Sex-negative right-wing idiots

While We’re on the Subject of Ignorant People Talking About Sex…

jackandjillcpl2 Comments
Posted in Lynette Burrows Sex Education Sex-negative right-wing idiots Teachers are not usually pedophiles written by Jack
Professionals attack the BBC for putting teachers at risk after its decision to broadcast a clip during Sunday Morning Live that compared sex education teachers to paedophiles
“I think parents have the absolute right to protect their children from this sort of education which is so unhelpfully obsessed with destroying childhood innocence, in a way that’s reminiscent of paedophilia. To me, anyone who wants to talk dirty to little children is a danger to them.”
These words, from the lips of “family values” campaigner Lynette Burrows, were broadcast last weekend as part of a pre-recorded video package on the BBC‘s Sunday Morning Live show to kick off a “debate” about sex education.
The comments were left unchallenged, and the show continued with a studio discussion in which Burrows was joined by a historian and a neoconservative lobbyist, rather than, say, a sex education professional or similar expert. The lack of a qualified speaker in the studio removed the possibility of any informed discussion, and things veered downhill from there.
Other guests were piped in by phone or webcam. The only person with professional experience relevant to the debate, sex education teacher Alice Hoyle, was given seconds to “justify why I am not a paedophile on national TV” before being cut off in favour of a Rabbi (decent, to be fair), and a spokesman from the Campaign for Real Education who ranted unpleasantly about homosexuality in schools. It wasn’t a debate so much as a festival of ignorance.
Burrows’ comments were idiotic, but so was the decision to broadcast them unchallenged, and the BBC have some serious questions to answer about their editorial judgement. One viewer complained to Auntie, and their response to her was as depressing as it was tediously predictable:
“We make no editorial comment or judgement on the views expressed by contributors to our programmes, and our aim is simply to provide enough information for viewers to make up their own minds.
“This may include hearing opinions which some people may personally disagree with but which individuals may be fully entitled to hold in the context of legitimate debate.”
Firstly, if you give more exposure or weight to one side of the discussion, or you fail to include experts in the debate, then you are making an editorial judgement whether you mean to or not. You can’t choose which views to provide a platform for – doubtless there are many the BBC wouldn’t air – and then pretend that this somehow doesn’t involve making a judgement about their legitimacy. Especially when you go on to describe them as “legitimate”.
Secondly, not all opinions are equal, or legitimate. The BBC’s position here is a kind of anti-journalism, what Jay Rosen termed “the view from nowhere”. As Rosen once explained, “it places the journalist between polarized extremes, and calls that neither-nor position ‘impartial’.”
Of course it isn’t impartial, merely cowardly. Repeating every conceivable opinion without challenge is not being objective, neither is setting up a debate with the premise that both points of view are equally valid – that road leads us to creationists on David Attenborough specials.
Thirdly, the segment failed to enlighten or inform at even the most basic level. No experts were included in the studio discussion to explain their field, no substantial discussion of the evidence occurred, and the segment didn’t even attempt to explain what sex education is, or what it involves.
Meanwhile Burrows was free to claim variously that teen pregnancies are rising, that teachers “want to talk dirty to little children”, and that “it is now generally accepted that [sex education] hasn’t worked.” These aren’t matters of opinion but claims of fact, and for the presenter to leave them unchallenged is an abdication of professional responsibility.
The BBC’s viewers may have been seriously misled by their shambolic approach to the topic, and thousands of dedicated professionals have not only had their work grossly misrepresented, but have been subjected to vile and unfounded smears that may even put them at risk. As lecturer and researcher Dr Petra Boynton put it to me today:
“Their play at impartial broadcasting actually allows them to let a guest be accused of something that’s not only false, but is objectionable and could potentially have a far-reaching impact on their career, family life and personal safety.”
Dr John Lloyd, policy adviser of the PSHE Association, which represents those teaching personal, social, health and economic education, echoed Boynton’s concerns, telling me:
“The PSHE Assocation, the subject association for personal, social, health and economic education (of which sex and relationships education is a key component) says that it is very concerned that such extreme language puts those teaching SRE at risk.”
The Family Planning Association have also condemned the show in a statement released online today which condemns Lynette Burrows’s views as “a gross distortion of what relationships and sex education is”, asking broadcasters to “stop giving air time to the minority who deliberately seek to distort what sex and relationships education is.”
The failure of programmes like Sunday Morning Live to deal with these issues responsibly leaves professionals wondering why they should bother to engage with the media on these topics at all. Alice Hoyle, the teacher who was briefly allowed to respond via webcam, has been left shocked by the experience, and discusses it at length in a series of blog posts. “Equating me to a paedophile is actually the most foul, upsetting and disgusting thing that has ever been said to me.”
Why go back? As Dr Boynton told me:
“We’re constantly being told as practitioners and academics that we must ‘engage’ with the public via the media, but there is little or no support for us when we bravely do this (knowing how controversial sex/relationships issues are) and face abuse and ridicule. The constant focus on discussions as ‘false debates’ as well as the media’s lack of understanding of basic sex ed issues means we’re having our time wasted at best, but being personally and professionally abused at worst.”
It’s a situation that helps nobody, least of all those the BBC is supposed to serve and inform.
The issue here seems to be free speech versus journalistic responsibility. We’re all for personal freedoms – anyone who’s read much of this blog should have already figured that out – and we would certainly defend the right of the press to print or broadcast something controversial. At this point, though, isn’t it just a “coulda versus shoulda” argument? In other words, just because you can, does that mean you should? I live in the United States, the home of Fox News, so I am not unfamiliar with the concept of one-sided media coverage. In our opinion, narrow-minded people who wear their willful ignorance as a badge of honor are the real problem, but even in present-day, with seemingly everyone beholden to special interests, a responsible media outlet owes it to all parties, especially its audience, to cover all sides of a story rather than furthering a preconceived agenda.

