Just What the Heck IS a 'Fuck Saw'?

Recently, I reported on the trouble that a respected human sexuality professor got into because he conducted a live after-school demonstration of a woman's orgasm with a man using a sex toy on her.

I'm following up that account because I received a surprising and unprecedented number of questions regarding the story. Why surprising? Because each of the questions were regarding the sex toy, none of them related to the actual story!

Just what was the sex toy that generated the questions: A 'Fuck Saw.' That's right, a Fuck Saw. Frankly, I had never heard of the darn thing before the university story, so I researched it. It has quite a cult following. I have included details below. [Note: You can find it easily as a package, or separately by its parts on the Internet to purchase, so I haven't provided any sales links.]

I am quoting from the manufacturer's description:

"The Fuck Saw is a very special hand held fucking machine that can fuck really hard using the motion and six different speeds of a reciprocating saw. The special red rod is a Saw Vac-U-Lock Adapter that attaches to the saw in place of a blade. The Vac-U-Lock dong attachment then slips over the rod. You hold it like a gun, and drill into the ass or vagina with powerful and steady force."

Let me be VERY clear — this device is a mechanical fucking machine, NOT a vibrator. Most of the websites demonstrate it using two people, one w-elding the machine, the other being, well, wielded — but it may be able to be used for solo-sex too, if you could figure out how to anchor it securely.

It has been primarily popular within the gay and BDSM communities, but is gaining appreciation by hetero-couples, too. I watched the videos, and can't believe that most women would be able to orgasm from it, since it simply provides serious vaginal stimulation and nothing clitoral.

However, the concept is appealing to a lot of couples because traditional mechanical fucking machines are generally quite cost prohibitive, but this may be within their budgetary...um...constraints.

The Real Saw

Description of Chicago Electric Power Tools 65570, Reciprocating Saw [There are other power tool brands that also produce this saw]

Handle rotates completely through 180° with five positive stops at 0, 45° and 90° left, and 45° and 90° right for comfortable and controlled cutting from any angle.

• Powerful 6 amp motor with a variable speed trigger goes from 0 to 2500 strokes per minute for precision cutting or speed
• Shoe plate pivots up to 30° for increased stability
• 1/2" twist-lock blade chuck for fast, easy blade changes
• 7/8" stroke length
• Rubber grip for comfort and durability
• Includes a 24 TPI metal-cutting blade and a 10 TPI woodcutting blade

Overall dimensions: 18" L x 3-7/16" W x 6-3/4" H, Shipping Weight: 6.50 lbs.

[Note: This saw, sold separately, retails for about $30-$40.]

The Adapter With Changeable Dildo

The Reciprocating Saw Vac-U-Lock Adepter, which retails at about $80 without shipping, turns a reciprocating saw into a hand held fucking machine with a Vac-U-Lock dildo attached to the end. The adapter works with all Vac-U-Lock Toys. One end of the adepter fits into the saw in place of a blade and the other end is shaped to fit all Vac-U-Lock toys.

The adapter is chrome and glossy red and constructed from unbendable steel. The Vac-U-Lock Dildo attachments are sold separately.

When purchased together, the Fuck Saw retails between $170 and $200 without shipping. The package includes the reciprocating saw, a Vac-U-Lock Dong and a red Saw Vac-U-Lock Adapter. The reciprocating saw weighs a total of 6.70 lbs. Without the rod and dong attachments it has a total length of 16½". It is 3½” wide and the maximum height is 6” at the handle. The extension safety cord for the Fuck saw is 80” long.

The realistic Vac-U-Lock Dong (sadly for vaginal health, most are made of unappealing rubber) attachment goes onto the Saw Vac-U-Lock Adapter. The red saw adapter is glossy and constructed from unbendable steel. It is 9” in total length, and the 3-part segmented end is 3½” with a 5½” attachment stem. The adapter has a 3.25” circumference and a 1” diameter.

The Vac-U-Lock dildo in most package sales is a slim and natural shape and color made of rubber, which generally has an insertable length of 7¼” and a 1½” diameter.

The blade stroke is 7/8”. The six speeds are variable and go between 0-2500 SPM (strokes per minute).

"This sex machine is cool looking and hard core. The Fuck Saw supplies a great machine powered fuck."

To each their own!

— The Curator

Strap-On Sex — Women on Men

Women who use strap-on dildos to pleasure their partners are skilled and talented, but seldom discuss the — uh — ins and outs of the process.

A wonderful article was written by one woman who used the sex toy on a male friend-with-benefits. It is beyond worth reading. Not only is it sexy, but it discusses frankly and explicitly what strap-on sex can be like.

Lesbians have long used strap-ons, and so have gays, but both seldom write about their experiences. It is even more rare for a woman to write about pleasing a male with a strap-on. It takes trust for a man to be penetrated in this manner, and real control on the woman's part to do it correctly.

There are many, many men — married men or with women partners — whose fantasy is being pleasured in this way, but feel shame in admitting, or asking their partners to do it. There are also a huge number of heterosexual women who would like to pleasure their males by using a strap-on, but are also too inhibited to talk about it.

I think that's quite sad. In a sex positive environment, committed partners should be able to frankly discuss all of their sexual needs/fantasies without judgment. I hope this article helps couples begin a discussion about this legitimate way to have GREAT sex.

So, kudos to writer Anna Pulley of AlterNet for "going there." Read the story in its entirety here, or at its website.

Sex With a Strap On: The Politics of Penetration
What gender dynamics and stereotypes are exposed and undercut in sexual role reversal?

By Anna Pulley of AlterNet

“I think you’re the one,” he said. We were taking a break from a marathon fuck fest, sweaty, spent, and lying on our sides when he said those words to me, words that I’d been told every girl wanted to hear at some point in their lives. Except, of course, Seth wasn’t my boyfriend, and he wasn’t professing his undying love for me. He was my friend with benefits, and he was trying to convince me to don a strap-on and do him in the ass. After he told me I was “the one,” it wasn’t just my ego I wanted him to stroke. What are friends for, I thought, if not to tell you when you have spinach in your teeth and to give you an occasional reach around?

I had been trying to get Seth to let me do him in the butt for years, way before we started sleeping together. He was, in fact, dating a girl I was in love with when we first met in Tucson. They came down from Phoenix for a party I was having, and after a jug of Carlo Rossi wine, I pulled out my box of sex toys (like ya do), including a garishly pink rubber dildo and thong harness that I bought on the clearance rack at Fascinations. The first time I tried it on I felt like I was on American Gladiators. All I needed was to draw some stars on my ass and I’d be ready to joust. Aside from its hideous color, which I assumed was to make it seem less threatening, less male, and therefore more acceptable to impale somebody with, it was very versatile. This particular strap-on came with a vibrator, a vibrator pocket that nestled right up next to my clit, a hooked nose for g-spot stimulation, and a nob right about where a partner’s clit should be. It was like a one-man band, or a really thoughtful rhinoceros. In my extreme inebriation, I thought it neither tactless nor gross to lend my friends the strap-on I fucked my girlfriend with on a semi-regular basis in order to take Seth’s anal virginity. The look on his face told me immediately that that was not going to happen, and I tried to seem less disappointed than I actually was.

Years later, Seth and I reconnected in San Francisco, and after a fairly traumatic break up with my girlfriend of two-and-a-half years who decided she wanted to be straight, he and I ended up in bed together (like ya do). After a long and varied sex session that lasted several hours, he popped the strap-on question. “I’ve had other girls try it, with limited success,” he said. “But you, I think you’re the one.”

I've often questioned the role of role playing in sex. How we are socially and behaviorally predisposed to certain inclinations, sexual or otherwise. How much did my status as a bottom — my desire to be dominated in bed — inhibit my use of strap-ons in erotic play, especially when submission, for me, was the ultimate erotic transgression? Women are socialized not to act, but to react, and this passivity and reticence in everyday occurrences often translates into the bedroom as well.

Think of the aggression gay men often display when seeking a sexual conquest and how women on all sides of the sexual spectrum tend to have a less aggressive approach to sex outside of love and commitment. Witness the polarities between Women Seeking Women and Men Seeking Men ads on Craigslist sometime, if you don’t believe me. Another example of this can be found in Lillian Faderman’s “Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers” where a lesbian sex-radical in the 80s advertised, “bare bottom spankings, immobilizing bondage, enemas, colonic irrigations, vaginal and rectal exams, dildos and vibrators” then ended with “and after I’ve endured what was bestowed upon me, comfort me in your loving arms. Long term relationship possible.”

Weirdly, I never felt truly confident strapping it on until I started using them on dudes. It always seemed kind of silly — a femme with a dick. I certainly never felt like a dude when I strapped, more like a wayward unicorn. A hot one though. An empowered unicorn. I associated power with masculinity, but I never felt masculine. I asked Seth if riding the brown caboose made him feel like he was giving something up. He said, “I don’t feel powerless. In my mind, whoever’s getting off the hardest is the one who’s most empowered, ultimately.”

Taking a man dirt-roading for a change isn’t just a fuck, but a mind fuck, and a powerful one at that. As one of my friends put it, “Topping someone much bigger than you as a woman is amazing. I may never beat you in arm wrestling, but I can fuck you in the ass. Can you imagine a 6'5" man with those legs up in the air? Beeeauuuuutiful.”

Seth owned his own dildo and strap-on, which was not only convenient, but a testament to his dedication to the craft. As soon as he brought it out, I became suddenly nervous. In all my years of fucking women with strap-ons, I’d had many flubs, faux pas, and episodes of even hurling dildos across rooms out of frustration. Also, even though I’m happy to take the reins in the sack whenever necessary, in my heart of hearts, I like to be taken, not the other way around. But Seth’s longing and experience as a receiver put me at ease, (it also didn’t hurt that I was several vodka gimlets deep at that point) and as I stepped into the harness and tightened the straps, the familiarity and breathlessness came rushing back. I lubed up the modestly-sized dildo as he readied himself on his back, knees hugging his chest to make room for me. The first shock of contact, of connection, is always exhilarating, and when it happened, I felt him stiffen slightly, then push back into me, emitting a soft, wordless sound. I went slowly at first, listening for his exhalations and murmurs of “That feels so good.” There’s nothing sexier than that first audible or physical release of inhibition, and I felt myself flush at the sound of his voice, the giving and the taking that was happening all at once. I angled slightly up toward him, held onto his outer thighs to steady myself, and in that small gesture, I heard his breath quicken, which in turn made my movements quicken as well. In that moment, he looked up at me, appreciative, contemplative maybe, and pushed the hair out of my face, which had swiftly become dampened with sweat.

I tried to keep my focus on his words, his movements, but I was also too turned on to really pay much attention. I felt both amazed and overwhelmed at this steamy subversiveness, something that rarely existed in my normal, day-to-day life.

None of the men I fucked ever felt ashamed or weird about it afterward. Indeed, they seemed to relish the opportunity to explore. It’s not very often, after all, that men are allowed to be sexually vulnerable. Admissions to even having such a desire often lead to the tiresome stereotype of closeted gayness. I asked Seth over beers recently if anyone ever assumed he was gay or bi because he liked strap-on sex. “I’m sure they do,” he said. “But I don’t talk about it publicly that often…just to reporters, and the entire Internet.”'

— The Curator

Smithsonian Museum Censored Gay Video Back on Public Display

A videotape that had been on display at the National Portrait Gallery in D.C. for a gay portraiture exhibit by the Smithsonian but had been removed after protests from the religious right, has resurfaced in another gallery — in a trailer right next door.

The film was part of the 105-piece "Hide/Seek" exhibit that opened at the Gallery in October showing a century of art exploring gay portraiture. The 4-minute film contains 11 seconds of video of ants crawling on a crucifix. That imagery incensed some conservative politicians and the Catholic League.

The art video continues to be a point of controversy. After pressure from outside groups, the Smithsonian had pulled a video from the exhibit, outraging members of the art community. But now, that video is back on public display, literally steps away from the gallery.

The Museum of Censored Art — a mobile office trailer bearing the sign “Showing the art the Smithsonian won't” — is situated just outside the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery.

"The film is here," said Mike Blasenstein, one of the protesters behind the museum. "People might have to walk a few more feet to see it, but they can see the original exhibit as it played for a month in the National Portrait Gallery with zero complaints from the public."

The film is an excerpt from David Wojnarowicz's “Fire in My Belly." It's the centerpiece of the Museum of Censored Art and the reason the temporary museum exists.

“We're making him and his work visible again as close to the original site as possible,” Blasenstein said.

The film had been part of the 105-piece "Hide/Seek" exhibit that opened at the Gallery in October showing a century of art exploring gay portraiture.

Within 24-hours of their protest, the secretary of the Smithsonian had the video removed, calling it a distraction from the larger exhibit.

Some in the art community, including me, call it censorship.

"I believe that this sends ripples through the entire art world and that we're going to be sent right back to 1980s conservative realm where things like this happened all the time,” said Mike Iacovone, one of the protesters behind the Museum of Censored Art.

Eileen McClatchy said she stopped yesterday to see what she wasn't supposed to see.

"I don't know what the powers that pushed them to take it out were, but obviously some people don't want to see that truth or touch that pain," she said.

Protesters raised $6,000 and got permits to put their makeshift museum next to the gallery because, they say, it's paramount that people be able to make their own decision.

"Their purpose is to kind of facilitate that kind of learning and understanding, and if you're drawing people in for whatever reason, I don't see why that would be a bad thing,” museum visitor Carrie Garman said.

"Hide/Seek” will be at the National Portrait Gallery until Feb. 13. So will the Museum of Censored Art.

The Portrait Gallery supports the protesters' freedom of expression and hopes people who see the video will come in to see the entire exhibit.

The video also was shown at Transformer Gallery after being pulled from the Portrait Gallery.

— The Curator

Gays STILL the Group Most Targeted by Hate Crimes

A thorough and excellent analysis of hate crimes has shown that gays remain the most targeted minority group suffering these atrocious attacks.

The thought-provoking report, compiled and written by Mark Potok, appears in the SPLC Intelligence Report. The results were startling to me, considering the apparent improved societal stance regarding the LGBT community, including the resent lifting of the military's overtly discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and some legalization of same-sex marriages.

Potok suggests, quite logically, that the deep seated anger barely held in check within some hard-core anti-gays has bubbled over into sudden violence partly because of these general improvements in LBGT rights.

The column appears below in its entirety, or read it directly at the website.

Gays Remain the Minority Most Targeted by Hate Crimes

By Mark Potok, SPLC Intelligence Report
Posted on Dec. 31, 2010, Printed on Jan. 4, 2011

The religious anti-gay right has been knocked back on its heels by gay rights advances. But its hardest core angrily presses on.

Four teenagers commit suicide in a three-week span after being bullied, taunted or outed as homosexuals. Seven students — at least four of whom had endured anti-gay bullying — kill themselves over the course of a year in a single Minnesota school district. In New York, 10 suspects are arrested for torturing three gay victims. In Covington, Ky., a series of violent anti-gay attacks shock a trendy neighborhood. In Vonore, Tenn., a lesbian couple’s home, its garage spray-painted with “Queers,” is burned to the ground. A rash of attacks hits Washington, D.C. And in Michigan, a prosecutor harasses a local gay rights student leader for months.

All of this is only a sampling of the anti-gay attacks occurring around the nation, most of it drawn from just the last few months. Although the rash of student suicides drew major media attention for a few days, the reality, gay rights advocates say, is that the LGBT world has been plagued by hate violence for years.

But that’s not the way a hard core of the anti-gay religious right sees it.

Responding to the wave of teen suicides — including, most dramatically, that of 18-year-old Tyler Clementi, a Rutgers University student who leaped off the George Washington Bridge in New York City in September — anti-gay leaders instead blamed those who sought to protect students from bullying.

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association said gay rights activists “pressure these students to declare a disordered sexual preference when they’re too young to know better, [so] they share some culpability.” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, a key critic of anti-bullying programs, said gay activists were “exploiting these tragedies to push their agenda.” He said that gay kids may know “intuitively” that their desires are “abnormal” and that the claim, pushed by gay activists, that they can’t change “may create a sense of despair that can lead to suicide.” Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel said those activists want “to use the tragedies to increase pressure on the real victims: Christians.”

In fact, the chief target of these anti-gay ideologues — the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) — has been working to get protection from school bullying for a wide range of racial, religious and sexual minorities, not only LGBT students. It’s extremely hard to see how their efforts are exploitative, or how the “real” victims of bullying are Christians. GLSEN’s mission statement says that it “strives to assure that each member of every school community is valued.”

What’s more, bullying is only the beginning of the violence experienced by gays in American society. The reality is that homosexuals or perceived homosexuals are by far the group most targeted in America for violent hate crimes, according to an Intelligence Report analysis of 14 years of federal hate crime data. The bottom line: Gay people are more than twice as likely to be attacked in a violent hate crime as Jews or blacks; more than four times as likely as Muslims; and 14 times as likely as Latinos.

A Changing Landscape

Remarkably, most Americans today seem to have a sense of the violence that the LGBT community is regularly subjected to, or in any event are increasingly rejecting extreme religious-right narratives about the alleged evils of homosexuality. An October poll by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute found that 65% of Americans believe “places of worship contribute to higher rates of suicide among gay and lesbian youth” (33% said “a lot” and 32% said “a little”). Seventy-two percent said places of worship “contribute to negative views of gay and lesbian people” (40% said “a lot” and 32% said “a little”). (At the same time, the survey found that 44% of Americans still view same-sex relations as a sin.)

This was not always so. In 2003, the legalization of same-sex marriage in most of Canada, plus the U.S. Supreme Court’s striking down of anti-gay sodomy laws in 13 states and a court decision in Massachusetts against gay marriage bans, produced a major backlash. By 2008, fueled by the anti-gay rhetoric and political organizing of religious-right groups, at least 40 states and the federal government had adopted constitutional bans or laws against same-sex marriages.

Since then, the record has been mixed. But it’s clear that public support for same-sex marriage — and opposition to its religious opponents — is on the rise.

Five states now allow same-sex marriage, and another three recognize such unions from other states. California allowed them for some months in 2008, but the Proposition 8 referendum ended that — until a federal judge this fall overturned the proposition, saying it discriminated unconstitutionally against homosexuals. A 2006 federal bill that would have prohibited states from recognizing same-sex marriage failed. By this August, according to a Roper poll, a majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage for the first time. The poll found that 52% said the federal government should recognize such marriages (up from 46% in 2009), and 58% said same-sex couples should be entitled to the same benefits as other couples.

An earlier Gallup poll, released in May 2010, had similar results. It found that Americans now see gay relationships as “morally acceptable” by a 52% to 43% margin — compared to a 55% to 38% unfavorable view just eight years earlier. Every demographic group within the data set grew more accepting — Catholics, for instance, polled as 62% favorable, compared to 46% four years ago.

This fall’s mid-term elections were the first since the 1990s with no measures to ban gay marriage on any state ballot, according to The Associated Press. And although same-sex marriage was an issue at press time in four gubernatorial races, the AP reported, Democratic candidates in Rhode Island and California were vying to become the fourth and fifth openly gay members of Congress.

“We’ve reached a tipping point this year,” said Wayne Besen, founder of TruthWinsOut.com, which monitors the anti-gay right. “The religious right is losing some of its steam. We’re going to win this issue quicker than people think.”

It may not be only gay rights advocates who think so. Last February, after founder James Dobson retired and pastor Jim Daly took over, Focus on the Family — for years, the powerhouse organization of the anti-gay religious right — markedly softened its anti-gay rhetoric. Daly began meeting with gay rights activists, ended the ministry’s controversial “reparative therapy” for gays and lesbians, and even suggested that legalized same-sex marriage might not be a disaster.

“I will continue to defend traditional marriage, but I’m not going to demean human beings for the process,” Daly told an interviewer. “I want to express respect for everyone, all human beings. It’s not about being highly confrontational.”

Digging In

It is in just such situations — when long-held societal notions about blacks, Latinos, Catholics, homosexuals or other minorities are shifting — that violent backlashes often set in. As groups like Focus on the Family have moderated their positions on homosexuality, a hard core of anti-gay groups, sensing they are being politically marginalized, seem to be growing angrier and more radical still.

The reaction of Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute, may be illustrative. Upon hearing of Daly’s moves, she said the Focus on the Family leader was showing “surprising naïveté,” adding that he instead “better figure out how to stop the pro-homosexual juggernaut.” As to his comments about refusing to “demean human beings,” Higgins said, “The language employed by Mr. Daly here is the kind of language commonly employed by … homosexualists.”

“True conservatives,” Higgins added tartly elsewhere, “need to rethink their cowardly refusal to address the inherent immorality of homosexual practice and their deeply flawed strategy of calling for a moratorium on ‘social issues.’”

A leading criminologist and sociologist of hate crimes, Jack Levin of Northeastern University, sees evidence of the growing radicalization of the fringe in other ways. He says perpetrators of anti-gay hate crimes appear to be getting older. No longer are they dominated by teens engaging in thrill-seeking with predatory gangs of their peers. More and more, he says, lone adults are committing what Levin calls “defensive hate crimes” — crimes carried out in reaction to sweeping social changes that they see as threats to their home, family, religion, culture or country.

The shrinking size of the most virulent parts of the anti-gay religious right was much in evidence at the August “Truth Academy” staged outside Chicago by Peter LaBarbera and his Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. The three-day gathering immediately followed what to many anti-gay activists was a kind of nuclear disaster — the overturning by a federal appeals court judge of Proposition 8, which had temporarily ended gay marriage in California.

And what better motivator than a “homosexual judge” canceling out some 7 million votes against same-sex marriage? But that turned out not to be the case. Subtracting speakers, family members, volunteers and at least four interlopers who attended only to monitor events, the tally of those who paid to hear LaBarbera and the others speak during the first day was almost certainly fewer than 15.

Nevertheless, for many hard-liners, fighting homosexuality is a biblical imperative. They regard being forced to accept uncloseted gays as tantamount to being persecuted as Christians. If same-sex marriage becomes universally legal, the Family Research Council’s Perkins told the “Call to Conscience” rally held in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 4, “In one generation, we will have gone from banning the Bible in public schools to banning religious beliefs in society.”

As a result, the hard core of the anti-gay religious right is digging in. They have gravitated toward three particular tactics: “love the sinner” rhetoric; secular validation; and depicting gays as a global threat.

The Hard-Liners’ New Lines
 Not long ago, anti-gay propaganda was remarkable for its vulgar and wild-eyed tone — depicting homosexuals as immoral, feces-eating, disease-ridden pedophiles. And some of that tone, particularly the idea that gays seek to “recruit” children in school, remains in certain quarters. But that kind of approach doesn’t resonate much with younger audiences, who grew up with positive images of openly gay actors, musicians, artists, politicians and business leaders. As gays came out of the closet, others increasingly found they had gay friends and relatives.

Now, more and more groups on the religious right are framing their arguments with words that are meant to show respect for gays and lesbians. There is no better example of that than the Manhattan Declaration, drafted in 2009 by Watergate conspirator-turned-evangelist Charles Colson, Princeton University professor Robert P. George and Beeson Divinity School Dean Rev. Timothy George.

The declaration framed opposition to same-sex marriage as part of seeking an end to the “glamorizing” of promiscuity and infidelity generally. It emphasized that “our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners.” It conceded that “there are sincere people who disagree with us … on questions of sexual morality and the nature of marriage.” “And so,” it concluded, “it is out of love (not ‘animus’) and prudent concern for the common good (not ‘prejudice’), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage.”

That kinder, gentler language drew the support of many, but not as many as the religious right was used to getting. After setting a goal of obtaining 1 million signatures within 10 days of its Nov. 20, 2009, release, organizers said this Aug. 3 — almost nine months later — that they had amassed 463,000 signatures.

Another emphasis has been in seeking secular validation for anti-gay arguments — scientific evidence of the alleged pitfalls of homosexuality. Many on the religious anti-gay right now frame their arguments almost entirely around the idea that homosexuals present various dangers to children, that they will live short and unhappy lives, that they are more vulnerable to disease, and so on.

The clearest statement of this may have come in late 2008 from Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute: “We can no longer rely — as almost all pro-family organizations do today — on gleaning scientific ‘bits’ from those in liberal academia… . [W]e must subvert the academy by doing original, honest research ourselves and use this to advance the historic Christian faith.”

There’s just one trouble with this approach. Almost all the “facts” trotted out by the religious right about gays turn out to be false or misleading. And no one does more to create these myths than Cameron, whose work has been repudiated by three scholarly associations. (Others who are commonly cited as “researchers” by the anti-gay right include Joe Dallas, John R. Diggs, Joseph Nicolosi and the late Charles Socarides.) In addition, many scholars who do serious work in the area of sexuality say their work is misused by anti-gay groups. In fact, at least 11 legitimate scientists have recorded video statements saying their work was being mischaracterized by the religious right.

Related to this effort has been the creation of “ex-gay” therapies — programs run by the religious right that claim, against the weight of scientific evidence, to be able to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals. The problem is that so few people seem to have made the change — and so many who supposedly did later repudiated it.

A final new emphasis being used by many of the hard-core anti-gay groups is the charge that homosexuals make up, in effect, an active conspiracy whose agenda includes the destruction of Christianity and, ultimately, Western civilization. Sometimes, their propaganda sounds noticeably like Nazi descriptions of Jewish plots.

In a Feb. 6 column headlined “The bitter fruit of decriminalizing homosexual behavior,” for example, the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer paraphrased another writer, agreeing that decriminalizing homosexuality had left society facing “a powerful, vicious, and punitive homosexual cabal that is determined to overthrow completely what remains of Judeo-Christian standards of sexual morality in the West.” Fischer adds that, “as [the writer] points out,” gays have received “special protections … which come at the expense of religious liberty, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of association and lead to the punishment, intimidation and harassment of any who oppose their agenda.”

For his part, reflecting on “the rise of gay power in the culture,” Americans for Truth About Homosexuality’s LaBarbera sounded a similar theme during a radio broadcast last summer, saying, “The homosexual activist movement has very strategically insinuated itself into every sphere of power in our society.”

And at the Chicago-area Truth Academy, Robert Knight of Coral Ridge Ministries cited a 2008 Time magazine article that he said “makes the case that the Democratic Party is a fully owned subsidiary of a group of homosexual billionaires.” (In fact, the article discussed a group of wealthy gay men and their effect on pro-gay politics.) Knight then went a few steps further, saying that homosexuals in the nation’s capital have “blackmail power.”

How is that? So many gays work in the hospitality industry, Knight claimed, that “they see congressmen dallying with their secretaries. They see them with their mistresses, and they let them know if they step out of line on the gay issue, it just might find its way into the wrong hands.” He offered no evidence.

“The gay Mafia in Washington,” he concluded. “It’s very real.”

Facing the Future
 In the end, many legal observers have suggested, same-sex marriage — or “marriage equality,” in the words of its backers — may well be legalized across the United States, whether through the actions of the courts or the legislatures. But that doesn’t mean that the hard core of religious resistance is about to disappear.

Frederick Clarkson, an independent journalist who has written about the American religious right for a quarter of a century, notes that the social conflicts set off by Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education continued for decades after the Supreme Court ruled. Moderating public attitudes toward homosexuality, he says, are viewed by the religious right as “symptoms of a society that has fallen away from God’s laws, seriously enough that God is ready to smack the country down.”

After all, to the hard core of that anti-gay religious right, Clarkson says, “homosexuality is a profound capital offense against God’s order.”

The upshot, in all likelihood, is that violence, hatred and bullying of those perceived as homosexual will continue into the foreseeable future. Although leaders of the hard core of the religious right deny it, it seems clear that their demonizing propaganda plays a role in fomenting that violence — a proposition that has sparked a number of Christian leaders to speak out in the wake of the latest series of tragedies.

“The recent epidemic of bullying-related teen suicides is a wake-up call to us moderate Christians,” the Rev. Fritz Ritsch, pastor of St. Stephen Presbyterian Church, wrote in October in the Fort Worth, Texas, Star-Telegram. “To most unchurched Americans — meaning most Americans — the fruit of the church is bitter indeed. … [T]he bullying crisis has put a fine point on the need for moderates to challenge the theological bullies from our own bully pulpits. We cannot equivocate. Children are dying. We need to speak up. If not now, when?”

[Note: Mark Potok is the editor of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report.]

— The Curator

U.S. Continues to Grapple with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

There has been a barrage of activity in the past few days on the government’s third war: Barring openly gay service members from remaining in the military, or from joining its ranks.

It remains unclear what the final outcome will be, as some actions favored gay rights, but an appeal by the federal government to keep its hateful, discriminatory, homophobic “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in place has not yet been resolved.

Because the messages were beyond mixed, a significant gay rights group advised gays, lesbians, bi-sexual and trans-gendered people who are in the military, or who are trying to join, to keep their sexual orientation private.

Today, it was expected that the Obama administration would appeal a recent federal judge's order barring the military from enforcing its ban on gays and lesbians serving openly.

Any government challenge would have to go before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California.

Late yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips in California denied the government's request for an emergency stay of her order barring the military from expelling openly gay service members. Her ruling was a huge victory for gay-rights proponents.

The ruling came as the Pentagon has begun advising recruiting commands that they can accept openly gay and lesbian recruit candidates, according to a Pentagon spokeswoman.

The guidance from the Personnel and Readiness office was sent to recruiting commands on Friday, according to spokeswoman Cynthia Smith.

The recruiters were told that if a candidate admits he or she is openly gay, and qualify under normal recruiting guidelines, their application can be processed. Recruiters are not allowed to ask candidates if they are gay as part of the application process.

The notice also reminded recruiters that they have to "manage expectations" of applicants by informing them that a reversal of the court decision might occur, whereby the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy could be reinstated, Smith said.

Groups representing gays and lesbians have warned against coming out to the military because the policy is still being appealed in courts.

One group, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, sent a statement out yesterday reiterating the concern.

"During this interim period of uncertainty, service members must not come out and recruits should use caution if choosing to sign up," SLDN Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis said in the statement. "The bottom line: if you come out now, it can be used against you in the future by the Pentagon."

Judge Phillips' ruling on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" stemmed from a lawsuit by Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, challenging the policy.

Former Army Lt. Daniel Choi, an Iraq war combat veteran who challenged "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and was discharged. Also late yesterday, Choi moved to rejoin the military. "I'm here because I want to serve my country," he said.

"In the recruiting station. Apparently I'm too old for the Marines!" he said in a tweet. "Just filled out the Army application."

Choi said he told recruiters he was gay and that there was no reaction or delay in the enlistment process. He indicated he would complete his paperwork today and that he did not care what rank he would assume.

Will Rodriguez-Kennedy, president of Log Cabin Republicans' San Diego, California, office, tried yesterday afternoon to be reinstated by the Marines.

"Once a Marine, always a Marine," said Rodriguez-Kennedy, a corporal who was honorably discharged in February 2008.

He served three years of a four-year term. "It's a feeling of not having completed a full tour," he said.

Recruiters told him yesterday there were no current slots and they would call him in January, Rodriguez-Kennedy said. One option is to join another branch of the service, but Rodriguez-Kennedy said he might speak with Marine officers or get legal help.

Reinstatement would allow him to keep the corporal rank and resume benefits.

Rodriguez-Kennedy, 23, served as a provisional military police officer in Iraq in 2007. He said he was open to new responsibilities. "I love the Marine Corps," he said.

The U.S. has been tearing itself up over this issue for years, along with gay marriage. I believe that the current trend of ever-increasing anti-gay hate crimes is partly a reflection that both issues are closer to becoming reality.

I am a bi-sexual. If I wished to serve my country, who shares my bed should not enter into the equation. Period.

It truly remains a mystery to me why equal rights to the gay, lesbians, bi-sexual and trans-gendered communities is such a big deal. The Constitution is clear that such prejudice is unlawful discrimination. Sadly, the issue has become politicized by conservative religious groups and others so that the Constitution has in effect been co-opted.

Apparently, these anti-gay folks see me, and those like me, as a threat to our society. For me it is the other way round – it is their hate and bigotry that is the real threat to our democracy.

— The Curator

Real INTIMACY Takes HONESTY

Most faiths and secular paths alike encourage a mindful reflection back over the past year, usually coinciding with a sharp change of season.

In my religion, that mindful reflection occurs this month. It’s a time to take an honest stock of the emotional and physical “stores” of my life; a time to release behaviors that have outlived their usefulness, and to embrace new ones to improve it, as well as those that will enrich my interactions with others.

For millions around the world, this has become an annual tradition – even a Rite of sorts – to make New Year’s resolutions. For others, there is a time of “atonement” during the year specified within their individual religious/faith paths.

Whatever practice you follow, I would like to make a suggestion: When reflecting back over the year, don’t just think about how much money you made, or how much weight you gained and want to lose. But, take some time to really think about your life in terms of intimacy and sexuality.

Did you open yourself up, honestly and completely to your partner, or did you hold back and hold on to petty arguments that are festering and growing into what will become a hard shell of bitterness that will eventually enclose your heart? If you don’t have a partner, is that by conscious choice, or is there something within you that discourages that type of closeness – is it a fear of rejection, or a fear of acceptance?

When you take time to look inward, do so in private and without using a judgmental or critical eye. Do not be hard on yourself, or blame others, either. Just try really hard to “see” yourself in as unvarnished a way as possible. Think about what you believe, how you act, and how you want to improve your life. This is not an exercise in selfishness. See your life as linked to everyone else’s – how your behavior effects not just you, but everyone else around you, too.

One of the things that fascinates me about people in general, myself included, is our capacity to hold diametrically opposed values comfortably, without any cognitive dissonance whatsoever – we simply rationalize. We say that we are honest and declare that as a core value, but then act deceitfully or even treacherously in our private, and/or work lives. We allow ourselves these contradictory behaviors by saying our partner did something to deserve our withholding the truth for lies; or that we have to participate in backstabbing workplace “politics” or gossiping to further our careers, or to establish the financial security for our families.

But, does the end really justify the means when it comes to intimacy and sexuality? Is it acceptable to say anything to someone simply to get them into bed? Is it acceptable to withhold sex as a punishment in a domestic situation? Is it acceptable to have an abortion without involving the father in the decision, or even telling him about the pregnancy?

What about issues involving sexual identity. What does it do to your insides if you are bi-sexual, gay, lesbian or transgendered but are forced to live your life in the closet for fear of the emotional or physical reprisals if you disclose your true sexuality? If you are a parent, have you withdrawn your support, love and approval from your child, or even disowned them because of their sexual identity? You only have to go as far as the recent news headlines to know that homophobia has cut a swath of viciousness and hate crimes across the globe, as well as sparking suicides by victims of homophobic bullies.

Even our mainstream language reflects this growing anti-gay trend. The phrase, something’s “so gay” has been the ultimate damaging cut down, cop out and insult among teens and others in recent years, along with many others.

Science is sooo gay! Translation, "I find science boring." You are such a fag! Translation, "I think you are stupid." You queer! Translation, "You are crazy." The words gay, fag and queer fly between teenagers as insults and descriptors. However, this isn't innocent badgering, it's also building a hurtful bias of bigotry within our society that is potentially damaging self-esteem and destroying personal responsibility.

Breaking the prejudicial cycle requires immediate, intelligent parental reactions. It also requires sensitive adult reactions if you hear someone who should know better than repeat these anti-gay slurs.

A woman in Serbia commenting on the anti-gay rioting at a recent gay pride parade explained it best, "When you develop that mentality of us and them, and we hate them and we fight them, then in the end you always find somebody who is unlike you to fight."

How about you? If you are uncomfortable with a sexual identity that is not your own, can you admit that to yourself? If that level of discomfort has grown into real bigotry, can you admit that? Remember, this is not an exercise of blame, but of self-truth. No one but you will hear your answers, and no one but you can make changes if you are unhappy with them.

Then there’s sex. Are you good at giving and receiving pleasure? If not, can you tell your partner what you need, or ask them what they need and make these inquiries without recriminations or hurt feelings? It’s not about your inability or failure as a lover, it’s about honesty and achieving a level of comfort with your partner. To me, it’s about sharing your vulnerabilities, and giving each other heartfelt support.

In my experience, some women are able to give pleasure, but may have problems receiving it. It is difficult for them to let go and give themselves over completely to the sensations that their partners are creating within their bodies. If so, they may find it difficult to admit what’s going on to their partner, feeling there must be something wrong with them. As a result, the may fake orgasm, rather than talking about what’s really going on. If this is you, try to trust your partner enough to begin the discussion. And, if you are the partner hearing this issue for the first time, listen with compassion and without feeling that your love making skills are being criticized.

Some women may be unable to tell their partner what it is they like in bed, because they may not know themselves. If so, they might want to remedy that by experimenting with masturbation. Sadly, some women find masturbation even more uncomfortable to consider than being honest with their partners! I would encourage all women to explore their bodies, even if you’ve not masturbated and the mere thought of it makes you uncomfortable. If you do not know how your body works sexually, it is virtually impossible to be able to tell your partner. Masturbation would be a very positive resolution, indeed.

The lies I tell myself separate me from others, and interferes with deep, lasting intimacy with my partner. Begin your New Year with a closer relationship with everyone in your life – including yourself – by taking an unflinching look within.

— The Curator

Victim of Secret Dorm Gay Sex Tape’s Body Found

The body of a New Jersey University freshman who jumped off a bridge last week and committed suicide after his roommate secretly streamed on the Internet a live recording of him having sex with another man was recovered from the Hudson River by authorities yesterday afternoon.

Tyler Clementi, only 18 and an accomplished violinist, had been attending Rutgers University, in New Brunswick, N.J. On Sept. 22, he plunged off the George Washington Bridge in New York City after struggling with the alleged video disclosure.

He posted, “Jumping off the gw bridge sorry” to his Facebook page, then tragically did just that.

Police have charged his roommate, Dharun Ravi, with privacy violations and related offenses, for using "the camera to view and transmit a live image." Middlesex County Prosecutor Bruce Kaplan noted it's a fourth-degree crime, "to collect or view images depicting nudity or sexual content of an individual without that person's consent. The crime becomes a third-degree offense if the images are transmitted or distributed." The third-degree offense carries a maximum five years in prison if convicted.

Ravi allegedly activated his camcorder that captured Clementi and an unnamed man from another computer in the Rutger’s dorm room of a friend of Ravi’s, Michelle “Molly” Wei, whose room was across the hall. Wei has also been charged with the same spying offenses.

I believe both, who are also 18, should also be charged with having committed a hate crime, which would bump the fourth-degree offense to a third-degree, negating the need to prove the recording was distributed.

What happened to Clementi should NEVER happen to anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, or behavior. Our society has failed abysmally to keep up with the harmful and criminal uses of technology; we have failed ethically, morally and especially within the criminal justice system.

Reality Shows like Big Brother and their ilk give their subtle and not so subtle imprimatur on inappropriate invasion of privacy, and a host of other bad behaviors suddenly seen as OK, and even hip. Those types of TV shows, as well as the timber of much of the conversation-dialog within U.S. culture right now, in effect dehumanizes our own citizens. Exploitation is funny and very, very cool – whether it’s the voyeurism of celebrities, the neighbors next door, or university roommates. And, if sex is involved, the more the better!

I’m sure Clementi’s tormentors didn’t foresee his death, but they had to know that he would be distraught over their alleged illegal actions, especially since his sexuality and orientation was unknown within their campus community.

Nine out of 10 gay, lesbian and bisexual students are bullied in school, according to a 2007 survey by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. And they are four times more likely to attempt suicide, according to a 2007 Massachusetts youth risk survey.

Gay activist David Savage said, "What gay and lesbian kids most fear is rejection by their family, rejection at the hands of their friends, judgment from their preachers and their teachers."

A Clementi family lawyer released a statement saying, "Tyler was a fine young man and a distinguished musician. The family is heartbroken beyond words."

Read additional details in the blog below by Kashmir Hill of Forbes, or directly at her website:

Tyler Clementi Turned To A Gay Message Forum For Help Before His Suicide

It’s a tragic technological story heard round the world — a college freshman’s Webcam spying leading to a suicidal jump from the George Washington Bridge. Dharun Ravi, a freshman at Rutgers University, used his Macbook to stream video of his gay roommate having “a sexual encounter” in their room on September 19. The roommate, Tyler Clementi, did not know that he was being watched or taped. Sadly, he apparently did not notice the green light on Ravi’s laptop camera turn on when Ravi activated it from another computer in friend Molly Wei’s room across the hall.

Ravi invited other friends to watch the stream on iChat, and planned a second viewing on September 21st when Clementi again indicated he’d like the room to himself for a few hours, tweeting that day, “Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it’s happening again.” It appears from a gay message forum that Clementi was already on to his roommate by that time.

The New Jersey police have charged Ravi (and Wei) with criminal invasion of privacy, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison according to the New York Times, and a possible $30,000 fine according to the New Jersey criminal code. As my colleague Andy Greenberg points out, some of the same technologies that facilitated Ravi’s invasion of Clementi’s privacy will now help prove his guilt in the case — Ravi’s Twitter feed. Ravi deleted it, but police can get it from Twitter, or Google cache, or one of the Twitter tracking sites like Topsy. As I’ve said before, deletion on the Internet is futile.

Clementi also has a digital trail on the Internet, and it appears that he knew his roommate had filmed him after the first September 19th incident.

A month-old tweet from Ravi indicates he discovered his roommate’s sexuality based on comments Clementi made on a gay message forum. Ravi tweeted on August 22, “Found out my roommate is gay,” and linked to a post he said was Clementi’s on JustUsBoys. It’s the same forum that Clementi appears to have turned to after discovering he’d been spied on. As Gawker noted, a user on the forum by the name of “cit2mo” posted a thread “college roommate spying…..” on September 21 at 7:22 a.m.

[JustUsBoys post show above.]

“so the other night i had a guy over. I had talked to my roommate that afternoon and he had said it would be fine w/him. I checked his twitter today. he tweeted that I was using the room (which is obnoxious enough), AND that he went into somebody else’s room and remotely turned on his webcam and saw me making out with a guy. given the angle of the webcam I can be confident that that was all he could have seen.

so my question is what next?

I could just be more careful next time…make sure to turn the cam away…buttt…I’m kinda pissed at him (rightfully so I think, no?) and idk…if I could…it would be nice to get him in trouble

but idk if I have enough to get him in trouble, i mean…he never saw anything pornographic…he never recorded anything…

I feel like the only thing the school might do is find me another roommate, probably with me moving out…and i’d probably just end up with somebody worse than him….I mean aside from being an asshole from time to time, he’s a pretty decent roommate...

the other thing is I that don’t wanna report him and then end up with nothing happening except him getting pissed at me…”

Other users advised him to report it to the school and make sure his roommate’s computer was closed during future encounters. Cit2mo replied:

“I feel like it was “look at what a fag my roommate is” –other people have commented on his profile with things like “how did you manage to go back in there?” “are you ok?”

“and the fact that the people he was with saw my making out with a guy as the scandal whereas i mean come on…he was SPYING ON ME….do they see nothing wrong with this?

unsettling to say the least….

so I decided to fill out the room change request form….its not guaranteed that you get a change…and i don’t have to switch if I change my mind or work things out over the next week (they won’t start filling requests until next week)…but I figure I might as well as see what they can offer me….”

More users advised him of the illegality of this video voyeurism. A famous case of this, of course, is that of Erin Andrews. The man who made peephole videos of her undressing was ultimately sentenced to 30 months in prison. Cit2mo responds:

“oh yah, on the school website it says recording people where there is an expectation of privacy (bathroom bedroom etc) without the consent of everyone involved could….COULD…..result in being expelled

the only things is…there are too many ‘could’s ….the fact that he didn’t ACTUALLY record me (to my knowledge) and the fact that the school really prolly won’t do much of anything...

but anyway, i’ll be talking to my RA later today for sure...

and yah, revenge never ends well for me, as much as I would love to pour pink paint all over his stuff…..that would just let him win...”

Cit2mo did end up going to the RA after Ravi’s tweet on September 21st:

“so I wanted to have the guy over again.

I texted roomie around 7 asking for the room later tonight and he said it was fine.

when I got back to the room I instantly noticed he had turned the webcam toward my bed. And he had posted online again….saying….”anyone want a free show just video chat me tonight”…or something similar to that….

soooo after that…..

I ran to the nearest RA and set this thing in motion…..we’ll see what happens……

I haven’t even seen my roommate since sunday when i was asking for the room the first time…and him doing it again just set me off….so talking to him just didn’t seem like an option….

meanwhile I turned off and unplugged his computer, went crazy looking for other hidden cams….and then had a great time.”

Cit2mo’s last posting to the site on the morning of September 22nd indicates that he emailed an RA a paragraph about what had happened. Though he seemed calm and collected in his postings to JustUsBoys, that night, he posted “Jumping off the gw bridge sorry” to his Facebook, and committed suicide.

These digital trails may answer questions that could not be answered otherwise. A big question now is why Clementi’s resident advisor did not get Clementi moved out of that room immediately.

In addition to the criminal charges arising from this, there will be civil lawsuits. Rutgers University may find itself the target of a civil lawsuit. And Clementi’s family and perhaps Clementi’s unnamed romantic partner of September 19 will surely sue Ravi, and perhaps Wei, for invasion of privacy. In a similar case in Kansas, a man was ordered to pay $55,000 after distributing naked photos of his ex-girlfriend via email. The claims were invasion of privacy and infliction of severe emotional distress.

Another case that comes to mind involving Webcam spying and schools is the famous case out of Philadelphia, where a high school handed out laptops and then activated cameras remotely without informing the students using them. In that case, prosecutors dropped the criminal charges, finding no criminal intent in the “spying.” Ravi will not likely be so lucky.

~~~~~~~~

We need to understand that the abuse that Clementi suffered by the deliberate, even cavalier exploitation of his privacy could occur to any one of us. Every person has something that is so private, so intimate, so potentially embarrassing that its disclosure without our permission would cause extreme emotional distress.

What are we doing? What the hell are we doing?

— The Curator

Just Who Should We Fear, Anyway?

I routinely visit the doctor for ongoing treatment of Lupus, but I got way more than I bargained for last week when I got into it with a group of patients in the waiting room.

The issue that brought about the mini-skirmish was homosexuality in general, and gay marriage in particular.

Guess I’d better explain. When I arrived, my doctor was running late (don’t they always?), so I found a seat in the small and very crowded waiting room. A TV was blaring a Jerry Springer-like program in the corner. I’d brought a book to read, so I sat as far from the set as possible, which sadly put me facing the group of eager TV viewers.

These folks included more than 20 mixed race people, a little older than a normal cross-section of the public because the doctor we were waiting for is a rheumatologist. The key “player” in what turned out to be my personal drama was a man in his 30’s who had driven his elderly mother to her appointment and was waiting with her. He was quite handsome: tall, fit – cut even – with a stylish shaven head, but a less-than-stylish toothpick sticking out of the corner of his mouth. He was wearing expensive summer shorts and a blue polo shirt. He was also very loud.

At some point on the TV program, a homosexual man and his partner were picked out of the audience. They said they were planning to wed when/if it ever became legal in their home state. Immediately, the handsome man I was sitting across from began making unpleasant remarks about the gay couple on the TV. He loudly expressed how disgusting, etc. the whole thing was, prompting the bulk of the remainder of those in the waiting room to chime in their complete agreement. The handsome man, egged on by the obviously appreciative crowd and vise-versa, began to laugh derisively at the men on the TV. The handsome man and several others in the waiting room continued to express and utter a lot of vicious gay-bashing insults, and similar remarks that I will not dignify by repeating here.

As the whole thing unfolded, I literally felt sick to my stomach. I am bisexual, but even if I was straight, I would have been deeply offended by the terrible hate-talk.

After a few minutes, I found that I had almost involuntarily put my book down and was facing all of them. Quite abruptly, as if I was looking down on myself from some place high and hovering just below the ceiling, I interrupted this room of average Americans. At that point, almost all of them were laughing merrily – very happily bashing homosexuals, the handsome man at the center of it all, his eyes absolutely twinkling with cruel delight.

With as level a voice as I could manage, I softly asked them if they, “did not like gay people?”

An African-American woman who appeared to be in her 50’s answered without hesitation, “No,” prompting the majority of the group to all nod in agreement. The handsome man laughed again, and the others joined him.

She went on to proclaim that she was Christian, and that nowhere in the Bible did it say that homosexuality was anything but a sin, or that “those awful, awful people could marry.”

Another woman, who was white and said she was Italian-American and Catholic, said she agreed completely, proclaiming that, “those sick people will all go to hell, and this country will be better off without them in it.”

I told them that I couldn’t understand that view at all, that I tried to judge each person as an individual, and not to stereotype them. I said that I had thought that Christianity promoted that very approach. I also noted that the Bible also fails to condemn slavery, while actually providing instructions to slave owners. As a result, I suggested to the African-American woman that perhaps her citing it as support for an anti-homosexuality argument wasn’t the best choice under the circumstances.

For some reason, I kept talking. I noted calmly that many of those who were speaking out against homosexuals in the room were of different races. I told them that to me, “gay-bashing is just another form of bigotry – a different flavor of prejudice.”

The handsome man, who happened to be African-American, had suddenly become very, very, angry. He sharply and loudly criticized me for “daring” to speak out “in favor of those fags,” and for horribly comparing it to racial bigotry. He said I was "full of shit,” and that he had a right to his opinion.

I told him I agreed completely that he had the right to believe anything and everything that he chose. Swallowing my now palpable fear, I unwisely added, “but you’re in a public place, laughing at and insulting a group of people simply because of their sexuality. I really see it as bigotry. Your conversation and behavior are very offensive to me, and I would appreciate it if you would stop.”

An immediate and deep-as-a-ravine silence followed in which the only sound I could hear was my own heart thudding wildly in my chest like it was trying to jump completely out of my body, along with the constant drone of the TV.

“We’ll stop – but not because of you, because we’re finished talking,” he said, twisting his handsome features into an honest-to-God sneer. Then he leaned way forward in his chair and actually jabbed a finger out directly at me, reaching very close to where I was sitting. “Change the subject, or this is going to get very ugly for you – right here, right now.”

Look, I'm almost twice his age and disabled. I’m a 54-year-old white woman who can only walk with the use of two canes.

Somehow, I managed to look directly and deeply into his now hate-filled and threatening eyes. I knew in that instant that if I said a single other thing to him – anything – he really might strike me. And, if he did, I also knew he’d never suffer a pang of conscience, even though any blow from him would injure me quite badly.

“No problem. I have my book,” I replied, my mouth suddenly very dry. As I looked away from him, not one person in the waiting room made eye contact with me. Turning to my book still on my lap, I found that my hands were shaking uncontrollably.

No one spoke the rest of the time we were pressed together. When it was finally my turn to see the doctor and we were alone in an examination room, she asked if I was OK. The receptionists, all women, had heard everything and had told her because they were upset. Despite how they had felt, not one of them had tried to stop the gay-bashing.

Even so, the doctor thanked me for speaking out. She said that, "a lone voice against hate and intolerance does make a difference." She said it puts a different energy into the minds of everyone present. She said she thought it was fear that had stopped some to speak up who probably had agreed with me; some that felt gay marriage was OK; or others who believed that homosexuality was nothing to be made fun of, and that gays should not be abused.

I found out later that the oh-so-thoroughly-furious-handsome man was...wait for it...a police officer! Just what we need, not only another homophobic-bigoted man – but one with a badge and a gun.

— The Curator

On the Shelf: Sex at Dawn

Why monogamy goes against our nature – from testicle size to our slutty ancestors, a new book explains what human history teaches us about sex and couples.

Sex at Dawn, by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá, has just hit the shelves in the US and UK but it has already generated a lot of debate among reviewers and bloggers alike on both sides of the pond.

Product Description

Since Darwin's day, we've been told that sexual monogamy comes naturally to our species. Mainstream science – as well as religious and cultural institutions – has maintained that men and women evolved in families in which a man's possessions and protection were exchanged for a woman's fertility and fidelity. But this narrative is collapsing. Fewer and fewer couples are getting married, and divorce rates keep climbing as adultery and flagging libido drag down even seemingly solid marriages.

How can reality be reconciled with the accepted narrative? It can't be, according to self-proclaimed “renegade thinkers” Ryan and Jethá. While debunking almost everything we "know" about sex, they offer a bold alternative explanation in this provocative book.

Ryan and Jethá's central contention is that human beings evolved in egalitarian groups that shared food, child care, and, often, sexual partners. Weaving together convergent, frequently overlooked evidence from anthropology, archaeology, primatology, anatomy, and psychosexuality, the authors show how far from human nature monogamy really is. Human beings everywhere and in every era have confronted the same familiar, intimate situations in surprisingly different ways. The authors expose the ancient roots of human sexuality while pointing toward a more optimistic future illuminated by our innate capacities for love, cooperation, and generosity.

Ryan and Jethá show how our promiscuous past haunts our struggles over monogamy, sexual orientation, and family dynamics. They explore why long-term fidelity can be so difficult for so many; why sexual passion tends to fade even as love deepens; why many middle-aged men risk everything for transient affairs with younger women; why homosexuality persists in the face of standard evolutionary logic; and what the human body reveals about the prehistoric origins of modern sexuality.

Sex at Dawn unapologetically upends unwarranted assumptions and unfounded conclusions while offering a revolutionary understanding of why we live and love as we do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK, so that’s the hype – what’s the real story? In a terrific and far-reaching interview of author Ryan, Thomas Rogers challenges many of the book’s conclusions. His interview appears in the Salon. I have included it in full below, or read it directly at the Salon’s website.

By Thomas Rogers
For the Salon

According to Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá, the authors of the new book "Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality," the state of the American marriage is awfully grim. We have a stratospheric divorce rate and a surge of single parents. Couples who stay together are often trapped in sexless, passionless unions. An entire industry — from couples therapy to sex supplements — has emerged to help people "rekindle the spark" without straying from the confines of monogamy.

But Ryan and Jethá also have a theory for what's causing this misery: From a biological perspective, men and women simply aren't meant to be in lifelong monogamous unions. In "Sex at Dawn," which uses evidence gathered from human physiology, archaeology, primate biology and anthropological studies of pre-agricultural tribes from around the world, they argue that monogamy and the nuclear family are more recent inventions than most of us would expect — and far less natural than we've come to believe.

Before the advent of agriculture, they argue, prehistoric humans lived in a much less sexually possessive culture, without the kind of lifelong coupling that currently exists in most countries. They also point to the bonobos, our closest relatives, who live in egalitarian and peaceful groups and have astronomical rates of sexual interaction, as evidence of our natural inclinations. While Ryan and Jethá's book (Ryan is a psychologist, and Jethá a practicing psychiatrist, in Spain) is often a bit scattered and hard to follow, its provocative argument is also impossible to dismiss.

Salon spoke to Ryan over the phone from Barcelona about the problem with American marriages, why gay men understand relationships better than straight men, and the hidden meaning of human testicle size.

You paint a bleak picture of the state of marriage in the West, particularly in the United States. What makes it so bad?

Marriage in the West isn’t doing very well because it’s in direct confrontation with the evolved reality of our species. What we argue in the book is that the best way to increase marital stability, which in the modern world is an important part of social stability, is to develop a more tolerant and realistic understanding of human sexuality and how human sexuality is being distorted by our modern conception of marriage. Certainly growing up in the '70s and '80s there were very few kids I knew whose parents weren’t divorced at least once. The economic, emotional, psychological cost of fractured relationships is a major problem in American society — with single mothers and single-parent families.

You argue that much of this misery stems from changes that occurred when humans developed agriculture, around 8000 B.C. What happened?

The advent of agriculture changed everything about human society, from sexuality to politics to economics to health to diet to exercise patterns to work-versus-rest patterns. It introduced the notion of property into sexuality. Property wasn’t a very important consideration when people were living in small, foraging groups where most things were shared, including food, childcare, shelter and defense. It makes perfect sense that sexuality would also be shared — why wouldn’t it be when paternity wasn’t an issue?

When you have agriculture, men started to worry about whether or not certain children were theirs biologically, because they wanted to leave their accumulated property to their own child. At that point, people also made a very clear connection between sexual behavior and birth. Lots of people didn't have a very clear understanding of the cause and effect of sex and birth, but when you have domesticated animals living side by side with people, they start to notice that the characteristics of a certain male that has mated with a certain female show up in the offspring.

One of the central ideas of much biological and genetic theory is that animals will expend more energy protecting those they’re genetically related to — siblings, parents, offspring — as opposed to those they're not related to. Why wouldn't that apply to humans?

There are many, many exceptions to that rule in nature. One of the exceptions we talk about in the book are the vampire bats that share blood with each other. They go out and they suck the blood at night and then they come back to the cave and the bats that didn’t get any blood will receive blood from other bats. They share, and that has nothing to do with genetic connection. And in terms of animals that are much more closely related to humans, when you look at bonobos and their promiscuous interaction, it’s virtually impossible for a male to know which of his offspring are related to him biologically. So to say that there’s this inherent concern with paternity within our species, I just don’t see evidence for that.

Does this mean that humans didn't form couples before the advent of agriculture?

Because human groups at the time knew each other so well and spent their lives together and were all interrelated and depended upon each other for everything, they really knew each other much better than most of us know our sexual partners today. We don’t argue that people didn’t form very special relationships — you can see this even in chimps and bonobos and other primates, but that bond doesn’t necessarily extend to sexual exclusivity. People have said that we’re arguing against love — but we're just saying that this insistence that love and sex always go together is erroneous.

Given that these people have been dead for thousands of years, and we don't have a fossil record of sexual activity, isn't this hard to prove?

The evidence comes from several different areas. We look at pre-agricultural people who have been studied today and horticultural people who have been studied by anthropologists. There’s a fair amount of information about the sexuality of people who haven’t been deeply exposed to Western influence. There are accounts from travelers and colonialists, first-contact accounts from historical records, that we rely on. But you can also extract a great deal of information from the human body itself — from the design of the penis to the volume of the testicles to the sperm-producing potential of the testicular tissue and the way we have sex.

What does our testicle size tell us about the way we have sex?

Our testicles aren’t as big as those of chimps and bonobos, but our ejaculation is about four times as big in terms of volume. The theory is that when males compete on the level of the sperm cell, they develop much larger testicles, because in promiscuous animals, the sperm of the different males is competing with the sperm of other males to get to be the first to the egg. And the fact that our testicles are not as small relative to our body as the monogamous gibbon or gorillas reinforces the idea that we have been non-monogamous for a long time.

Plus the design of our penis strongly suggests that it evolved to create a vacuum in the female reproductive system, thereby pulling out the semen of anyone who was there previously. There are all kinds of indications of sperm competition in the human male. And one of the things that we suggest in the book that no one else has suggested is that because the testicles are genetically the part of the body that adapts fastest to environmental pressure, it’s quite possible that our testicles are much smaller than they were as recently as fifteen or twenty thousand years ago, to reflect the historical cultural imposition of monogamy. And of course we all know that sperm count is dropping precipitously even as we speak.

But that drop in sperm count has been reported over the last few decades, and I don't think American culture has becoming less sexualized since the 1950s — I think the opposite is true.

Well, it’s hard to say because it’s only been measured for about the last 100 years. So it’s very difficult to know what was happening before that. But yeah, it does seem to be plummeting faster and faster, and there are indications that it has a lot to do with industrial contaminants in the environment, and antibiotics and growth hormones in the food supply and so on.

But I think there’s this bifurcation of American culture where you’ve got the liberalization on one side with states passing gay marriage, but then you have other states veering off in the other direction. I think the Bill Clinton and Lewinsky situation could have been such a great opportunity for the culture to grow up instead of wasting so much time and money and political capital in this investigation of a victimless crime. If the Clintons had gone on their "60 Minutes" interview and just said, "You know what, our sex life is nobody’s business but ours," I think the country would have been so much better off.

I think from a cultural standpoint the idea of strict monogamy has far less currency within the gay male world than it does within the straight world. I’m a gay man, and I think probably about half the gay male couples I know are in open relationships. Why do you think that is?

First of all, they’re both men, so they both know what it’s like to be a man. They both know from experience that love and sex are two very different things, and it seems that for women the experience of sexuality is much more embedded in narrative, in emotion, in emotional intimacy. But also it’s really hard to judge what women would be like if they hadn’t been persecuted for the last five or six thousand or ten thousand years for any hint of infidelity.

Gay men in the United States have also by definition gone through a process of self-examination. The whole process of coming out is a process of integrating sexuality into your life in a way that takes courage, and it’s not something that happens naturally. I think gay people have an advantage because they’ve already gone through a process of saying: "Look, my sexuality is what it is. I’m not ashamed of it. I’m going to live openly and in accord with it." That puts them on a different level than most heterosexual people who are able to pass along and pretend that they fit into the normal parameters.

It seems like many Americans, in particular, have a very strong notion that a marriage must remain monogamous at all costs — and that any infidelity is grounds for divorce. In other countries, like France, for example, that doesn't seem to be the case.

I’ve been living off and on for almost 20 years here in Barcelona, and from outside, the United States looks very adolescent, in a positive and negative sense. There's its adolescent energy — its idealism — but there’s also an immaturity and intolerance toward the ambiguity of life and the complexity of relationships. The American sense of relationships and sexuality tends to be very informed by Hollywood: It’s all about the love story. But the love story ends at the wedding and doesn't go into the 40 years that comes after that.

So if monogamous marriage isn't the right arrangement for us, what is?

We’re not really arguing for any particular arrangement. We don’t even really know what to do with this information ourselves. What we’re trying to do in the book is give people a more accurate sense of where we came from, why we are the way we are, and why certain aspects of life feel like a bad fit. I think a lot of people make a commitment when they’re in love, which is a sort of a delusional state that lasts a couple of years at most. I think it was Goethe who said that love is an unreal thing, and marriage is a real thing, and any confusion of the real with the unreal always leads to disaster.

All we’re really hoping for is to encourage more tolerance and more open discussion between men and women about sexuality and about marriage, and to come to see that marriage isn’t about sex. It's about things that are much deeper and more lasting than sex, especially if you have children. And the American insistence on mixing love and sex and expecting passion to last forever is leading to great suffering that we think is tragic and unnecessary.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Editorial Reviews

“Sex At Dawn is the single most important book about human sexuality since Alfred Kinsey unleashed Sexual Behavior in the Human Male on the American public in 1948.” (Dan Savage)

“Sex At Dawn challenges conventional wisdom about sex in a big way... This is a provocative, entertaining, and pioneering book. I learned a lot from it and recommend it highly.” (Andrew Weil, M.D., author of Healthy Aging)

“One of the most original books I’ve read in years, Sex at Dawn manages to be both enormously erudite and wildly entertaining—even, frequently, hilarious. . . . A must-read for anyone interested in where our sexual impulses come from.” (Tony Perrottet, author of Napoleon's Privates)

“You clearly have an exciting book on your hands, whether people agree with it or not: these are issues that will need debating over and over before we will arrive at a resolution.” (Frans de Waal, author of The Age of Empathy)

“The writing is engaging, the material covered is appropriate, and really it is the best non-technical summary I have read of the relevant issues.” (Todd K. Shackelford, Ph.D., professor of psychology, Florida Atlantic University, and editor of Evolutionary Psychology)

“A wonderfully provocative and well-written book which completely re-evaluates human sexual behaviour and gets to the root of many of our social and psychological ills.” (Steve Taylor, author of The Fall and Waking From Sleep)

“Sex At Dawn is a provocative and engaging synthesis... that has the added benefit of being a joy to read.... A book sure to generate discussion, and one likely to produce more than a few difficult conversations with family marriage counselors.” (Eric Michael Johnson, Seed Magazine)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I applaud the authors for developing such challenging theories, and for doing so through real, scientific research. I also cheer the Q & A interview that did a lot to provide in depth understanding to those theories. Whether you agree or disagree with the book’s authors, it’s an important book to read for anyone interested in human sexuality, or behavior.

— The Curator