – such as increased sexual activity – the evidence just isn't there. And in the few instances when people bother to talk to children, most of them actually have a more balanced and mature approach approach to modern culture than commentators give them credit for.

Various claims have been made around this issue. But are we being given evidence and solid policy, or assumptions and sloppy analysis? More worryingly, is the outcome being decided without even consulting parents about what’s best for their children?

What the people making claims about the harmful effects of ‘hypersexualisation’ need to do is demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship. Then they need to show that early exposure to sexualised imagery causes the outcomes they are claiming, such as violence against women.

One saying you hear over and over in the research world is “correlation is not causation.” It’s a good rule to remember, particularly when looking at human health and behaviours.

What’s the difference between a cause and a correlation? Put simply, when you say one action causes a result, you are saying there is a direct line between that action and the result. Cause implies that an action results in a predictable reaction. Correlation, on the other hand, means that the action and the result both occur, but may not be related. Here’s an example. The amount of reality television programming has risen dramatically since 2000; so have the fees for UK universities. Neither one caused the other. Reality TV correlates with high fees – it doesn’tcause them. Happening at the same time does always imply a relationship.

Correlations can be useful. They can be a first step in investigating whether there could be a causal role. After all, it takes someone noticing that lots of smokers get lung cancer in the first place. But the investigation can’t – and shouldn’t – stop there. Not least because a lot of the things we think we know can turn out to be wrong. Careful analysis requires looking past the small scale. It resists making broad conclusions from limited data.

Unfortunately, broad conclusions and limited data are just about all that's been offered up to this point. Consider the infographic below:

Over and again, what parents get instead of good information, is sensationalistic headlines designed to attract media coverage. That's not the same thing as reliable data; never has been.

The main problem with the sexualisation "debate" is that when it comes to solid proof that sexualised media and products cause harmful effects to children, the only honest response is we don't know.

Next month, a review of sexualisation and children led by Reg Bailey of the Mothers' Union is set to be released. It's impossible to predict the exact content, but this gives a bit of a clue:

"Of the 1,025 parents of five- to 16-year-olds surveyed, 40% said they had seen things in public places, such as shop window displays and advertising hoardings, that they felt were inappropriate for children to see because of their sexual content."

Sounds like a dire misrepresentation of statistics. You could as easily conclude that the majority — 60% — of those polled have notseen things in shop windows and adverts they thought were inappropriate for children. And of the 40% who did, there was no indication of how often they encountered these things (once in the last year? sixteen times a day?) and whether they felt children took notice of them.

It's important to remember that as adults, sexual content is part of life. It is reasonable to expect that in spaces and entertainment for children, sexualised content will be strictly limited. But in public, in spaces for adults at large? Surely that's where good parents step in and explain to curious children the difference between grown-ups and kids. Infantilising the world is, to me, unacceptable.

With the government set to release their new report on children and sexualisation in May, perhaps it's a good idea to look at the previous government's attempt to address the same issue. And where they went wrong.

In 2009 the UK Consultation on Sexualisation of Young People was launched by then-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. It was part of a wider campaign, with an aim to connect sexualisation explicity with violence. The review set its goal as seeing “how sexualised images and messages may be affecting the development of children and young people and influencing cultural norms, and examines the evidence for a link between sexualisation and violence”.

The 2010 Home Office report [pdf] is notable on several counts: it is very slickly produced, it provides loads of policy recommendations, and it is notably lacking in the qualities that would make good research.

Other reviews of sexualisation of children have appeared before. One was by the American Psychological Association Association in 2007. Australia also released a similar report in 2008. These were well received at first, but the expectation was that later reports would take a fuller view of the context in which young people live. After all, any of us can point to a pile of Playboy t-shirts in children’s sizes… the important question is what effect this might be having, if any.

Part of good research practice is allowing readers to see the source material and where the conclusions originated. For most of the report, however, conclusions are made in absence of citations. Consider the following statement:

“Children and young people today are not only exposed to increasing amounts of hyper-sexualised images, they are also sold the idea that they have to look ‘sexy’ and ‘hot’. As such they are facing pressures that children in the past simply did not have to face.”

Frightening, no? And yet, no source is given for this assertion. What are 'increasing amounts', and how are they quantified? What exactly is a 'sexualised image'? Define your terminology and outline your methods, people! And the conclusion that children in the past did not experience this pressure is questionable – just ask any grandmother.

There are a lot of studies quoted – mainly studies of pornography and adults – but the conclusions specifically about children and violence reference no research publications. The Home Office consultation is reluctant to admit that research into putative negative effects of imagery on children does not exist.

There’s a good reason it doesn’t. Experiments on adults (which the consultation relies on heavily) would face significant ethical restrictions if conducted on children. Because they consist of exposing test subjects to pornography, then administering a questionnaire, you can see why the subject is hard to address. But to make conclusions without even addressing this lack of source material is a huge oversight.

In the face of this deficiency, however, the consultation still claims a connection, mainly by relying on spurious polls (as shown in the infographic above). “The evidence gathered in the review suggests a clear link between consumption of sexualised images, a tendency to view women as objects and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm.”

But if you look at their cited materials closely, it's clear that most of their "evidence" is studies taken out of context, misinterpreted results, or plain irrelevant hypothesising.

Here's an example. One paper cited in the 2010 report is a 2000 publication by Malamuth et al., Pornography and Sexual Aggression: Are there reliable effects and can we understand them? The paper considers whether there is a causal link between adults who view pornography and sexual aggression.

Now, the difference between ‘sexualising’ images aimed at children and actual pornography for adults is a big one. Even using a paper like this in a discussion of childhood issues is problematic.

What the Malamuth study found, though was interesting.

While some people who viewed pornography had violent beliefs towards women, the conclusion did not claim pornography was the cause: “We suggest that the way relatively aggressive men interpret and react to the same pornography may differ from that of nonaggressive men.” In other words, the pump is already primed in some people. But for nonaggressive men, the same imagery did not incite negative thoughts.

So, there is not a direct correlation between porn and violent beliefs in most men. But when the Home Office report cites Malamuth’s work, this message is lost. No mention is made that it’s a study of adults, not children, and of pornography, not sexualised images. It is cited as if it is a conclusive example, but anyone reading the actual paper will see that’s not true.

There are other studies that contradict any connection between porn and violence. The Home Office report doesn’t mention them, though.

In a prospective study Simon Lajeunesse of the University of Montreal found most of the men he studied sought out porn by the age of 10, when they become sexually curious. He also found they quickly discarded what they didn't like and things they find offensive. As adults, they looked for content that was compatible with their sex preferences.

Lajeunesse‘s subjects reported that they supported gender equality, but also that they felt victimized by criticism of pornography. "Pornography hasn't changed their perception of women or their relationship which they all want as harmonious and fulfilling as possible,” says Lajeunesse. “Those who could not live out their fantasy in real life with their partner simply set aside the fantasy. The fantasy is broken in the real world and men don't want their partner to look like a porn star."

His conclusions are similar to Malamuth’s. "Aggressors don't need pornography to be violent and addicts can be addicted to drugs, alcohol, gaming and asocial cases are pathological,” he adds. “If pornography had the impact that many claim it has, you would just have to show heterosexual films to a homosexual to change his sexual orientation."

In many ways, the previous government's Home Office report failed to live up to its own hype. The Con-Dem coalition have made hay on the presumption that their government would if not overturn, at least critically examine questionable policies of the previous Labour government. It remains to be seen whether on this topic they will come out with anything that qualifies as an intellectually honest review. I can't say my hopes are high."

Posted by Belle de Jour at 04:47

Brooke launched her new blog, Sexonomics, this month, and has also promised her fans a new book.

In 2009, Brooke revealed her identity after a newspaper was about to disclose it without her permission. Brooke, formerly of Bristol, England who now lives in Scotland with her husband, was a noted scientist whose specialist areas were developmental neurotoxicology and cancer epidemiology. She has a PhD in informatics, epidemiology and forensic science and had worked at the Bristol Initiative for Research of Child Health as part of a team that researched the potential effects on babies of their mothers' exposure to toxic chemicals.

But, from 2003 to late 2004, Brooke worked as a high-class call girl for a London escort service. She has written an award-winning blog and several bestselling books based on her experiences as a sex worker. Her writing also formed the basis of the TV series Secret Diary of a Call Girl on Showtime, starring Billie Piper in the title role of "Belle."

If you have any interest in thoughtful discussions about sex-related and scientific topics, I urge you to follow Brooke's blog. She is a unique woman, and an equally unique writer who should NOT be missed.

Brooke's books include: Belle de Jour’s Guide to Men, 2009; Belle’s Best Bits, 2009; The Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl, September 2005; The Further Adventures of a London Call Girl, May 2007; and Playing the Game, June 2009.

Each one is well-worth reading and re–reading. You can find all of her books at the U.K.’s largest independent bookseller, Waterstones.

Also check out Brooke's op-ed articles on a variety of topics including reforming libel law in the U.K., as well as the importance of ensuring the rights of sex workers.

— The Curator

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Belle de Jour on Sex and the Disabled

As a physically disabled woman, I know first-hand how invisible we are within the culture when it comes to meeting or even discussing our sexual needs.

I have blogged about my own situation extensively, that is why it was so heartening to read a wonderful and insightful post by Dr. Brooke Magnanti, the real woman behind award-winning erotic U.K. author Belle de Jour.

The post appeared on Brooke's new blog, Sexonomics, which launched earlier this month.

Brooke writes that many clients (I assume women as well as men) who frequent prostitutes have various types of disabilities. Sex workers provide these disabled people with a level of unconditional acceptance and lack of judgment little experienced in the "real" world. They have also learned the requisite skills to provide each client with the maximum pleasure possible.

I cannot tell you how important talking openly and honestly about this topic is. It is also incredibly freeing to be able to acknowledge that I remain a sexual being despite my disability. Bravo to sex workers who understand that, too bad that information has not percolated up to the general population!

Brooke has a unique and important voice that should be taken seriously about many topics that happen to include sex work and sex workers.

In 2009, Brooke revealed her identity after a newspaper was about to disclose it without her permission. Brooke, formerly of Bristol, England, was a noted scientist whose specialist areas were developmental neurotoxicology and cancer epidemiology. She has a PhD in informatics, epidemiology and forensic science and had worked at the Bristol Initiative for Research of Child Health as part of a team that researched the potential effects on babies of their mothers' exposure to toxic chemicals.

But, from 2003 to late 2004, Brooke worked as a high-class call girl for a London escort service. She has written an award-winning blog and several bestselling books based on her experiences as a sex worker. Her writing also formed the basis of the TV series Secret Diary of a Call Girl on Showtime, starring Billie Piper in the title role of "Belle."

Please read this great post in full below, or visit Brooke's new blogsite:

WEDNESDAY, 20 APRIL 201

Sexual Ability


One of the more common questions I am asked as an ex-sex worker is "what sort of a man uses prostitutes"? The answer, if I'm feeling flippant? "All of them."

The reality is that while sex workers can (and we certainly do) have a laugh among ourselves about certain annoying client 'types', it's really no different from a group of friends laughing about non-paid dates. Sex work literally does take all kinds.

One of the most frustrating stereotypes is that of the faceless, nameless, conscience-less "John" who is somehow both ubiquitous (he'd have to be, to be supporting the fictional 80,000-woman-a-year forced sex trade) and at the same time, not a person anyone will admit to having met. Because we'd hate to think people we know bought sex, wouldn't we? And yet, of course they do!

Anyway. One of the best tools to challenging this assumption is asking those who stereotype clients: what about disabled people?

There are all kinds of disabilities, and these have all kind of effects on the sexual lives of people. Some people experience varying degrees of difficulty; others make use of mating-and-datingresources on the internet. Some blog about the ups and downswith sensitivity and eloquence. There are great how-to guidesabout the mechanics of wheelchair sex on the web. There's all manner of great stuff at Outsiders. And of course there is the legendary Bob Flanagan.

But the truth is, even with help, guidance, and guides, it's just not always easy. And so disabled clients are a significant part of the client base for sex workers. If you have been a sex worker for any length of time, you have had a disabled client. And they have probably made you see things somewhat differently. Now, disabled people are not the majority of most sex workers' clients, but they're a significant group.

It's well-known what the effects of denying human touch are to babies and children, but few people consider the effects on adults. In my opinion, touch is a basic human need... so basic, it might as well be at the base of Maslow's hierarchy alongside sleep, food, and all the other physiological needs.

The environment in which most of us operate is almost callously unable to provide this need to those who don't easily fit in physically. Added to which, many adults with disabilities live at home with family members, which can make it difficult to be seen as a sexual adult. Even if you're not the most touchy-feely person, you can probably appreciate how even little things like being a different height to everyone else would have a knock-on result to, say, getting hugs. People who like hugs can usually get them. If they're standing face-to-face with others. Or if their limbs are fully mobile. Or if they have all their limbs.

And for people whose mobility is seriously limited, the most intense touch they might get in a day could be a carer or nurse changing their clothes. That is just not on. Restrictive, sense-deprived environments create knock-on effects for physical and psychological well-being. Here's a 1957 article describing early experiment in limiting senses and mobility, and the effects.

Over time, I came to see sex work as a kind of social service; many others do too. Because access to touch, to pleasure and yes — to sex — is something we regard as natural and accessible to everyone. Even to those without money, without jobs, without rights. And yet there are people in our rich, employed, democratic society who struggle to scratch this basic itch. Fulfilling this need as a paid sex worker is not about pity - it's about providing a basic service. Groups like TLC Trust openly acknowledge this reality.

With constant challenges to legal sex work in the UK (especially in Scotland, where I live), I can't help but wonder if the trendy Swedish model of criminalising clients would actually have a knock-on effect of targeting disabled clients. Law enforcement shows a disinclination to pursue difficult criminals in favour of nabbing easy ones. It feels inevitable that someone is going to start "juking the stats"* to make it look like "sex criminals" are being rounded up in unprecedented numbers. Who are those people going to be? The ones who are easiest to find and catch, of course.

A lot of folks point to the Swedish laws that criminalise clients as if they are some sort of panacaea, in spite of criticism of their actual effectiveness. And they defend them using ideology alone: invoking a world in which all who pay for sex are able-bodied, wealthy, and male. A world in which all sex workers are disadvantaged, poor, and female.

The myths perpetrated by opponents of sex work assume that men always have more power than women, and that only cisgender, heterosexual people are involved. It's not true.

It's not a realistic view of the diversity of what goes on between sex workers and clients. Passing laws based on the narrowest and most stereotypical of assumptions will surely become just one more example of bad law.

* - Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of statistics. But I'm also a fan of transparency in statistics... making it clear exactly what collection and analysis methodology has been used to draw which conclusions. Part of the point of the scientific method is to put it all out there so the accuracy of your results can be tested.

This post actually came from a Twitter discussion with another blogger about something else entirely — will get to writing about prostate massage another time!"

Posted by Belle de Jour at 05:20

If you have any interest in thoughtful discussions about sex-related and scientific topics, I urge you to follow Brooke's blog. She is a unique woman, and an equally unique writer who should NOT be missed.

Brooke's books include: Belle de Jour’s Guide to Men, 2009; Belle’s Best Bits, 2009; The Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl, September 2005; The Further Adventures of a London Call Girl, May 2007; and Playing the Game, June 2009.

Each one is well-worth reading and re–reading, you can trust me! You can find all of her books at the U.K.’s largest independent bookseller, Waterstones.

Also check out Brooke's op-ed articles on a variety of topics including reforming libel law in the UK, as well as the importance of ensuring the rights of sex workers.

— The Curator

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Color ME Pink!

Sometimes, news accounts about sexual orientation/gender issues infuriate me, and this one has done exactly that: A J.Crew advertisement depicts a mom painting her 5-year-old laughing son's toenails neon pink.

That's it. So what's the big deal, you ask? The 'what' is that a whole lot of homophobic folks — and a lot of so-called 'professionals' who should know a damn sight better — think this will "turn" the laughing boy in the photo into a laughing girl.

As expected, the Gender Police emerged from their dark caves in flocks and a national debate has ensued about the “correct” way to raise children, as well as the importance of so-called 'honoring' one’s biologically assigned gender — i.e., an opportunity to commit transgender bashing on an epic scale.

When will this type of nonsense EVER stop? Sexual orientation is biological, if it weren't then there would never be any gay men who play sports. Get it? Dress boys in boys clothes means that they will have to grow into heterosexual men, and dress little girls in frilly dresses and they will have to grow into heterosexual women, right? Wrong. As a card-carrying member of the LGBT Community, I can personally tell you that is absolute, insulting garbage. It is beyond RIDICULOUS!

Jeans don't make the gender, genes do!

Here's the ad info:

The J.Crew ad shows a top designer painting her young son’s toenails neon pink. The image appeared in a feature called "Saturday With Jenna," which was emailed to customers last week, and highlights a few of J.Crew president and creative director Jenna Lyons’ favorite products — including the hot pink Essie nail polish seen on her son, Beckett.

The caption below the picture reads, “Lucky for me I ended up with a boy whose favorite color is pink. Toenail painting is way more fun in neon.”

A psychiatrist talking head for Fox News, the ultra-conservative Dr. Keith Ablow, jumped on the ad to make headlines for himself and the atrocious network news program.

"Yeah, well, it may be fun and games now, Jenna, but at least put some money aside for psychotherapy for the kid—and maybe a little for others who’ll be affected by your “innocent” pleasure. This is a dramatic example of the way that our culture is being encouraged to abandon all trappings of gender identity,” proclaimed the judgmental Ablow, who wrote a FoxNews 'health column' about the ad.

Not satisfied, Ablow continues to denigrate the ad, as well as Ms. Lyon personally: "If you have no problem with the J. Crew ad, how about one in which a little boy models a sundress? What could possibly be the problem with that? Well, how about the fact that encouraging the choosing of gender identity, rather than suggesting our children become comfortable with the ones that they got at birth, can throw our species into real psychological turmoil—not to mention crowding operating rooms with procedures to grotesquely amputate body parts?...I wonder what Jenna would think if her son wanted to celebrate his masculinity with a little playacting as a cowboy, with a gun? Would that bring the same smile of joy and pure love that we see on her face in the J. Crew advertisement? Or would that be where she might draw the line?"

The arch conservative Media Research Center’s Erin Brown piled it on, calling the ad, “blatant propaganda celebrating transgendered children.”

“Not only is Beckett likely to change his favorite color as early as tomorrow, Jenna's indulgence (or encouragement) could make life hard for the boy in the future,” Brown wrote in an opinion piece. "J.CREW, known for its tasteful and modest clothing, apparently does not mind exploiting Beckett behind the facade of liberal, transgendered identity politics.”

A voice of sanity, Alice Dreger, professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University, said it is "ridiculous" to suggest that painting a little boy's toes pink or any other color might somehow influence his sexuality or sexual identity.

"Lots of boys love toenail polish; tons of boys do," Dreger said. "All kids like things that are sparkly and bright. And as far as I can tell, it doesn't lead to anything like the end of civilization."

I'll give it to them though, the conservatives got one thing right: THEIR type of thinking is dangerous, as it encourages bigotry and hatred of all gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people.

Hmmm. I wonder, could it be that this ad underscores their own sexual orientation insecurity? Might these LGBT haters be more than a tad drawn to a little gender-bending behavior themselves?

— The Curator

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Belle de Jour Discusses Sex Education/Educators

If you have not been following HUGE blog news recently, you might not know that Belle de Jour has launched a wonderful new blog under her real name, instead of her famous pen name.

After almost a year hiatus, Dr. Brooke L. Magnanti, 35, the woman behind the famous erotic British author and award-winning blogger, launched Sexonomics last week.

But, this new blog proudly proclaims her name and is adorned with a beautiful photograph of Brooke, who writes:

"Hi! My name is Brooke Magnanti, but you may know me better as the author of theBelle de Jour blog and books. This is where I write about social & political stuff, mostly relating to sex. Yes, there's going to be a book.

As an ex-sex worker, you can imagine what my bias is. Nevertheless, I am also a scientist, so will do my best to present the evidence base for each post.

I love discussion but don't have the time to moderate comments. By all means, feel free to discuss on Twitter or your own blog!

Speaking of which, I'm on Twitter — you can follow me here."

Brooke is beyond bright, articulate and educated, she's a writer with an important voice about many topics that happen to include sex work and sex workers.

In 2009, Brooke revealed her identity after a newspaper was about to disclose it without her permission. Brooke, formerly of Bristol, England, was a noted scientist whose specialist areas were developmental neurotoxicology and cancer epidemiology. She has a PhD in informatics, epidemiology and forensic science and had worked at the Bristol Initiative for Research of Child Health as part of a team that researched the potential effects on babies of their mothers' exposure to toxic chemicals.

But, from 2003 to late 2004, Brooke worked as a high-class call girl for a London escort service. She has written an award-winning blog and several bestselling books based on her experiences as a sex worker. Her writing also formed the basis of the TV series Secret Diary of a Call Girl on Showtime, starring Billie Piper in the title role of "Belle."

As any fan of Brooke's knows, she'd been dating then living with a man referred to only as "T" in her books and blog — because he first began leaving his toothbrush in her flat, then gradually the rest of his belongings. While Brooke has not publicly named him, they have will have been married a year this month.

Recently, she and her husband moved to Scotland, after Brooke decided to take the hiatus from penning new entries for her award-winning blog (Where she says simply, "Belle de Jour is the pen name of Brooke Magnanti, a UK-based writer and science researcher. Interests: whiskey, taphonomy, PGP encryption), in favor of concentrating on writing the new book, a variety of articles, and now as it turns out — her wonderful new blog.

She also decided to leave the field of science behind because of the funding crunch in the U.K. for research projects. She has said that since she has other means of support — name her incredible writing — she didn't want to take a science slot from a researcher who does not.

Since the debut of Sexonomics, it has already generated some lively commentary. As a loyal fan of everything that Brooke writes, I am re-posting her latest blog entry that was posted yesterday. Please read it in its entirety below, or directly at her new blog site:

FRIDAY, 8 APRIL 201

Preaching to the Converted


"When ancient cultures looked at the night sky they saw groups of stars, just the way we do today. They drew imaginary lines between the stars to make pictures and tell stories. The pictures were constellations.

One of the most easily recognisable constellations is Ursa Major (you probably call it the Big Dipper, or the Plough). From Earth the stars seem inextricably linked and for most of history we have had no way of telling otherwise. But we now know that they’re not close to each other at all. Some of the stars in the Plough are 78 light years away from us; others over 120. It’s the particular angle we see them at that makes them look close to each other. If you were living on a planet orbiting some other star, the Plough wouldn’t look the same because you would see the stars from a different direction. And constellations change over time. The last two stars on the handle of the Plough are moving quickly; in 50,000 years it will look completely different from how we know it today. Even here on Earth.

Making constellations from unrelated information happens a lot. But just because things seem to be connected to each other doesn’t mean they are. Humans are hard-wired to find patterns and seek explanations, but sometimes, this tendency can lead to the wrong pictures being drawn.

When it comes to the subject of sex, the habit of making constellations is so pervasive that we take it for granted. Myths, assumptions, and preconceptions take hold even when there is rational evidence to the contrary.

Recently, inspired by a post by Jane Fae on Freedom in a Puritan Age, I contributed a bookending piece. By and large, I agree with Jane's assessment (and Dr Petra's prediction) that the mainstream discussion of sex is getting narrower and more judgmental. I don't like the way in which people invoke pornography, child sexualisation, trafficking, and other issues in the same breath as if they are the same things. I especially don't like when MPs and government do it. But they're responding to a perceived issue that some poll somewhere tells them is important. The problem, as I see it, is how to reach out to people whose views are being influenced by a heavily biased media, and other sources all to happy to join up a constellation and call it the truth.

The title of my piece on FIPA is slightly misleading... while I do believe the 'anti-sex lobby' is irrational, I also think the majority of people worried about these topics are anything but. I can sympathise.

Plenty of people have opinions about these issues, and why not? After all, sex is virtually a human universal. It’s something most of us can claim, if not expertise, at least an enthusiastic amateur interest.

Which is fine, when it comes to something for which we have (ahem) hands-on experience. But once reality diverges from what we know first hand, all kinds of strange rumours can take hold. And once a rumour starts to spread, it’s often hard to stop.

From the first rumours in the school yard, to the first fumblings in the dark, has there ever been a topic more talked about, thought about, argued about? We begin by learning about sex and sexuality from the things we tell each other, and later, learning from our own experiences.

As we get older and gain more insight, our gaze widens: from When will I have sex? What will it be like? How are other people doing it? to broader questions of sexual orientation, relationships, and gender issues. We’re fascinated with the periphery of sex as well as the nuts and bolts of it – prostitution, porn, and sex crimes, just to name a few. Stories about these topics are guaranteed to get news coverage, magazine features, and column inches in the papers. Memoirs, exposes, and kiss-and-tells fly off the shelves. We get our expertise however we can.

But the less direct experience we have, the more we turn back to gathering information the old-fashioned way. The schoolyard way.

Sex, sexuality, and sex work minutiae — for people outside the loop — can be confusing. It's difficult to get and process information about things most of us are never directly involved with. We've a sense all of this stuff is important, but neither the time nor the energy to peruse the scholarly literature, discuss the issues in depth, and get involved. (See also: the problem with science journalism.)

For example, it was once easy for people to believe secondhand stories and rumours about homosexuality, because most people didn’t know anyone who was out. As homosexuality has become more open and more visible, and therefore more people know that they know gay people, the malicious rumours and hatred have finally begun to wane. According to polls by the Washington Postand ABC News, the percentage of people supporting equal marriage rights for gay couples has risen in direct proportion with the visibility of gay people.

But they and other groups who are not widely accepted deal with the brunt of the rumour mill’s damage. Sex workers are another such group. Because a lot of people don’t think they know anyone in sex work, the assumptions and stereotypes hold a lot of sway over opinions in that area. After all, without firsthand experience, who’s to say otherwise? Especially when there are many reasons why sex workers stay "in the closet". What is clear is that we need some way of telling what is real from what is myth.

Also, it's clear that there is a certain amount of (for lack of a better word) circle-jerking in some corners of the internet. I use the term 'the converted' advisedly — some of the harshest, and most underhanded, critics can be people whose point of view is indistinguishable from yours to outsiders. There's a danger in addressing every niggling internecine concern that alienates the mainstream and diverts energy from getting most of the message to most of the people most of the time.

Take for instance the previous entry, which mentions research by (among others) J Michael Bailey. Certain aspects of his methods have come under criticism — though not particularly the studies I mentioned. However, it was as if the word Bailey was a red rag to particular people. Simply by mentioning the relevant findings by a person they hated, I woke up to a Twitter and email storm. That's a pity, because the more I read of Bailey's work in the past year, the more I found that while his critics had a point, there was a lot I agreed with. I could ignore the stuff I agree with. That would probably keep the circle-jerk happy. But it does nothing to advance what this blog is trying to say to a wider audience... those for whom the idea of scientific investigation of human desire may be a new and interesting idea.

Long story short (too late!), I may have lost a few people over daring to mention Bailey, but worrying about breaking a few eggs on the way to an omelette? Never been something that keeps me up at night.

The way I see it, if you're liking and linking to this blog, then you probably are already one of the people who more-or-less sees things the way I do. And if so, I love you for it. Without the research and commentary generated by the sex-positive community, I would have almost nothing to write about. But we spend a lot of time either talking to each other, or arguing with the entrenched opposite. There's a giant group of people in the middle, getting skewed and outdated information because not so many of us are appealing to them. With acceptance such a big issue for so many of us, maybe that's where we should be targeting effort... rather than losing energy on the few whose minds, frankly, will never be changed.

Blogs by sex and relationship educators do a pretty decent job of attempting to bridge this gap. And there are some academics, such as Laura Agustin, who blog about their research and writing. These sorts of things are a vital link between the people who have information, and the many who want it. But there are vastly more people with expertise in these topics who operate entirely within the academic context or only have the time and energy to focus on their jobs. And while informative blogs and sites by current and ex sex workers are popular, there is still the assumption that these people are for some reason the "exception" rather than the "rule". Effective public outreach by the sex-positive (or even just hype-skeptical) community still struggles to get off the ground.

What are ways we can open the discussion, inform and involve the undecided middle? Ideas on the back of a postcard to the usual place, please."

Posted by Belle de Jour 04:57

If you have any interest in thoughtful discussions about sex-related and scientific topics, I urge you to follow Brooke's blog. She is a unique woman, and an equally unique writer who should NOT be missed. It would be a genuine mistake to reject her blog simply because she mentioned some relevant facts from a man who is very unpopular in some circles. [Note: To read one of the counterpoints, see QuietRiotGirl's comments.]

I would be remiss to discuss Brooke and not to mention her wonderful books, which include: Belle de Jour’s Guide to Men, 2009; Belle’s Best Bits, 2009; The Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl, September 2005; The Further Adventures of a London Call Girl, May 2007; and Playing the Game, June 2009.

Each one is well-worth reading and re–reading, you can trust me! You can find all of her books at the U.K.’s largest independent bookseller, Waterstones.

Also check out Brooke's op-ed articles on a variety of topics including reforming libel law in Britain, and well as the importance of ensuring the rights of sex workers.

Thank you Brooke, for giving us all something well-worth reading again! Long may you reign, m'dear!

— The Curator