London Fears Pics of Really Big Ben

I generally don’t talk about repressive legislation or sexuality witchhunts in other countries, where adulterers can be stoned to death, gays can be executed, consumers of porn can lose their jobs or kids, and artists creating “blasphemous” art can be jailed.

But when our cousins across the pond threaten the fundamental rights of their citizens to own sexy pictures, we should care. Especially when their proposed laws sound very, very close to ours.

The British Parliament is set to approve a law next week that would criminalize the mere possession of images which the government deems “too extreme.” These would include images depicting acts which “threaten or appear to threaten a person’s life” and which “result in or appear to result in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals.”

You could go to jail for owning a picture of people play-acting a scene of rape.

The new law gained traction after the murder of a British woman whose killer frequented websites depicting violent sex. Members of Parliament seem uninterested in the much, much larger number of people who go to those websites without murdering anyone.

The new law will forbid couples from sharing images of themselves engaged in consensual sex if a court decides it’s too rough. As one Lord Wallace said during the bill’s debate, “If no sexual offense is being committed, it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offense for having an image of something which was not an offense.” Translation into American: this bill creates a crime out of nothing.

The prospect of a thousand-year-old democracy forbidding people from owning pictures of legal activity is extremely disturbing. What’s even more disturbing is that similar laws already exist in the U.S. (e.g., 17-year-olds having legal sex can’t own photos of their lovemaking because it’s considered child pornography)—and every year, our Justice Department attempts to criminalize larger and larger categories of pornography.

The U.S. and U.K.—two countries divided by a common language? It’s looking more like two countries united by a common fear: the fear that pictures of sex have some magical power to destroy people’s minds. London Bridge is indeed falling down—not from porn, but from the fear of porn.

Pharoah Lives—In The Hearts of Orthodox Jews

Greetings from Budapest, Hungary, where I’m lecturing for a few days. By coincidence it’s also Passover, which gave special meaning to my visit to the old Jewish Quarter here.

I toured the famous Dohany Synagogue, the second largest in the world (after New York’s), along with several smaller ones. Done in various 19th century styles, one feature common to all is the physical separation of the genders—typically men downstairs, women upstairs.

This separation continues today in modern Orthodox Judaism in America, Israel, and around the world. Some Orthodox Jewish men won’t shake hands with a woman from outside their family. Many won’t dance with any woman, not even their own wife.

In Israel, in fact, the Orthodox Jews who control key government ministries control the 2,500-year-old Wailing Wall, preventing men and women from visiting or praying together at Judaism’s holiest shrine.

Which brings us to Passover, the festive holiday that celebrates the Israelite exodus from Egyptian slavery thousands of years ago. Tradition teaches that when Pharoah became frightened about the quickly-multiplying Israelite immigrants, he enslaved them, and, to limit their fertility, moved them to segregated dormitories—forcibly separating husband and wife.

How ironic, then, that Orthodox Judiasm repeats this destructive dynamic with its enforced separation of men and women. Indeed, fundamentalist Islam does the same, while Catholicism and evangelical Christianity do it symbolically.

How can religious people believe that marriage is holy, and then deliberately limit its intimacy and shared experiences? How can any Jew believe in a God that prevents marriage partners from praying together, from sharing a spiritual moment, from feeling connected to the tradition that helps keep them together?

A God who creates men and women who desire each other’s companionship, and then forbids them from sharing it fully, is not worthy of worship. Only a human mind could imagine such cruelty.

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual intelligence, sexual censorship, sexual politics, war on sex, America’s war on sex, sexual rights, sex education, pornography

Dear Pope: Support Life, Support Masturbation

The Pope has stepped forward to talk about the pain inflicted by priests who sexually exploited young parishioners, calling it “a wound on the body of Christ.”

“No words of mine could describe the pain and harm inflicted by such abuse,” Benedict said today in Boston, vowing to eliminate such behavior from the priesthood.

This, of course, is an important step. But with all due respect to the thousands of lives damaged by molesting priests, what about the tens of millions of lives damaged by the OTHER Catholic Church sex scandal—the profound condemnation of masturbation?

This is the first sexual activity of most humans, and the primary sexual activity of most Western adults—far more than intercourse or even passionate kissing.

Despite the lack of clear Scriptural reference (masturbation appears NOWHERE in the Old Testament, and there’s one ambiguous, POSSIBLE reference in Matthew), the Church has reaffirmed and again reaffirmed the sinfulness of this sexual activity. How can that be? Masturbation does not destroy life, exploits no one, involves no adultery, expresses no “perversion.”

The Church has a lot to answer for in its handling of priests who sexualized children. But it has way, way more to answer for in its meticulous creation of guilt, shame, anxiety, and fear of Divine punishment—for the most simple, genuine, life-affirming sexual activity of all.

If the kids molested by priests are worth so many papal tears, how about the brothers, sisters, cousins, and neighbors of those kids—who, not molested by priests, are nevertheless ravaged by the Church’s inhumane condemnation of their sexuality. Every adult who started as a Catholic child faces life with this handicap.

When will the Pope—any Pope—step up and end this ongoing catastrophe?

Outraged that I would mention molestation and guilt about masturbation in the same breath? Consider the TYPICAL results of this guilt:

* sexual dysfunction (lack of desire, erection, or orgasm)
* inability to have a meaningful relationship
* feeling so dirty that you invite sexual misuse as an adult
* depression because God hates you
* bulimia and anorexia
* disgust about others’ sexuality and sexual choices
* teaching your own kids to be ashamed of their sexuality
* using violence to prove to yourself you’re a real man

Such damage is NOT trivial next to being molested—in fact, the effects are quite similar. Learning to feel guilty and disgusted over your masturbation as a child is just a different way of having your sense of self eroded, your ability to relate damaged, your access to your divine sexuality stolen.

Masturbation is life-affirming, and the Church claims it wants to affirm life. Ending priest-child sex is one step. Stopping the inhumane assault on masturbation is another.

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual intelligence, sexual censorship, sexual politics, war on sex, America’s war on sex, sexual rights, sex education, pornography

Protecting Our Sexuality, One Bad Law At A Time

With anxiety and anger about sexuality reaching a noisy crescendo, Congress members and state legislators are responding with laws that quiet the mob—laws that have little chance of surviving.

For years, Congress has passed law after law attempting to rid the internet of pornography. Texas recently passed a law requiring strip clubs to pay a special tax of $5 per head (no jokes, please).

And last week, Indiana passed a law requiring sellers of “sexually explicit” materials to register with the state and pay a $250 fee.

Every federal law censoring the internet has been halted by a court. The Texas law was overturned by a court several weeks ago. The Indiana law, you can be sure, will be overturned before Labor Day.

All because of “activist judges.” You know what an “activist judge” is—someone who decides that a law you like happens to be illegal.

Most people understand that Congress can’t pass a law reinstituting slavery—and that if it did, a court would overturn it. Similarly, a state legislature can’t authorize murder, or require all its residents to eat beef to qualify for a driver’s license.

Americans may not understand the legal technicalities preventing the passage of certain laws (even if highly popular), but they understand the general idea. We live by a set of rules—the Constitution and its Bill of Rights—that elected officials simply cannot waive.

This is all fine—until a group of people thinks they should be allowed to trample the Constitutional rules because they’re upset about sex. Sexual danger. Sexual fear. Legislators pass laws in response to SexPanics that break the larger, Constitutional rules.

When these laws are successfully challenged, counties and states face huge legal bills, and everyone’s time has been wasted. But legislators win.

“Don’t blame me,” they say, “I voted for a law you demanded that would protect our children, but those snooty judges decided you citizens couldn’t have the laws you asked us to pass. You might as well live in Russia.”

This is legislative cowardice. Most lawmakers are lawyers. They can generally guess what new laws won’t stand up. They vote for the laws anyway, watch them (predictably) get ruled unconstitutional, then blame the courts, the ACLU, and “liberal” plaintiffs (bookstores, strip clubs, a student who just wanted some birth control).

