Sex + Sheep = Prison—Lots of Prison

Just how dangerous is a guy who had sex with a sheep?

Michigan county prosecutor John Hallacy says it’s in the same category as sexually exploiting a child or sexually assaulting an adult.

Jeffrey Haynes is already in prison (for 2½-20 years) for what state judges describe as his “abominable and detestable crime against nature.” But that isn’t enough for Hallacy, who is dismayed that Haynes doesn’t have to register as a sex offender—because his victim isn’t a human.

Haynes’ activity “exemplifies a dangerous and deviant behavior that ought to fall under the registry requirements,” says the prosecutor, who has clearly thought a great deal about sex and sheep. Or sex and this particular sheep; it isn’t clear which.

Haynes is no Boy Scout (well, perhaps he is), having previously been convicted of burglary and forgery. But he has no prior sex-related arrests. Nevertheless, a county prosecutor has decided that Haynes is so dangerous that after leaving prison he should report his whereabouts and keep away from children, parks, and churches.

Perhaps Hallacy is afraid Haynes’ “deviant behavior” will prove so intriguing to others that there will be an epidemic of sheep-sodomy. Or perhaps Hallacy doesn’t realize that his amateur psychoanalysis linking sheep sodomy with child sodomy is pathetically amateurish, verging on Entertainment Tonight gossip. And simply wrong.

Freud first mapped the defense mechanism he called “projection” in 1895—in which a person, anxious to distance himself from feelings too troubling to acknowledge, attributes those feelings to someone else. We can’t really say why Hallacy finds the (admittedly peculiar) Haynes-lambchop sex so frightening. But his determination to see Haynes as a rapist and to subject him to lifelong punishment is rather interesting.

If Hallacy wants to visit Haynes to discuss their respective sex lives, there’s no need to involve the criminal justice system. A simple invitation to coffee would probably do.

---

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

Gay High School: Bad for Gays AND Straights

Chicago school officials held a hearing last week to help determine whether or not the city will open a high school catering to gay, lesbian and transgender kids.

Those in favor argue it will reduce violence against gay teens, lowering their risk of injury, absenteeism, and substance abuse. Opponents call it a municipal endorsement of homosexuality, which they say is wrong.

Some gay advocates argue against it from a totally different direction, saying it marginalizes gay kids, making them invisible. This is really closer to the point.

The way to make gay kids safer is not by hiding them in a protected environment—it’s integrating them into the social system of their schools. When straight people have gay friends, gay kids won’t get harassed any more than their straight peers. When gay kids are known as Kevin and Maria rather than the homo dude or the lesbo chick, they’ll be tormented only as much as anyone else in their high school.

All teens need to learn empathy. That means resonating with the humanity of people who seem different from us. The rich kid might hate his face; a young woman with large breasts might feel as embarrassed as her flat-chested classmate; a kid in a wheelchair can feel horny and ignored; and a gay kid can feel overwhelmed by teasing.

Straight kids need to know more about the lives of gay kids. And gay kids need to build relationships with straight kids—since they will live in a world with mostly straight people.

Gay people don’t have a “gay problem” any more than German Jews had a “Jewish problem” or Alabama blacks had a “black problem.” Gay kids don’t need a ghetto or a plantation—they just need normal life. For better or worse, high school is the closest any 15-year-old is going to get.

---

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

Sara Palin Is Not A “Woman”

I am stunned by the number of seemingly-rational people who want to vote for Sarah Palin “because she’s a woman.” It’s about time, they say. It’ll be exciting, they say.

These people need a course in how democracy is supposed to work.

Take Iraq. Elections there are meaningless because tribal and ethnic loyalty outranks any other consideration. Given the chance to vote, Sunnis “vote” for the Sunni candidate, Shias “vote” for the Shia candidate, and so on. It’s the same in the regressive parts of the Balkans: Ethnic Albanians voting for ethnic Albanians, ethnic Serbs voting for ethnic Serbs, etc.. No consideration of candidates’ strengths or what they stand for. In such societies you don’t need an election, just a census.

The second Sarah Palin takes office, she won’t be a “woman”—she’ll be an ideology, whether it’s pro-war, anti-choice, anti-glacier, or anti-moose. She’ll be a philosophy. She’ll be beholden to her major donors. It won’t matter if she’s a woman, a man, or some other gender.

People who imagine she’ll be loyal to some concept of gender are misguided fools. There is no consensus among American women about what they want from a President, anyway. Whether it’s about abortion, education, or the right to nurse in public, American women are divided. There is no “women’s issue” on which a “woman” president can confidently depend.

The only good reason to vote for Palin is agreement with her ideas about running the country—you know, start a few holy wars, drill for more oil, and wait for the Rapture to announce who won. Voting for her because “it’s about time” a woman had a chance is like driving your car off a cliff because “it’s about time” you had some excitement.

Of course, there were plenty of people who wanted Hillary Clinton for president because she’s a woman. This was equally foolish. Clinton is no more a “woman” than Palin—her presidency would also be driven by ideology rather than ovaries, albeit a different ideology. And just as Palin’s nomination should get no cheers from people interested in peace, justice, or civil rights, Clinton’s almost-nomination shouldn’t have pleased conservatives who happen to be women.

America is in bad enough shape without using the tribal allegiances of a Kosovo, a Rwanda, Macedonia, or South Ossetia to choose our leaders. I don’t care if the finger on the nuclear button sports nail polish or calluses; I want the finger attached to someone who will defend the Constitution rather than shred it.

People who vote for a candidate’s gender, race, or ethnicity don’t understand democracy. Maybe the reason America hasn’t been able to export democracy is because we don’t have nearly enough of our own.

---

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

A Thank-You and Some Questions For Governor Palin

Dear Governor Palin:

Thank you for announcing that things have changed.

Your Republican supporters cheer your ability to work full-time despite having five children at home. And your Republican supporters celebrate your pregnant, unmarried child, and praise your support of her.

It was only weeks ago that families like yours were being described as lewd, immoral, and bad for America by millions of these same supporters.

Apparently, it’s now OK to have sex outside marriage.
And apparently, it’s now OK to get pregnant outside of marriage.
And apparently, it’s now OK for mothers of infants to work outside the home.

As you know, this represents substantial change. For years, America has suffered under the brutal Evangelical-Bush regime that condemned all sex outside of marriage, that demonized and marginalized pregnant teens, and that labeled working mothers as selfish and narcissistic.

Hearing you talk about your “wonderful,” “intelligent” daughter and her teen lover in this social-political context raises some important questions.

Since you know that many wonderful young people have sex outside marriage, why did you vote against sex education courses that would prepare them to make mature decisions about this important experience?

And since you know that many intelligent young people can get pregnant, and you say that having babies makes them “grow up faster than their parents had ever planned,” why did you vote against teaching teens about contraception, and making reproductive services available to poor people?

And since you obviously believe that mothers with babies have the right to work outside the home, why did you vote against health-care and day-care services for poor mothers?

John McCain’s representative Steve Schmidt dismisses any criticism about your circumstances as “life happens.” Conservative pundits are saying your family situation will “humanize” you and that America’s parents will “relate” to your complicated life.

Can we assume, then, that as Vice-President you will end the government’s unrelenting punishment of teen sexuality? That you will stop using federal agencies like the FDA and HHS to withhold safe medications and reproductive services from the American public? Will you discontinue support to faith-based organizations that lie to teens about the phony connections between abortion and infertility?

And since you say you support “Bristol’s decision to have her baby,” will you support the right of every other pregnant American to make her own decision about her pregnancy?

As Vice-President, will you explicitly support the needs of all American youth and their parents as they struggle with the realities of teen sexuality—or is your family’s unplanned, non-marital pregnancy the only kind of “life happens” family you can recognize?

---

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

My Topless Italian Friend—America’s Enemy?

After two days of teaching in Croatia, I’m taking a couple of days to relax in northeastern Italy before teaching in Germany and New York.

Two Italian friends took me to Grado, the seaside town that started as a maritime possession of Imperial Rome, and three centuries later gave Christianity to Venice. I was looking forward to a long walk on one of the Adriatic’s rare sandy beaches.

We drove to the shore, parked the car, and walked two minutes. Once on the sand, Marina took off her shirt. She had nothing under it. Our colleague Roberto hardly seemed to notice–but I, um, well, ah, “what are you doing?” I asked dumbly. “It’s the beach,” she replied, “if this bothers you…” Fortunately, I was able to cope.

Fortunately, because there were other topless women on the beach. Young, old, older. Tall, short, wide, very wide. Neither they nor the people with them seemed to notice, much less care. Even better, the kids around them ignored the various breasts around them, caring about much more important things like ice cream and hitting their younger brothers.

I looked at a few dozen breasts lounging, walking, and swimming around. Some were more entertaining than others, for sure. And after roughly three minutes, none were as entertaining as the conversation with Marina and Roberto about the 16th-century competition between the Hapsburg and Venetian Empires.

So without the challenge of looking down anyone’s blouse, through the armholes of tank tops, or attempting to use x-ray vision to see through sweaters, the various Italian breasts on display lost most of their sexual aura. They were as pleasant-looking as the sea and the palm trees. Nice, that’s all.

As normal as it was here in Grado, how deeply different the scene was from U.S. beaches. America’s problem starts with the belief that all female breasts are sexual (except Mother Mary’s, of course), and continues with the superstition that sexuality is dangerous for children.

At a time when American women are being prevented from breast-feeding in public, and photos of mothers and their children nude together are considered child abuse or child porn, the normal toplessness of European beaches is an affront to everything American “morality” groups believe. A field trip to Italy would open their American eyes.

I’ll tell what did keep catching my eye at the beach long after the breasts lost their novelty. The exotic sight of women’s unshaved underarms–mile after mile of them!

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, censorship, sexual rights