This clip has been around for a while and has been posted before, but I figured it would be worth bumping again. Thanks to whoever mentioned the clip in the replies this week. Take it away Zach:
Attitudes
Summary of social science research on same-sex parenting.
In 2008, the people of California narrowly voted in favour of Proposition 8, which led to a state constitution amendment reaffirming the original definition of marriage as only between a man and woman. Previously in California, marriage had been legally redefined to include same-sex couples. Immediately, there was a legal challenge and Prop 8 was eventually overturned. This decision was later appealed by the anti-gay-marriage folks and is still in the process of working it's way through US Supreme Court. How this case turns out could influence marriage law across the States. In cases like these, outside interest groups (intervenors) are able to submit input to be considered by the courts. Typically this is in the form of an amicus brief, or report to the court. The American Sociological Association recently submitted the amicus linked below. It is a fantastic review of the research on same-sex parenting and demolishes the claims that stable, same-sex parent families are unhealthy for children. Here's a particularly poignant quote:
The social science consensus is both conclusive and clear: children fare just as well when they are raised by same-sex parents as when they are raised by opposite sex parents. This consensus holds true across a wide range of child outcome indicators and is supported by numerous nationally representative studies. Accordingly, assuming that either DOMA or Proposition 8 has any effect on whether children are raised by opposite-sex or same-sex parents, there is no basis to prefer opposite-sex parents over same-sex parents and neither DOMA nor Proposition 8 is justified. The research supports the conclusion that extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples has the potential to improve child wellbeing insofar as the institution of marriage may provide social and legal support to families and enhances family stability, key drivers of positive child outcomes.
Read the whole report here.
Short: Kids React to Gay Marriage.
Hillary Clinton goes au naturel; people freak out.
in Attitudes, Attraction
This happened a while ago, but is pertinent to this week's class. From Jezebel:
What We’re Really Talking About When We Talk About Hillary Clinton Without Makeup
On Monday, the front and center picture on Drudge Report was Hillary Clinton's bespectacled face without makeup, because apparently we've talked about every other possible topic in the world. The picture of Clinton's face, which Matt Drudge helpfully tagged "Au Naturel," features the smiling Secretary of State's countenance naked but for black framed glasses and red lipstick. I guess we're all supposed to gasp and feel faint, to acknowledge that yes, Hillary Clinton is a real live human with monstrous, terrible flaws, and this is the pictorial proof of that. And now she should hang her head in shame and Matt Drudge wins, and he's automatically King of America forever.
Fox echoed Matt Drudge's triumphant smugness, asking in their headline if Hillary "forgot" her makeup, as though she'd been caught peeing her pants onstage or flashing her crotch at paparazzi as she got out of a limo.
A woman didn't wear makeup and this is news? I guess I thought the news cycle's kill screen would involve more animated fireworks, or decks of cards cascading in arcs rather than just a picture of the Secretary of State's face looking like it's ready for some slumber party ghost stories.
With Drudge's attempted shaming came a reciprocal backlash from fans of Hillary and what Fox News viewers might call "the liberal media." The Washington Postdefended the makeup-free look: "It's refreshing to see Hillary fresh-faced. She looked like a schoolgirl in the picture –- the Hillary from her granola college days at Wellesley." And the Atlantic Wireproclaimed that Clinton looked "good, okay!?" And of course, as a member of Team Hillary, my reflexive first reaction to the photo was to leap to the defense of her looks. She looks great! Cute glasses! There is nothing wrong with Hillary Clinton's neck, okay?! That's how a neck is supposed to look! She's totally pretty!
Read the rest here.
And a brilliant quote from from Ms. Clinton about the whole affair:
"You may not agree with a woman, but to criticize her appearance — as opposed to her ideas or actions — isn’t doing anyone any favors, least of all you. Insulting a woman’s looks when they have nothing to do with the issue at hand implies a lack of comprehension on your part, an inability to engage in high-level thinking. You may think she’s ugly, but everyone else thinks you’re an idiot."
- Hillary Clinton
On masculine stereotypes.
Sent along by one of your classmates (thanks!) with this note:
I thought it was an interesting article because the whole time I was reading it I kept thinking that he was going to talk about how he was homosexual or something (because you don't expect heterosexual males to express themselves like that) but then I realized that that's the whole point right, that it doesn't really matter what his orientation is, because there should be nothing defining how he expresses himself as a human, but we have these gender roles so engrained in us that it is difficult not to bring them up.
From Sex, Love, Liberation:
The Lie of Masculinity
(Note: This is a post from my husband, Jonathan Mead, in parallel to a piece I wrote a few months ago.)
Tears were streaming down my face. I was 10 years old, sitting in our antique Oldsmobile, outside the parking lot of an ice cream shop. My dad and I regularly had father and son nights, and on this particular one I gathered the courage to make a confession:
“I don’t know how to not cry. I wish I could stop but sometimes I just feel like crying, and I know boys aren’t supposed to do that.”
My dad consoled me and told me that it was all right. It was perfectly natural for boys to cry. “If you need to cry, just let it out, son. You have nothing to be ashamed of,” he reassured me.
I felt a little better after that, but it still didn’t shake my discomfort. I didn’t realize it then, but somewhere deep within in me I knew what a man was supposed to be, and I felt that I wasn’t it.
It was around that time that I can recall my first encounter with the lie of masculinity.
Over the course of many years, I came across many other lies that one by one began to build a skeleton of falsehoods living within my consciousness.
And being an innocent child, I accepted those lies. I knew intuitively that they were wrong, but I felt like I was being wound up with a key, predestined to follow a path set before me.
My male identity was being created, and I was slowly learning that men are supposed to be strong, not vulnerable & aren’t expected to express their emotions.
I was learning that men are considered queer if they don’t act brash and overbearing; that men are supposed to be dominant, not submissive.
I was learning that men are horny, not sensual.
Read the rest here.
Drugs for relationships.
in Attitudes, Love, Relationships
This piece from The Atlantic has been getting tons of attention over the last little while. It's a long read, but fascinating (and polarizing), if you've got the time.
The Case for Using Drugs to Enhance Our Relationships (and Our Break-Ups)
George Bernard Shaw once satirized marriage as "two people under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, who are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do them part."
Yikes. And yet, nearly all human cultures value some version of marriage, as a nurturing emotional foundation for children, but also because marriage can give life an extra dimension of meaning. But marriage is hard, for biochemical reasons that may be beyond our control. What if we could take drugs to get better at love?
Perhaps we could design "love drugs," pharmaceutical cocktails that could boost affection between partners, whisking them back to the exquisite set of pleasures that colored their first years together. The ability to do this kind of fine-tuned emotional engineering is beyond the power of current science, but there is a growing field of research devoted to it. Some have even suggested developing "anti-love drugs" that could dissolve abusive relationships, or reduce someone's attachment to a charismatic cult leader. Others just want a pill to ease the pain of a wrenching breakup.
[...]
At first blush, love may seem like a poor prospect for pharmacological intervention. The reflexive dualist in us wants to say that romantic relationships are matters of the soul, and that souls ought to be free of medical tinkering. Oxford ethicist Brian Earp argues that we should resist these intuitions, and be open to the upswing in human well-being that successful love drugs could bring about. Over a series of several papers, Earp and his colleagues, Anders Sandberg and Julian Savulescu, make a convincing case that couples should be free to use "love drugs," and that in some cases, they may be morally obligated to do so. I recently caught up with Earp and his colleagues by email to ask them about this fascinating ethical frontier. What follows is a condensed version of our exchange.
Read the rest here.
Separate prom with no gays.
This story has been making the rounds the last few days. From the Huffington Post:
Sullivan High School's Students, Staff Distance Themselves From Anti-Gay Prom Plan Frenzy
Students and staff at an Indiana-based high school are trying to quickly distance themselves from the international media frenzy over one local group's plea for an "traditional" prom that would ban gay teens.
In an interview with local NBC affiliate WTWO, Sullivan High School Principal David Springer clarified that officials had no involvement with the group calling for the gay-free prom and that all students will be welcome at the school-officiated event in May.
"Anybody can go to the prom," he said. "Of course, a girl could go out with another girl if they didn't have a date or that was their choice."
Echoing Springer's sentiments was Dale Wise, senior minister at Sullivan First Christian Church where the anti-gay prom group met. "Our church has no involvement in this whatsoever," he is quoted as saying. "It's a community thing where people have met here."
As it turns out, the teacher who caused the most controversy after she equated lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) teens to those with special needs in an earlier news report isn't even affiliated with Sullivan High School. The report notes that Diana Medley, who was among the students and parents present at a Feb. 10 meeting demanding that gay students be barred from attending the alternate dance, actually teaches special education at North Central Junior/Senior High School in nearby Farmersburg, Ind.
Among those to condemn Medley's comments was outspoken LGBT rights advocate Dan Savage, who marked that the teacher "should be fired." A petition calling for Medley's dismissal sprang up in the wake of the report and currently has over 10,000 supporters.
And the video clip to go along with the story:
And a parody:
Documentary: Intersexion.
From the CBC:
The first question any new parent asks… “Is it a boy or a girl?”
What if it’s neither? 1 in 2,000 babies is born with genitalia so ambiguous that the doctors cannot easily answer this question.
In this groundbreaking documentary, intersex individuals reveal the secrets of their unconventional lives – and how they have navigated their way through this strictly male/female world, when they fit somewhere in between.
Watch the full documentary here.
Trailer:
How to identify a gay Russian soldier.
From The St. Petersburg Times:
Sexual Orientation Of Soldiers To Be Checked By Tattoos, Says Report
MOSCOW – The Defense Ministry's central administration on work with military personnel has developed a technical guide that urges leaders of military units involved in work with the troops to check the sexual orientation of conscripts and contract soldiers entering the military, a news report said Thursday.
The new guidelines, based on a psychology textbook published by a military university in 2005, call for carrying out a physical examination and recommend checking for tattoos in intimate places on the new recruits' bodies, Izvestia reported, citing a copy of the guidelines that it obtained.
Special attention is recommended for tattoos near the face, sexual organs and buttocks, as the author believes that such tattoos reveal possible sexual deviations.
"The reason for getting tattoos could indicate a low cultural or educational level. If an influence by external factors is determined, for example, persuasion or direct coercion, this indicates the malleability of the young man, his disposition to submit to another's will," the text says.
The guidelines also include a wide range of warning signs indicative of mental instability, including early sexual experience and 'uncontrolled sexual behavior,' both of which are included in the same category as alcohol abuse, running away from home, suicidal tendencies and theft.
Read the rest here.
"Her labia lives...in a JAR."
Plastic Wives, an upcoming show on TLC, has been getting a lot of (negative) buzz. Here's the first episode:
Mini documentary: Gospel of Intolerance.
I've posted several times before about the plight of the LGBT in Uganda: here, here, here, here, and here. A new documentary about Uganda from the New York Times:
Raised in Pennsylvania, I grew up in the black church. My father was a religious leader in the community, and my sister is a pastor. I went to church every Sunday and sang in the choir. But for all that the church gave me — for all that it represented belonging, love and community — it also shut its doors to me as a gay person. That experience left me with the lifelong desire to explore the power of religion to transform lives or destroy them. I became interested in Uganda, an intensely religious country that attracts many American missionaries and much funding from United States faith-based organizations. The American evangelical movement in Africa does valuable work in helping the poor. But as you’ll see in this Op-Doc video, some of their efforts and money feed a dangerous ideology that seeks to demonize L.G.B.T. people and intensifies religious rhetoric until it results in violence. It is important for American congregations to hold their churches accountable for what their money does in Africa.
Oprah and the foreskin cream debacle.
From 24hrs:
Oprah faces protest for using wrinkle cream made with foreskin
She wrangled the truth out of Lance Armstrong about using performance-enhancing drugs but a Vancouver group wants Oprah Winfrey to explain why she has endorsed an anti-wrinkle cream made with human foreskins.
Winfrey, who rose from poverty to own her own television network, will make her first appearance in Vancouver on Thursday before a sold-out crowd at Rogers Arena, with fans paying up to $350 a ticket for a chance to see the TV mega-host live.
But as the crowds pack into the stadium, Glen Callender, founder of the Canadian Foreskin Awareness Project, will be outside with his supporters protesting Winfrey's support of SkinMedica.
Callender says it’s hypocritical of Winfrey to speak out against female genital mutilation, while at the same time saying it’s all right to rub on a face cream made from foreskins from circumcised infant males.
“Imagine how Oprah would respond if a skin cream for men went on the market that was made from parts of the genitalia of little girls,” Callender said. “That would be an outrage and rightly so.”
Callender expects “a dozen to two dozen people” to attend the protest.
Advertisements for SkinMedica say Winfrey has described the product as her “magic fountain of youth and miracle wrinkle solution.” Winfrey didn’t immediately respond to an email asking for comment, but her website recommends the product to deal with wrinkles.
The makers of SkinMedica have said to make their cream they use foreskin fibroblast — a piece of human skin used as a culture to grow other skin or cells.
“I would like Oprah to come to her senses and realize that all children have a fundamental human right to keep all their genitalia and to decide for themselves if anything gets cut off,” Callender said Wednesday.
Callender describes the Foreskin Awareness Project as Canada's “feistiest pro-foreskin advocacy group” with the goal of “foreskin education and appreciation.”
“We’re not an anti-circumcision group,” he said. “What we are against is circumcision being forced on people without their consent.”
And the results from a poll at the bottom of the article:
The foreskin factor.
From the Tyee:
Foreskin Facecream
And it's not the only body part on the chopping block for vanity. Ethical?
In an article for The Tyee, Dr. Paul Tinari estimated that a single male foreskin can be worth upwards of $100,000. He argued that men who are circumcised have a right to the revenue made off the resale of their foreskins (just as someone who sells their hair for wigs would, for example).
But that's not the only issue in the debate over how people use and profit from foreskins. Many people are challenging the ethics and medical necessity of male circumcision, which means that any use of the foreskins after that is also in question. Then there's the fact that foreskins aren't just being sold for the medical flesh trade; rather, they're joining a few other body parts being sold in the service of vanity. And if the ethics of using human body parts, skin and stem cells for medical research and treatments are contentious, the ethics of using them for vanity's sake is a whole other conundrum.
[...]
That's because foreskin fibroblasts are big business. A fibroblast is a piece of human skin that is used as a culture to grow other skin or cells -- like human yogurt kits. Human foreskin fibroblast is used in all kinds of medical procedures from growing skin for burn victims and for eyelid replacement, to growing skin for those with diabetic ulcers (who need replacement skin to cover ulcers that won't heal), to making creams and collagens in the cosmetics industry (yes, the product that is injected into puffy movie-starlet lips).
Foreskin-derived skin, sourced from circumcisions (now considered by many experts to be painful and also unnecessary) is still often considered the "cruelty free" alternative to testing cosmetic products on animals. One foreskin can be used for decades to produce miles of skin, much of which helps people in genuine medical need.
Read the rest, including discussions about sourcing foreskins, the ethical implications, how they're used, etc. here.
Putting AO sex ed into context.
And commentary about the absurd statements made recently by several politicians in the States:
On being a girl.
This came via Dodson and Ross; it originally came from reddit (/r/offmychest). The responses to the original post are very worth the read, too, with many women sharing their varied positive and negative experiences growing up. Click here.
I am not excusing rudeness, but here it is from the perspective of a hot young girl:
You go through your childhood without any sexual overtures being made at you (hopefully). You wear jeans with reinforced knees and hair clips. The only thing anyone expects of your looks is to wipe the ketchup off your face once in a while and maybe bathe sometimes. Life is good.
Then you hit puberty and start to sprout lumps and bumps and you have no idea what to do with any of them, but everyone is noticing and commenting and making you very very aware of them. Your clothes stop fitting, your friends are putting black goop on their eyelashes and that awful fruity lip gloss that tastes like microwaved jelly beans, and worst of all, boys are looking at you. Not just the old "ew, a girl, cooties!" looking. They are looking at your chest and your behind and everything in between. The rude ones will comment and the even ruder ones will get grabby. You feel scared and inexplicably dirty.
As you grow, those boys will get bolder and pushier. And not just boys-- men, years or even decades older than you. They will look you up and down, analyzing your body like you are a shelf in the supermarket. They yell at you from cars and construction sites and sidewalks, leer at you in class, even insult you online (TITS or GTFO anyone?). You may have your first boyfriend. If you're lucky, he won't pressure you into sex before you're ready. If you're lucky, your friends won't find out and call you a slut or a whore or God knows what else.
You keep growing. You learn caution and who to ignore. You may become a little paranoid-- that nice man behind the checkout counter, is he making small talk or flirting? Did he just look at your chest again? You remember the time you were nice to that boy in class who invited you to a party and then tried to reach up your dress. You have the sinking feeling that the way you look makes you public property, diminishing anything else you might have to offer.
And yes, some girls will get rude, or touchy, or jump to conclusions, because they have been through this so many times it has become a wall, a suit of armor, to protect themselves. Even if they have nothing to fear, they don't know you, and fear is one of the first things women are taught to carry with them. It isn't you-- it's what led up to it. Again, I don't excuse it, but do try to understand.
A message from the ladies of Cracked.
in Attitudes, Humour Etc.
NSFW language!
The world of Dr. Michael Salzhauer, plastic surgeon.
A fascinating read from the New Times Miami:
Michael Salzhauer, Miami's Wackiest Plastic Surgeon, Risks Everything for Internet Fame
It's an awkward admission to make in the midst of surgery, but Dr. Michael Salzhauer is speaking to a captive audience. His patient — a ballerina-thin young woman named Joanna Gonzalez — lies unconscious on an operating table beneath giant flood lights. A plastic tube snakes down her throat and pumps oxygen into her tiny lungs. Her face has been smeared with iodine, leaving her looking like an Oompa Loompa.
Besides, Salzhauer's first nose job was more than ten years and 10,000 patients ago. Since then, he's augmented, reduced, reshaped, or rebuilt body parts for famous actors and aspiring models, porn stars and professional athletes' wives. His rhinoplasties, in particular, are so good he has been dubbed Miami's "Dr. Schnoz." Salzhauer wears the moniker like a heavyweight title belt.
[...]
Trading free plastic surgery for publicity might sound sketchy, but it's Salzhauer's specialty. In the past four years, he's racked up more controversies than Lindsay Lohan. When he wrote a children's book about plastic surgery, parents cried foul. When he held a runway show for his patients, critics were aghast. And when he created an iPhone app so people could envisage themselves after a nip or a tuck, critics flipped out.
Then, in February, he reached new heights of flagrancy by commissioning a music video called "Jewcan Sam, a Nose Job Love Song," featuring a Jewish teenager trying to impress a girl by getting nasal surgery. The video went viral, but so did the outrage. The Anti Defamation League accused him of exploiting Jewish stereotypes. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) launched an investigation.
For many, the video made Salzhauer into a pantomimic villain: the flashy, heartless, obscenely wealthy Miami plastic surgeon. Salzhauer hardly tried to counter the image. Instead of backing off, he's doubled down with increasingly outrageous videos, openly pushing for ever younger patients to go under the knife.
But in a city of contradictions, he's a much more complex man than the character portrayed on YouTube. Behind the persona is a deep personal belief that plastic surgery is an answer to teen bullying, a key to adult happiness — even a divine calling. Spend an hour with Dr. Schnoz, and you'll begin to believe in him. Spend a day with him, and you'll be a convert. After a week, your new best friend will be shooting Botox into your forehead.
[...]
The television show is a welcome distraction for Salzhauer, who for the past month has taken a beating in the media for his "Jewcan Sam" stunt. The idea struck Salzhauer at a party. He found himself sitting next to the producer for a group of Jewish punk rockers from New York called the Groggers, who told him that the lead singer was from Hollywood, Florida. The next day, Salzhauer called and asked the band to write a song about nose jobs.
The result is "Jewcan Sam," which manages to insult nearly every race, color, and creed in just over five minutes. Groggers lead singer L.E. Doug Staiman plays a yarmulke-wearing high school geek with a large nose and a crush on the popular girl. When she tells him she dates only guys with "perfect" noses, he gets rhinoplasty. But even after the surgery, she still won't go out with him.
Salzhauer likes to point to the plot twist as a message that people should get cosmetic surgery only for themselves. But then there's the video's final scene, in which the nerd's hot teacher gives him her number. Score one for surgery!
The video is littered with stereotypes, including the casting of a white man in blackface as Oprah. And, originally, it offered a free nose job to whomever made the best video promoting Salzhauer's practice. The doctor called it a parody, but not everyone got the joke.
"It was distasteful and offensive," said Andrew Rosenkranz of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). "Historically, Jews have been caricatured in a negative way by showing them in cartoons with a hook nose. This video plays into that stereotype."
The ADL wasn't alone in condemning the video. After national media picked up the story, the ASPS announced it was probing whether Salzhauer had violated his pledge to "uphold the dignity and honor of the medical profession." The association threatened to kick him out.
Before Gonzalez's surgery, Salzhauer laughs off the threats. "It was pretty good marketing," he says with a shrug. "I now have people calling from literally all over the world. And CNN called me 'Dr. Schnoz, the nose king of Miami.' That's something."
[...]
My Beautiful Mommy hit bookstores on Mother's Day 2008. In bright illustrations, it tells the story of a young girl whose mother gets a tummy tuck. Dr. Michael — Salzhauer's superhero-like stand-in with broad shoulders and a square chin — also gives the mom a nose job. By the end of the book, when Mommy's bandages come off, she is a veritable cartoon cougar.
Public reaction was fast and furious. Bloggers nationwide accused Salzhauer of selling plastic surgery to little kids and, even worse, sowing inadequacy. "That's an excellent message to send to your daughter," wrote Jezebel's Jessica G. "Isn't she going to think that her nose is inadequate too?"
[...]
Instead of selling surgery to soccer moms who watch reality TV, Salzhauer is targeting teenagers who compulsively watch YouTube on cell phones. Roughly 30 percent of his patients are now under 25. He'd like to triple that number. And he says he routinely operates on kids as young as 15, in part because he believes surgery can help teens avoid years of bullying.
"Public attitude is changing," he says. "Fifty years ago, people thought braces were evil. Nowadays, if you don't fix your kids' teeth, you're considered a monster."
But Goodman points out that teenagers' faces continue to change until they are in their 20s, and that counseling is a much safer option. "This sends a very sad message," Goodman counters. "This is caving in to the very worst of adolescent peer pressure. We used to tell kids to stand up against bullies. This is telling them: 'Give into bullies, and we've got just the surgery for that.'"
Salzhauer dismisses that argument. "Some people languish in life," he says bluntly. "They never reach their full potential because they are unhappy about some part of their body. People always say character is what really counts. Yeah, right. Try telling that to the kid crying into his pillow every night."
Read the rest here - it's long, but is super captivating.
And, of course, the video that set off all the outrage:
Young evangelicals changing perspectives on sexual politics.
From Buzzfeed:
Are Young Evangelicals Sick Of Sexual Politics?“They're not interested in a spirituality that helps them become culture warriors,” says one pastor. “They want to repair the culture.”Ricky, a 21-year-old evangelical Christian college student, isn't necessarily committed to abstinence before marriage: "If two people are in love and are willing to take the next step, I believe God would approve." He respects both sides of the abortion debate, but thinks churches shouldn't have a say in the matter. And he's an enthusiastic supporter of gay marriage; he thinks Christian opposition to it will be "a black eye on our religion for decades."He may be progressive, but Ricky isn't alone. A variety of experts say young evangelicals care less and less about the issues of sexual politics — abstinence, abortion, and same-sex marriage — that their forebears brought to the center of the political conversation. And churches that keep focusing on these issues may risk becoming obsolete.A study released in December by the National Association of Evangelicals found that 44% of unmarried 18-29-year-old evangelicals had been sexually active — but the study defined "evangelical" as someone who attends church at least monthly, believes Jesus Christ is the only path to salvation, and believes the Bible "is accurate in all that it teaches," requirements that may leave out some who still consider themselves part of the group. Another study puts the figure at 80 percent. And a recent poll found that 44% of 18-29-year-old evangelicals favor same-sex marriage, lower than the national figure but much higher than their elders.Jonathan Merritt, author of A Faith of Our Own: Following Jesus Beyond the Culture Wars, sees a shift from an older ideal of virginity — where "you either had it or you didn't" — to a new ethic of purity which acknowledges that lapses may happen. And he sees a bigger change afoot: "The last generation was very focused on personal holiness. This generation also focuses on the outward expressions of the faith."
Read the rest here.
The University of Toronto Sexual Education Centre holds party at sex club.
From the Toronto Star:
University of Toronto student group hosts “epic sex club adventure”It’s being billed online as an epic student sex club adventure — and in other corners of the web, a student orgy.The University of Toronto Sexual Education Centre (SEC) is kicking off its annual Sexual Awareness Week next Monday at Oasis Aqua Lounge, a downtown club that bills itself as a water-themed adult playground, where swingers are welcome and sex is allowed everywhere but the hot tub.“U of T is holding an orgy, and you’re invited! You just need your student ID” one Reddit userposted in a University of Waterloo forum.“Our executive director made it very clear that this is not an orgy, we’re not funding an orgy,” says external education and outreach co-ordinator Dylan Tower, 22, as he sits inside the sixth-floor office of SEC. “People are allowed to have sex on premise … there is not any type of ‘You should be having sex when you’re here.’ It’s very much, come and enjoy the space, there’s no prodding or pushing in that direction.”The event begins in the daytime, and organizers are asking students to keep their clothes on until 7 p.m., when the “party becomes clothing-optional so you can get naked with all your new friends.”SEC is an affiliated levy group of the University of Toronto Students Union. Undergraduate students pay .25 cents a term for the services, and can opt out if they choose.The group’s mission is to foster a sex-positive attitude in the greater U of T area, by offering information, programming, safer-sex supplies, and peer counselling in a welcoming environment. Their sexual awareness week includes a discussion on sex positivity, an interactive sex toy demonstration and an afternoon of pornography. The first event is the party at Oasis: the organization rented the club and lowered the price to $5 a person. (Admission for couples is normally $80.)Tower said it is a safe and cheaper way to introduce curious students to the sex club scene in Toronto. The group plans to provide a “myriad of safer-sex supplies” so “everyone can be as safe as possible” and volunteers will circulate to “make sure everyone is respectful and having the best experience Oasis has to offer,” he posted online, addressing concerns.[...]When asked whether it was a U of T-sanctioned event, and whether the university had any concerns, a spokesperson responded with an emailed statement: “The University will not attempt to censor, control or interfere with any group on the basis of its philosophy, beliefs, interests or opinions expressed, unless and until these lead to activities which are illegal or which infringe the rights and freedoms.”
Read the entire article, and the raging debate in the comments section, here.
Carlin Ross on vulva.
From Dodson and Ross:
No Hair...No Lips...Just a SlitI subscribe to Playboy magazine because it is the largest sex brand in the world. People are a bit shocked to see it lying on my coffee table. I enjoy the photos of the Playboy parties, the interviews, and the political commentary. The women aren't my type but I do look at the pictorials.I'm not sure if they're trying to compete with internet porn but I noticed that they're showing alot more full on vulva than they used to in past issues. Here's the formula: not one women has pubic hair...not one woman has visible labia. They're sex organ is just a slit and they all look alike. Even their outer lips are tight and barely visible. It's like they took a barbie doll and drew a line down the middle of her crotch and voila it's a vulva. They don't look anything like the vulvas we see in the bodysex groups.Our genital art gallery features submissions of genitals from real people - it's how we combat genital shame. It used to be legal to display images of genitals that didn't include sex acts. Now, all images of genitals are considered "adult". If they're labeled "adult", then we must comply with federal statues - we have to keep a copy of each person's drivers license and a signed release proving that they're over 18.We had to take most of the gallery down. Betty was heart broken. We joined a lawsuit against the government fighting for the right to view real genitals without these images being labeled "adult". Without anonymity, no one submits to the site. The genital art gallery has been Betty's research project for the last 25 years. It may seem trivial but we believe viewing these images is a civil liberty - a fundamental right.Porn genitals have been surgically altered and bleached. The healing is looking at real images of real genitals. Betty and I have traveled the world lecturing etc and I can tell you that the number one issue is genital shame. It doesn't matter what part of the world you're in - Scandanavia, Cuba, America, Africa - everyone thinks there's something wrong with their genitals. Whenever we present Betty's vulva/penis drawings, people are healed. It really is so simple.It's totally ridiculous that we can't just look at vulvas and penises and get over it already. What's the big deal? We all have genitals...we all have sex...why not educate our children to love themselves and their bodies?I came across this video - it includes vulva respresentations in the media (every show from Dr. Phil to the Doctors). A vulva isn't a piece of chicken or a hamburger. And they just can't wait to cut off our inner labia. We have to win this lawsuit: