skip to main |
skip to sidebar
When parents talk to their kids about sex, most match gender to gender – moms talk to daughters, and dads talk to sons.
That’s why a new study out of New York University has gotten a lot of attention recently because it suggested that young girls could actually benefit from talking about sex with their father.
Previous studies have concluded that girls who have open communication with their fathers — about everything — tend to have intercourse later in life and also have fewer sexual partners, both of which can be very good for sexual and mental health. But do they actually have to talk about sex to have this effect?
While young women are still mostly influenced and informed on this subject by their mothers, Katherine Hutchinson, associate professor at the NYU College of Nursing, wanted to figure out whether fathers had a role to play. As part of a larger study examining family influences on adolescent sexual risk, she asked a representative sample of 250 or so women aged 19 to 21 what kind of impact their fathers had on their sex education.
The answer was: very little. And, surprisingly, a lot of the women, most of whom were sexually active, wished their fathers had told them more. Specifically, they wanted to hear stuff only guys would know, about how to communicate with men and what the carnal landscape looked like from a male's vantage point.
"They felt that if they could have been more comfortable talking with their fathers about issues around sex, they might have been more comfortable talking to boyfriends or potential sexual partners about them," says Hutchinson, whose study was published in the Journal of Family Issues. "And they wanted to know how to negotiate intimacy issues with men."
So does this mean dads should be the ones sitting down and explaining where we all come from? "I'm not a big proponent of The Talk, whether it's from a mother or a father," says Hutchinson. "It takes away from the normalcy of sexuality." She advocates instead for ongoing communication with kids about their bodies, sexual development and sexual issues, so that the subject is not so fraught. But she feels dads could weigh in on how to politely tell a guy you don't want to have sex with him, or that you're not ready for sex with anyone right now, or that you want him to wear a condom.
I couldn’t agree more with Hutchinson. I think when sex is treated with normalcy and without shame, embarrassment or judgment within a family, kids will have far fewer hangups when they become sexually active adults. They will also be armed with facts and not euphemisms that can lead to an unexpected pregnancy, STD or even AIDs. It will also bolster their self-esteem when they are taught about their amazing bodies.
A sex-positive attitude, expressed by BOTH parents consistently while children grow, will go a long way to encourage their children development is healthy and happy. Issues of sexual orientation when accepted and discussed within a loving family dynamic will help homosexual, bisexual and transgendered teens cope with the societal road ahead.
This study did not address whether it would be equally beneficial for moms to talk to their sons about sex, but I bet you’d get the same encouraging results.
One note of warning to dads: Probably best not to bring the subject up while the guy or girl your daughter likes is in the room! Awkward.
Here’s some helpful advice when talking to kids about sex:
— Be open and honest. Don’t just repeat phrases, or slogans but be frank and truthful.
— Let your child consistently know how you feel about sex and relationships so they will be comfortable to talk about their feelings, and ask questions when they have them.
— Do your homework. Be sure you are sexually well-versed so that you’ll be able to offer great advice and real information throughout the developmental stages of your child.
— Talk consistently about the responsibility and consequences of being sexually active as your children grow.
— Be very careful to take time and understand your own views. If you are homophobic, admit it to yourself, and try to work through it as soon a possible. Try everything possible not put your sexual baggage on your kids.
— The Curator
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
In the wake of vicious anti-gay violence and hatred in New York, New Jersey, anti-gay rioting in Serbia, and blatant homophobic comments by a gubernatorial candidate, it seems more important than ever that today is National Coming Out Day.
So, first things first, let me be very, very clear: I’m bisexual! I’M BISEXUAL, and proclaim it again today. We need to stop the violence and hate, and the only way to do that is to foster understanding and acceptance. Gays need to stand together in solidarity, and people of all sexual persuasions need to speak out consistently and forcefully against homophobia in all of its ugly guises.
I am deeply saddened even sickened by the recent anti-gay hate crimes that have sparked headlines across the globe, and has also rocked gay rights groups as well as every person with even a shred of humanity.
I am also appalled at homophobic remarks made yesterday by New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino who actually read from a prepared statement saying that homosexuality isn't an "equally successful or valid option" to heterosexuality.
Paladino, who has gotten support from the Tea Party movement, spoke at a campaign appearance in the Williamsburg section of the Borough of Brooklyn to a gathering of religiously and socially conservative Hasidic Jews.
The Republican was trying to draw contrasts with his opponent, Democrat Andrew Cuomo, New York State's Attorney General. Sadly, Paladino used his deep opposition to gay marriage as one area of difference. Shockingly, Paladino went much further than that saying:
“...We must stop pandering to the pornographers and the perverts who seek to target our children and destroy their lives.
I didn't march in the gay parade this year, gay pride parade this year. My opponent did. And that's not the example that we should be showing our children. Certainly not in our schools.
And don't misquote me as wanting to hurt homosexual people in any way. That would be a dastardly lie. My approach is live and let live.
I just think my children and your children would be much better off and more successful getting married and raising a family. And I don't want them to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option.”
At another point in his prepared remarks, Paladino verbally cuffed Cuomo for bringing his daughters to the gay pride parade.
Meanwhile, several news sources reported that Paladino's speech as written contained even more anti-gay language that he apparently decided not to deliver.
Whew. Clearly, Paladino’s idiotic and harmful language does more than just "hurt homosexual people in any way."
His comments underscore the current of homophobia (bigotry) that if left unabated can eventually build into a tsunami of hatred that destroys and even kills innocent people simply because of their sexuality.
Guess what, Mr. Paladino? Gays don’t “brainwash” the innocent into a cult of perversion, it’s ignorant bigots like you who do that. Your hate-talk, just like all blatant prejudice, sends a very clear message that anti-gay behavior and speech is OK, accepted and even encouraged. Shame on you, Mr. Paladino, and shame on everyone agrees, but is smart enough not to articulate it.
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 parent reaction. It also requires sensitive adult reaction if you hear someone who should know better repeat the anti-gay slurs.
A woman in Serbia commenting on the anti-gay rioting at a 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."
I find it astounding that I actually have to present a roundup of recent anti-gay atrocities because there have been so many:
— The most violent of the incidents occurred in the Bronx, when a group of Hispanic gang members of the Latin King Goonies allegedly tortured two teenage boys and a man in anti-gay attacks earlier in the month.
Yesterday, eight teenage and adult males were arraigned in Bronx Criminal Court on a range of charges including sexual assault, robbery, unlawful imprisonment, intimidation and hate crimes. Two were held in lieu of $100,000 bond, and the others were held without bond. Police said a ninth member of the gang was still at large.
Police said the attack happened Oct. 3 after the gang members heard a rumor that one of their recruits was gay. They allegedly found the teen, stripped him, and beat and sodomized him with a plunger handle until he confessed to having had sex with a 30-year-old local man in the neighborhood.
The gang members next allegedly hunted down a second teen they suspected was gay and also tortured him, police said. Then they allegedly lured the 30-year-old man to an abandoned house by inviting him to a party there. The suspected allegedly burned, beat and tortured him for hours, and sodomized him with a miniature baseball bat, police said.
The man, a gay Hispanic immigrant known in his Bronx neighborhood as "la Reina" Spanish for "the Queen,” was the most severely brutalized of the three victims.
— Those horrible attacks came on the heels of another anti-gay beating that also occurred on Oct. 3. A D.C. gay man was attacked in New York’s at Stonewall Inn, site of the historic 1969 protests that many credit for launching the modern gay rights movement.
Ben Carver, a Shaw resident who works in communications, was in New York for a weekend of leisure with his boyfriend. He was allegedly harassed by two straight men in the restroom who asked him for money, called him a faggot and struck him multiple times. He fought back and was able to get away. Carver’s boyfriend called 911 and chased the attackers as they fled the bar. They were apprehended a short time later.
New York police have charged 21-year-old Matthew Francis, and 17-year-old Christopher Orlando, both of Staten Island, in the attack. They face charges of third-degree assault as a hate crime and attempted robbery.
— There have also been a string of suicides attributed to anti-gay bullying, including a New Jersey college student's Sept. 22 plunge off the George Washington Bridge in New York after his sexual encounter with a man in his dorm room was secretly streamed live online by his dorm roommate.
The body of Rutgers University freshman, Tyler Clementi, was recovered from the Hudson River. Clementi, only 18, was also an accomplished violinist.
Police charged his roommate, Dharun Ravi, 18, with privacy violations and related offenses, for using "the camera to view and transmit a live image." 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, 18, has also been charged with the same spying offenses. They may also be charged with hate crime offenses.
— Two days before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to Belgrade, the city erupted in a wave of violence yesterday.
Thousands of homophobic bigots tried to break up a gay pride march, clashing with anti-riot police. More than 110 officers were injured and more than 200 rioters arrested in what was a test for the Serbian government to show it can protect human rights.
Running battles lasted hours, as the protesters and nationalist right-wingers hurled Molotov cocktails and bricks at police. Cars were set on fire, shops were looted and a mobile breast cancer detection unit was destroyed.
Roughly 5,600 policemen were deployed in four concentric cordons to keep marchers far away from rioters who were chanting "Death to Homosexuals!"
Throughout the Balkans, it is an understatement that societies have been slow in accepting gay rights.
As gay supporters with rainbow peace flags gathered, lawyer Mrko Tipkovic could not hide his disgust for homosexuality.
"It is highly morbid," Tipkovic said. "Medicine says so, psychologists and psychiatrists say it is morbid. New age is total catastrophe."
Interior Minister Ivica Davic said it's very worrisome that among the 6,000 well-organized rioters, more than one half were under 18 years of age.
Radmila Stojanovic, who came to show her solidarity with the marchers, said violence is a legacy of strongman Slobodan Milosevic.
"This country has been at war hating this nation, that nation, this group, that it perpetuates itself," Stojanovic said. "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."
Under intense security, some 1,000 gay pride marchers were ushered into a park. There was a large contingent of foreigners, western diplomats and journalists.
Many gays stayed home for fear of being recognized by their neighbors and employers.
Ivana Howard of the Washington-based National Endowment for Democracy says there are several factors that encourage homophobia: "Violent politicians who themselves use hate speech. The church is playing a very negative role portraying homosexuality as a disease, so it is hard to expect of an average citizen to understand why this is important and why these citizens have equal rights like everyone else."
A woman who goes by the name of Kosmogina wore a T-shirt reading: "Nobody Knows I'm A Lesbian."
"It is very difficult to show feelings, relationships," Kosmogina said. "Just holding hands, kissing, it is dangerous here in Serbia, it is dangerous."
Cheering and blowing whistles, marchers took a brief walk around government buildings on empty streets secured by thousands of police flanked by armored vehicles.
Dutch gay activist Frank Van Dalen helped organize this first Serbian gay pride event in nine years. In 2001, police stood by as hooligans beat many marchers to a pulp.
"This is a small step," Van Dalen said. "But it will take many years before every single gay and lesbian in this country can be out and open in the pride."
The festivities were abruptly cut short when police ordered an immediate evacuation.
Dozens of police vans — usually used to transport prisoners — were put at marchers' disposal. Locked inside, in complete darkness, they were escorted to safety.
— The Curator
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
Sexual fluidity occurs in both men and women, but it has been suggested that women are potentially more open and malleable in this regard – I know it’s the truth because I’m living it.
New studies show that female sexuality may change over time and that an increasing number of women are choosing women after decades of heterosexuality, so-called, “Late Blooming Lesbians.”
I find the studies accurate, but the label really offensive. A person’s sexuality is not amusing, and confusion about it even less so.
The conventional wisdom is that as people progress in life they become set in their ways. But new research suggests that women have great potential to change in middle age — at least with respect to their sexuality. Researchers say it's increasingly common for women, often after being married to a man for years, to start their first lesbian relationship later in life.
I was married – to a man – divorced and returned to college. My first (and only) lesbian relationship began in my late 20's, and continues to this day. What’s interesting, is that I love my partner in every way possible, but still find men sexually attractive.
I have classified myself as a lesbian, but am not really. The problem with declaring oneself bi-sexual in this day and age is that it’s often politically attacked by the gay and lesbian community. It's called the coward’s way out, unable – or unwilling – to declare your real gayness. It is the sexual equivalent of being an Uncle Tom or a Tio Taco, someone who wants to be accepted by both camps, but ultimately ends up being rejected by both.
Well, bullshit! My sexuality is not political, it’s real and it’s mine. I refuse to be bullied any longer into calling it something that it’s not simply to support a cause, or to avoid ridicule. This is my truth: I AM BI-SEXUAL. It is not a political stance or something I am proud of, it is simply biological. I cannot force my sexual feelings to be other than what they are. It isn’t a matter of choice, but simply one of being.
The phenomenon of women having lesbian relationships later in life is more common than many people believe. Christan Moran, a researcher at Southern Connecticut State University, interviewed more than 200 women over 30 who were married to men but found themselves attracted to a woman, and concluded that heterosexual women can "experience a first same-sex attraction well into adulthood."
U.S. researcher, Christan Moran from Southern Connecticut State University, conducted a study of 200 women who switched their sexual orientation mid life. The women had previously been in heterosexual relationships.
“[There is] great potential for heterosexual women to experience a first same-sex attraction well into adulthood," Moran said.
Moran also believes that it is a false assumption that these women were closeted or had repressed their lesbian tendencies. Moran argues there was evidence that these women may have made "a full transition to a singular lesbian identity...in other words chang[ing] their sexual orientation."
Moran also claimed that women who came out later in life were more prone to struggle with their new identity due to difficulties in leaving the "undeniable privilege" of heterosexual marriage.
Utah University professor Lisa Diamond has, for 15 years, followed a group of 79 women who reported some same-sex attraction. Every two years, 20 to 30 percent change the way they describe themselves — gay, straight, or bi-sexual. Seventy percent have changed since the study began. In August, at the American Psychological Association's annual convention, research by Moran and others will be showcased in a session called "Sexual Fluidity and Late-Blooming Lesbian."
Were these women always gay, but closeted?
Not always. In some instances, women may come out after repressing or hiding their feelings. But Diamond, as quoted in the Guardian, says that often "women who may have always thought that other women were beautiful and attractive would, at some point later in life, actually fall in love with a woman, and that experience vaulted those attractions from something minor to something hugely significant." In these cases, Diamond says, "it wasn't that they'd been repressing their true selves before; it was that without the context of an actual relationship, the little glimmers of occasional fantasies or feelings just weren't that significant."
Why might this happen later in life?
Diamond thinks it might be a combination of factors. Women's minds and bodies change with age, and their circumstances and priorities shift. "People become more expansive in a number of ways as they get older," Diamond says. "I think a lot of women, late in life, when they're no longer worried about raising the kids, and when they're looking back on their marriage and how satisfying it is, find an opportunity to take a second look at what they want and feel like."
Is this a new phenomenon?
No, but researchers theorize declining homophobia is making it easier for women to explore a new sexual identity. And some celebrity lesbians who came out later in life are encouraging even wider social acceptance. Sex and the City's Cynthia Nixon was in a heterosexual relationship for 15 years before she became involved with her current partner, Christine Marinoni, in 2004. Actress Portia de Rossi was married to a man before she married Ellen DeGeneres in 2008. Comedian Carol Leifer, who was the inspiration behind the Elaine character on "Seinfeld," dated men, including Jerry Seinfeld, until the age of 40. Then she fell for a woman. "My feelings for men were very real and powerful, but I fell in love with my partner," she said. "It's been the best relationship of my life."
I find that the Guardian article is so well done and thought provoking, I have included it in full below, or read it directly from its website:
Why it's never too late to be a lesbian
More and more women are discovering after years of marriage to men, and having had children, that they are lesbians. Were they always – or is sexuality more fluid?
By Kira Cochrane
For Carren Strock, the revelation came when she was 44. She had met her husband – "a terrific guy, very sweet" – at high school when she was 16, had been married to him for 25 years, had two dearly loved children, and what she describes as a "white-picket-fence existence" in New York. Then, one day, sitting opposite her best friend, she realised: "Oh my God. I'm in love with this woman." The notion that she might be a lesbian had never occurred to her before. "If you'd asked me the previous year," she says, "I would have replied: 'I know exactly who and what I am – I am not a lesbian, nor could I ever be one.'"
From that moment Strock's understanding of her sexuality changed completely. She felt compelled to tell her friend, but her attraction wasn't reciprocated; at first she wasn't sure whether she had feelings for women in general, or just this one in particular. But she gradually came to realise, and accept, that she was a lesbian. She also started to realise that her experience wasn't unusual.
Strock decided to interview other married women who had fallen in love with women, "putting up fliers in theatres and bookstores. Women started contacting me from across the country – everyone knew someone who knew someone in this situation." The interviews became a book, Married Women Who Love Women, and when it came to writing the second edition, Strock turned to the internet for interviewees. "Within days," she says, "more women had contacted me than I could ever actually speak to."
Late-blooming lesbians – women who discover or declare same-sex feelings in their 30s and beyond – have attracted increasing attention over the last few years, partly due to the clutch of glamorous, high-profile women who have come out after heterosexual relationships. Cynthia Nixon, for instance, who plays Miranda in Sex and the City, was in a heterosexual relationship for 15 years, and had two children, before falling for her current partner, Christine Marinoni, in 2004. Last year, it was reported that the British singer Alison Goldfrapp, who is in her mid-40s, had started a relationship with film editor Lisa Gunning. The actor Portia de Rossi was married to a man before coming out and falling in love with the comedian and talkshow host, Ellen DeGeneres, whom she married in 2008. And then there's the British retail adviser and television star, Mary Portas, who was married to a man for 13 years, and had two children, before getting together with Melanie Rickey, the fashion-editor-at-large of Grazia magazine. At their civil partnership earlier this year the pair beamed for the cameras in beautiful, custom-made Antonio Berardi dresses.
The subject has now begun attracting academic attention. Next month at the American Psychological Association's annual convention in San Diego, a session entitled Sexual Fluidity and Late-Blooming Lesbians is due to showcase a range of research, including a study by Christan Moran, who decided to look at the lives of women who had experienced a same-sex attraction when they were over 30 and married to a man. Moran is a researcher at Southern Connecticut University, and her study was prompted in part by an anguished comment she found on an online message board for married lesbians, written by someone who styled herself "Crazy".
"I don't understand why I can't do the right thing," she wrote. "I don't understand why I can't make myself stop thinking about this other woman." Moran wanted to survey a range of women in this situation, "to help Crazy, and others like her, see that they are not abnormal, or wrong to find themselves attracted to other women later in life".
She also wanted to explore the notion, she writes, that "a heterosexual woman might make a full transition to a singular lesbian identity...In other words, they might actually change their sexual orientation." As Moran notes in her study, this possibility is often ignored; when a person comes out in later life, the accepted wisdom tends to be that they must always have been gay or bisexual, but just hid or repressed their feelings. Increasingly researchers are questioning this, and investigating whether sexuality is more fluid and shifting than is often suspected.
Sarah Spelling, a former teacher, says she can well understand how "you can slide or slip or move into another identity". After growing up in a family of seven children in Birmingham, Spelling met her first serious partner, a man, when she was at university. They were together for 12 years, in which time they were "fully on, sexually," she says, although she adds that she has never had an orgasm with a man through penetrative sex.
Spelling is a keen feminist and sportsperson, and met lesbian friends through both of these interests. "I didn't associate myself with their [sexuality] – I didn't see myself as a lesbian, but very clearly as a heterosexual in a longstanding relationship." When a friend on her hockey team made it clear she fancied her, "and thought I would fancy her too, I was like 'No! That's not me!' That just wasn't on my compass." Then, aged 34, having split up with her long-term partner, and in another relationship with a man, she found herself falling in love with her housemate – a woman. After "lots of talking together, over a year or so," they formed a relationship. "It was a meeting of minds," says Spelling, "a meeting of interests. She's a keen walker. So am I. She runs. So do I. We had lots in common, and eventually I realised I didn't have that with men." While having sex with a man had never felt uncomfortable or wrong, it wasn't as pleasurable as having sex with a woman, she says. From the start of the relationship, she felt completely at ease, although she didn't immediately define herself as a lesbian. "I didn't define myself as heterosexual either – I quite clearly wasn't that. And I wouldn't define myself as bisexual." After a while she fully embraced a lesbian identity. "We've been together for 23 years," she says, "so it's pretty clear that that was a defining change."
Dr Lisa Diamond, associate professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah, has been following a group of 79 women for 15 years, tracking the shifts in their sexual identity. The women she chose at the start of the study had all experienced some same-sex attraction – although in some cases only fleetingly – and every two years or so she has recorded how they describe themselves: straight, lesbian, bisexual, or another category of their own choosing. In every two-year wave, 20-30% of the sample have changed their identity label, and over the course of the study, about 70% have changed how they described themselves at their initial interview. What's interesting, says Diamond, is that transitions in sexual identity aren't "confined to adolescence. People appear equally likely to undergo these sorts of transitions in middle adulthood and late adulthood." And while, in some cases, women arrive at a lesbian identity they've been repressing, "that doesn't account for all of the variables...In my study, what I often found was that women who may have always thought that other women were beautiful and attractive would, at some point later in life, actually fall in love with a woman, and that experience vaulted those attractions from something minor to something hugely significant. It wasn't that they'd been repressing their true selves before; it was that without the context of an actual relationship, the little glimmers of occasional fantasies or feelings just weren't that significant."
Diamond has a hunch that the possibility of moving across sexual boundaries increases as people age. "What we know about adult development," she says, "suggests that people become more expansive in a number of ways as they get older...I think a lot of women, late in life, when they're no longer worried about raising the kids, and when they're looking back on their marriage and how satisfying it is, find an opportunity to take a second look at what they want and feel like." This doesn't mean that women are choosing whether to be gay or straight, she clarifies. (Diamond's work has sometimes been distorted by rightwing factions in the US, who have suggested it shows homosexuality is optional.) "Every one of the women I studied who underwent a transition experienced it as being out of her control. It was not a conscious choice...I think the culture tends to lump together change and choice, as if they're the same phenomenon, but they're not. Puberty involves a heck of a lot of change, but you don't choose it. There are life-course transitions that are beyond our control."
This was certainly true for Laura Manning, a lawyer from London, who is now in her late 40s. She had always had a vague inkling she might have feelings for women, but met a man at university, "a really gentle man, Jeff, and I fell in love with him, and for a long time that was enough to balance my feelings". She married him in her late 20s, had two children in her early 30s, "and once I'd got that maternal part of my life out of the way, I suddenly started thinking about me again. I started to feel more and more uncomfortable about the image that I was presenting, because I felt like it wasn't true." In her late 30s, she began going out clubbing, "coming back on the bus at four in the morning, and then getting up and going to work. I was still living with Jeff, and I just started shutting down our relationship. He knew I was pushing him away."
The marriage ended, and Manning moved out. She has since had two long-term relationships with women, and says she's much happier since she came out, but suspects that her biological urge to have children, and her genuine feelings for Jeff, made her marriage inevitable on some level. "The thought of sex with a man repels me now, but at the time, when I was in my marriage, I didn't feel that, and I didn't feel I was repressing anything. The intensity of feeling in my relationship with Jeff overcame and blanketed my desires for women."
Sexual fluidity occurs in both men and women, but it has been suggested that women are potentially more open and malleable in this regard. Richard Lippa, professor of psychology at California State University, Fullerton, has carried out a variety of studies that have led him to the conclusion that, "while most men tend to have what I call a preferred sex and a non-preferred sex . . . with women there are more shades of grey, and so I tend to talk about them having a more preferred sex, and a less preferred sex. I have definitely heard some women say, 'It was the person I fell in love with, it wasn't the person's gender,' and I think that that is much more of a female experience than a male experience.
"I've never had a straight man say to me, at age 45, I just met this really neat guy and I fell in love with him and I don't like men in general, but God, this guy's so great that I'm going to be in a relationship with him for the next 15 years." In Diamond's study, around a quarter of the women have reported that gender is largely irrelevant in their choice of sexual partners. "Deep down," said one woman, "it's just a matter of who I meet and fall in love with, and it's not their body, it's something behind the eyes."
When Tina Humphrys, 70, first fell in love with a woman, she didn't define herself as a lesbian, "I just thought: 'It's her.'" Humphrys was in her mid-30s, had two children, and was coming out of a horrible second marriage. "I hated my life," she says. "The four bedrooms, the children – well, I didn't hate them, they just bored me to tears. I used to lie on the couch and my eyes would fill with tears as they had their naps."
She had found women attractive in the past, "but I think women do, don't they? You look and you think – that dress looks fabulous, or isn't she looking slim, or doesn't she look pretty. But you don't necessarily put sexual feelings on it." Then she went to university as a mature student, joined a women's group, and started to fall for one of the other members. "It was a bit of a shock to find that I was attracted sexually to this woman, but then it was also a decision to leave men. It was a decision to leave a particularly oppressive and restrictive way of living and try to live differently." She moved into a "commune-type place", and had non-monogamous relationships with women for a while, before settling down with her current partner of more than 30 years. While she had had "a very active sex life with men", she enjoyed sex with women much more. "I was once doing a workshop with a woman who used to tear hideous things that had been said about women out of the paper, and she had a piece about this blonde model who had romped with a lesbian – because they always romp, don't they? – and she said: 'It wasn't proper sex, it was just a load of orgasms.'" Humphrys laughs uproariously. "I think that just about sums it up, doesn't it?"
Beyond the sex, Humphrys found a connection that was more intense "on every level" than any she had found with a man. Strock echoes this view. "I've run workshops with straight women, and I've asked them, did you ever feel those sky rockets go off, or hear the music playing, when you fell in love with that significant other? And very few raise their hands. And then I went to a gay women's group, and I said, how many of you have ever felt the same? And almost all the hands went up. So connections with women are very different to connections between women and men."
The psychotherapist and writer, Susie Orbach, spent more than 30 years with the writer Joseph Schwartz, and had two children with him, before the partnership ended, and she subsequently formed a happy, ongoing relationship with the novelist Jeanette Winterson [author of the brilliant Art & Lies
]. Orbach says that the initial love connection between mother and daughter makes lesbian feelings in later life unsurprising. "If you think about it," she says, "whose arms are you first in, whose smells do you first absorb, where's that body-to-body imprint? I mean, we're still not really father-raised, are we, so it's a very big journey for women to get to heterosexuality...What happens is that you layer heterosexuality on top of that bond. You don't suddenly switch away from it. You don't give up that very intimate attachment to a woman."
Of course, the notion that your sexuality might shift entirely isn't welcomed by everyone; as Diamond says, "Even though there's more cultural acceptance than there was 20 years ago, same-sex sexuality is still very stigmatised, and the notion that you might not know everything there is to know about something that's so personal and intimate can terrify individuals. It's really hard for people to accept." That's why the writing and research in this area is so important. When the first edition of Strock's book was published, "a woman came up to me at one of my early speaking engagements, clutching the book and sobbing," she says. "She thought she was the only married woman ever to have fallen in love with another woman, and had no one to talk to, didn't know where to turn. And she had decided that the best thing was to kill herself on a night when she knew her husband and children were going to be out late. She'd planned her suicide. She was coming home from work for what she thought would be the last time, and she passed a bookstore, and they were putting my book in the window, and when she realised that she wasn't the only one, she chose to live".
The late-blooming lesbians I spoke to had all found happiness on their different paths. Strock is still a lesbian – and also still married to her husband, who knows about her sexuality. "He would never throw me away, and I would never throw him away," she says, "so we've re-defined our relationship. I'm a lesbian, but we share a house, we have separate rooms, we have two grandchildren now, and our situation is not unique." Most of the other women I spoke to were in happy, long-term relationships with women, and had found a contentment that they'd never experienced in their previous relationships.
"While some people find change threatening," Diamond says, "others find it exciting and liberating, and I definitely think that for women in middle adulthood and late life, they might be the most likely to find sexual shifts empowering. We're an anti-ageing society. We like people to be young, nubile and attractive. And I think the notion that your sexuality can undergo these really exciting, expansive possibilities at a stage when most people assume that women are no longer sexually interesting and are just shutting down, is potentially a really liberating notion for women. Your sexual future might actually be pretty dynamic and exciting – and whatever went on in your past might not be the best predictor at all of what your future has in store."
— The Curator
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
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability has decided to retain the policy that bans blood donation by any man who has had sex with a man at any time, even once, since 1977.
Incongruously, current policy allows people who have unsafe heterosexual sex with someone who has AIDS to donate blood after a one-year waiting period.
In a 9-6 vote, which took place last week, the committee cited a lack of research to support the notion that lifting the ban would not contaminate the blood supply.
Current HIV testing technology can identify a new infection with the virus within about 10 days of transmission.
The committee acknowledged that current policy permits "some potentially high-risk donations while preventing some potentially low-risk donations."
It called this state of affairs "suboptimal" and suggested more research into the matter."
This decision is outrageous, irresponsible and archaic," said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "We expect more out of this advisory committee and this administration than to uphold an unnecessarily discriminatory policy from another era."
She said all donors should be "screened appropriately and assessed based on actual behavioral risk independent of their sexual orientation."
The American Red Cross, the nation’s largest blood supplier, agrees.
"The American Red Cross is disappointed with the decision made by the (committee) not to recommend a change to the FDA policy of a lifetime deferral for men who have sex with other men," the organization said. "While the Red Cross is obligated by law to follow the guidelines set forth by the FDA, we also strongly support the use of rational, scientifically based deferral periods that are applied fairly and consistently among donors who engage in similar risk activities."
Though the committee voted to recommend against changing the current policy, the committee did recommend, among other actions, that quarantine release errors should be investigated. Depending on the results of such an investigation, this could lead to a future recommendation to reduce or eliminate the “deferral” of gay men and other men who have sex with men desiring to donate blood. Not much improvement, but a bit of a start.
While the increase the blood supply could receive by lifting the indefinite deferral was noted as “modest at best,” Dr. Frederick Axelrod, CEO of LifeStream, noted that there are other concerns with not changing the current policy at all.
Referring to college campuses and others canceling blood drives to express sympathy for and solidarity with the gay community, Axelrod said, “these issues...are coming up more frequently and the vocal nature of it is getting louder and louder.” Axelrod warned that if the policy is not changed “there could be an increased voice that’s going to push harder as it relates to this and then it’s going to affect the amount of blood that we can collect and then it’ll affect patients in a different way — not with an infectious disease, but not having enough blood and going back to shortages.”
Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, an anti-gay organization that has been accused of lobbying Congress in opposition of a resolution that would denounce Uganda’s “kill the gays” bill, spoke at the meeting in favor of maintaining the current policy. Despite his organization’s anti-gay stance, his statements to the committee were carefully crafted to contain no blatantly homophobic language. Also speaking at the meeting were Nathan Schaefer and Sean Cahill of Gay Men’s Health Crisis, as well as several HIV/AIDS organizations.
Schaefer made clear that his organization does not “necessarily think that anyone opposed to changing the current policy is motivated by homophobia,” but the possibility of homophobia represented in the policy is certainly present. Describing disparities in treatment, Schaefer gave the example that though any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 can never give blood, a man who has had sex with a known HIV+ woman more than 365 days ago can give blood.
HHS apparently kept no record of how members voted on the issue. A recording of the meeting is available on the department’s website, but due to low video quality and a camera shot that doesn’t include all members, not all votes are known. One vote in support of the current policy was cast by Anne Marie Finley, Vice President of Government Relations at Celgene Corporation, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical corporations.
Back in the 80's when we didn't know much about HIV/AIDS and the homosexual community was largely ignored and/or widely discriminated against, HIV/AIDS was seen as the "Gay Disease." This was because, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at that time most AIDS cases occurred among whites homosexual males. Soon thereafter AIDS began spreading through intravenous drug use as well as other transmission methods and that's when cases starting being identified in heterosexuals as well. Once the HIV/AIDS issue became an epidemic, the federal government got involved, "to protect the people."
In 1983 the Food and Drug Administration implemented rules against men who have had sex – even once – with another man since 1977, stating that they are forbidden from donating blood. The purpose of this rule was to prevent HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, from tainting the blood supply. Screening tests to identify HIV-positive blood had not been developed as of yet and so an all out ban seemed like an appropriate measure. Despite the fact that this is no longer the case as there are plenty of tests that can detect the virus, the ban was nonetheless retained. Thus, in 2010, gay males who have sex with other gay males cannot give blood, even if they don't have HIV/AIDS.
Of note: There are no other minority groups banned from giving blood, regardless of whether or not said minority group has a high HIV/AIDS infection rate or not. For example, if you are a gay woman, you can apparently give all the blood you want. That is because lesbians are not seen as a high-risk group for contracting HIV/AIDS as opposed to sexually active gay males. Though hundreds of thousands of woman have HIV/AIDS due to drug use or other methods of transmissions, the CDC still doesn't consider them to be a "high-risk" group because they are not likely to transmit HIV/AIDS through sexual intercourse (although it is possible).
Another example of this glaring hypocrisy is that despite gay males being labeled as a high risk group, according to the Center For Disease Control as of 2008, African American men and women were estimated to have an incidence rate that was 7 times as high as the incidence rate among white people...and yet there is no ban against black people giving blood.
In addition, various studies also show that heterosexual intercourse is the fastest-growing mode of HIV transmission in North America and the dominant mode of HIV transmission worldwide. It has been reported that HIV is rapidly showing up in heterosexual communities throughout North America. However, there is no ban on heterosexuals giving blood. It seems that the precautions taken against receiving tainted blood from sexually active homosexuals is not considered necessary for sexually active heterosexuals.
There is also a glaringly obvious problem here. For one, any person, gay or otherwise does not have to tell the truth about any of the above. All one has to say to give blood is, "I'm straight, monogamous and last time I checked, STD free." Then they take your blood and test it, just like everyone else. The dirty little secret in all of this is that homosexual men do give blood, when they choose to lie.
Sadly, it appears that the FDA is discriminating against a particular group of people based on their sexuality, rather than establishing real precautions to ensure that the country’s blood reserve is safe.
— The Curator
