Archive for March, 2009

Condoms: Modern Miracle or Dirty Little Secret?

March 30, 2009

If you had told Socrates or Queen Victoria that one day there would be an inexpensive little gadget that would prevent pregnancy while allowing you to enjoy sexual intercourse, they would have said “No waaay!”

Well, “Waaay!” That gadget is here, and it’s the condom.

As with everything sexual, the U.S. has a love-hate relationship with condoms. Americans spend millions of dollars buying millions of condoms every year. But stores often make them hard to find; a billion dollars in your tax money has been spent to discourage young people from using them; people are never shown using or even discussing them on TV; their advertising is severely curtailed, and used to be illegal altogether.

Today there are two new shots in this love-hate relationship.

Radio stations in Phoenix (104.7 KISS) and Tucson (93.7 KRQ) are actually bleeping the words “condoms” and “rubbers” in new songs. Eminem’s “Crack A Bottle” and Asher Roth’s “I Love College” were both censored this week. (Honor Roll mention: 98.3 in Phoenix does not censor these songs, according to Rachel Wheatcroft.)

What exactly is wrong with the people running these stations? I understand that Arizona has plenty of religious people who might object to the mention of condoms (which also makes no sense). But—duh—none of them are listening to this degenerate music. Nevertheless, these people are willing to complain about it anyway—it isn’t enough that they don’t want the option of listening, they don’t want anyone else to have the option.

And that’s where democracy always breaks down around sexuality and public policy, because very few 16-year-olds—or adults for that matter—are going to complain, “you bleeped innocent words in songs I like, cut it out!”

Fortunately, there’s two-part good news on the condom front. First, there’s a new product: SKYN, a non-latex condom. Second, it’s being advertised in a new way: with pictures and words focused on sex.

According to sex educator and product tester Cory Silverberg, the new condoms “stretch like latex condoms, they’re comfortable, and they don’t smell bad. They have a lower slippage and breakage rate than other non-latex condoms.” They’re FDA approved for both contraception and disease protection. And in double-blind clinical trials, some couples preferred these condoms over latex ones.

The advertising for them is cool: see the video clip by clicking on the little “Watch now” box. It features kissing, undressing, and messy bedrooms. It’s currently running on MTV, and Ansell Healthcare/Lifestyles plans to roll the spots out onto cable shows this summer.

“We know what people do with condoms,” said marketing executive Carol Carrozza. “They use them to have sex. Why not just admit this, rather than fooling around with dumb humor and euphemisms?”

Indeed, this goes straight to the matter. Many Americans don’t like to talk about sex in a straightforward, honest way. And they depend on their institutions—government, media, religion—to maintain an environment that restricts or prevents such behavior.

That’s why there are laws against nude beaches, regulations banning women’s nipples on TV, and the Christian Right gets to use the legislative process to lie about the alleged effects of pornography.

We’re eager to see how many stations accept the ads—which, as you’ll see, don’t show any flesh that you can’t see every evening on CSI or Grey’s Anatomy. Presumably, Morality in Media will be angry and scared, predicting that children will be harmed by seeing an ad for a product their parents, friends (and perhaps they) use.

We wish Carrozza, Lifestyles, and SKYN, um, godspeed in their campaign to get people to use their product. And to admit why they do.

Email this postBookmark and Share

Short Url:

Technorati :  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pure Romance, 1000 Women—And Me

March 26, 2009

I recently returned from Las Vegas, where I spoke at the annual convention of Pure Romance. For two hours I was on stage in front of 1,000 ladies who sell sex toys and related items at Tupperware-type parties in their friends’ living rooms.

The company thinks of their sales force as peer sex educators, which is fantastic. They realize that a lot of their customers want more than a vibrator—they want sympathy, they want permission, they want information. Some of them want the experience of saying the word “sex” out loud. The executives running Pure Romance actually want to make the world a better place, and their approach is to enhance people’s sexual literacy.

So what did I talk about?
* What most people focus on during sex (hint: it’s not pleasure or closeness)
* Reasons people have sex (dozens and dozens of them)
* The most common sexual question (“Am I normal?”)
* The vast similarities between male & female sexuality
* What to tell a woman who says “my husband won’t allow a vibrator in our bedroom”

Underlying the whole morning was the message that sex toys, lube, and communication can change people’s fundamental consciousness about sexuality. And why that’s such a good thing—for them, their partners, and the planet.

I guess this talk is the flip side of my speech about America’s War On Sex. I’m happy to say that the audience loved the talk, and I loved the audience. Afterwards, women from Kentucky and Ohio, Utah, Oklahoma, and a dozen other states lined up just to shake my hand, hug me, thank me.

And I wondered, for the millionth time: how could any politician say sex toys are bad for America? How could any priest or minister say sex toys offend God? How could any city council, zoning board, or “morality” group say sex toys “don’t belong” in their town?

A twenty-buck gadget that can make women climax, a little bottle of stuff that makes body parts more slippery, fur handcuffs or naughty dice or edible panties—how can any adult pretend that their opposition to these things is anything more than fear, fear, or fear?

Blaming God or “our community” or “the children” is cowardice (and it gives God a bad name, besides). Even though they make my life miserable, I would shake the hand of any person who admitted “I’m against sex toys or erotica because they make me feel frightened, inadequate, lonely, or perverted.”

Telling the truth is always the first step toward freedom.

Email this postBookmark and Share

Short Url:

Technorati :  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Sexting” Can’t—Repeat, Can’t—Kill Anyone

March 9, 2009

We’re told there’s an epidemic of teens sending nude photos of themselves to a friend or lover, who then sends it to every other teen on the planet. The original kid then responds with naive surprise and deeply hurt feelings.

Adults typically respond with predictions of the end of civilization as we know it.

In Ohio, 18-year-old Jesse Logan’s peers took the routine pretty far. After seeing her nude photo they taunted her and made her life miserable, as only teens can do to one another.

But Jesse went way, way too far in reaction. She killed herself.

It’s tragic, of course. But now her mother Cynthia wants Sycamore High School held responsible. And she wants laws passed to…to what, to bring her girl back? To prevent other kids from killing themselves? To prevent teens from doing thoughtless, mean things? To ruin the lives of those who do?

Sexting didn’t kill this young woman. Teens deal with humiliation and ostracism every day without killing themselves. They’ve been doing so since way before cell phones.

But there are ambulance chasers lining up to help mom. Matt Lauer and the Today Show are giving Cynthia Logan plenty of time to wail on national TV. And big-time cyber-lawyer (her word, not mine) Parry Aftab is on the case, hypocritically blogging that “Sexting Can Lead To Death.” Shamelessly, she invites parents to join (i.e., fund) her organization, to “Help us make sure your child won’t be next.”

We’ve seen this tragedy-grief-media-law circus before, featuring John Walsh, Marc Klaas, Richard and Maureen Kanka, and others who are now household names.

Each parent experienced a horrible tragedy—and then turned not resolving their grief into a career. Dozens of media appearances led to undeserved seats at America’s legislative tables.

In a macabre twist of sadism, parents like these “honor” their dead child by burdening the rest of us with medieval laws that don’t make anyone safer, and wouldn’t have prevented their own child’s abduction. These laws (Adam Walsh Act, Megan’s Law, Amber Alert, etc.) make life miserable for many innocent people, spend enormous amounts of public money, enhance the “predator around every corner” industry, and frighten Americans into thinking their kids are far more vulnerable than they really are.

Tragedy makes bad law. Tragedy + Sex + Kids + Money makes really bad law.

So I predict we’ll soon hear about Jesse’s Law, which will make lifelong sex offenders out of every kid who takes, sends, or receives a nude photo of another kid. This won’t make anyone safer—but it will ruin the lives of thousands and thousands of normal, healthy kids with poor judgment. Teens in Greensburg, PA, Fort Wayne, IN, and a dozen other cities are now life-long criminals. For childish pranks.

Arresting these kids for the creation, possession, or distribution of child pornography is a perversion of the law. It turns the 15-year-old who poses into both a victim and a perpetrator (what kind of law does that?). It defines a stupid boyfriend as a snarling predator.

And by watering down the definition of “child pornography,” it undermines our attempts to reduce the actual sexual exploitation of children, and to catch and treat those who would really harm our kids. Real child pornography is a record of child abuse. “Sexting” is a record of adolescent hijinks. Lumping the two together reflects adult anxiety about young people’s sexuality, not a sophisticated understanding of it.

And what about the supposed “dangers” of “sexting”? School counselors, police, even Bill O’Reilly all agree that kids’ lives could be ruined—by insane laws making them lifetime criminals, not by any actual harm. “These photos will be on the internet forever,” we’re warned—yes, and quickly forgotten. And in twenty years, everyone’s physician, accountant, and local sheriff will have nude photos of themselves somewhere on the web. Welcome to the 21st century.

Ironically, the campaign against “sexting” holds kids to a higher standard of judgment than adults. With adults, we generally don’t criminalize poor judgment unless it involves coercion or demonstrable harm. If you take nude photos of your wife, and send them to her friends the day after your divorce, she can call you a bastard (which you would be), but she can’t sue you. She certainly can’t get you on a sex offender registry that lumps you in with rapists and child molesters. But that’s what angry adults like Cynthia Logan want.

Logan represents The American Way: turning her child’s death into an industry, calling it a social problem, demanding we recognize this as a crisis. If she spends enough time developing her new brand, she’ll never have to come to terms with Jesse’s death and get on with her own life.

Kids’ sexuality being so much scarier to American society than adults’, we again show that when necessary, we will destroy teens’ lives to save them.

Email this postBookmark and Share

Short Url:

Technorati :  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2009 Sexual Intelligence Awards® Announced

March 2, 2009

The 9th annual Sexual Intelligence Awards® honor individuals and organizations who challenge the sexual fear, unrealistic expectations, and government hypocrisy that undermine love, sex, and relationships—and political freedom—today.

Previous winners include Bill Taverner, Sex Educator; Catholics for a Free Choice; Candye Kane, Red Hot Musician; and Robert McGinley, Non-monogamy activist. This year’s winners are:

Vermont Law School (

Vermont Law School is one of only two U.S. law schools that bar military recruiters from campus. Their reason: the discriminatory nature of our government’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which prevents openly gay Americans from serving in the military.

The school’s ban on military recruiters disqualifies them from certain federal funding—so VLS is really putting their money where their mouth is. They are showing their students that the practice of law requires just laws–and that just laws often require social action.

Doug Kirby, Sexual Behavior Research Scientist

Dr. Doug Kirby is internationally known for his work in the field of adolescent sexuality. His most important publication is the widely acclaimed Emerging Answers 2007. Sponsored by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, it is the essential scientific report documenting the failure of abstinence-only school programs to reduce pregnancy and STDs.

In this and others reports, Doug has generated the most comprehensive picture ever of factors associated with adolescent sexual behavior, contraceptive use, pregnancy, and STDs. He also continues to identify the common characteristics of effective sexuality education and HIV education programs throughout the world. He has addressed the governments of countries including Nigeria, Ecuador, Kenya, Uganda, and England’s House of Commons.

Reliable Consultants

Douglas Richards and his company Reliable Consultants had the courage to file suit against the State of Texas, challenging their Sexual Device Ban.

And they won, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sustained their challenge, taking the opportunity to say that the goal of “protecting children” couldn’t possibly be served by the Texas law. Even more eloquently, the court said the Texas law is “about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the State is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification for the statute.”

We also applaud Reliable’s attorneys, Jennifer Kinsley and Lou Sirkin of Cincinnati, who generously and intelligently pour their hearts into every First Amendment and free expression case they handle, as well as philanthropist Phil Harvey, who joined the Reliable case as a co-defendant.

National Center for Reason & Justice (

Far too many innocent Americans have been unjustly imprisoned, accused of sex crimes against children and teens. Most have been convicted because of bizarre (and often prompted) “eyewitness” testimony, coerced confessions, vindictive perjury, or the court’s acceptance of junk science.

All these accused have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and to receive fair trials. But social hysteria and media frenzy often make this impossible. Ironically, most innocent people accused of childhood sexual exploitation can’t be helped by DNA technology—because no actual crimes were committed.

NCRJ sponsors many of the wrongfully convicted, marshalling legal, financial, and other support on their behalf. NCRJ also fights to bring the profound injustices of our judicial system to public attention. Most people don’t know, for example, that in many states, an innocent person imprisoned for child molestation who refuses to “confess” is considered “unsuccessfully” treated and can’t be released, regardless of his/her prison behavior.

NCRJ’s Board includes award-winning journalists Debbie Nathan and Judith Levine. Its advisors include psychologists Carol Tavris, Leonore Tiefer, and Elizabeth Loftus, winner of our first Sexual Intelligence Award back in 2000.

Go to their site (, read a few shocking stories of how profoundly our justice system can betray perfectly nice people—just like you and me—and send them a tax-deductible donation, grateful that you haven’t needed NCRJ for yourself or a loved one.

Bookmark and Share

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , , , , , , , , ,