skip to main |
skip to sidebar
My life has never been the same since first meeting Mr. Wolf more than a decade ago.
Sadly, he became so fond of me that he decided to move in without an invitation, and I have been woefully unable to evict him since, despite my very best efforts.
I have Lupus, which I refer to as “Mr. Wolf,” because lupus is the Latin word for wolf, and boy has he been snapping his big teeth at me of late.
I have the most serious form of the disease, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (pronounced: er-uh-thee-muh-toe-sus), also called SLE, which is an autoimmune disease. As such, it is characterized by a malfunction of the immune system. In these types of diseases, the immune system cannot distinguish between the body’s own cells and tissues and that of ‘foreign’ matter. So, rather than simply producing antibodies to attack invading viruses, bacteria or other similar foreign substances, my immune system creates auto-antibodies that attack my body’s own cells and/or tissues.
Like the last of the Three Little Pigs, I've learned long ago to build my house's foundation soundly against his attacks. I have built it upon the concepts of spirituality (Wicca), love (bisexual), hard work, honesty and a willingness to play (the last has been the hardest part for me.) Nonetheless, the truth is that my house is about to come down around my ears.
The past few months have been bleak. Mr. Wolf has been feasting virtually at will — and sister, does he have a lot of will. During the current onslaught, I went to the doctor and was told what I already knew — Mr. Wolf is coming closer and closer to achieving his goal.
Last year, I had a horrible realization: I can no longer remember what it felt like to be well. Oh, I have memories of being very active, unabashedly athletic and whole, but they are no longer sense memories. It’s as if that part of my life was so insubstantial that it has been absorbed into the unreality of dream.
When I was first diagnosed more than 15 years ago, I was consumed with knowing why my own body was trying to destroy me. At first, I found myself looking deeply into the mirror: Who was this stranger that had taken over my body? And, even more importantly, how could I ever learn to live with her?
I fell into a deep-as-the-deepest ravine depression. There was nothing left of the person I once was. Nothing, absolutely nothing, remained. Or so I thought then. I had been wrong. Very wrong. A tiny, itty-bitty, bright even luminous speck of something had survived.
Was it my soul? I still don’t know, but I think so. I also came to believe it was the divine spark of creation housed within all beings; that indescribable “something” that connects us all to each other regardless of race, gender, age, creed, religion or geography. Whatever it was, I felt it. Visceral.
But for the past few months, nothing. It had been a long process, but I had finally begun to believe again that I had a body, that I was a woman, not simply a lump of flesh that temporarily housed my brain until my ever-approaching death. Unfortunately, almost imperceptibly, I had become a “thing” again.
I had thought that once I had found my “soul,” that knowledge — that sense of self, would be mine forever. It has been sobering indeed to realize that self-knowledge, even hard-fought, can be forgotten in the face of relentless disease and worsening disability. So, once again I stood on the very brink. I had managed to take a step back once before, but did I have the ability, or even the will, to do it again?
For days, I once again stared at the pill bottle, my “stash” I had hoarded for years that would bring on the ultimate darkness. If I gave in to its seduction and the sweet oblivion it promised, I would finally rest. And, I was so very, very tired.
I thought back, what had I done before? What was it that had caused me to give a damn whether I met the next dawn? Slowly, I remembered – it was that little zing of life. That shooting feeling that you are, indeed, alive. Even muted by illness it was still there, still calling me unceasingly back from suicide: Sensation.
I sighed and put the pill bottle away— again. I know now that I will not improve, or may never even stabilize again. The truce, the peaceful co-existence, the political accord that I had hammered out with him before is gone.
I must once again work to reclaim my body, make her a part of me again. Integration in a literal sense. I have been kind, nurturing, drawing her back — but that is no longer enough.
Before, it was my honest sexuality that was the key. I had worked to feel arousal again, slowly, gradually working to feel even a nano flash of sexual interest. Once I had done that, I almost immediately remembered the long-lost feeling of my “soul.”
When I was having sex, I was no longer disabled. The pain that has always been Mr. Wolf’s hallmark transcended into pleasure. Touch and intimacy has been my link to the divine for as long as I can remember. In those moments, I was my true self again. Not a disabled person on her way out, but a living, vibrant woman who was put on this planet for some purpose beyond my finite understanding.
It seems significant that I have to relearn this simple message yet again — but this time without my usual coping mechanism. My sexuality continues to elude me now, so I have to figure something else out. Perhaps I failed to appreciate that my real sense of self, my soul, cannot be wooed from the outside, but must be found within. Even though I had connected to her through my physical senses and the practice of a Divine sexuality, she is not really connected to my body at all. She exists in everything, in everyone. Even me — still.
Thus, I have decided to move forward knowing that my deterioration simply is. Mr. Wolf is real, and I can't pretend that he's just some euphemism I created to represent my disease. I need to find new ways to hang on, to continue breathing. I was given the gift of life, and it remains a gift still.
I also hereby re-dedicate my efforts to re-establish my intimate life. I want the most satisfying sex possible. For me, sex doesn’t just promote overall health, it has always meant the very breath of creation. Despite needing to learn a different way to remain connected, I refuse to give up hope that physical intimacy is lost to me now.
— The Curator
The brain's shared pain network illustrates the link between body and mind, and it may help explain how emotional ups or downs affect health too, a new study finds.
Across cultures and language divides, people talk about the sting of social rejection as if it were a physical pain. We feel "burned" by a partner's infidelity, "wounded" by a friend's harsh words, "crushed" when a loved one fails us, "heartache" or "heartbroken" when spurned by a lover.
There's a reason for that linguistic conflation, says a growing community of pain researchers: In our brains too, physical and social pain share much the same neural circuitry. In many ways, in fact, your brain may scarcely make a distinction between a verbal and physical insult.
So the well-worn parental reassurance that "sticks and stones will break your bones, but names will never hurt you" is false, these scientists say. And they have the pictures to prove it.
University of Kentucky psychologist Nathan DeWall, a researcher in this young field, says the pain of social exclusion assaults each of us on average about once a day. "It's a big deal," he adds, one that's often unrecognized by friends and colleagues and is downplayed by the emotionally wounded themselves.
But when it comes to the human brain, evolution has been economical in allocating resources to the problem, DeWall adds. "Instead of creating an entirely new system to respond to social hurt, evolution piggybacked the system for emotional pain onto that for physical pain," he says.
New research offered further evidence of pain's shared circuitry in the brain. The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, established that two regions of the brain previously known only to process the sensation of physical pain come alive when a person gazes upon a photograph of a former lover and ponders the feelings of rejection that came with being jilted by that person.
"These results give new meaning to the idea that social rejection 'hurts,'" wrote the authors.
The dual role of the brain's pain network offers a powerful example of the connection between body and mind, and may help explain how emotional distress can make us sick and human kindness sustains us in health. And it may yet shed light on an enduring medical mystery: why depression, a sort of emotional pain disorder, coexists so often in patients who also have chronic or neuropathic pain disorders.
At the same time, the overlap underscores the profound importance of social connection as an evolutionary imperative, key to our survival as individuals and a society.
"Physical pain obviously serves a purpose: It's uncomfortable and distressing, but it's a signal that something's wrong, that we need to take action to fix it," says UCLA psychologist Naomi Eisenberger. "I think we can say the same about social pain: It motivates us to reconnect socially and avoid social rejection in the future."
In 2002, Eisenberger was a graduate student at UCLA, using brain scans to see how the human brain responds to social rejection. Her office-mate and fellow psychology graduate student, Johanna Jarcho, was studying human pain perception and was using functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, in her own work.
"We noticed that there was so much overlap between our scans," Eisenberger says.
The resulting study, showing what Eisenberger called a "common neural alarm system for physical and social pain," was published in 2004 and has spawned a welter of research exploring the bonds that tie social pain and physical pain together.
Among them, two studies have provided new insights on the connection. One, published in August 2009, showed that sensitivity to both kinds of pain may be strongly influenced by genetics. Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Eisenberger and two UCLA colleagues reported that research subjects who carried a rare variant of a single gene known to increase pain sensitivity also were acutely vulnerable to feelings of rejection.
In December 2009, another pair of experiments, published in the journal Psychological Science, offered a "novel insight" on the link between social and physical pain. One found that daily doses of an over-the-counter painkiller — acetaminophen — made research participants less sensitive to daily social slights than their peers taking dummy pills. In the second, subjects in a brain scanner played a virtual game of "catch" in which their presumed playmates progressively excluded them from the game. Compared with subjects taking the placebo pills, those taking the painkiller exhibited less brain activation in those circuits that respond to both physical and social pain, even though they still reported feelings of hurt.
Study co-author DeWall of the University of Kentucky stresses that the findings do not make a case for taking Tylenol to soothe feelings of loneliness or hurt. That was done to demonstrate that in processing pain, the brain appears primed to respond — or not to respond, when an analgesic is present — pretty much the same to social pain as it does to physical pain.
It's a point that the University of Toronto's Geoff MacDonald, another of this field's pioneering researchers, knows well. MacDonald and his colleagues have shown that the trajectory of hurt feelings in the wake of a social insult looks very much like the body's response to physical injury: Initially, a surge of stress hormones is released, readying the body to flee or stand and fight. During this phase, the injured often report feeling numb and, despite broken bones or a shattered skull, can walk and talk. After this surge of energy dissipates, the sensation of pain generally sets in.
In MacDonald's experiments, subjects also report feelings of numbness in the immediate wake of social rejection. For several minutes, they are less, not more, sensitive to feelings of social pain. But as the initial shock of the insult passes, subjects describe powerful feelings of hurt — even when the social slight they have endured may seem minor.
This parallel, says MacDonald, suggests that piggybacking the brain circuits for social pain onto ones for physical pain was not merely an accident of evolutionary thrift: It's useful. It helps us to focus on the essential task of binding up torn social fabric, of nurturing our relationships with others after the immediate threat of expulsion from the group has passed. It has helped make us the uniquely social creatures that we are.
"This lingering sense of pain draws our attention to the experience," MacDonald says. "We ask, 'Why did it happen this way? What was it about my behavior, or their behavior, that caused the breach, and how might I behave differently next time?' And that's very functional."
— The Curator
OK, so what's with this end of the world stuff, anyway?
Most people have heard the “theory” that the world is going to end in 2012, according to the Mayan calendar, but recently billboards have started popping up across the country "revealing" the world’s literal last day will be on May 21 this year, allegedly based on the Hebrew Calendar.
Christian Evangelical Radio host Harold Camping and his followers have calculated this date CERTAIN of Christ's "Second Coming" (something that Born Again and other Evangelical Christians refer to as, 'The Rapture') after using a series of insanely complicated and suspiciously bogus calculations.
"It's going to be a horror story that we absolutely cannot conceive of. Millions of people will die on that day and everyday thereafter," Camping said.
According to Camping, who is the founder of the Family Radio Network, Judgment Day will begin with earthquakes — at 6 p.m. local time.
Camping's followers have been traveling around the world, spreading the word about the forthcoming day. "We see people that give us the thumb. They say, 'Thumbs up.' We also see people that, unfortunately, give us the other finger," said one devotee, Darryl Keats.
Camping's doomsday scenario has given the late-night talk show hosts grist for their comedy mills, but sadly a lot of regular people have admitted to being terrified as the date fast approaches, according to recent news accounts.
Look, I'm not a Christian anymore, but if it makes those of you who are feel any better, here are two New Testament verses apropos, from the King James version:
"For ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh," (Matthew, Chapter 25, verse 13); and, "Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come," (Matthew, Chapter 24, verse 42.)
Let's talk a bit here about death. As an anonymous philosophical wit once observed, "None of us is getting out of here alive."
It is vital that we come to grips with the very reality of the very real end of our lives — whether it's in two weeks or two decades, or longer.
As readers of this space know, I have Lupus, S.E., a worsening auto-immune disease that will eventually kill me if nothing else does. Since I learned my diagnosis, I have become progressively sicker, and just last week found out that I am deteriorating at quite a disgusting pace.
I was pretty bummed, but I do know the real truth; that it doesn't matter how many days or years you live, but what you do with them. (Brother, I certainly am filled with cliches today!) I don't mean how much money you make, or how "important" you are, but how many people you've touched, and how many people you've allowed into your heart.
As a sex-positive, bisexual Wiccan, I believe that life and its many pleasures are to be thoroughly explored and enjoyed; that our physical couplings should be as frequent and fun as possible, but also sometimes seen as sacred; and that the divine exists within each and every being on this wonderfully diverse and rich planet.
My faith isn't based on fear, threats, and always looking toward an uncertain hereafter, but rather what we've done in the here-and-now.
So, if the gig is up for the whole of Mother Earth, why not celebrate the life you've had every day until then, and if it's not, why not celebrate every day after?
Meanwhile, the Florida Atheists and Secular Humanists have posted their own billboard advertising a recruitment party at Tiki Bar on May 21. "The upcoming rapture that's predicted for May 21 obviously is nonsense," said Ken Loukinen of the Florida Atheists. "We're just drawing attention, poking a little fun."
Mainstream Evangelical Christians have avoided the topic despite Camping's insistence that Judgment Day is soon to come. "This is not something where there's a tiny, tiny, tiny chance it might happen. It is going to happen," said Camping.
Oh yes, quite an important uh...end note: Camping’s findings should be taken with tons and tons of salt, as people have been predicting the end of the world, unsuccessfully of course, since 1260. Camping himself “miscalculated” in 1994. In 1860 there was even a “Great Disappointment” when people were warned about the Second Coming. Much more recently, who can forget the doomsayers who predicted the end of the world at the change of the millennium, the so-called Y2K disaster that turned out to be just another glorious day!
— The Curator
Did you know that the day after Mother's Day an online dating site for married people looking to cheat on their spouses reports a mammoth upsurge if new female memberships?
Did you know that there even was a site solely devoted to connecting wannabe cheaters, regardless of their sexuality! I know I sure didn't.
So, in case you were under some rock like me, here's a bit about the company, before I get into their stats.
The website is called "Ashley Madison" although its founder, CEO and president is a man. (The photograph at top of this post is from their website.)
The website proudly proclaims, "Affairs Guaranteed," while their oh-so classy (yeah, right) Trade Mark is, "Life is short. Have an affair."
Good grief!
Here's a welcoming letter from its president, Noel Biderman, who is depicted above:
"Welcome to AshleyMadison.com,
I'm Noel Biderman, President of The Ashley Madison Agency and creator of this website.
Ashley Madison is the world's largest dating service of its kind catering to men and women who are currently in relationships but are looking for more. More than five million of you have joined our service, so rest assured, you are not alone.
I am so confident that our service is right for you, that if you become a full member today, I will Guarantee you an Affair to Remember!
That's right! Purchase an Affair Guarantee Package Affair Guarantee Package and experience an affair to remember or I will give you your money back.
For 9 years now, Ashley Madison has been connecting millions of people from all over the United States, Canada, and the UK in an effort to increase the likelihood of a successful Affair. We believe we have truly perfected what it is that you need to start on this journey.
Our website is 100% secure, completely anonymous and now with the Affair Guarantee Package, absolutely risk free. So start now and change your life today!
Should you have any questions or comments about our new Affair Guarantee Program or wish to tell us about a successful Affair resulting from the use of Ashley Madison, please feel free to email me directly. I look forward to hearing from you."
Here's their message about the guarantee:
"Under the Ashley Madison.com Affair Guarantee Program, (the "Affair Guarantee Program" or the "Program") if you don't find someone within the initial 3 months after purchasing the "Affair Guarantee" Membership Package, we'll refund you $249, being the amount you paid for participating in the Program."
OK, so now that you know about the infamous online dating site, here's what they say about the Monday after Mother’s Day: First-time female memberships soar. In fact, they say it’s their second busiest day of the year. (The day after the Valentine’s Day is the first.)
On a typical Monday, Ashley Madison claims that it averages between 2,500 and 3,000 new female memberships. (I find that number difficult to believe.)
However, in 2009, more than 24,000 new women signed up the day after Mother’s Day; last year, there were over 30,000 new post-Mother’s Day sign ups – 31,427 to be exact; and they expect today to be a red-letter day! Keep in mind these numbers cannot be independently verified.
According to the website's statistics, 67 percent of those new female sign-ups identified themselves as stay-at-home-moms. But, more than two-thirds of these women said they had been considering an affair before Mother’s Day.
What pushed these women over the edge on Mother's Day to actively pursue having an affair by signing up to search for a willing sex partner with which to cheat?
Biderman was more than happy to offer his theory as to why post-Mother’s Day female sign-ups traditionally soar.
“On Mother’s Day women in general expect to be celebrated by their partners. However, for many already suffering from a lack of appreciation, this day represents a continuation of neglect and disappointment,” Biderman offers.
He basically reiterates already-published relationship research to note that women have affairs for different reasons than men, saying, “Whereas men are usually looking for sex, women tend to seek attention that they're not getting at home. This lack of attention often makes them feel undesirable — and feeds their need for validation.”
Self-reporting surveys published in the past do indicate that men tend to cheat for sexual reasons, while women cheat primarily because of emotional dissatisfaction.
A woman who feels ignored, neglected, unappreciated, devalued, or taken for granted is more inclined to give serious consideration to cheating on her mate, according to women who have been surveyed by relationship researchers.
Mother’s Day is one of the few times of the year when a woman with children expects to receive some type of acknowledgment or special attention – especially from her mate. If that day falls short of her expectations, for many women, it may just be the last straw, Biderman suggests.
Biderman said he and his staff are expecting the usual onslaught of new female members representing disillusioned mothers who have decided to sign up to become a cheater today. How proud they must be!
As for Biderman? I'm sure he's laughing all the way to the bank!
— The Curator
A sizable minority of children in rich countries live with just one parent who is likely to be a working female — and the U.S. tops that list.
The U.S. has the developed world's highest proportion of single parents, with one in four children being raised by one parent, according to a study based on the analysis of ending with 2007-year statistics conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Usually, that parent is the mom or other female. In the U.S., as in every other industrialized country, most single-parent households are single-mother households.
I found this study supports my intuitive sense of an amazing shift that has occurred within the past few decades. When I was a kid in the late 50's, divorce was rare, births to unwed mothers even more rare. Back then, generally no single person was ever allowed to adopt, and never-ever same-sex couples, so single-parent homes generally occurred only through divorce or the death of a parent.
My parents were divorced in the 70's. Even then, it was somewhat scandalous. I distinctly remember my Junior High (Middle) School athletic coach calling me into her office. I was a female-jock throughout my youth, so she knew me well. I thought she was going to talk to me about one of our teams, but instead she asked me about my parents' divorce. In those days, their names were printed in the newspaper's "Vital Statistics" section, which listed births, deaths, separations and divorces. I was horrified. I answered her questions with one word when possible. I had the unmistakable feeling that she was more interested in gossip than she was worried about me (my father is well-known in my hometown.)
Now, there is no "Vital Statistics" in newspapers to embarrass the newly separated or divorced, and happily singles and same-sex couples can adopt children.
It is incredible that in our culture, as well as those of most of the other industrialized countries, the study found that the past has flipped completely over within such a short time. I also found it interesting that the study looked at what it was like for a single mom to raise children, but did not delve into the impact of being the child on a single-parent household.
My parents' divorce definitely had a negative impact on me.
Of 27 industrialized countries studied by the OECD, the U.S. had 25.8 percent of children raised by a single parent, compared with an average of 14.9 percent among the other countries in the study.
According to NewsOne, a news agency serving the African American community, the study found that 72 percent of black children in the U.S. are raised in single-parent households.
The only country in the study where single fathers look like more than a faint sliver is Belgium, where there are still nearly twice as many children living with single mothers as with single fathers.
Exactly what it means to be a single parent — for your lifestyle and how you spend your time — varies greatly by country. In some countries, including the United States and Japan, nearly all single parents work; in others, like Malta and Turkey, most single parents do not have jobs.
Ireland, in the U.K., was second with 24.3 percent; followed by New Zealand with 23.7 percent. Greece, Spain, Italy and Luxembourg had among the lowest percentages of children being raised in single-parent homes, according to the study.
Experts pointed to a variety of factors to explain the high U.S. percentage, including a cultural shift toward greater acceptance of single-parent child rearing.
Sadly, the study noted that the U.S. also lacks policies to help support families, including childcare at work and national paid maternity leave, which are commonplace in other countries.
"When our parents married, there was a sense that you were marrying for life," said Edward Zigler, founder and director of Yale's Edward Zigler Centre in Child Development and Social Policy. "That sense is not as prevalent."
Single parents in the U.S. were more likely to be employed — 35.8 percent compared to a 21.3 percent average — but they also had higher rates of poverty, the report found.
“The in-work poverty is higher in the U.S. than other OECD countries, because at the bottom end of the labor market, earnings are very low,” said Willem Adema, a senior economist in the group’s social policy division. “For parents, the risk is higher because they have to make expenditures on childcare costs.”
The Paris-based organization looked at a broad sector of indicators that affected families and children, including childhood poverty, early education and amount of time spent on parental care.
Across the nations examined, preschool enrollment has grown from 30 to 50 percent between 1998 and 2007. The average enrollment was 58.2 percent, while in the U.S. it was lower.
The report noted that public spending on child welfare and education is higher in the U.S. than in other countries — $160,000 per child compared to $149,000. However, the authors say most of that money is spent after the crucial early childhood years.
“This means early investment — including childcare and support for families around the time of birth — could be strengthened,” the authors wrote in a separate paper examining the United States.
The study pointed out that the U.S. is the only OECD country that does not have a national paid parental leave policy. Some states have started to adopt such policies, but most parents are offered 12 weeks of unpaid leave. This is particularly difficult for unwed mothers, who may not be able to afford to take time off, Zigler said.
“We have not built in the kind of national support systems for families and children that other countries have,” he said.
Childhood poverty rates in the U.S. are also expected to climb — 23.5 percent from 20 percent. Adema said the rise is a direct result of the financial crisis and higher unemployment rates.
“The financial strain causes all sorts of other strain, so ultimately it might contribute to family dissolution,” Adema said. “At the same time, it might bring some families together. I suspect that the response differs across families.”
The single parent phenomenon has been occurring over recent decades. The study noted that the U.S. and the U.K. have higher teenage birth-rates than other countries, partially contributing to the higher single-parent numbers, though the proportion of children born outside marriage was not significantly higher than the other countries.
Christina Gibson Davis, a professor at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Police, said changing gender roles, the rise of contraception, high incarceration rates in some communities and an acceptance of having children out of wedlock have all contributed to the growing number.
Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, added it isn't being a single parent in itself that raises difficulties, saying, "Single moms do a brilliant and amazing job raising their children. It is also true that single moms in this country are systemically underpaid, and systematically under-resourced and systemically unrespected. It's not the fact they are single moms that makes things difficult."
— The Curator
I'm a liberal, sex-positive 54-year-old bisexual woman, but I have a fairly conservative core belief: That there should be some baseline standards that TV broadcasters must adhere to during hours that young children may be watching.
It is my belief that when young children are exposed to strong language, violence and gratuitous nudity, they begin to believe that these behaviors are acceptable behavior in the "real" world.
I also believe that when anything goes without restraint or societal reflection it not only cheapens the entire landscape of our culture, but that the underlying message is that each person is undeserving of basic human respect.
I know that many people argue that it is up to parents to censor these images/messages for their children, but it is clear that more and more children are raised without this monitoring. As a result, since broadcasters have continued to push the envelop further and further, it is the responsibility of the federal government to once again regulate them.
Paradoxically, I am also a strong supporter of free speech, but believe that there should be some limits placed during what used to be called the "family hours" of TV entertainment.
As a result, I was heartened this week when the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to reinstate a policy that allows federal regulators to fine broadcasters for showing nudity and airing curse words during those hours.
The issue has been in relative legal limbo after conflicting court rulings, all stemming from hefty fines leveled against a TV network — way back in 2003!
Now, the administration is seeking the high court's review of appeals court rulings that threw out the Federal Communications Commission's rules against the isolated use of expletives, as well as fines against broadcasters who showed a woman's nude buttocks on an episode of ABC's "NYPD Blue" that aired in 2003.
Last year, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York threw out the FCC policy, saying it was unconstitutionally vague and left broadcasters uncertain of what programming the agency will find offensive. The challenge to the FCC rules arose over celebrities' use of the F-word and S-word on live awards show programs.
In January, the same court said its ruling on the FCC policy compelled it to nullify a penalty of more than $1.2 million against ABC and 45 affiliates over less than seven seconds of airtime from "NYPD Blue" episode.
Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, said the justices should hear the case because the appeals court has stripped the FCC of its ability to adequately police the airwaves.
"The court of appeals' decisions preclude the commission from effectively implementing statutory restrictions on broadcast indecency that the agency has enforced since its creation in 1934," Katyal wrote. Katyal included a DVD of the "NYPD Blue" episode with the filing for the court's convenience.
The "NYPD Blue" episode led to fines only for stations in the Central and Mountain time zones, where the show aired at 9 p.m., a more child-friendly hour than the show's 10 p.m. time slot in the East.
In the "NYPD Blue" episode, actress Charlotte Ross played a police detective who had recently moved in with another detective. In the scene at issue, Ross disrobes as she prepares to shower. After her buttocks and the side of one of her breasts are briefly shown, the camera pans down and reveals her nude buttocks while she faces the shower.
Then the other detective's young son enters the bathroom and sees the naked woman. Embarrassment ensues as the child retreats from the room.
The appeals court said ABC said the scene was intended to portray the awkwardness between a child and his parent's new romantic partner, and the difficulty of adjusting to the situation.
The part of the case involving the awards shows has been to the high court before.
Three years ago, the justices narrowly upheld the policy, but in a ruling that pointedly avoided dealing with First Amendment issues. Instead, the court directed the appeals court to undertake a constitutional review.
For many years, the FCC did not take action against broadcasters for one-time uses of curse words. The policy flowed from a 1978 Supreme Court decision that upheld the FCC's reprimand of a New York radio station for airing a George Carlin monologue containing a 12-minute string of expletives in the middle of the afternoon.
But, following several awards shows with cursing celebrities in 2002 and 2003, the FCC toughened its long-standing policy after it concluded that a one-free-expletive rule did not make sense in the context of keeping the air waves free of indecency when children are likely to be watching television.
The FCC said that some words are deemed to be so offensive that they always evoke sexual or excretory images. The policy essentially excluded news programming and some other broadcasts, including ABC's airing of "Saving Private Ryan" in 2004.
— The Curator
Are there profound negative effects on children due to increased sexualization, or is that an assumption based on deep-seated fears by parents and others?
That is the provocative question addressed in today's post by Dr. Brooke L. Magnanti, the real woman behind the award-winning British erotic author Belle de Jour.
Magnanti, who is also a respected scientist, discusses the evidence on her new blog, Sexonomics.
"Various claims have been made around this issue. But are we being given evidence and solid policy, or assumptions and sloppy analysis? More worryingly, is the outcome being decided without even consulting parents about what’s best for their children?" she asks.
In the thought-provoking post, Brooke urges readers to approach the topic in a more rational, less emotional fashion.
"What the people making claims about the harmful effects of ‘hypersexualisation’ need to do is demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship. Then they need to show that early exposure to sexualised imagery causes the outcomes they are claiming, such as violence against women," she writes.
"Unfortunately, broad conclusions and limited data are just about all that's been offered up to this point," Brooke writes, after offering an analysis of the possibility of just such a relationship.
"The main problem with the sexualisation "debate" is that when it comes to solid proof that sexualised media and products cause harmful effects to children, the only honest response is we don't know," she concludes.
I admit that I have assumed such a relationship existed for a very long time. I am frankly dumbfounded that the actual evidence fails to back up what my gut has been telling me. I believe that Brooke's careful, thoughtful and knowledgeable post is a must-read analysis for every adult interested in this important topic.
I believe that it is time to put aside assumptions based on emotion — including mine — and consider that those of us who have held onto this belief might just be wrong.
I have reprinted her post in its entirety below, or read it directly at her blog.
FRIDAY, 22 APRIL 2011
Sexualisation Reports: Same Old, Same Old?
At first glance, the worries about children and sexualisation seem to have reached consensus. Pretty much everyone believes it causes harm – everything from low self-esteem and early sexual activity to sexual and gender-related violence. Government, news media, and an array of non-profits agree. The research evidence, they claim, is staggering. Are they correct? Or does examining the issue from another perspective give us a different picture entirely?
Probably the hardest part of being a parent these days is negotiating what is appropriate in world where much has changed.
Parents, and people in general, are rightly concerned about the effects of an increasingly consumerist society on their kids. I fully support the rights of parents to enforce their own standards – deciding what is and isn’t appropriate is a complex balancing act. Age of the child, cultural background, and all kinds of variables can only really be appreciated on a family-by-family basis. And importantly, there need to be better support systems to educate and inform concerned parents, so they can make the appropriate decisions.
What rarely gets reported, however, is that the data around the supposed trend are very shaky. When you look at the problems most people fear – such as increased sexual activity – the evidence just isn't there. And in the few instances when people bother to talk to children, most of them actually have a more balanced and mature approach approach to modern culture than commentators give them credit for.
Various claims have been made around this issue. But are we being given evidence and solid policy, or assumptions and sloppy analysis? More worryingly, is the outcome being decided without even consulting parents about what’s best for their children?
What the people making claims about the harmful effects of ‘hypersexualisation’ need to do is demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship. Then they need to show that early exposure to sexualised imagery causes the outcomes they are claiming, such as violence against women.
One saying you hear over and over in the research world is “correlation is not causation.” It’s a good rule to remember, particularly when looking at human health and behaviours.
What’s the difference between a cause and a correlation? Put simply, when you say one action causes a result, you are saying there is a direct line between that action and the result. Cause implies that an action results in a predictable reaction. Correlation, on the other hand, means that the action and the result both occur, but may not be related. Here’s an example. The amount of reality television programming has risen dramatically since 2000; so have the fees for UK universities. Neither one caused the other. Reality TV correlates with high fees – it doesn’tcause them. Happening at the same time does always imply a relationship.
Correlations can be useful. They can be a first step in investigating whether there could be a causal role. After all, it takes someone noticing that lots of smokers get lung cancer in the first place. But the investigation can’t – and shouldn’t – stop there. Not least because a lot of the things we think we know can turn out to be wrong. Careful analysis requires looking past the small scale. It resists making broad conclusions from limited data.
Unfortunately, broad conclusions and limited data are just about all that's been offered up to this point. Consider the infographic below:
Over and again, what parents get instead of good information, is sensationalistic headlines designed to attract media coverage. That's not the same thing as reliable data; never has been.
The main problem with the sexualisation "debate" is that when it comes to solid proof that sexualised media and products cause harmful effects to children, the only honest response is we don't know.
Next month, a review of sexualisation and children led by Reg Bailey of the Mothers' Union is set to be released. It's impossible to predict the exact content, but this gives a bit of a clue:
"Of the 1,025 parents of five- to 16-year-olds surveyed, 40% said they had seen things in public places, such as shop window displays and advertising hoardings, that they felt were inappropriate for children to see because of their sexual content."
Sounds like a dire misrepresentation of statistics. You could as easily conclude that the majority — 60% — of those polled have notseen things in shop windows and adverts they thought were inappropriate for children. And of the 40% who did, there was no indication of how often they encountered these things (once in the last year? sixteen times a day?) and whether they felt children took notice of them.
It's important to remember that as adults, sexual content is part of life. It is reasonable to expect that in spaces and entertainment for children, sexualised content will be strictly limited. But in public, in spaces for adults at large? Surely that's where good parents step in and explain to curious children the difference between grown-ups and kids. Infantilising the world is, to me, unacceptable.
With the government set to release their new report on children and sexualisation in May, perhaps it's a good idea to look at the previous government's attempt to address the same issue. And where they went wrong.
In 2009 the UK Consultation on Sexualisation of Young People was launched by then-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. It was part of a wider campaign, with an aim to connect sexualisation explicity with violence. The review set its goal as seeing “how sexualised images and messages may be affecting the development of children and young people and influencing cultural norms, and examines the evidence for a link between sexualisation and violence”.
The 2010 Home Office report [pdf] is notable on several counts: it is very slickly produced, it provides loads of policy recommendations, and it is notably lacking in the qualities that would make good research.
Other reviews of sexualisation of children have appeared before. One was by the American Psychological Association Association in 2007. Australia also released a similar report in 2008. These were well received at first, but the expectation was that later reports would take a fuller view of the context in which young people live. After all, any of us can point to a pile of Playboy t-shirts in children’s sizes… the important question is what effect this might be having, if any.
Part of good research practice is allowing readers to see the source material and where the conclusions originated. For most of the report, however, conclusions are made in absence of citations. Consider the following statement:
“Children and young people today are not only exposed to increasing amounts of hyper-sexualised images, they are also sold the idea that they have to look ‘sexy’ and ‘hot’. As such they are facing pressures that children in the past simply did not have to face.”
Frightening, no? And yet, no source is given for this assertion. What are 'increasing amounts', and how are they quantified? What exactly is a 'sexualised image'? Define your terminology and outline your methods, people! And the conclusion that children in the past did not experience this pressure is questionable – just ask any grandmother.
There are a lot of studies quoted – mainly studies of pornography and adults – but the conclusions specifically about children and violence reference no research publications. The Home Office consultation is reluctant to admit that research into putative negative effects of imagery on children does not exist.
There’s a good reason it doesn’t. Experiments on adults (which the consultation relies on heavily) would face significant ethical restrictions if conducted on children. Because they consist of exposing test subjects to pornography, then administering a questionnaire, you can see why the subject is hard to address. But to make conclusions without even addressing this lack of source material is a huge oversight.
In the face of this deficiency, however, the consultation still claims a connection, mainly by relying on spurious polls (as shown in the infographic above). “The evidence gathered in the review suggests a clear link between consumption of sexualised images, a tendency to view women as objects and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm.”
But if you look at their cited materials closely, it's clear that most of their "evidence" is studies taken out of context, misinterpreted results, or plain irrelevant hypothesising.
Here's an example. One paper cited in the 2010 report is a 2000 publication by Malamuth et al., Pornography and Sexual Aggression: Are there reliable effects and can we understand them? The paper considers whether there is a causal link between adults who view pornography and sexual aggression.
Now, the difference between ‘sexualising’ images aimed at children and actual pornography for adults is a big one. Even using a paper like this in a discussion of childhood issues is problematic.
What the Malamuth study found, though was interesting.
While some people who viewed pornography had violent beliefs towards women, the conclusion did not claim pornography was the cause: “We suggest that the way relatively aggressive men interpret and react to the same pornography may differ from that of nonaggressive men.” In other words, the pump is already primed in some people. But for nonaggressive men, the same imagery did not incite negative thoughts.
So, there is not a direct correlation between porn and violent beliefs in most men. But when the Home Office report cites Malamuth’s work, this message is lost. No mention is made that it’s a study of adults, not children, and of pornography, not sexualised images. It is cited as if it is a conclusive example, but anyone reading the actual paper will see that’s not true.
There are other studies that contradict any connection between porn and violence. The Home Office report doesn’t mention them, though.
In a prospective study Simon Lajeunesse of the University of Montreal found most of the men he studied sought out porn by the age of 10, when they become sexually curious. He also found they quickly discarded what they didn't like and things they find offensive. As adults, they looked for content that was compatible with their sex preferences.
Lajeunesse‘s subjects reported that they supported gender equality, but also that they felt victimized by criticism of pornography. "Pornography hasn't changed their perception of women or their relationship which they all want as harmonious and fulfilling as possible,” says Lajeunesse. “Those who could not live out their fantasy in real life with their partner simply set aside the fantasy. The fantasy is broken in the real world and men don't want their partner to look like a porn star."
His conclusions are similar to Malamuth’s. "Aggressors don't need pornography to be violent and addicts can be addicted to drugs, alcohol, gaming and asocial cases are pathological,” he adds. “If pornography had the impact that many claim it has, you would just have to show heterosexual films to a homosexual to change his sexual orientation."
In many ways, the previous government's Home Office report failed to live up to its own hype. The Con-Dem coalition have made hay on the presumption that their government would if not overturn, at least critically examine questionable policies of the previous Labour government. It remains to be seen whether on this topic they will come out with anything that qualifies as an intellectually honest review. I can't say my hopes are high."
Posted by Belle de Jour at 04:47
Brooke launched her new blog, Sexonomics, this month, and has also promised her fans a new book.
In 2009, Brooke revealed her identity after a newspaper was about to disclose it without her permission. Brooke, formerly of Bristol, England who now lives in Scotland with her husband, was a noted scientist whose specialist areas were developmental neurotoxicology and cancer epidemiology. She has a PhD in informatics, epidemiology and forensic science and had worked at the Bristol Initiative for Research of Child Health as part of a team that researched the potential effects on babies of their mothers' exposure to toxic chemicals.
But, from 2003 to late 2004, Brooke worked as a high-class call girl for a London escort service. She has written an award-winning blog and several bestselling books based on her experiences as a sex worker. Her writing also formed the basis of the TV series Secret Diary of a Call Girl on Showtime, starring Billie Piper in the title role of "Belle."
If you have any interest in thoughtful discussions about sex-related and scientific topics, I urge you to follow Brooke's blog. She is a unique woman, and an equally unique writer who should NOT be missed.
Brooke's books include: Belle de Jour’s Guide to Men, 2009; Belle’s Best Bits, 2009; The Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl, September 2005; The Further Adventures of a London Call Girl, May 2007; and Playing the Game, June 2009.
Each one is well-worth reading and re–reading. You can find all of her books at the U.K.’s largest independent bookseller, Waterstones.
Also check out Brooke's op-ed articles on a variety of topics including reforming libel law in the U.K., as well as the importance of ensuring the rights of sex workers.
— The Curator
