The Friday Sex Blog [The Culture Wars]

Hola Everybody,
Many people are saying they’re sick of this election cycle and are so turned off, they can’t wait for it to be over. Think about that. I believe this election will create a more dangerous version of Trump. That’s what voting for the lesser of two evils does -- it creates evil.

On another tangent, I'm so tired. I’m not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, my friends.

The War on Sex

Speaking of elections, one phrase that continually pops up is “culture war.” This familiar expression is actually part of the problem. You see, the phrase suggests there are two sides of equal strength lined up, honoring more or less the same rules of engagement, wanting to conquer each other.

But what is called a “culture war” is nothing like that at all. Those who fear and hate sexuality (erotophobes) are attacking those who appreciate or tolerate sexuality (erotophiles). Erotophiles are not attempting to force erotophobes to live more sexually adventurous lives. In fact, erotophiles aren’t trying to make the erotophobes do anything they don’t want to do. However, erotophobes demand that both sides -- everyone -- live according to their anti-sex (erotophobic) values. For example, an erotophile might say, “If you don’t want to go to a nude beach, don’t go, but don’t shut it down to prevent me from having that choice.” An erotophobic response might be, “I don’t want to go to a nude beach, and I don’t want you to have the option of going either, so it must be closed.” In a similar way, erotophobes want to control and mitigate the sexual rights of those they fear. For example, erotophiles might say, “If you’re against gay marriage, don’t marry one.” Erotophobes respond by waging campaigns of hate against the LGBTQ community.

While erotophobes recognize there’s a huge range of opportunities for erotic stimulation, satisfaction, and imagination, they want to deny everyone, not just themselves. Ironically, erotophobes (like most conservatives and some liberals) claim to be the victims in this culture war.

They say they are the ones who are being attacked, their values undermined, and their way of life destroyed. From their paranoiac perspective, they see so-called indecent entertainment, changing fashions, recent court decisions, internet access, and a range of contraceptive technologies, as an intrusion -- as being force-fed sex. They can’t, they wail, turn on a TV, go to a mall, boot up a computer, or even go to work without being assaulted by sexual images. Furthermore, they claim, even when they are not being literally confronted, they are still forced to abide others’ sexual activity next door and all over the United States -- behavior that is immoral, disgusting, and sinful.

I have no doubt this is true for them. However it is irrelevant to the governance of the U.S. Nowhere in our founding documents is there mention of regulating anything considered immoral, sinful, or disgusting. On the contrary, the United States was founded on the idea that people should be able to choose what to do and with whom to associate based on their personal values and ideals -- not those of a king, feudal lord, or religious hierarchy. Nor even, as James Madison declared, the tyrannical majority in their own town, state, or nation.

When erotophobes demand that we eliminate entertainment, fashion, medical technology, bedroom activity, and businesses that are in their estimation “immoral” or “sinful,” they are calling for a dismantling of the core values our nation was founded on. Such changes would result in governance that would bring us closer to modern Saudi Arabia, the former Soviet Union, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Nazi Germany.

Historically, the U.S. has tried to balance the rights of individuals and community responsibility. Therefore, for example, while you enjoy the freedom of speech, you don’t have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. Another fundamental U.S. right is that the law should address actual crime and actual victims, and it should be drafted in ways that limit negative unintended consequences when solving a problem (in actuality, this is not true in practice).

Today’s culture war seeks to disrupt that balance, and it has already succeeded in many ways. Historically, it was against the law for someone to actually kill your cow, or doing something makes you worried about someone killing your cow. Attempting to criminalize abortion isn’t enough for conservatives, they also attempt to ban over-the-counter availability of emergency contraception, saying such availability would “encourage promiscuity.” Progressives respond with scientific data that clearly shows it won’t, and in that way, one more battle is joined. Erotophobes respond that (as is usual) they have no data, they have “concerns” and “feelings,” which are now considered seriously in public policy debates.

Although our country makes cars safer in case of accidents, has school athletes wear helmets in case they fall awkwardly, and establishes poison control centers in case toddlers get into cleaning supplies, these sexual jihadists don’t want to reduce the consequences of unauthorized, unprotected, or unfortunate sex. They say that doing so encourages bad sexual choices. That’s like saying seat belts encourage dangerous driving and poison centers encourage sloppy parenting practices.

Forget that children who are taught abstinence-only have as much sex -- only they use condoms less often. Erotophobes have manipulated the public into fighting sexual expression, not sexual ignorance or poor sexual decision-making.

Let’s be clear, a large part of the culture wars is really about the pathological need to control sex. Erotophobes fear sex. They fear sexual expression, sexual exploration, sexual arrangements, sexual privacy, sexual choice, sexual entertainment, sexual health and sexual pleasure. They want you to fear it as well. Today’s conservative/ fundamentalist political movements (and some progressives, I might add) present a horrifically distorted picture of sexuality. It’s a narrative of danger and fear; a narrative of evil and sin and, therefore, of self-destructiveness. While erotophobes typically describe their fear in socially acceptable terms (i.e., “protecting children,” “defending marriage”), what they really fear is sexuality as they understand it. Actually, this is the same type of fear that compel people who call themselves progressive, to vote for candidates who value repressive social policies.

The outcome of these battles will determine how our children will live for decades to come. It will determine what books they will be allowed to read, what they will be taught to fear, what they know about their bodies, and how much control they will have over their own fertility.

Millions of people in the U.S. are afraid of sex. Some admit it, some don’t. Millions more hate sex, and some have declared war on it. The pluralism of the United States is despised by fundamentalists around the world -- including those right here on our soil. If you’re interested in sex, you’re part of this war whether you like it or not. If you watch TV, use a sex toy, go to the movies, need an abortion, enjoy the occasional dirty online chat, want a physician trained in sexual medicine, or have a child in school, the guns of the culture war and the war on sex will be pointed at you.

It is imperative that we begin asking the right questions, right now, because the answers will matter.

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization…

The Friday Sex Blog [Raising Children as Sexual Beings]

Hola! Everybody...
I have to make a choice between paying my phone or my storage. Most of my possessions are books, some valuable (to me, at least). I’d rather be without the phone. Click HERE if you think supporting my writing is a good idea. Have a great weekend. 

Sexual Upbringing in the US

Once you are exposed to sex -- you’re never able to regain innocence again -- from then on you have sexual thoughts -- you have sexual feelings -- innocence is forever gone. It encourages sexual curiosity that would not have been there...
 -- Oprah Winfrey on Teens and Dial-a-porn

I believe Oprah speaks for many US parents and the sentiment that if “you don’t try to shield them from... all this explicit kind of stuff until they’re ready to handle it, then you’re robbing them of their innocence, their one time in life to be somewhat carefree.”

At this point, I would like to make the observation that as a nation our teen pregnancy and abortion rates lead the developed world¹. Many are trying to blame this phenomenon on a perceived sexual permissiveness and lax sexual morals. My point is that the exact opposite is true: it is our dysfunctional relationship with our own sexuality, passed on to our children, that is root cause of our sexual problems. I will make the case that, contrary to the blather that passes for sexual discussion these days, it’s not permissiveness, but rather, repression that is at the root of our “sexual problem.” If you doubt me, just hold on for a second and absorb the following fact: the vast majority of teen pregnancies are the result of an adult impregnating an adolescent.

::blank stare::

Recently, there was a moral panic regarding the new teen sex “epidemic” called sexting. In fact, prosecutors across the nation began convicting teens as sexual predators. The reality is that studies and show and the experts agree that sexting isn’t as widespread as reported in the mainstream media. In addition, I find it the cruelest abuse to criminalize what is normal adolescent behavior.

I think when adults insist children can’t handle sexual content, they’re really projecting their own hang-ups about sex. We even fight about whether children should be taught about protecting themselves sexually.

What people seem to mean by “sexual innocence” is the absence of sexual thoughts, genital responses, and the awareness of how one is sexually aroused. A lot of parents would probably feel more relaxed if childhood did not have any sexual component and if sexuality magically appeared at puberty or, better yet, at marriage. Many parents have mixed feelings about their own sexuality and any recognition of sexuality in their children triggers their own unresolved sexual anxieties.

But let’s be honest about preadolescent sexuality -- were you “sexually innocent” prior to reaching puberty? Is that an accurate view of your pre- adolescent sexuality? When you were a child wouldn’t have you preferred learning more about the meaning of your sexual development rather than being blocked from such clarification by parents who were trying to keep you innocent?

Sigmund Freud shocked most of the Western world when he observed the reality of childhood sexuality over one-hundred years ago.

Almost all of the subsequent research of the twentieth century supported Freud’s assertion that children were sexual creatures. Alfred Kinsey, almost a half century after Freud, shocked the world with his own revelation of sexual responses involving erection and lubrication not only in preadolescent children but even in newborn infants. There’s even research on in utero sexuality.

I couldn’t begin to cite the overwhelming body of research supporting children as sexual creatures. Yet, this is exactly what we want to deny and what we want our children to deny. In the process, we teach our children that their sexual natures are evil and we drive the sexual conversation underground, where the shadow aspect takes over. It’s no surprise our children act out sexually, we don’t recognize, nor do we support their sexual natures. Shit, even saying children are sexual creatures is enough to get you in hot water. 

Parents who claim to be open-minded about sex exhibit sexual anxieties. When they do discuss sex with their children, they often fail even to mention the pleasurable aspect of sexual experiences. They prefer to emphasize its relational and affective aspects, and so they often fail to mention pleasure. Since intensity of bodily pleasure is the aspect of sexuality that most clearly distinguishes it from other activities, this omission surely sabotages any realistic preparation for sexual behavior. Children experiencing these bodily pleasures for the first time must wonder why their parents failed to understand these transformative feelings.

Adult anxiety about childhood sexuality is not based upon any sane assessment of what is happening in their child’s life. Rather, because parents see sex as dangerous and threatening, they conclude that kids should be kept away from it. As a parent, I can certainly understand parents can have a realistic fear that other adults may take advantage of their child. But if that is the main concern, it follows that more talk about sex is called for rather than promoting ignorance by acting as if childhood sexuality is a trampling of some mythical “natural state of sexual innocence.” It is their lack of knowledge about sex that makes children more vulnerable to sexual exploitation. 

Finally, even parents who accept a more modern view of sexuality are hesitant to prepare their child for sexuality. For example, the typical response I hear from self-proclaimed modern, liberal parents is: “I am open about sexuality with my children and I will always try to answer any question at all that they raise about sexuality.”

Consider whether we would wait for questions to be raised in any other area of great importance to our children. We don’t wait for children to ask before teaching them how to tie their shoes, or how to add, or why they should not to play in the middle of the highway. How well would children know how to read if we waited for them to ask us before we taught them? We think these are things they should know and we make sure they know them, whether they ask about them or not.

Why aren’t we adopting the same attitude when it comes to one of life’s greatest questions? Is it because we’re sexually permissive? I think not. I think it is because as a nation we are sexually repressed. And our children suffer for it.

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization… 

Notes:

1. The United States’ teen pregnancy rate is over four times that of the Netherlands (14.1) over three times that of Germany (18.8), and almost three times that of France (25.7). The United States’ teen birth rate is nearly eight times higher than that of the Netherlands’ (5.3), over five times higher than France’s (7.1), and over four times higher than Germany’s.

The Friday Sex Blog [Circumcision]

Hola everybody,
First, I want to send some love and big ups to our Boricua gold medalist, Laurie Hernandez. Let’s all shout out a big WEPA! for Ms. Hernandez. I think I can safely say we’re all proud of you.

Today: I’ve wanted to write about “circumcision” for some time.

Male Genital Cutting

Not too long ago, I came upon this truck at New York City’s Union Square:

I found a lot people laughing at the truck and its ads. The truck is part of a campaign to bring awareness to and stopping the practice of circumcision. Circumcision is a euphemism for genital cutting. The word “circumcision” ignores the fact that a person’s genitals are actually being cut. Generally, Circumcision refers to the cutting and removal of healthy erogenous tissue from either males or females. In boys, circumcision refers to cutting away of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis, an act typically done to infants. In girls, circumcision refers to the cutting away of the labia or clitoris. Circumcision can also be rightfully referred to as genital mutilation

Contrary to religious beliefs and pseudo-science, genital cutting is harmful. Genital cutting is the needless removal of an anatomically important structure from the penis of an infant. Cutting is extremely painful and traumatic to a newborn. In fact, studies show that genital cutting is so traumatic that the majority of boys circumcised as children and adolescents meet diagnostic criteria for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). It also removes highly sensitive and functional tissue which is eventually replaced with scar tissue. Evolutionary adaptation designed the penis to function with a foreskin and genital cutting disrupts that natural design.

People who dismiss genital cutting as simply a “snip” are either ignorant or in denial. The procedure actually involves strapping an infant to a restraint, scraping, cutting, crushing, and then cutting again in order to remove the entire foreskin. While all of this is happening, the child is completely aware of what is happening.

The practice of circumcision got started in the United Stated in the late 1800s by advocates whose radical ideas about sexuality included the prevention of masturbation. It also gained popularity as status of a hospital birth. And, of course, Abrahamic religions mandate that all young boys be cut.

Far from being disposable, the foreskin is an important area of erogenous tissue containing tens of thousands of specialized sensory nerve endings, the sensitive ridged band, and 15 square inches of gliding skin. Why would you want to cut that away? Contrary to myths, the procedure is not medically necessary. The American Academy of Pediatrics says there are no benefits that justify the procedure. Canada’s Pediatric Society doesn’t recommend it and all European medical groups denounce it.

Genital cutting is now advocated and perpetuated by over-stating benefits and the use of fear tactics. Promoters use false claims of increased risks of cancer, STDs, and infections. Doctors and advocates for cutting appeal to social conformity, or prey on new parents’ ignorance of the facts. Simply put. The vast majority of genital cutting is done is hospitals by doctors at parental request for social (i.e., religious) reasons or just plain ignorance.

Recently, promoters of genital cutting have latched on a few highly controversial studies conducted in some rural African areas. These studies claimed to find a slight reduction in HIV transmission in cut males. However, even these studies concede condoms must still be used. At this time, no studies in the US or Europe have found cutting to provide any risk reductions for HIV/ STD infections. Additionally, there is zero risk reduction for women and gay men. Globally, the vast majority of men are not cut -- according to studies 80% are intact. The primary geopolitical areas that still cut their infants are in the Middle East and parts of Africa. Fortunately, rates of genital cutting in the US have been dropping. In 2013, the CDC reported that there is a genital cutting rate of 57% and is decreasing every year.

Finally, genital cutting is not safe. Aside from the issues discussed above, it is reported that about 100 infants die every year from cutting (Google “circumcision death”). Many more suffer permanent damage and disfigurement such as the loss of the glans or, in some cases, the entire penis. Even greater numbers of men experience life-long complications that interfere with sexual performance.

Here’s an animation of the function of the foreskin. According to surveys, women find sex with an intact man more pleasurable. LOL And yes, I am intact (there’s no such thing as “uncircumcised). I also fought for my son to be intact as well. 

Now, knowing all of this, why would you subject your infant son to such an unnecessary and barbaric practice?

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization…