The Morality Police are Loosing thier Power


Is it a sign that the morality police are losing their grip when Mark Sanford, former governor of South Carolina, wins his Republican congressional primary and brings his hot Argentinian mistress to the victory press conference?

Sure Silvio Berlusconi is a conservative and a hopeless lecher, but that’s in Italy not South Carolina.

I really do think it’s a sign the sexual monogamy litmus test for Republicans is fading.

Does anyone remember Barach Obama came to run virtually unopposed for US Senate because someone in Obama’s campaign uncovered a document that said that his Republican opponent had once asked his wife to go to a swing club while on a trip to Holland?   That was enough to force the Republican out of the race and give Obama a walk to the US Senate.   

Now Sanford who ran off with is mistress while Governor of South Carolina, has won a Republican primary in the heart of the Bible belt.

 Yes things are changing.

Advertisements

Of Voyeurism, Athletics and Sex


It’s Saturday morning.  I’m in my office. On the way in to school I listened to NPR as I do every morning during the 45 minute drive to my university. During the week I hear the news on Morning Edition, but on Saturday, a show called “Only a Game” airs on my local NPR station. It’s about sports. It seems incongruous to me that the NPR listeners, who ostensibly care about real things like foreign policy or social issues, care anything about Tiger Woods or the NCAA basketball tournament.  Yet, even on the venerable “All Things Considered” news show this week there has been serious discussion about the college basketball.  No it was not about, not the fact that only 67% NCAA basketball players who are provided full ride scholarships leave school with a degree or  how black players are far less likely to graduate than white players.; but on who wins a silly game.  

That got me thinking about sports fans. Sports fans simply voyeurs.  They get personal enjoyment out of watching others, with more gifts than their own, do things they would like to be able to do.  They vicariously feel the joy of victory and the misery of defeat.  

Then I began to think about how our entire society is wrapped up in voyeurism of one sort or another; and, the performers are our greatest heroes.  The piece on Tiger Wood pointed out that when Tiger wins tournaments, more people watch golf on TV and buy golf equipment.   But is not the entire entertainment industry about voyeurism. I don’t just mean reality TV and People Magazine.  But even serious drama is about imaging ourselves in the shoes of the people on the screen or stage.   When I watched Les Misérables, I identified with Valjean; but I also identified with him when I read the book in 1987 while in the Army. And did I not act as a voyeur when as a junior high student I first read Lord of the Rings?

  So, it’s not just sports and trashy reality TV, but all of literate that feeds our need to experiences life though the experiences of others.   From the days when a group of young men gathered around the fire to hear the old Viking tell tales of his exploits to the latest crazy story of Lindsey Lohan; from Hamlet to NASCAR, humans routinely gain part of their identity and their joy of life from voyeurism, vicariously getting joy from others actions.  

So, I ask, why is watching people get brain injury inducing hits playing football, or beating the snot out of a person in boxing or MMA more reputable than watching attractive people make love.    We heard basketball commentators expound over the beauty of watching Michel Jordan bounce a ball and stuff it in a hoop. No one even pretends that part of that beauty was that Jordan was the embodiment of the attractive virile male.  Yet, what would happen if I brought up in “polite” company the fact that the people at xart.com consistently produce the most beautiful images of beautiful people making love?  Well here at my university, I’d be labeled a misogynist and oppressor of women at the least. In my circle of ”Christian” friends I’d be labeled a sinful pervert.

The argument from both groups of critics would be that the models were paid to have sex which is exploitive. Yet, compare that to the fact that we pay kids with tuition to public colleges to engage in sporting activities that leave many of them with lifelong scars and permanent debilitating injuries. Just the other day I was in an eatery next to campus and three of the universities’ start football players were chatting after their meal (One was the 2011 NCAA football freshman player of the year).  The discussion was on their off season surgeries to repair damage to their joints. So, the fact these kids have paid with serious bodily injury to entertain others is OK, but for a couple to have sex to entertain is not?  What makes football more wholesome than sex? And what makes the connoisseur of golf more sophisticated than the connoisseur of erotica?

In my case, not only am I the connoisseur or erotica, I am also the artist. I am (among other things) a professional glamour/erotica photographer.  My portfolio includes stylish nudes of both professional models and everyday women, as well as beautiful artistic photos of couples making love. Showing off my portfolio at my  public university I would surely be brought up on some sort of harassment charge; however, I brought in photos  of  our college football team in the mists of violent competition, I would only get praise.

In the end we humans are all voyeurs, the only question is what to we imagine doing.  And make no mistake the things we vicariously enjoy many people try to enjoy in real life.  Remember, Tiger Woods winning drives grown men to go out and golf.

We in the US are asking why young men are going on violent rampages, perhaps it’s because we encourage them to engage in voyeuristic violence in sports, movies and other entertainments. We teach these young men vicarious joy of physically controlling and hurting other people.  While it is very infrequent that a young man guns down a group of people; it is all routine that young men to put try out modeling controlling and violent behavior on those around them.  Why do so many young men want to use physical aggression on their girlfriends? Perhaps, we have taught them to idolize the guy who is the most physically aggressive on the basketball court? 

A recent study of teenage girls found that those who watch the most reality TV come to believe that the hurtful bullying behaviors are the normal way girls interact.  What we live though our voyeurism we come to believe is normal and desirable. How did the old Viking’s tales of adventure and plunder affect the young Norse boys? Why, they sought to replicate the predations of their forefathers of course. 

The sex-negative crusaders, from the right and the left, claim that sexual imagery leads to sexual abuse.   Well, let me ask how often do you see positive loving sex between two people portrayed in movies and TV?  Compared that with how often sex shown to as a form of exploitation (i.e. using sex as a tool or weapon), or being paired with self-destructive behavior (being drunk or stoned), or illicit like (covert affairs).  See my point?

Voyeuristic enjoyment of sex is so looked down upon that portrayal of sex ends up being “justified” in almost all entertainments by being coupled to negative behaviors most of the time. Then the fact that young people link sex with negative behaviors is blamed on ….you got it the fact that sex is being shown in entertainment.

Recently two movies were sent to the MPAA for ratings. One had a woman’s breasts being violently cut off and the other had two women kissing and suckling one other’s breasts.  Guess which one got the “R” rating (which allowed for wide distribution) and which one got the “NC-17 rating” that effectively killed theatrical release.  You got it, the MPAA banned loving use of breasts and allowed the violent one.

THEREFORE:

I propose that we as a society would be better if we at least allowed (or even encouraged) the portrayal of positive, life affirming sexual behavior in our culture.  People will live voyeuristically through the actions of others. That is just a fact. People will emulate what they enjoy seeing others doing.  

Therefore positive physical portrayals of lovemaking should be readily available and to both adults and teens AND be treated as a positive experience.     I would rather teens play a virtual sex game like this www.redlightcenter.com than the violent games that dominate the market. Yet, this game is not available to teens while games like Grand Theft Auto where rape is rewarded is.

I would content that it is the very illicit nature of sexual entertainment that gives rise to the trashy nature of commercial porn and the serious exploitation that still goes on in the sex entertainment industry.

I will go one final step.  I propose there is nothing bad for children to grow up in a world where people express love and affection with their genitals.  Simple nudity and positive portrayal of sexuality should not generate a rating more than PG; however, when sexuality is linked with negative behavior, especially violence, more restrictive ratings should be imposed.  

Of the Central Role of Sexuality in US Social Inequality


 As my regular readers know, have completed my course work for my Ph.D. and am in the process of completing my dissertation in the next couples of months.  My focus of research has been the role of educational poverty in intergenerational poverty.  My dissertation proposes a radical idea, return our educational system to the enlightenment ideals of primacy of individuals reaching their full human potential. This is opposed to the current debate that pits those who believe the schools should be used to promote economic growth on one hand and those who believe the schools should be used to rearrange society based on group membership (race, language, income, gender, sexual identification…ad infinitum) to achieve uniformity. I propose both current approaches are destructive to both children and society. 

As part of my research, I have spent a great deal of time pouring over the research and statistical data dealing with intergenerational poverty. The vast majority of people who are in poverty today will not be so six months from now. However, there is a core group who are in poverty all their life, as were their mothers and grandmothers and great grandmothers.  I say grandmothers, because one of the key factors in intergenerational poverty is the lack of dads who stick around to provide financial and emotional support.  This core group of intergenerational poor is far larger in the US than it is in other industrialized nations. The question is why.

It is often discussed how bad the US educational system is so far behind the other industrialized nations, even though the US spends far more on education they most other countries. When we pull apart the data, what we find is if we statically reduce the core group of poverty were the same percentage it is in, let’s day Norway, we would find that the US has the finest educational system in the world.  The same is true in measures of infant mortality and violence and overall health. If we do not consider the disproportionate number of people who are in permanent poverty, the US stands to lead the world in most of these domains.

But of course the US lags in all those areas.  The US doesn’t have an education problem or a health crisis or gun violence problem. The US has an intergenerational poverty problem. And why is it so much worse in the US than other industrialized countries? One factor stands out in my research above all others. Sex.  OK, not really sex, but rather the rate of teen pregnancy. The rate of teen pregnancy exceeds all other advanced countries, some by as much as 700%. Compared to our Canadian neighbors to the north the US has a teen pregnancy rate 300% higher!

Why is this the cause of intergenerational poverty?  Simple.  I saw this as a social worker. I’ll anser via an illustration. An impoverished 15 year old girl has a baby. Her education is severely impacted, if not stopped. Her chances of gaining the necessary education or skills to advance out of poverty are massively reduced; the chances the father will provide long-term financial or emotional support are about zero. Her chances of having a second and third child are very high as she looks for stability in a domestic relationship and reliable birth control is difficult to come by for the poor. Each new child divides her limited financial and emotional resources into smaller parts for each child. She by her early twenties she  is stuck in a trap, overwhelmed by the demands of several growing children, yet she is just now mature enough to make long term plans, yet what plans can she make that will lift her from poverty?

I had case after case just like this. These young women enter their 20’s so far in a hole that they will struggle for a lifetime to dig out.  But, that is not the real tragedy. The real tragedy is that while this young woman was foundering, those few years, perhaps as few as five, her children were profoundly impacted by the chaos around their “child mom” trying to put her own life together. My experience, and research, says poverty in those few short years of early childhood and the attending other problems, has a lasting impact.  Among other things, her children are likely to suffer with are the same difficulty in forming stable relationships that their mother has, and like their mother, her daughters are very likely to become teen moms and to repeat the cycle.

Some of the kids will make it out of poverty; however, since the “educated class” of women are not having children until the age that the impoverished class of women are becoming grandmothers. And because the “educated class” of women are having half as many kids, we have a situation that even if half the girls born by teen mom’s do not become a teen mom themselves, the number and percent of that the population will continue to grow.  Thus the gap between the haves and have-not will continue to grow.

We will never resolve the other big social issues until we dramatically reduce our teen pregnancy rate!

Yet none of the politicians or pundits want to touch the real answers to this ever so sensitive question that crosses into issues of race, sex and religion.

Do American teens screw more often than other kids? Not really, however, the poorest children start sex very early, with age 13 becoming common. One study of urban elementary school students found 18% of 13 year old boys had already had sexual intercourse. Further, over half the boys said they expected to do so in the next year as did a quarter of the girls.  To make this all more complicated both boys and girls are reaching sexual maturity earlier and earlier.

So what should we do? Do we launch a massive “sex is bad” campaign? No. We’ve tried that and it doesn’t work. Beyond that it’s a lie, sex is not bad.  Kids see through the lie and it discredits the other things adults say about sex, like birth control and sexual safety.

Well we ask then why are girls getting pregnant in the US so often? Again the poverty issue comes up. Family warmth and school success are inversely related to very early sexual activity and high risk sexual activity and the same factors are driven up by having a mom who was a teen and poverty.  See the cycle?  Kids who can’t do anything else, can fuck, and girls who get very little positive attention know having a baby will get them lots of attention. I had a client tell me once “The only thing I know how to do good is make babies”. She was under 30 and had 5 kids to 5 different men. This points out the only issue here is not just access to birth control.

First and foremost we must undermine the sex in the closet culture. As long as teen sexuality is seen as inherently bad it will be impossible to have a meaningful impact on teen (and pre-teen) attitudes about sex.  The US is hyper sexualized on one hand, but highly puritanical on the other.  As long as depictions on TV and movies of murder are listed as OK for children under 13 with just a suggestion of parental guidance, yet a single fleeting image of an erect penis demands no child under 17 can ever see the movie, kids will continue to see sex as both dirty and desirable because it is so forbidden. Murder is not ever a part of a positive “grown-up” life, but sex is. Thus, I call for universal civic/social education in our schools, beginning at the early grades.

Sexuality is a part, but nowhere near the majority of positive social interactions; however sexual constructs, taught from the earliest years, impact all our social interactions. When I used to do lectures to parents on children and sexuality, I always said “sex education begins at birth.”  Children, not just teens, have a steady diet of TV depicting casual and very enjoyable sex, but the adults in their life never talk to them about how that fits into a healthy lifestyle.  I wish I had great sex as often as people on some of the shows targeted at teens!  So, we must present to children a whole social life landscape, including sex, of interrelated parts. By the time children are moving into sexual maturity physically (now around 13), the discussion about sex must be very direct. We should be teaching 13 year-olds that their ongoing sexual maturity is positive, but teach safe and sex positive outlets geared to self-exploration and pre-sexual behavior.  Teach how they can express sexuality in ways that do not involve other people’s genitals; focus on teaching and reinforcing what to do, not what they should not do. And, let them know the day will come that their mind as well as their body (and the law) will know it is time for full sexual relationships.

At the same time, just as getting “your shots” is a universal and normal part of growing up, we should make the implantation of an IUD (or something similar)  just a normal part of a girls first post-menarche doctor’s visit.   This does not mean they should have sex, any more than people should spend time around people with chicken pox after their vaccination.   By making it universal, it would end the idea that “oh she’s on birth control so she’s available for sex” mindset of teens.  Middle-class parents put their teen daughter’s on birth control all the time. They put their daughters on birth control so as to “regulate their period”, when in-fact that is very often a secondary consideration, or an outright cover story. Middle class, educated parents are far more likely to be proactive with their daughter’s birth control for several reasons, not the least being they don’t see their daughter being on birth control as a stigma. This disproportionate use of highly effective teen birth control by middle class teens further exacerbates the gap between the rich and poor.  It is absolutely true that poor children have more sex and earlier than do middle class kids, but their pregnancy rate is far higher than can be attributed to those factors alone. Access to convenient and effective birth control makes a huge difference in teen pregnancy rates; however, the impoverished teens that need it most, are the least likely to have ready access.   

Finally, the legal framework must be changed to remove the hodgepodge of state laws that send some people to prison for decades for doing things that are legal in the next state over.  Many of the US states already have a comprehensive 16 year old age of consent, I propose that be declared a human right and adopted nationwide. I would however, go further and clearly set into law that 16 years old is the age of sexual emancipation (adulthood). This would make it clear that their body is their own at a reasonable age. Sixteen year olds should have full guaranteed rights to make their own choices about birth control, sexual health issues and their own sexual behavior.  Further we need to de-criminalize consensual sexual behavior between kids of all ages who are age mates. Current laws simply make those 13, 14 & 15 year olds do so with no access to birth control. We know empowering teens to make their own choices leads to better choices and lower pregnancy rates (and the inverse is true as well).

Sexual emancipation of 16 year olds would also free high schools to treat upperclassmen as the full sexual adults they clearly are. As a capstone to the public school sex-positive social curriculum, for these students sexual education could and should deal with sex in more than just biological terms. It should be very explicit & visually graphic to drive the home the physical and mental health components of sex as part of their adult lives. There are “best practices” in relationships that have a sexual component, as well as factual knowledge about what to give and how to give it, they also need to know what to expect form their sexual partner. You might not know it, but real topics like this are being taught in high school today. It is a part of the AP Psychology course. I taught that course for several years, and as we used a college level introduction to psychology text, it discussed things like the sexual arousal pattern in explicit terms (and pictures). My students, as part of that chapter got several weeks of things like sexual erogenous zones of men and women and how the women have orgasm as compared to men. Once again, the poor do not usually get this class, it is rarely offered in poor schools and only the highest performing high schoolers get to take it (read that richest), but there is a president to teach this.

This blog is committed to the proposition that an open and sex-positive society is inherently a better place for eveyone.  I think this is the first time I’ve spelled out clearly how high the societal payoff is. 

Of Successfully Changings Social Norms for Sexual Freedom


sexual%20rightsI was walking between the building in which my office is housed and the Student Union and noticed a young guy smoking between the buildings.

Smoking on a college campus when I began college in 1981 was nothing of note, and a generation before that it was the rule.  But even here in the deep-south, smoking is so rare as to get my attention.  After thinking about it I could not remember ever seeing a student smoking since I began this program nearly 2 years ago.

In terms of social norms, 25 years is not a long time, even 50 years is barely consequential, yet, tobacco use has gone from being ubiquitous to so rare it garners attention. A steady progression of social norms has remade how Tabaco use is perceived.

At the university at which I both work and attend, students of African heritage were not allowed to attend until 1963. A short 50 years ago. Yet today one would be hard pressed to find anyone on this campus who would suggest that segregation was anything less than unmitigated evil;  again a complete transition from one norm of right and normal to another.

When my mother went to college in the 1950’s “moral” character (a euphemism for sexual abstinence) was expected as a prerequisite for both attendance at the college and for gaining employment after graduation.  As late as the mid 1980’s courts were upholding moral (sexual) rules on female teacher’s in their private life.  Pregnancy out of marriage was the end of a teaching career as was “a public reputation of moral turpitude”

Today, public school’s moral codes are exclusively tied to issues of criminal activity, academic ethics and sexual contact with students.   Even in the rural southern school district where I worked prior to this year I had a friend who was an unmarried female kindergarten teacher have a baby and then return after her maternity leave.  This would not have happened a generation ago.

And certainly one can look to the normalization of same-sex relationships as a sea change in cultural norms. US society has come thought the phase of tolerating these relationships to treating them as normal in most of society (under age 50 or so). National legalization of same sex marriage is only a matter of time, currently within the next decade or so.

What’s the point?

I began blogging for three reasons. One was to help me organize my thoughts in a coherent form, and writing makes me do so, a public journal of sorts. The second was to provide myself with a soap box for the oft neglected moderate position in the public sphere.  It has been said that traditional liberalism is all but dead in the US and has been since the mid 1970’s.   I contend most Americans believe in the enlightenment vision of political liberalism espoused by Locke, Rousseau and Jefferson, and so I try to voice those views. And finally I sought to preach the gospel of what I call “The Final Freedom”.

I believe that freedom to express ones sexuality is basic to ones humanity that all other freedoms that it deserves a place right next to freedom of conscience and religion.  The final freedom refers to the right to express ones sexual nature openly in the community. The GLBT community pushes this for their members; however, even if they are successful, that still leaves around 95% of the population in the closet, forced to hide their sexuality in private.  Would it be freedom of speech if you could say whatever you wanted, but only in the privacy of a closed room? No it would not. Would it be freedom of religion if I could not ever talk about it or express my religious life in public? No it would not.  Similarly, we do not have freedom of sexual expression while it is shuttered behind closed doors.

Nudity and consensual sexual activities are more prevent in the media than ever; however, it is still ghettoized and kept safely behind the screen. In a truly free society our bodies and our sexuality is only limited by our infringement on others; and just being in someone’s sight is not infringing on their liberty.

No one claims the right to demand a freedom from seeing others joyful, silly, or even rude in public by banning such behavior to one’s home.  Just because someone’s behavior makes me uncomfortable about myself or violates my personal moral code, does not inherently give me the right to stop their behavior. I don’t automatically have the right to demand they “get a room” to do what annoys me in some other place.

If they are naked or engaged in sexual behavior in a closed environment where the passage of pathogens is likely, then the society has a just reason to act to ensure public health. However; that is not the case with current societal restrictions on nudity and sexual expression.

There are powerful forces on both the right and left who collude to prevent sexual freedoms, but I believe that if the vast center had the courage to stand up and challenge the extremists this freedom is possible.

This is an interesting video, by a George Mason Law School expressing the horror that sexuality and sexual expression is considered a human right. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wlXUSfkwcY She is openly espousing the Catholic position that sex should not be about self-actualization, but solely about procreation and that birth control is evil because it separates sex and babies.   Sexualityism is the word now given to this concept and a search on the word clearly shows this concept has strong support in the Catholic press.

I however, do not believe such a position is where most Americans live.  Most Americans, even religious Americans, even Catholic Americans, see sexuality as a intrinsic part of their everyday life and have sex to make children is the very rare exception. That is the true mainstream, or center,  of American culture. However, I think that many people who live their lives in this manner are easily bullied by powerful figures into publicly espousing something different than what they actually do.

Thus we find many, many people who would like to live their sexuality openly and honestly, live a life of secrecy and hypocrisy.  They do not do this willingly, but do so out of fear of being attacked, and being attached will find no allies because their friends and allies are also afraid of being “outed”.

Thus the minority of true believers in the sex-negative position, act as a kind of mafia, using fear to keep the majority silent. Why were the moral white people of the south not coming to the aid of the civil rights movement? They saw the blood on the faces of the white kids who marched. They knew they would be outcasts if they acted on their convictions. Just like we see on the news how people’s lives are destroyed by a leaked nude photo or do you recall how a young Barach Obama ran virtually unopposed for the US Senate after someone leaked that his opponent had once suggested to his ex-wife they go to a sex club in Holland?  The mere suggestion of attending a sex club ended that man’s political career.  So, yes, the sex-negative forces are powerful, but their power only comes from the majority who live sex-positive, but publicly espouse sex-negative.

Thus we, the majority, must provide one another the mutual support and defense so that we might all own our true beliefs in the face of the threats.

I also believe that we in the majority must make ourselves as accepting of other’s sexuality as we are of our own.  It is too easy to define “normal” sexual behavior by what I do (or what the media presents as normal), but human sexual expression is a broad canvas and as with freedom of religion or speech, my freedom to do what I think is normal and right is contingent on my willingness to defend my neighbor’s freedom to practice what he/she believes is normal or right.

I write this to suggest that over the next 50 years, societal change of the magnitude we have seen in smoking or race relations is entirely possible in the arena of sexual freedom. It is just a question of when will we begin the journey and who will lead?

My hope would be someone who reads this little blog of mine will take up the cause of the Final Freedom.

Of Our Sex Negative World


Note: I’m posting this to coincide with the prior link.

Conventional wisdom would say that the world is on a path toward ever greater sexual liberation.  One would look at the acceptance of homosexuality and the sexual relations between unmarried people, and that conclusion would appear warranted. However, if one looks closer, one will see that we are still a long way from real sexual liberation.

I recently did a little research into the current literature being published on topic of human sexuality. I was a bit surprised that, with the notable exception of male homosexuals, the currently academia sees sexuality in a very negative light.  As I reviewed the literature, I found that sex, particularly recreational sex, was inevitably linked with drug use, exportation and disease.  I could not find a single recent study that linked recreational sex with any positive trait.  Why? Because the researcher’s weren’t looking for it!  All of these studies all started with the premise of ‘what are the bad effects of sex for fun?’

The current literature on pornography was mixed, especially noteworthy that those with a more positive view of porn were written in the Scandinavian countries, while those from the US were more negative (surprise, surprise).  The majority of the research into porn was dealing with links between violence and child sexual abuse.  It is good that at least there were a few studies that considered positive outcomes, but on the whole porn is still approached with hostility in the academic community.

The books were even aggressively anti sex and anti porn, though the number of volumes taking a positive view of homosexual activities far outnumbered those dealing positively with non-monogamous heterosexual activities. Why is it that when 90% of the US population say they are exclusively heterosexual (though there is some good research that suggests that far more adults do have occasional same sex contact than is reported in surveys).   The point is that while the sex-positives have been focusing on the effort to legitimize homosexual relationships and sexual activity, the sex-negative forces have moved in to delegitimize recreational heterosexual relationships. Thus the well justified drive to ensure homo-sexual rights has eclipsed the larger drive for “sexual-rights”.  In the end, unless the basic principle of sexual rights for all is successfully defended, the successes of GLBT rights will be short lived.

Who are the anti-sex forces and why are they trying turning back the clock to sexual liberation?

The most obvious group is the religious right.  They have been sex negative for 1,700 years.  There opposition is to be expected. The worldwide cabal of Christian and Muslim sex-negative clerics have backed up by use of force over the past millennium and a half their very narrow view of human sexuality. They have effectively created a worldwide norm of sex negativity. However, this group does not control academia. This group is not capable of maintaining the current sex-negative environment in an increasingly secular world. They certainly aren’t’ the ones behind the move in the EU to censor the net to eliminate erotic images.   

The real force behind the current sex negative movement is an unholy alliance between the religious right and secular left. More particularly they, the religious forces have allied with  followers of critical feminist theory.  These new sex-negatives, who are significantly overrepresented in academia and the news media, are the new “Anti-sex League”. These ideologues are waging a holy war on recreational heterosexual and bi-sexual sex and its pornographic cousin.   This movement could also be correctly called one of Marxist-Feminism, which should not be confused with mainstream feminism.  They have simply replaced the capitalist as the center of world oppression to men being the great oppressor.  Men, in their view are in a constant battle to oppress and harm women and heterosexual sex is a violent act of conquest of the female.  It is from this group you hear the idea that all heterosexual sex is rape and marriage is prostitution.  They don’t object to any form of male-male sex because that is just the act of one oppressor fucking another oppressor.  Hence, there is an acceptance of BDSM homosexual behaviors that they rapidly condemn in heterosexual or bi-sexual liaisons.   

It has been correctly said that the far right and the far left have far more in common than they have differences.  Here the Christian and Muslim fundamentalists have a common goal with the Marxists to control the sexual behavior of everyone.  They both believe they are the moral guardians of all the rest of us.  Neither group is nearly as committed to personal freedom as they are to their ideology and their need to stamp out dissent.   Both groups are highly sex negative. Both groups define “moral sex” as their own and “immoral sex” as everyone else’s.

I work at a major university and the climate of fear for saying the wrong thing about sex or sexuality is as real here as it was when I went to a Christian fundamentalist University twenty five years ago.

It is sad but clearly true.

MEPs to vote on EU ‘ban on all forms of pornography’


MEPs to vote on EU ‘ban on all forms of pornography’

Well, the anti-sex, anti-liberty forces are alive and well.

This chilling article not only cites EU efforts to censor ….well everything, the article also cites an EU call for curbs on press freedom when such liberty is deemed to be bad for society. 

The article cites that Iceland, under the guise of protecting women and children is considering importing Chinese style government internet filtering.

Make no mistake about it. The forces of Marxian totalitarianism are once more on the move and to efforts to control all thought and behavior did not go away when the Berlin wall fell.  Here at a my   university in the deep south of the US, I was taught in an international development course that individual human rights are a hindrance to progress and explicitly that the people in China can’t have full civil rights because there are just too many of them.  In a politics in education course I was explicitly told that the US Constitution’s grantee of individual rights of speech and assembly should be abolished so that the greater good can be accomplished. The forces of totalitarianism, “for the greater good” have many allies here in the US.

Don’t think for a second that this is all so removed your world. A stand against censorship and the erosion of individual rights must be taken by every generation lest it become the last to have such rights.