Do You Masturbate? This Guy Says You’re Gay

jackandjillcpl7 Comments
Posted in Mark Driscoll masturbation Self-Hating Masturbation Addict Sex-negative right-wing idiots written by Jack

The Christian Right has much to say about homosexuality. Fred Phelpsl [sic] says God hates them and stages protests at the funerals of American soldiers to bring attention to his hatred. An anti-gay Christian Right wing activist recently said there wasn’t any proof that LBGT people exist. And most recently, a conservative crowd booed a gay soldier during a GOP Debate. Now a “pastor” on the Christian Right is saying that masturbation is a form of homosexuality.
“Pastor” Mark Driscoll says that men need to stop masturbating because it’s a kind of homosexuality. In a booklet titled Porn-Again Christian: A Frank Discussion on Pornography & Masturbation for God’s Men, Driscoll of the Seattle-based Mars Hill Church says, “First, masturbation can be a form of homosexuality because it is a sexual act that does not involve a woman. If a man were to masturbate while engaged in other forms of sexual intimacy with his wife then he would not be doing so in a homosexual way. However, any man who does so without his wife in the room is bordering on homosexual activity, particularly if he’s watching himself in a mirror and being turned on by his own male body.”
In sermons offered at this website, Driscoll also says that Christians should judge gay people like Jesus. “If you leave this church, you can go to another church and they will tell you if you are living together and not married, that’s okay. They’ll tell you if you’re gay, that’s okay. They’ll tell you if you’re married and you’re into porno and wife-swapping and open marriages, that’s okay. God is displeased with that conduct. …. Christians therefore must be judgmental like Jesus.”
Driscoll is a poor excuse of a pastor. This supposed “man of God” should know that Jesus was not judgmental, and he certainly frowned upon Christians judging others. “Judge not lest ye be judged,” Jesus said to a group of men who were judging an adulterer. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” The Bible says that the only sexuality we should be concerned with is our own. I’m certain this “pastor” sins on a daily basis and has probably masturbated a couple times in his life. Interestingly enough, he isn’t saying anything about female masturbation. He’s probably okay with that.
Well, duh. Female masturbation is fucking hot.
For the record, there is no connection between masturbation and homosexuality. Sure, gays masturbate, but so do straight people and we can say this with 100% confidence because we’re straight people and we masturbate. In fact, we are thinking of masturbating as soon as we post this. Mark Driscoll would probably claim that the fact that we masturbate means we are gay. Hey, that’s great, Mark. But admit it, you’ve masturbated like one of those red-assed monkeys at the zoo being paid by the fluid ounce. Maybe you don’t anymore; maybe the shame and the self-hatred you feel for having masturbated at one point in your life forced you to kick the habit. If that’s the case, then we feel sorry for you, because masturbation is awesome. It’s the one kind of sex that the most repulsive members of society can be assured of experiencing, and you should know. But if it makes you feel better to say that we’re all gay, then that’s fabulous.

A Ridiculous Petition; or Won’t Somebody PLEASE Think of the Children?

jackandjillcpl1 Comment
Posted in CVS Louis CK One Million Moms Petition Rite Aid Sex Toys Sex-negative right-wing idiots Walgreens written by Jack
I learned of this petition through the Tumblr account of adult retailer Babeland, and immediately felt an angry rant boiling up inside me. I decided that rather than divide my thoughts into approximately one hundred 140-character Tweets, I’d instead post them here. The petition, which comes to us from a website called One Million Moms.com, is aimed at forcing major drugstore chains Walgreens, Rite Aid, and CVS to remove “v*br*tors, d*ld*s and other s*x toys” (censorship theirs) from their websites. Here is the text of the petition.
Adult Toys Sold on Pharmacy Websites
There is a problem when websites for drug stores start looking like adult fantasy stores instead of a place for medical needs. We are highly concerned when adult toys are being sold online in the least likely places. Online filters may not catch this, and children are stumbling onto these sites by accident.
One of our supporters reported that her child found this on Rite Aid’s website. After checking around, our research proved Rite Aid is not the only offender. Walgreens and CVS (not nearly the quantity as the other two) are also at fault. When is it ok to sell v*br*tors, d*ld*s and other s*x toys on a drug store’s website? (An asterisk ‘*’ is used to ensure our emails get through to those who have signed up for our alerts. Otherwise specific words referenced would be blocked by some internet filters.)
At these sites, there is not a warning of any kind. These websites have online shopping available, and under “Sexual Wellness” or “Sexual Well-Being” there are pages of adult toys offered on the Rite Aid and Walgreens sites. CVS had one, and you have to type in the search box to find it.
TAKE ACTION
Please send an email letter to Rite Aid, Walgreens, and CVS requesting they no longer sell adult toys on their websites. Urge them to remove all s*x toys immediately or you will be shopping elsewhere.
Send Your Letter Now!
NOTE: If you see a commercial or program which is offensive, email us the information. Many of you have done this, and it is very helpful.
First off, I feel that the women in charge of One Million Moms.Com, or at least this petition, would greatly benefit from a vibrator, preferably one designed for G-spot stimulation. Ladies, it’s far too obvious that you are sexually frustrated. A vibrator may not bring you flowers or cuddle with you afterwards, but it also won’t mention the weight you’ve gained since you bought it, or fall asleep before you’ve gotten off. In the remotely slim chance that anyone involved in this petition, from writer to signer, is reading this, let me emphatically repeat my point: Vibrators, dildos, butt plugs, nipple clamps and other toys marketed toward adults (i.e. not your children) are a good thing. They make the world a better place. I suggest you buy a couple, and I suggest you buy them from Good Vibrations, Babeland or Smitten Kitten, as these three stores are reputable, ethical, and above all, sex-positive. Which, now that I think of it, might be a problem for you.
I take issue with the first sentence of the petition. Adult fantasy store? Unless I can buy a gimp mask, a flogger and a dismembered replica of some random porn star’s genitalia and anus, I refuse to think of my neighborhood Walgreens as an adult fantasy store. Because let’s face it, if all they carry are vibrators, dildos and the like, they don’t qualify; when most people think of vibrators, etc., they probably don’t think “exotic fantasy”, but instead think “attainable reality.” And who’s to say that a sex toy isn’t a legitimate medical need? I know that when I go more than a day without an orgasm I come dangerously close to snapping, and in the case of the ladies of One Million Moms.Com, sexual frustration has obviously caused their heads to recede up their own asses, which is probably very dangerous. If they’re going to try and make the argument that a sex toy is not a medical need, I demand that they present their medical degrees to me in person so that I may tell them to their faces how full of shit they are.
They also state that “children are stumbling onto these sites by accident.” Seriously? Kids are stumbling onto drugstore websites? While I find this unlikely, I will play along and pretend that this is something that could be happening en masse. Let’s say, just for the hell of it, that Walgreens’ website is one or two letters away from a popular children’s website. I’m too lazy to make one up; please come up with something similar to “Walgreens” that would appeal to children as I’ve literally got nothing. So all of these fat-fingered children are making the same typographical error that leads them to one of three major chain drugstore websites. What I can’t pretend, however, is that said children are accidentally stumbling upon sex toys once they’re there. I would have assumed that when kids mistakenly find themselves at a website that holds little to no interest for them, they would just retype the web address until they get it right, but apparently a popular activity amongst children is to type the word “dildo” into any search box they encounter.
At this point I need to note that there is no language in the petition about removing these items from store shelves. Walgreens, Rite Aid and CVS do not carry adult products of this nature in their stores. And if they did, while I wouldn’t particularly care nor would I support a petition to remove them from the shelves – remember, commerce is voluntary, at least in the United States – I might think that the people behind this petition were less batshit insane than I do right now. My daughter is still a baby, but I imagine that at some point in the future Jill or I (hopefully Jill) will have to explain to her what a vibrator is, though I hope that this occurs after we see one in a movie, or even in a drug store, and not when she finds one of Jill’s many toys in her nightstand drawer, or in the shower, or perhaps on the sink in the master bedroom where it’s undergone post-usage cleaning but hasn’t yet been put away. But we’ll certainly have that discussion if and when it becomes necessary, because the alternative, advocated by One Million Moms.Com, is to make sex toys less available, and this isn’t something with which we are comfortable.
I could almost be okay with this petition if the motivation was different, i.e. if rather than trying to protect our children, they were trying to protect the old folks of the world, such as our parents and grandparents. Older people are much more likely than children to browse a drugstore website, don’t you think? I think that including sex toys on a retail website that my parents – or my grandparents, if I had any still alive – might browse poses a real risk. I take comfort in my relative certainty that if my Mom somehow stumbled upon a vibrator while looking for some sort of anti-inflammatory ointment, she would most certainly never bring this fact to my attention, but the truth is that my biggest nightmare is having to, for whatever reason and under whatever circumstances, view a sex toy that my parent or parents are also viewing. This one trumps all the traditional nightmares. Naked in public? No big deal, I’ve been there. Forgot to study for a test? Yes, frequently when I was in college. Maniac with razors on his fingers chasing me through a boiler room? Hasn’t everyone been through this? But if I’m walking past an adult store with my parents, and sex toys are visible, I don’t want to live anymore. There’d better not be a uniformed cop anywhere in the vicinity, because I’m grabbing something shiny and running toward him or her full-speed.
I was hoping to avoid ranting about personal responsibility when it comes to raising and communicating with one’s children, but it needs to be said: Parents who bitch about what their children see and do online need to do a better job monitoring their kids’ web surfing habits, or at the very least fostering a safe and open environment in which the child knows that communication is encouraged. It is your responsibility, and if you truly believe that your child glimpsing a vibrator, out of context on a retail website, is going to cause him or her irreparable damage and turn him or her into some sort of hairy-palmed, Hell-bound chronic masturbator, then the onus is on you to prevent him or her from looking, even though by doing so you are almost certainly causing more harm than good. Parenting means occasionally talking to your child and answering questions. You owe it not only to your child, but to the legions of consumers who would like to buy a sex toy from Walgreens, Rite Aid or CVS, and who would be impacted negatively by your refusal to take responsibility and be honest. It’s this attitude that is partially to blame for the backlash against marriage equality. Comedian Louis CK said it better than I ever could:

Like when you see someone stand up…on a talk show and say, like, “How am I supposed to explain to my child that two men are getting married?” I don’t know. It’s your shitty kid. You fucking tell him. Why is that anyone else’s problem? Two guys are in love but they can’t get married because you don’t want to talk to your ugly child for fucking five minutes?

The fact is, your children could stumble upon these sites. But they probably won’t. If your kid is deliberately going to Walgreens, Rite Aid, or CVS’s websites, I suggest you find out why. When I was a kid, nothing was more boring than a chain drugstore, even before they took out the ice cream counters. The toys were overpriced, and the magazines were out of date. Those were literally the only two sections of the drugstore that I found even slightly interesting. If your kids are deliberately going to one of these websites, it’s a safe bet that they are looking to buy over-the-counter drugs in bulk in order to sell them at school. What’s more, they are using your credit card to pay for them. But take comfort in the fact that your kids are probably just ordering the drugs and then going to another website; chances are they aren’t sparing a moment to look at sex toys. Alternately, I suppose they might be going to these websites in order to search specifically for dildos and vibrators, but if that’s the case Walgreens and the others are not to blame.
Note the final two lines of the petition:
NOTE: If you see a commercial or program which is offensive, email us the information. Many of you have done this, and it is very helpful.
While I am tempted to point out that someone who actively monitors the airwaves for something to get offended by is the worst sort of time-wasting parasite I can imagine, I would really just like to state that one may only exercise his or right to be offended as long as it doesn’t impact someone else’s rights, be it the right to sell sex toys, or the right to purchase them.
In the process of writing this entry, I actually went to Walgreens, Rite Aid, and CVS’s websites to confirm that they carry the “offending” products. Given these three chains’ mainstream, middle-of-the-road reputations, I expected to see a few back massagers of the sort that can be repurposed for intimate use. I typed “dildo” into Walgreens’ search box and six items came back! Granted, there were none of the traditional phallus-shaped latex, silicone rubber or Cyberskin dongs I am used to seeing in adult toy stores, and a couple of them were battery-operated, i.e. vibrators. One item, the Tantus Alumina Pace, was a very nice looking butt plug that is, according to the website, equally suitable for vaginal use. I read the following under the product description: “Putting Pace in a cup of hot water before playing is an amazing sensual surprise.” When was the last time you got advice like this from a drugstore? Thank you, Walgreens!
All told, Walgreens’ website features, in addition to the aforementioned six dildos, 327 vibrators (!), eighty-four massagers, and four “intimate massagers”. Searches for “erotic massagers” as well as butt plugs returned no results. CVS, on the other hand, features six vibrators, fifty-four massagers, one “erotic massager” and eleven “intimate massagers”. Again, no butt plugs, and a search for “dildo” returned no results but they did ask if I was trying to type “did.” Rite Aid, on the other hand, was a total boner-killer. Searches for dildos, vibrators, butt plugs, massagers, intimate massagers, and erotic massagers all returned zero results. Just to make sure their website was working correctly, I typed in “Ibuprofen” and got two results. I wonder if they never carried these items, and One Million Moms.Com went off half-cocked and assumed they did after seeing sex toys at the other two sites; or if they carried them and, bowing to pressure from terrified Middle American soccer moms, stopped.
After doing some browsing, I found that both Walgreens and CVS carry a variety of items from adult manufacturer Lelo. I considered ordering myself a Lelo Bo, but decided I’d be better off getting it from one of the reputable, ethical and sex-positive companies I mentioned earlier.
-Jack