Sexual Highs & Lows of 2012

As is true every year, 2012 had its ups and downs regarding the public policy aspects of sexuality—this year, perhaps, more than many. Sadly, in 2012 it wasn’t simply diverging opinions that made the news—it was extraordinary ignorance and rejection of science. In a country where more people believe in the Rapture than in Evolution, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised.

* Science affirms: porn actresses not traumatized
For years the myth of porn actresses as damaged goods has persisted: these women must be victims of horrible sexual trauma—how else could we account for their willingness to undress and have sex on camera? Research published in the Journal of Sex Research now affirms that these women are just like other women of similar age and background—except they started sex earlier, had more partners, and were more spiritual.

* Contraception is covered under Affordable Care Act
Contraception is now included under America’s new health care system. That is, when an employer offers health insurance as an employee benefit, that insurance has to include contraception.
The faux horror of religious groups about this shows how little they respect or trust the faith of their flock. Since no one is forced to use contraception, the Church has nothing to lose by its inclusion in health insurance. Unless, of course, Christian women choose to disobey their faith leaders and choose to regulate their fertility like responsible adults.
If there were a heaven, Thomas Jefferson would no doubt be smiling at the reinforcement of Church-State separation this insurance regulation represents. Of course, he’d be shocked that there is a heaven.

* LA voters pass mandatory condoms for porn shoots
Los Angeles County voters passed Measure B, mandating that porn shoots require condoms for anal and vaginal sex. The real story is how this proposition got onto the ballot—via a coalition of anti-porn groups that lied about a non-existent problem and a non-existent concern for performers.
Porn producers could be expected to oppose the measure, but the fact that performers were almost universally against it says it all. With a strict industry-sponsored testing program in place, there has been only one case of HIV attributable to heterosexual on-set sex. Measure B was a solution looking for a problem. If instituted, all it will do is drive porn production out of California and into Nevada.
And it won’t change the fact that you’re safer having unprotected sex with a porn star (who’s getting tested monthly as a condition of employment) than you are having sex with a stranger you meet in a local bar.
The measure would create a new layer of government bureaucracy, as sets are inspected and porn producers take mandatory blood-borne-pathogen training courses. For women who squirt or men who climax unexpectedly, guess we’ll call EMTs and first responders pre-premature ejaculators.

* 43 new state restrictions on abortion
The good news: U.S. states passed half as many restrictions on abortion in 2012 as they did in 2011. The bad news: with 2011 restrictions all in place, those 43 restrictions are still the second highest number ever. Literally hundreds of restrictions are in place across the country.
Eight states now require vaginal ultrasounds prior to abortion. That’s a doctor forcing a medical instrument into a (frequently) unwilling patient’s vagina, and requiring her to look at pictures she doesn’t want to see, so she can earn the privilege of a safe, legal medical procedure. If Iran or Russia did that we’d call it barbaric. And we’d be right.
No laws were enacted in 2012 to facilitate access to safe abortion.

* Scientists encourage birth control and Plan B
In contrast to the U.S. Congress, the American College of Obstetricians decided that women have a functioning brain, and could handle birth control pills without the blessing of a doctor. Perhaps they were looking at the dozens of scientific studies showing that illness, injury, and deaths from oral contraceptives are dramatically lower than illness, injury, and deaths from childbirth.
Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics showed itself wiser than America’s politicians (and fear-mongering morality groups) by recommending that Emergency Contraception be available for teens. Since hundreds of thousands of unmarried American women become unintentionally pregnant each year, it’s logical and humane to make a safe drug available to them to prevent that pregnancy. The pills ought to live in every fertile, sexually active person’s home. Anyone with moral objections to little Sally using the damn pills should make birth control free—and stigma-free.

* 50 Shades Of Gray conquers the United States
The good news: this bag of words has shy people talking about sex, tittering about (and even exploring) bondage. The bad news: the book is fiction, not a documentary, so it presents a caricature of bondage, leaving out most of what it’s really about.
The really bad news: this collection of syllables sold more copies last year than all of my books combined since 1988.

* General Petraeus loses job because of infidelity
Arguably one of the most important generals of the century, he lost his job because he had an extramarital affair—which is a violation of America’s military code. Come on, that simplistic bugaboo “risk of blackmail” is so 1950s. Let’s call this regulation what it is: a cruel intrusion into soldiers’ private lives that is irrelevant to their fitness for duty. The Taliban has taken over nuclear-armed Pakistan, China is taking over the Indian Ocean, and we’re worried about where a general puts his penis? That’s not West Point, that’s Keystone Kops.
At the moment, single people are obviously a better investment as career soldiers. In fact, gays serving openly should learn from this: if you want a military career, don’t marry.

* GOP reveals massive ignorance of female reproductive system
“Legitimate rape?” Ovaries knowing the difference between welcome sperm and unwelcome sperm? “Some girls rape easy”? A Florida bill permitting hospitals to refuse emergency care to some women on religious grounds?
As the 2012 presidential and congressional elections peaked, an amazing number of Republican politicians revealed their ignorance (and hatred) of the female body. The most disgusting include Missouri Congressman Todd Akin, Indiana Congressional candidate Richard Mourdock, Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith, Iowa Congressman Steve King, and Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh. They would flunk a high school bio class, and be blackballed at the junior prom.

* Akin, Mourdock, Smith, and Walsh lose their election
As a bonus, Ann Romney, who said that contraception was not an important election issue to women (after her husband and her party made it one), also lost. If, according to Mourdock, a raped woman’s pregnancy is “God’s gift,” at least this horrifying deity gave us Romney’s loss as well.

Philip Roth Retires, Undefeated

After 31 novels, Philip Roth has announced his retirement.

With all due respect to the person who channeled Fifty Shades of Grey, Roth is America’s greatest sex writer.

He covered sexuality in almost all its manifestations. The masturbation in Portnoy’s Complaint made him a household name. A quarter-century later, Sabbath’s Theater brought us an old man masturbating over his dead lover’s grave.

The Breast parodied men’s obsession by bringing us a man turned into a giant mammary. More seriously, Deception used a brilliant device to examine an equally common obsession. In it, a novelist’s wife discovers the diary in which he describes his affair—no, he says, it’s notes for his next novel, about a novelist who has an affair.

In book after book, Roth examined longing—not the romantic, wonderfully melancholy version of second-rate novels, but the longing that erodes self-respect, that creates resentment (at both self and other), that challenges self-image. Over and over, Roth examined a particularly cruel version of longing: older men needing younger women, even while they know that day by day, they have less and less to offer their would-be lovers.

Roth talked about sex as it really is for people—messy, irrational, loaded with contradictory feelings and needs. He described the kinds of arousal that “normal” people are not supposed to feel: over sniffing used panties, over hearing about one’s lover’s lovers. He knew “normal” sexual sadism inside and out. When Mickey Sabbath’s lover of 13 years suddenly insists he become monogamous with her, he insists she start sleeping with her husband—an equally repulsive and ridiculous demand.

Perhaps most impressively, Roth wrote unblinkingly about the ways people use sex to distance death. “With the lover, everyday life recedes,” he writes in Deception. As I often see with my patients, many of Roth’s characters pursue sex not primarily for its pleasure, but to push away loneliness, to feel youthful or special, to remember who they are in the unrelenting face of a pitiless aging process.

Because Roth didn’t write about every sexual perspective equally, he was sometimes branded a male chauvinist. That’s like criticizing Shakespeare for not writing chamber music, or the Rolling Stones for not writing, well, chamber music. Let genius do what it will do.

Yesterday was World AIDS Day, and the National Football League proudly showed its support by weakly urging viewers to…“get more information.” Apparently, our great nation is not prepared to hear the word “condom” even on World AIDS Day. Roth did not respect any such taboos, and for this we are the richer. His complete disrespect for propriety has been honored with the Pulitzer Prize, National Book Award (twice), and Man Booker Prize.

He also received the first Sexual Intelligence Award in 2001.

It was an easy call.

Sex in Hong Kong

I’m finishing up a week in Hong Kong, training psychologists and sex education teachers.

In some ways, Hong Kong is similar to India—part Asian, part Western/British. They drive on the left here, almost everyone speaks English, and the street names recall Queen Victoria, Prince Albert, the Duke of Connaught, the Prince of Wales, and other colonial icons.

Of course, Hong Kong is now part of the People’s Republic of China, which gives every historical reference, every financial transaction, and every conversation about media, culture, or the internet an added frisson. Hong Kongers are proud but practical, independent but not stupid. Both China and the locals want to keep the money spigot wide open, but conflict between the systems is inevitable, especially when Hong Kong is completely interdependent with capitalist troublemakers in Europe, America, and Japan.

When it comes to sexuality, Hong Kong is interesting, even unique in some ways. Just a few notes:

* Prostitution here is legal. But brothels are illegal, as is pimping. And so sex workers aren’t supposed to advertise. The city features “love hotels” that rent by the hour.

* The age of consent here is 16. This has lots of implications, because developmentally, most people are quite different at 16 than they are at 18. China’s age of consent is 18, and so some men who cross the border for business or tourism pursue these younger sex workers.

* One kind of sex work that has gotten lots of attention lately is “compensated dating.” This involves teens (usually, but not always, girls) going on “dates” with men they pick up in certain neighborhoods, generally involving a meal, perhaps shopping, and often some kind of sex—discretely followed by a gift or more shopping. The kids often say they do it because they need the cash to keep up with their peers’ high tech gadgets. And they loudly proclaim that it’s not prostitution because the sex is supposedly optional, which they can turn down any time for any reason.

Veteran sexologist Dr. Angela Ng says this is a growing phenomenon, and that some of these kids inevitably get involved in other risky behaviors.

* As in China, there are virtually no displays of sexy affection in public. Parents and grandparents fuss endlessly with small children in strollers on every street in the city, but parents rarely touch teens in public, and never touch each other—in restaurants, streetcars, streetcorners, even cars. One therapist in my seminar asked rhetorically, “how can couples expect to be comfortable with physical intimacy when they have so little practice?”

* Girlie bars: very big here. I strolled down Lockhart Road one night, which is like San Francisco’s Tenderloin District in its heyday—on steroids. I passed bar after bar after bar, each one with a bikini-clad 22-year-old and an old mama-san sitting out front. Occasionally one of them would grab my elbow and urge me to come through the red velvet curtain to sample the wondrous young women (and even more wondrously-priced drinks). As with many local businesses, each proprietor burned incense and fake paper money in front of their entrance to bring good luck.

* Massage parlors: very big here. A big part of the male-oriented business culture.

* Sex education: Program content and teacher training are decided on a school-by-school basis, which leads to a chaotic heterogeneity. I lectured an audience composed of teachers, government officials, family planning staff, and other professionals. I talked about the specifics of the most effective American programs, as well as the features of the worst programs. I also talked about parents’ anxiety, and—most importantly—the needs of young people. Those in attendance were very appreciative of the nuts and bolts of my talk.

Dr. Susan Fan of the Hong Kong Family Planning Association asked if I thought homosexuality should be discussed in sex education class. “Actually, no,” I said. “Sex ed programs should discuss sexual diversity, which includes sexual orientation, sexual identity, and confusing fantasies, along with homosexuality and same-gender experimentation.” Putting homosexuality in this sort of context makes it more understandable for kids, as well as making programs less vulnerable to religious attacks.

* Premarital sex: Frowned upon, but not rare. On the other hand, young people here start sex later than kids in the West do, and they have fewer partners before marriage. As in many places around the world, teen girls and young women here wear short skirts and high heels—but, unlike in the West, this isn’t considered a sexual statement or invitation.

In Hong Kong, it can be hard to tell the virgins from the hookers. What a perfect metaphor for this complex, fascinating place.

General Petraeus Resigns, Casualty of War on Sex

General David Petraeus resigned as head of the CIA today. He said it was because he had engaged in an extramarital affair.

America’s leaders quickly announced how regretful they were, and what a big loss the country had just suffered. President Obama said that “through his lifetime of service, David Petraeus has made our country safer and stronger.”

Senator John McCain, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called Petraeus one of “America’s greatest military heroes.” Senator Dianne Feinstein, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said “I wish President Obama had not accepted this resignation…I would have stood up for him, I wanted him to continue.”

Currently, adultery is against military regulations if the conduct is shown to be detrimental to, or brings discredit upon, the armed forces. Such a subjective standard is easily used to punish or exonerate; typically, it’s to punish. In fact, other federal agencies forbid adultery as well. The State Department recently added adultery to its list of banned activities. Yes, you could lose your job as a translator, teacher, or construction worker if you break your marital vows.

So given his obvious breach of military rules, why didn’t America’s leaders want Petraeus to resign? And if this is simply a familiar (if spectacular) case of a good man who made a mistake, why not change the rules for mere mortals?

Historically, the justification for the regulations was blackmail: “Give us America’s nuclear secrets or we tell your wife about your girlfriend.” But once someone outs himself, that possibility vanishes. And remember, that was the argument against allowing homosexuals in government or the military.

In fact, it’s against military regulations to have a consensual open marriage. And in that case—since there’s no marital secret—there’s no more risk of blackmail than there is for any other secret: My father was a bookie. My grandmother is a whore. My brother can’t read. My sister voted for George Bush. Whatever.

The idea that infidelity indicates a special character weakness is old-fashioned, unscientific, and moralistic in the extreme. Concepts like this are a poor way to run a country. But even if you believe that the maritally unfaithful can’t be trusted to execute important civic responsibilities, what about consensual non-monogamy? There’s no betrayal, so there is no character flaw. And with no chance for blackmail, how can we justify regulations against it?

Oh, you’re a soldier or a spy and you’re single? Do what you want, as long as it’s consensual. But note that the State Department is more stringent. They can fire you for “engaging in public or promiscuous sexual relations.” “Public,” “promiscuous”—that’s nice and vague.

So if you’re going to join the Army or the CIA, don’t marry. If you already are, get divorced. You wouldn’t want to lose your job over a private, non-job mistake.

Some day, the idea that you could get bounced from the military because of infidelity will seem as destructive as the idea that you could get bounced from the military because of homosexuality.

Shame on America. The greatest military power on earth, and we’re afraid of sex.

Pity The Virgins: Wedding Night Blues

Say there are 50 million weddings a year around the globe. I figure about 85% of those wedding couples contain at least one virgin. At least half of them have two virgins.

I saw one of those couples today in therapy. Mr. A and Ms. B have been married twenty years; when they wed she was a virgin, while he had had intercourse a few brief times with someone else. Their wedding night was an unconsummated mess, resulting in tears and confusion. Several days later, on their honeymoon, they tried again—“and we failed again,” Mr. A recalled. Her vagina didn’t get wet enough, he couldn’t get his penis in, and he soon lost his erection. They each took turns blaming themselves; the next morning they took turns blaming each other.

For years, sex was an infrequent, discouraging hassle. Now they can’t remember the last time they did it.

They revealed a variety of reasons besides the wedding night disaster. Years ago she refused to let his friend’s son stay in their home during semester break; he was distant and cold during her subsequent miscarriage; she was bitter rather than supportive when he lost his job; his new job required travelling to India, and he started to get massages there with “happy endings.” She was crushed when she found out, and brought them to my office.

But no matter what we talked about, it seemed we periodically returned to their unhappy wedding night. “I didn’t know what to do,” Ms. B acknowledged. “I expected him to lead, to guide, to explain. When he couldn’t, I felt abandoned.” “Yes, replied Mr. A, “all the pressure was on me, and when things went wrong, you made it clear it was my problem to figure out. And I couldn’t.” Neither of them has forgiven the other. I don’t think they’ve forgiven themselves, either.

It’s too easy to say they got off to a bad start and never recovered, although it’s true. Their personalities weren’t a very good match, and their sexual visions were mismatched, too. She imagined a gentle, kind, knowledgeable but wholesome man; he imagined a sexy, enthusiastic, curious but wholesome woman. What their bedroom needed was an extra pair of gentle hands—and wise eyes, a confident smile, and an extra heart—but of course none came their way.

I won’t say their marriage was doomed by virginity or sexual inexperience. But it certainly wasn’t helped. Her virginity provided no reassurance for him, no spiritual haven for her. His inexperience made the wedding night nerve-racking rather than “special.”

People do NOT need to be sexually experienced before marriage to enjoy sex after it. But “love” and “commitment” generally aren’t enough to ensure a happily-ever-after. People who don’t have intercourse need sex education as much as those who do. Everyone needs words for their body parts; information to combat common myths (masturbation is dangerous, men don’t like to hug, etc.); good decision-making skills; and a sense of empowerment about their sexuality.

When people have good information, feel comfortable with their bodies, can communicate with a partner, and believe that sex is lovely, their virginity is not an obstacle on the wedding night. But too often virgin-until-marriage also means enforced ignorance, unfamiliarity with the other gender, discomfort with one’s body, and a pile of taboos so high that people can barely see each other in bed.

I feel bad for Mr. A and Ms. B, who didn’t do anything wrong. In fact, they followed all the social rules with which they were raised—and paid the common price.

Here’s what I propose: in all cultures that emphasize pre-marital virginity, redefine the wedding night as the start of a couple’s sexual life together. That means the first night should just be looking; the second, talking; the third, touching; the fourth, kissing; etc.. If it took God a week to create the world out of nothing, couples need at least that much time to create a sexual connection out of nothing.

You’ll also remember that God said “Let there be light.” So to enable couples to see each others’ naked bodies on the wedding night, let’s start a new tradition. How about making it the maternal aunt’s honor to give the new couple a bedroom lamp—turned on during sex?

Sex in Australia

Welcome me back, mate. I’ve just spent two weeks in Australia training psychologists in sex therapy and couples counseling. (Insert your favorite joke here about the Land Down Under.)

The people there are wonderful, the food is great, and the beaches are gorgeous.

I learned that in Australia adult prostitution is mostly LEGAL, and adult pornography is mostly ILLEGAL—the opposite of what we have in the U.S.. The consequences of each policy are quite instructive for American law-making.

Australia also has a political party called the Sex Party—and people vote for it! Its platform includes:
* decriminalizing recreational drugs
* 24-hour weekend public transportation in major cities
* guaranteeing the right to die with dignity
* giving tax breaks to small businesses

Oh yes, there are some sexual issues in their platform, too:
* developing a national sex education curriculum
* developing a national internet education scheme for parents
* guaranteeing reproductive choice for all women and men
* investigating child sexual abuse in religious institutions
* decriminalizing all non-violent erotica

I love the Sex Party’s work, and they appreciate mine. Their brilliant major candidate Fiona Patten held a reception for me, at which I spoke about the Religious Right’s influence over U.S. policies regarding sexuality. They reminded me that religion has less overt political influence over there (although still more than the Sex Party would like), but that conservative feminism had a very strong voice that generally tried to control sexual expression.

The Sex Party notes that adult pornography is generally legal in countries with higher living standards and better levels of education. Conversely, countries that ban X-rated films typically have lower living standards and levels of education. And, I might add, there’s a huge difference in the rights of women—countries in which adult porn is legal enforce dramatically less discrimination against women and girls.

Compare:

Adult porn legal: Europe, Canada, Japan, South Africa, USA
Adult porn banned: Iran, China, Turkey, Nigeria, Philippines

The Australian government made it legal to PURCHASE and POSSESS adult porn in 1983. But all Australian states ban the SALE of X-rated video material. Enforcement of these contrasting laws is very low, so there is a gray market—non-rated material is sold by gas stations, convenience stores, etc., putting legitimate adult shop owners at a competitive disadvantage.

There are many other inconsistencies as state-by-state laws try to coexist with federal laws. For example, in many states it’s legal to sell an adult magazine—but if you film the magazine it’s illegal to sell it.

So what’s the result of Australia banning the sale of various adult entertainment? Australians buy it anyway, creating a generation of criminals. The government loses tax revenue, as well as respect.

The foolishness of attempting to ban a popular, victimless activity like watching adult porn is even more obvious when considered in light of Australia’s decriminalizing of most adult prostitution in 1992. In most states brothels are legal and registered; sex workers may work privately, although soliciting is illegal. Prostitutes must be at least 18 years old.

What has the result been? Most people do NOT become prostitutes, and most people do NOT hire prostitutes. The divorce rate isn’t any higher than America’s, which obsessively persecutes sex work

And what about human trafficking, the latest American moral panic? In the U.S., advocates speculate (with little documentation) that prostitution is an enormous gateway for trafficking; in Australia, the estimates of human trafficking rates are far, far lower than the rates typically suggested for the U.S..

So what have we learned here?
* Criminalizing popular private sexual behavior just drives it underground rather than reducing it;
* Decriminalizing sex work doesn’t increase its use, society’s debauchery, or human trafficking;
* Adults can take a political party focused on sexual rights seriously;
* In Australia, they really do say “G’day mate” (pronounced “g’dye mite”).

Communicating About Sex: 10 Commandments, Twice

People are always asking me about sexual communication–how to do it, when to do it, where to do it. If I only have 60 seconds (radio talk show, stranger on a bicycle), I mostly respond with some version of “just do it in whatever way feels comfortable—as long as it works.”

If you have a few minutes right now, we can look at sexual communication in some detail. It starts BEFORE you’re in bed, so here are some Tips for Communicating about Sex In the Kitchen (or Wherever):

* Sit close enough to touch when you talk. Then touch when you talk.

* Ask what your partner likes, or if s/he likes a certain thing.

* Discuss and decide on a “safe word”—an unusual word (like “dinosaurs”) which, if either person says it during sex, means “stop right now, and I really mean it!” And don’t fool around with the word once you’ve agreed on it.

* If you aren’t sure what your partner meant during the most recent lovemaking, ask: was that “no, not now,” or “no, not ever?”

* Confirm your contraceptive agreement(s)—what, when, how? And remember, “trying harder” has no place in this conversation. Contraception is about what you do, not about what you try to do, or try to remember to do, or think you ought to do.

* Clarify and resolve any disagreements about logistics: room temperature, socks in bed, talking nasty, locking the door, where to keep the lube, etc.

* Describe your body’s current situation, whether temporary or permanent: lower back pain, difficulty squeezing your hands, asthma. If necessary, remind your partner whether you’re right- or left-handed (an important factor in a hand-job). Also mention where you’re particularly flexible or strong—e.g., hips or knees (an important issue if someone’s getting on their hands & knees).

* “You should know that when we’re not getting along so well, I’m a lot less interested in sex.” Unless you’re one of the unusual people for whom the truth is, “When we’re not getting along, I’m a lot more interested in sex.”

* Don’t spring a sex talk on your partner first thing in the morning, last thing at night, or five minutes before dinner guests are arriving.

* “Hey, one of these days when we’re in bed together, do you maybe want to try X?”

Got all that? Great. Now here are some Tips for Talking About Sex in Bed:

* Save “how many times do I have to tell you” for outside the bedroom. Or not at all.

* Never ask “where did you learn that?” or “who taught you to want that?”

* Talk about what you want more than about what you don’t want; for example, instead of saying “that’s too fast,” say “I’d like it slower.” If you say “don’t do that,” add “do this instead.”

* Nothing says “I’m right here with you” like eye contact. Look at your partner periodically during sex, especially when talking or listening.

* Dislike whatever you want, but don’t judge what you don’t like (e.g., “ugh, that’s kinky/perverse/unromantic”). If you don’t want to do something in bed, you don’t need a good reason. Thus, you don’t have to justify your lack of interest in it by criticizing the activity or its sponsor.

* Don’t talk about how a former partner did something better, or how someone else feels better, or how someone else’s bed never had cracker crumbs in it. Unless, of course, you and your current partner get off on such stories.

* If something feels good, say so. If it feels really good, say so more than once.

* Don’t ever, ever, ever, say something feels good when it doesn’t.

* When someone says they don’t want sex, they’re not rejecting you—they’re rejecting sex with you. Big difference.

* If your partner says “I love you” you don’t have to say it right back; you can smile, or you can say “Hmm, good.” And never, ever say “I love you” if you don’t mean it. Or if you’re not 100% certain you’ll be saying it again.

Now that’s Sexual Intelligence.

Criminalizing Conversion “Therapy”: Good Intention, Bad Idea

California just became the first state to ban conversion “therapy” for minors. That’s “therapy” which attempts to “cure” people of homosexuality, same-gender desire, or gender non-conformity, “converting” them to heterosexuality and “normal” gender behavior.

My regular readers know that I have been a licensed psychotherapist for 32 years—about 35,000 sessions with men, women, teens, and couples of all kinds. And I mean ALL kinds.

I am totally AGAINST reparative or conversion “therapy.” Under all circumstances, period. It doesn’t work, and it’s bad for people.

But I am pretty queasy about this new California law banning conversion “therapy” for minors, or the suggestion that adults have to be notified about the lack of evidence supporting conversion “therapy” before they do it.

Every single day, the best therapists—including me—use conventional, accepted therapeutic modalities that have no evidence supporting their efficacy. And every excellent therapist has occasionally done a terrific, thoughtful job with a patient, only to watch in dismay as one or another intervention has had terrible, unexpected results.

Then there are the less-than-excellent therapists who do therapy with modalities and interventions that are perfectly legal—and theoretically bankrupt or morally corrupt.

In virtually none of these situations does the State intervene and say “that kind of therapy is illegal with minors, or can only be done if you tell patients there’s no efficacy data behind it.” Why privilege the obviously egregious modality of conversion “therapy”? Why provide protection for one part of the patient population, but not the rest? Why challenge the problematic work of a small sliver of professionals, but not the rest?

And finally, do we really want the State intervening in these admittedly troubling and even damaging situations? In most of the country, we’re already fighting a losing battle to keep State legislators out of the patient-doctor conversation when it comes to abortion.

Therapists deal with pretty serious situations in addition to issues regarding sexual orientation. To pick just a few, we deal with teens who are suicidal, adults recovering from rape, and parents grieving their dead children. California has no special guidelines for our interventions in these cases, other than the standard Code of Ethics.

Again, see my first sentence: I’m totally against reparative or conversion “therapy.” I just question California’s dramatic, single-minded intrusion into a therapy profession which lacks efficacy data for virtually anything we do.

You want to protect children? Start by requiring every therapist to learn about healthy childhood sexuality—totally missing in most training programs. Then require that every single social service, police, or legal interview with a kid discussing possible molestation be videotaped, and make the tapes available to all parties in any litigation.

You want to protect people with non-conforming sexuality? Require all therapists to learn about alternative sexualities. And challenge the use of training materials claiming that people like S/M because they’ve been abused, or claiming that people’s domination-oriented sexual fantasies change and become “healthier” when their past sexual trauma is resolved.

Many other therapy practices far more common than conversion “therapy” lack any efficacy data whatsoever, including:

* Molestation: Describing patients’ early experiences as sexual molestation, contrary to the patients’ own interpretations, is common. Patients and their families continue to be destroyed by therapists applying extraordinarily broad definitions of “molest” to common, non-hurtful family situations.

* “Sex addiction”: Features discomfort with healthy masturbation, antagonism to most kinds of sexual expression outside of traditional heterosexual monogamy, and a screening tool that judges nearly every American a sex addict. The program typically pays little attention to differential diagnosis, unwittingly accepting those struggling with bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, borderline personality disorder, and sociopathic personality disorder.

* Infidelity & affairs: Many approaches rigidly valorize monogamy; encourage punishment for the betrayer; and support the betrayed partner’s desire for the betrayer’s email passwords, cell phone records, and detailed descriptions of exactly what the betrayer did hour-by-hour—destroying the dignity of both partners and preventing the rebuilding of trust.

* Therapy focused on prayer, visualization, energy work, reiki, crystals, chanting, etc.. If your patient buys it, you can do it. If you’re licensed, you can call it psychotherapy.

The California law’s meta-message—”there’s nothing wrong with your kid having whatever sexual orientation s/he has”—is valuable. But State interference with one kind of (rather uncommon) irresponsible therapy—without touching other, more common forms of undocumented therapy—is a rather heavy-handed way of reshaping social norms.

The American Psychological Association, among others, has deemed conversion “therapy” quackery. That’s good news for everyone. By singling out and challenging this modality, California’s legislature is implying that most conventional therapy is both documented effective and safe. Unfortunately, that’s just not true.

Parents Television Council REALLY Loves the Sin

For years, I’ve been saying that the PTC website is a valuable tool for pre-teens looking for raunchy TV. PTC helpfully charts the upcoming week’s TV shows with special tags warning (or guiding) viewers about where they can find “gratuitous sex,” (what about artistically necessary sex?) “explicit dialogue” (Hey Mabel, how about some gratuitous sex?), and “obscene language” (words that no one ever hears at home, like “bitch”).

And of course, “violence” (wanting to shrink the government smaller and smaller until its only function is censoring speech).

This week, PTC helpfully let me know that Comedy Central had scheduled a roast of Roseanne Barr, featuring “unbelievably graphic sex talk.” To help me decide whether or not I wanted to watch it, they actually ran a very brief transcript of it. In fact, they even added a 45-second clip—filled with the expletives that they don’t want you to have the privilege of watching on your TV.

A few samples:

Amy Schumer: “Roseanne bought a nut farm, which is also the nickname for Ellen Barkin’s mouth at an audition.”

Jeff Ross: “Roseanne was molested as a child. That poor molester.”

Roseanne: “Gilbert Gottfried. You know the difference between Gilbert’s voice and a sandpaper dildo? After 20 minutes, you might start enjoying the dildo.”

True, not exactly “Who’s on First” or The Soup Nazi or Woody Allen’s finest. Steve Martin won’t lose any sleep over the competition.

But the whole PTC thing is so transparently juvenile: laying out in meticulous detail something so awful that we should all avoid it—after we enjoy it. The Roast is self-consciously stupid, and because it doesn’t take itself seriously, we can laugh at it. But the PTC is unintentionally stupid, and takes itself ultra-seriously, so we can’t laugh at it. We shouldn’t laugh at it. It’s too dangerous.

The PTC are the people who also said the Republic would fall when children saw Janet Jackson’s nipple for a half-second. They warned the Republic would fall when Cher said “fuck ‘em” on an awards show (actually, Cher getting a singing award at this point may, in fact, signal the upcoming end of civilization as we know it).

What PTC doesn’t get is that censorship threatens our way of life far more than any sexual words or pictures. Bill O’Reilly said it all when he claimed that “the word uterus destroys children’s innocence.” He’s superstitious, fearing magic syllables the way our ancestors feared witches. What he doesn’t fear is limiting others’ self-expression and creativity, or his own exposure to ideas other than his own.

The PTC takes its mission of scrubbing the airwaves so seriously that it doesn’t realize that scrubbing the airwaves is a dangerous mission. They’re willing to burn down the house to roast the pig. Reducing TV to what’s fit for (ignorant) children—that’s like, as Mark Twain said, “saying a man can’t have a steak because a baby can’t chew it.”

Celebrating—and Limiting—Religious “Freedom”

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. –Bill of Rights, Article I

That’s what the Bill of Rights says:
* The government can’t establish an official religion;
* The government can’t prevent people from practicing their religion.

I totally support both of these. Don’t you?

Here’s what the Bill of Rights does NOT say:
* People can force others to follow their religious beliefs;
* The government should make it easy for people to follow their religious beliefs;
* The government should give people’s religious sensitivities more weight than people’s non-religious sensitivities;
* The government should give religious institutions a voice in government decisions, or any privileges whatsoever such as tax breaks.

Read it again: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Today, millions of Americans expect that their religious beliefs entitle them to special privileges: e.g., exemptions from doing their jobs when tasks conflict with their “sincerely held beliefs;” zoning that prevents businesses they don’t like from opening near their churches.

One of the most important of these expected privileges is the privilege to require non-believers to behave like believers: e.g., prohibiting liquor sales on Sunday; prohibiting nude sun-bathing on beaches. Religious people also tend to feel that they should be protected from the behavior of non-believers—for example, from seeing condoms advertised on TV.

But it’s much worse than that.

Mainstream religions are obsessed with sexuality. But they’re not all that interested in sexual integrity, or sexual self-expression, or sexual communication, or sexual education. They’re interested primarily in limiting sexual expression. Mainstream religions distrust sexual autonomy—people making sexual decisions for themselves, relying on their own values and ethics.

Thus, since the religious program about sex is primarily “don’t do this, don’t do that,” when organized religion gets or seeks political power, it inevitably wants to institutionalize “don’t do this, don’t do that” in the legal system.

It doesn’t matter what the “this” or “that” is. The problem is the “You may not do it” part.

Organized American Christianity wants to limit the sexual expression not just of believers, but of non-believers. And so they demand—and often pass—laws that:
* prevent strip clubs
* prevent swingers clubs
* prevent birth control
* prevent abortion
* prevent same-gender marriage
* prevent actual sex education
* prevent sex research
…and more.

When progressives challenge the Church’s right to do this, they typically cry “freedom of religion!” But that’s bogus. This is like a publisher wanting a law requiring everyone to read his newspaper, and when challenged, him crying “freedom of the press!” Both freedom of religion and freedom of the press involve freedom from government control, not control of government machinery to force others to live as believers do.

Westerners are viewing the increasing militancy of worldwide Islam with alarm. In countries as diverse as Nigeria, Indonesia, and Turkey, more and more government agencies are requiring people to live as believers, punishing non-believers who don’t do so.

We should notice how that’s happening right here. After all, it’s Independence Day. Happy Birthday, America.