Don't Carry Condoms or You'll Be Arrested

Yup, that's right. New laws in DC, San Francisco, and New York are making it so that if you carry more than 2 condoms at a time you must be a sex worker and therefore need to be arrested.

There are so many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin or where to end. So instead I'll let the very talented Jaclyn Friedman do it:

...If you think there's a chance you're getting laid, and you're sleeping with someone who has a penis, why would you ever pack fewer than three condoms? What if one rips when you take it out of the package? What if you want to do it (*GASP*) twice? Three condoms is not a lot of condoms, people. IMHO, it's the bare minimum. I once used over a dozen in a particularly memorable weekend. And I still wasn't a sex worker.

And what if I was? As has been pointed out elsewhere, all this law (and laws like it in NYC and San Francisco) are doing is encouraging sex workers to not carry condoms. You know what that's going to do? It's not going to reduce sex trafficking. It's not going to improve the lives or working conditions of sex workers. It's not going to lock up abusers or pimps. It's going to spread disease. It's going to increase the spread of STIs (including HIV) among sex workers and their clients. And those clients will spread it even further out into the general population. And those of us who aren't sex workers but don't feel like risking arrest en route to a hot date? Some of us are going to carry fewer condoms and catch and spread more disease, too. And those of us who carry lots of condoms so we can distribute them and help other people stay safe? Well, we're obviously a criminal element, aren't we? (Read more)

Talk about some slut shaming up in here. And as one of the commenters pointed out, no one is going to arrest a man for carrying 3 or more condoms ... unless he's a gay man of color or god forbid a drag queen.

Love U Parties- Ducky's Newest Venture

The amazing Ducky DooLittle just launched her own sex toy party company today! Check it out: Love U Parties. The site is well done and she offers products that I haven't seen other feminist sex shops carry. Things that just make sense and you have to wonder why others aren't carrying them. For example: the Sex in the Shower Foot Rest. How many times would that have come in handy?

The great news is that she's paying the consultants (people who sell the toys at the parties) a big percentage of the sales. That's big money and possibly a real career for some. I may consider doing it myself after I move to Oakland.

If you haven't heard of Ducky before you should check out her book Sex With the Lights On: 200 Illuminating Sex Questions Answered. There are a TON of quotes from me in that book. See if you can figure out which ones!

Prop H8 and Sex Toy Sales

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Really Important!

This is super important so please go sign the petition! Don't let Bush and his cronies do this to us.

Size Obsession

This has been pretty big news lately so many of you may have already heard about this, but I think it is so fabulous that it needs to be written about again and again until people really get the point. Keira Knightley, the second highest paid actress in Hollywood, has put her foot down and told studios that she does NOT want her breasts digitally enhanced in her new movie's publicity photos. She says she's very happy with the breasts she has. For more info and a video that interviews feministing's Courtney Martin click on the picture below.



And for even more American size obsession check out Vagzilla! on Scarleteen.com for a humorous and educational take on genital size.

Studies of Homosexuality

The science world has been coming out with a lot of different studies about the biological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals in an attempt to better understand how and why (biologically) homosexuality occurs in humans. Some of these studies include:

- Different brain sizes
- Sexually antagonistic selection
- Birth order

I think it is very important to study sexuality and not just homosexuality, but all types. However, there are also things one should keep in mind when reading or talking about these studies. Because while I think science can be a wonderful thing, it can also be subject to cultural and personal biases. Recently a strong intelligent feminist woman, Susan Skoog, put it very well in response to the article about different brain sizes (copied with her permission):

"There are some major problems with sexuality studies like this.

1. When neurologists try to determine once and for all the "innate" causes of sexuality, they don't realize the culturally-dependent framework they're using. That is, what do "gay" and "straight" mean to the researchers? How do they determine "gay" brains in the sample? By the self-reported preference of the subjects? By a survey of sexual behaviors over time? By their "deviance" from "straight" behavior? By their measured response to sexual stimuli?

All of these criteria are contingent upon subjective reflection and agreement upon terms (totally valid in the social sciences and in our personal sexual lives, but NOT in the realm of biological research.) For example, am I a lesbian if I have slept with women in the past year? The past 10 years? Or if I have never slept with one, but they turn me on? Or if (like the radicalesbians of the 1970s) I identify politically with women-loving-women? Who gets to say?

(referencing a point made earlier by someone else) I second the point about bisexuality. In every study I've read, bisexuality has been made invisible or given short shrift by being lumped into the study samples as "straight" or "gay" depending on the researcher. If bi means gay, we have a problem.

This philosophizing about "what is gay?" may at first seem like splitting hairs, but unless we can create objective operational definitions about sexual orientation, there's no way to do science about it.

Sexual tastes are not static entities-- everyone's sexuality develops and becomes enriched throughout life, and may even contradict itself. One person may go through many labels. To some people, their orientation has always been rock-solid. Others wrestle to develop/discover themselves more slowly. Still others refuse to define themselves at all. Are scientists going to look for the biological underpinnings of each of these?

Sexuality is much more than gender-choice; it's layered like an onion. Which is not to say that sexuality may be willfully changed either. I see no evidence to support anyone forcing themselves or others out of their sexuality.

2. Many of the brain studies (such as Simon LeVay's hypothalamic region study, and others' explorations of hormonal balances) sought to look for the ways in which male homosexuals' brains were "feminized." This confuses gender identity/expression with sexual preference and is dangerously unscientific.

3. Much of the sexuality research of the past 125 years has been focused on finding the biological quality separating gay people from everyone else. Straight brains are the controls in these studies--this is a big problem. When so little research has been performed on "straight" brains to find out how they tick sexually, how can we look at homosexuality without reducing it to an aberration from straightness? This reinforces the conception that all queerness is a flawed version of "normal" sexual response, as if there was such a thing.

I believe these sex researchers, for the most part, have good intentions, but their methods are inadequate, and their biases go unexamined. This is with the marked exception of the homophobic and transphobic Dr. Michael Bailey, who has stated publicly that if scientists could find the cause of homosexuality, he would strive to cure it."

Whether or not you agree with all of her points, it is important to keep each of them in mind when you read studies like these. Critical thinking is a much needed skill that many people seem to no longer employ when scientists or journalists start talking.

News

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Feminism and Relationships

New studies suggest that feminists may actually have better romantic and sexual relationships. Makes sense to me! However, I think the author plays up the heterosexuality of feminists a bit too much. Sure the stereotype is that we're all lesbians and it isn't true, but don't discount the women who love women.

Read the article here.