Hey Americans, democracy does NOT mean the majority can create ANY laws they want—it means they can pass any laws they want within the Constitution’s wonderful, far-sighted limits.

Americans who are too immature to understand that their fear and anxiety about sex do not suspend the rules of the game will get the lawmakers they deserve. These charlatans will pander to their fear, pretend to do something efficacious, and when it predictably fails Constitutional scrutiny, argue “hey, I tried to do what you wanted, but due to a flaw in the system, we both end up victims.”

No, judges overturning bad laws isn’t a flaw in the system; it’s the system working like it’s supposed to. The adult fruits of democracy are only for those adult enough to comfort themselves when their emotions want something their political system can’t—and shouldn’t— provide.

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual intelligence, sexual censorship, sexual politics, war on sex, America’s war on sex, sexual rights, sex education, pornography

Minnesota Justice Paralyzed By Facial

Former University of Minnesota football player Dominic Jones is accused of sexually assaulting a woman by, among other things, ejaculating on her face while she was drunk.

Despite eyewitness accounts that the woman asked to be “rained on,” the State says it must be rape because no sane, sober woman would actually consent to such a perversion.

Jones’ attorney requested I testify as an expert witness about the many ideas and practices regarding ejaculation and semen (and faces) that have developed over the centuries. The Chief Judge of the District Court approved the expenses for me to fly out.

But the State prosecutor pulled a legal technicality and challenged my expertise, and so the trial judge held a phone hearing. She was told I’d written five books about sexuality, trained almost 100,000 doctors and psychologists in sexuality, and done sex therapy and marriage counseling for about 30,000 hours.

And she turned me down. I hadn’t written any books on “facials.” I hadn’t taken any courses on “facials.” I hadn’t done any research studies of “facials.” It’s all true. Of course, no one has.

Denying my sexological expertise because I haven’t done research on facials—that’s like saying an experienced architect isn’t an expert because none of the houses she’s designed have rose bushes in the front.

But the judge didn’t stop there. She said even if I were an expert, such expertise wouldn’t be relevant to the case—that is, wouldn’t involve any special knowledge beyond what a typical jury member already knows.

In a single judicial gesture, Judge Rosenbaum dismissed an entire profession and its field of study.

Ironically, by displaying her ignorance of what sexologists know, the judge proved that the study of sexuality is indeed a technical profession beyond what lay people know.

Why would a woman invite a facial? Why would a man do it? Your honor, here’s some damned expertise:
* For safer sex
* To prevent pregnancy
* To share intimacy
* To give a partner a gift
* Because semen is considered magical
* To share a laugh
* Because someone came quicker than expected
* To experiment
* To maintain one’s “virginity”
* To mimic those hot ladies in porn

I’m annoyed that I’ve been insulted, although I don’t take it personally.

I’m appalled that justice is so hard to come by in Minnesota, where the only place a woman could ever want a man to come is inside her vagina—her special semen receptacle.

It is, of course, a lot easier to get convictions when the defendant does not get to put on a complete defense. Apparently, some Minnesota prosecutors and judges prefer it that way.

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual intelligence, sexual censorship, sexual politics, war on sex, America’s war on sex, sexual rights, sex education, pornography

It’s Women’s History Month—But Which Women?

March is Women’s History Month.

Americans don’t know much about history in general; why were Kellogg’s Corn Flakes invented? Why was J. Edgar Hoover so feared? How did contraception become criminalized in the U.S.? Why did the American Psychiatric Association remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses? And if we Remember the Alamo, shouldn’t we also Remember Stonewall, the Hays Code, and the Comstock Laws?

Anything that better acquaints us with our history—or herstory, if you will—is almost certainly a good thing. But which women’s history? Which women?

Should we study ardent supporters of church-state separation like Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or small-minded policy-makers like U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spelling, who fear that God needs the help of American law?

By “women,” do we mean Margaret Sanger, who went to jail for opening America’s first birth control clinic, or Bridget Maher (Family Research Council) and Jan LaRue (Concerned Women for America), who lie about the effectiveness of condoms and try to restrict the public’s access to birth control?

Should we know about Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon, who believed books and pictures of sexual activity were dangerous, or the ACLU’s Nadine Strossen, who has spent her adult life crusading against the censorship that inevitably hurts women and their sexuality?

Should we learn about Deb Levine, who founded ISIS to create innovative sex education internet programs for teens, or Leslie Unruh, whose Abstinence Clearinghouse lies about the consequences of teen sex, and deliberately prevents teens from getting the healthcare they need and deserve?

The truth is, we need to know about all these women. We need to know the history of how our sexuality has been stolen and re-stolen from us by frightened do-gooders, religious fundamentalists, so-called feminists who don’t trust women, and “decency” groups that try to enshrine their personal morality into law. Being female doesn’t mean that someone is a friend of sexuality.

We’re told that history is written by the winners. We need to know as much history as we can, to protect sexuality—and ourselves—from being the losers.

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual intelligence, sexual censorship, sexual politics, war on sex, America’s war on sex, sexual rights, sex education, pornography

New New York Governor & Wife: ‘We Had Affairs’ (Yawn. Yay!)

It’s a great country when a blind black man can become governor of the nation’s most important state.

And David Paterson, within hours of his inauguration, made it an even better country by discussing the extramarital sex he and his wife Michelle each had several years ago.

Their acknowledgment was elegant in its frankness, lack of apology, and limit on details. “I didn’t want to be compromised, I didn’t want to be blackmailed,” stated Paterson. He said he hoped his openness would help New Yorkers trust him and help everyone move forward to focus on governing.

What an amazing idea: a politician admitting he has a normal life—including sexual complications—and getting on with his job. “I betrayed a commitment to my wife several years ago, and I do not feel I’ve betrayed my commitment to the citizens of New York State. I haven’t broken any laws, I don’t think I’ve violated my oath of office, and I saw this as a private matter.”

This sets a new standard for political discourse:
· News media will now have to prove that a politician’s sexual behavior is actually newsworthy.
· Anti-sex “morality” groups will now have to prove that a politician’s private life has relevance to his/her qualifications.
· All this hypocritical, neo-feminist criticism of political wives who choose to publicly support unfaithful husbands (Mmes. Spitzer, McGreevy, Clinton, etc.) can now stop.

At least, that’s what should happen.

By telling the truth, the Patersons put sex right where it belongs: in the realm of other people’s private lives. Bor-ing. With Britney Spears being the most googled term for six of the last seven years, Americans need the news to be way more boring.

Yesterday, Michelle Paterson said “A marriage is going to have peaks and valleys, so I want to show my kids how to get through them and how to work through them, because no marriage is perfect.”

There is nothing more Godly, no leadership more competent, than that.

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual intelligence, sexual censorship, sexual politics, war on sex, America’s war on sex, sexual rights, sex education, pornography

20/20, Age of Consent—and Me

Last night, 20/20 did an hour on various aspects of Age of Consent laws. I’m pleased to say they really got it right.

I was on screen for almost a minute (that’s a year in TV time), pointing out how fear of sexuality is driving public policy about teens—who society trusts to drive and to work, but not to have sex. 20/20 showed the cover of my current book, with a voiceover describing the War On Sex. Very cool.

The program interviewed a number of teens who were arrested for having consenting sex with “underage” partners—that is, other teens who can’t legally consent to sex. The boys’ punishments ranged from probation to jail to lifetime registration as sex offenders.

Host John Stossel was appropriately indignant about this horrible injustice. The show gave airtime to lawmakers, the fathers of teen girls whose boyfriends had been arrested, and even vigilantes devoted to publicizing the home addresses of people busted for consenting sex with teens.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said the solution to teen sex was for people to not have sex before they marry. It’s an idea rejected by virtually all Americans (who now typically marry for the first time at 25), but various policy-makers on the show said that criminalizing sex that isn’t wise may deter a few young people from making mistakes. As for the boyfriends and fiancés who can’t get jobs or housing because they’ve been busted for sleeping with their girlfriends, one state lawmaker described that as “a necessary evil.”

That’s probably not the phrase he would use if it were his son whose life was destroyed for having sex with the girl who loved him.

ABC’s article about this is pretty thoughtful, and even quotes me with facts about how rates of rape and teen pregnancy are declining—contrary to the predictions of those terrified or enraged by the increasing sexualization of our culture.

Some say you can judge a society by how it treats animals. Maybe we should also judge a society by how it treats human beings with adult bodies acting on adult feelings in private—who happen to be under 18.

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual intelligence, sexual censorship, sexual politics, war on sex, America’s war on sex, sexual rights, sex education, pornography

Stealing Rights From the Federal Government

Most American kids grow up knowing that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the law. While the Supes take only a small number of cases each year, they provide the final possible appeal for those whose rights are stolen by local governments and corporate bullies.

While not perfect, it’s a wonderful system—which a Utah Congressman proposes to dismantle. Yes, Rep. Chris Cannon has sponsored “The Pornography Jurisdiction Limitation Act.” This would strip all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of the right to decide whether a state or local pornography law unconstitutionally limits the freedom of expression.

That’s right, this bill proposes to exempt all state (and city, county, and zoning board) laws from being challenged as unconstitutional IF the subject is pornography. To put it a different way, the federal court system could still assess whether any law in America restricts your First Amendment right to free expression—UNLESS that law refers to pornography. In which case the Podunk Township Council can kick your constitutional butt.

What threat to our Republic could possibly drive a Congressman to such extreme measures? And by what logic could a member of our federal legislature try to destroy Americans’ right to petition our own federal judiciary?

Cannon is one more guy obsessed with pornography.

This guy is so terrified—or so enraged—that he thinks it’s necessary to steal the First Amendment from America and give it to states, cities, counties, and villages. Cannon’s goal is to support local communities in banning adult entertainment—including the Vagina Monologues, Our Body Our Selves, and HBO, whenever such a ban gets five votes and the local newspaper’s endorsement.

Cannon is a member of Congress. Other members will support this bill.

Pornography IS destroying America and what it stands for. Not watching porn—hating porn.

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual intelligence, sexual censorship, sexual politics, war on sex, America’s war on sex, sexual rights, sex education, pornography

Sexual Intelligence Awards, 2008 (3)

Each year, Sexual Intelligence Awards honor individuals and organizations which challenge the sexual fear, unrealistic expectations, and government hypocrisy that undermine love, sex, and relationships—and political freedom—today.

One of this year’s recipients is Sherri Williams, Sex Toy Activist. Here’s why:

For nine years the state of Alabama has insisted that Sherri Williams is a criminal. And so she has taken the state to court over and over during those nine years. She has won a handful of times, only to have the state appeal and win a subsequent round in court.

As we have documented (SI #s 9, 33, 39, 54), Alabama has criminalized the sale of sex toys. And that’s what Williams does for a living—sell objects to adults designed to enhance their sexual pleasure. “Dangerous,” “immoral,” “obscene” objects like vibrators, dildoes, anal beads.

Last fall Williams (and a dedicated team of pro bono attorneys) asked the Supreme Court to overturn a recent, final decision affirming Alabama’s right to criminalize sex toys. When the Supreme Court declined to take the case, it looked like Williams—and five million Alabamans—had reached the end of the road. But earlier this month, a Circuit Court overturned Texas’ law banning sex toys. The case had been brought by another SI Award winner, our beloved Phil Harvey (SI #s 18, 67, 76).

This leaves Alabama holding the bag (empty, as it were) on sex toys. Most observers agree that Alabama’s law will either wither or be repealed. Either way, most people will live and die without knowing about Sherri Williams’ fight. We salute her for her commitment.

Why is the fight for sex toys important? Because anti-vibrator laws are based on the belief that the state has the right—indeed, the obligation—to patrol the “morality” and “safety” of private bedroom behavior. Such beliefs have been used to criminalize contraception, homosexuality, pornography, and sadomasochism. They can be used to criminalize anything—adultery, oral sex, premarital sex.

Any of those interest you?

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual censorship, sexual politics, sexual rights