Posts Tagged ‘sex’

Mandatory Masturbation in Health Care Bill

Friday, August 14th, 2009

There’s a wicked rumor spreading throughout the right-wing media that Obama’s health care bill will REQUIRE every parent to teach their children that masturbation is a perfectly normal, healthy human activity.1 Yes, they’re going to push their SEXUAL agenda on everyone! I’m NOT KIDDING! They’re calling it “mandatory masturbation.”2

Okay, that’s the rumor. It’s bullshit. Now let’s talk truth for a moment.

The REAL text of the health care bill makes it plainly obvious what’s going on:

House Bill 3200, titled “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” section 2543 (b)(2) states:

ESTABLISHMENT OF CORE PARENTAL EDUCATIONAL ELEMENTS- The Secretary, in consultation with the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, shall establish core parental educational elements for a compliance program under paragraph (1). The elements will include written policies, procedures, and standards of conduct, a designated compliance officer and a compliance committee to ensure parental to child training and education pertaining to human underage masturbation; a confidential or anonymous mechanism, such as a hotline, to receive compliance questions; disciplinary guidelines for enforcement of standards; internal monitoring and auditing procedures, including monitoring and auditing of parents; procedures for ensuring prompt responses to detected offenses and development of corrective action initiatives, including responses to potential offenses; and procedures to return all identified violations to the programs under this title, title XIX, and title XXI.

Paragraph (1), as referenced above, states:

Parent to child training curriculum will include, at minimum, the following core lessons regarding masturbation:
1. Touching the intimate parts of one’s body except during normal washing and using the bathroom should be avoided, and during washing, should be limited as much as possible.
2. Children should never be left alone, as being alone increases susceptibility to temptation.
3. After bathing, children should not linger, especially in front of the mirror. Children should stay in the shower just long enough to clean themselves or be cleaned by a parent. As soon as the cleaning is finished, the child should dry off and get out of the bathroom as soon as possible to be in the presence of a family member.
4. Prior to sleeping, children should be dressed in full pajamas or clothes that are difficult to remove.
5. The Internet should be avoided entirely, or at least restricted and closely monitored. Oversight of television programs is recommended, as long as the programs are limited to programs displaying gratuitous violence without sexual content.
6. The topic of masturbation should be avoided. If a child brings up the topic, the parent should change the topic or remind the child that all sexual activity outside of marital relations, including masturbation, is unequivocally immoral and unhealthy, and can lead to addiction, infertility, mental illness, and, in some cases, prostate cancer in males.3

Despite the fact that the bill’s provisions are completely opposite of the rumors, Republicans and right-wing pundits keep pushing. When asked about the “mandatory masturbation” portion of the bill, “Joe the plumber” had this to say, “The politicians in Washington are spending trillions of dollars of our money to push masturbation on children. When are Americans going to stand up and say enough is enough?”4

Iowan Republican Senator Grassley has been a staunch opponent of the bill. “In the House bill, there is counseling for masturbation,” Grassley said. “You have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have pro-masturbation parental counseling. That’s something that should be considered only after marriage, if ever. We should not have a government run plan to decide for us whether masturbation is right or wrong. That’s a discussion only between parents and God.” Grassley obviously has not read the bill.5

Sarah Palin, estranged former governor of Alaska,6 notorious for her ironic sexual positions,7 had a lot to say about “mandatory masturbation”:

I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that requires parents to teach their children that masturbation is normal and healthy…..

As I noted in my statement last week, masturbation inevitably leads to pre-marital sex and mental illness. The mandatory masturbation system proposed by President Obama, advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff, would force every parent to talk to their children about masturbation, and, worse, would make those parents advocate for masturbation.

On the left side, Keith Olbermann had this to say:

Every poll, every analysis, every vote, every region of this country supports masturbation, and one of the most profitable businesses in America, the porn industry, backs that with all of their money and lobbying pressure. Cross us all at your peril.8

The effects of the negative punditry are varied, but one interesting situation is that Glenn Beck, another anti-masturbation proponent, has recently lost advertisers due to his stance. Vivid Entertainment Group pulled its ads from Fox News Channel’s “The Glenn Beck Program.” Club Jenna, Inc. has also declared that it will not advertise during the program.9

Here’s what Michelle Bachmann10 said regarding the mandatory masturbation clause:

[It's] under the guise of quote, volunteerism, but it’s not volunteers at all,” she said on the Bob Johnson radio show in July. “It’s the government forcing parents to force masturbation on their children. This provision is like creating re-education camps for young people, where young people get trained in the philosophy the government puts forward and then they have to go thinking that masturbation is acceptable and not morally corrupt.

As a parent, I would have a very, very difficult time doing this to my children.

Rep. John Mica (R-FL) told a Florida radio station today that the health care legislation being considered by the House of Representatives will authorize the creation of “masturbation counselors.”

They create a whole new category. There are masturbation counselors. There is authorization for reimbursement for those counselors. You have a whole new cottage industry.

Obviously, the pundits and congressmen need to sit down for a few minutes and actually read the damn bill. Perhaps then we can get off on this topic.11

  1. Everyone wants to do it, and it feels good, so it must be wrong. [<]
  2. Mmm, M&Ms [<]
  3. No shit, this is only loosely based on real mind-numbingly inane religious anti-masturbation proponent websites. [<]
  4. Why the fuck are people still talking about Joe the Plumber? [<]
  5. Nobody reads the bills. [<]
  6. Why the fuck are people still talking about Sarah Palin? [<]
  7. See THIS; or were you looking for something along the lines of this? [<]
  8. I’d probably pay to hear Olbermann say that, or something like that. Well, I wouldn’t pay much. No one ever donates, and I’m effin poor. [<]
  9. The day those companies advertise on Fox is the day this country is truly free. [<]
  10. How the fuck is she still in office? [<]
  11. Are you actually looking for something to indicate whether this is satire? Please. It’s obviously real news. Just like Fox News. [<]

What is a father to do?

Thursday, July 2nd, 2009

What is a father to do when his daughter needs to go to the bathroom? This is one of many questions that perplex fathers of daughters.

Recently, in Frederick, Maryland, a father took his two daughters to the restroom — one daughter needed to use the toilet and the other needed a diaper check. A video report of what happened next is available here. What was normal for this father, and for many other fathers, frankly, was apparently abnormal for at least a couple of people at the Department of Social Services (DSS). What was abnormal about this, you ask? In this story, the father took the two daughters into the men’s restroom. A DSS security employee entered the men’s restroom shortly afterward to, more or less, accuse the father of some type of mental lapse or indiscretion. According to the father, this employee, a male, pointed to his crotch while commenting about what the young girls might see. Reportedly, another DSS employee witnessed the events and didn’t believe that anything inappropriate occurred in dealing with the situation.

Althought the account of these events is in dispute, a singular question remains: where else was the father supposed to take his daughters when they needed to go to the toilet?

I am a father and when my daughter was the same age as those of Donovan O’Neil, I also took my daughter to the mens’ restroom when she needed to use the toilet. Was I supposed to enter the womens’ restroom and assist my daughter there? What do you think would have occurred if I, an adult male, had entered the womens’ restroom with my daughter? Do you think the adult females would have liked that? Do you think I might have been called out of the womens’ restroom by an employee of the establishment, or worse, a police officer? Yeah, in our society, it sometimes sucks to have a penis.

What is more stunning about the O’Neil situation is that these events occurred in the Department of Social Services. If any department of your government should be able to understand a father needing to assist his daughters with toileting, it should be DSS. Does DSS not encounter families where the father is the only adult? Perhaps the father is divorced and the mother has abandoned the children, perhaps the mother died or she is in prison, or perhaps the father is at the mall with his two daugthers while the mother is at work … do any of these situations sound familiar to you? They should sound familliar to DSS. Also, if this situation is of such concern to the DSS, why don’t they offer facilities in their own building to accomodate famillies of whatever configuration?

This situation points to a larger problem for men. We live in a society in which men are assumed to do incorrect and inappropriate things, especially any activity which might, even remotely, involve our genitalia.

Why did the DSS employees react so coldly? Are they so profoundly unaware of their own roles and the roles of fathers? Have they not learned anything from the public they serve?

Another Thoughtcrime Victory! Manga Porn = 15 years

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009

Just when you thought it was safe to possess a pen and paper, we hear about the disturbing case of Manga1 collector Christopher Handley’s prosecution and guilty plea (disappointing the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund) for violating the 2003 Protect Act, which outlaws cartoons, drawings, sculptures or paintings depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and which lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” The maximum sentence is 15 years. It’s likely that Handley pled that down significantly.2 What did he possess to get him in so much trouble? Depictions of cartoon children being sexually abused.3

Some call him sick for collecting such things. Some feel he should be locked up. They feel that sick things should be prohibited. What is this really a case about? Sexuality? Pedophilia? Puritanism? Regardless, there has been an uproar in the comic book community, and the point I made last December is being reiterated.4 My “underage” stick-figure sex depiction (daring someone to prosecute me) has been, in a variety of ways, repeated.5

Where’s the victim? The ink? The paper? Are the prosecutors the type of people who believe that fictional characters have feelings or rights? And why isn’t everyone who has a copy of Nabokov’s Lolita (in book or movie form, or, heck, is there a graphic novel?) currently being prosecuted? Heck, why isn’t the government clamping down on Amazon and Barnes & Noble for selling both artistic and literary depictions of underage sex, rape, and torture? If you think it doesn’t exist, if you think it’s not purchasable by the general public, perhaps you’re the myopic kind of person who would cheer to see Handley thrown in jail while you simultaneously forgive the Catholic Church for harboring men who actually stuck their penises in the mouths and anuses of the innocent boys in their care.

Was that statement too obscene for you? Funny, because it really happened to real children by real priests (and lots of other people who don’t even know what Manga is). Why on earth would a man like Handley, who merely possessed drawings of things you don’t like, be subjected to more years in prison than the men who perform the acts you cannot bear to read upon REAL CHILDREN? That, not Handley, is what is disgusting in this society and world. Perhaps if Handley suddenly found Jesus he would be treated with real justice in a nation that touts its freedom of thought while failing to practice what it preaches.

Worth reading is the BoingBoing post about Handley’s unfortunate situation. Also some of the comments are right on target, and I’m going to quote a few of my favorites right here:

-verde-

Thought Police at the door sir:

-Have you ever in your head pictured an infant being raped?

-No.

-Not even now that we brought up the subject?

-Well, mmm I guess so.

-Could you come with us?

-spazzm-

And who exactly decides what is artistic or immoral?

Erotica is artistic, porn is immoral, smut is illegal.
Erotica is what excites me, porn is what excites you, smut is what excites them.

-anonymous-

One of the questions I have is why the assumption is that such content serves the sole purpose of titillation or arousal for the reader. Yes, its principle intent may be that, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the reader views it that way. I have books of Toshio Saeki’s work that I have brought back from Europe in the last ten years (and not without concern they would be confiscated at customs or worse). His work is *extremely* difficult to look at, and often incorporates children in sexual situations with adults. I do not find this at all arousing, and in fact, I find it shocking and disturbing. But I find his work incredibly beautiful, challenging and it inspires me to ask questions of myself as I look at it. So, where is that part of it? We must be allowed to examine the work of others that we ourselves may not agree with or even like…And I don’t want to live in a world where we’re not allowed to express even the darkest parts of our psyche…which no one is above. Some just keep it to themselves better than others.

Spare the whole “it inspires others to act”. Pete Townsend has a quote about that.

Then there’s that whole problem of suppressing thoughts and artistic expression. You know. That kinda poses ongoing problems. Telling people what they can / can’t think / express / consider doesn’t really work so great.

And, I highly agree with what was said earlier about cultural misunderstandings related to the taboo depiction of pubic hair making these characters appear to be children.

This is tragic. Very scary, very sad that he pled guilty without proper counsel. (I’m a mid-30’s white female, btw).

-anonymous-

Wow. I guess I better get ready for prison. I drew a picture of myself having sex with a cartoon girl (…after cutting her cartoon head off). By this standard, I’m guilty of sex crimes against children. I didn’t even get to “play doctor” as a kid. :(

If we really wanted to protect children, the US Catholic Church should be (temporarily) shut down and have all the clergy FBI checked and registered (fingerprints and DNA, you pervy bastards). Let’s start with the real criminals. Remember the psychologist in Happiness who was a pedophile? He jerked himself off to a male teen magazine in the back of his car (one of my all-time favorite cringe comedy moments). Those are the PEOPLE you should be worried about having pictures fuel their desire. It won’t be the loli.

I am a victim of child sexual abuse in two ways. I was abused as a teen, and my first attempt at intercourse was destroyed by my adult partner’s sobs of physical and psychological pain. She had been raped as a young girl. I carried that crushing guilt with me for several years after that.

Show me comics/drawings of someone’s fantasy/nightmare of raping and killing children, I may enjoy it. I may abhor it. I might fantasize about killing the person who made it. I might masturbate to it and cry afterward. In the privacy of my home and in my mind, I should be able to do anything I want with it.

Should I go to jail for thoughts?

In the meantime, I’m going to be renaming all of my folders “midget porn.”

-Redsquares-

In other news, millions arrested for owning copies of Gauguin’s works and early sketches.

I’d hate to see what happens to Scheile collectors.

God dammit, under this sort of law, my paper on Bellmer I wrote for art history is enough to throw most of that class in jail. Dude drew bisected nude girls, in a clearly sexualized nature. Damn good drawings, aesthetically and technically: well done, good composition, and were done to fuck with the Nazis to boot, but still… what does that prove?

It’s obvious you are a sick fuck, no matter what the hell you do. Someone, somewhere, is against it for the pure purpose of being against it, the only question is: can they convince others to be against it too?

-blueelm-

What a strange situation. It was my understanding that the posession of photographic child pornography was illegal because it encouraged the assault and mistreatment of the children in the picture. In other words it is documentation of abuse.

It is a strange and tough argument about manga and I don’t know exactly how I feel, but while our children are fetishised to a large degree in the US there is a distinction between a predatory pedophile, your nasty uncle, and people who collect drawings of little girls being split in half by squid with hardware. I’m not sure that the latter influences the former, as the person molesting one’s child is more likely to be a good friend or spouse than a sexually-frustrated comic collector.

I think the Gacey clown of pain model sticks in people’s heads, but remember that he actually interacted with kids… not drawings of them. Secondly while we may be stigmatizing our kids by putting them in beauty pageants and American Apparel ads, the objective of some one who compulsively rapes small children is not to worship the adult-like beauty of a little girl but rather to have sex with her because it fufuls a compulsive need. As far as sympathy for them, I’m not sure about these teach-a-lesson type laws, but I see no problem with confining a serious enough offender from the rest of society, but some one with some drawings? Really?

By the same token it makes me sad that there is probably some one who has actually raped a little girl who will serve less jailtime than this guy will for having some troubling drawings. As far as the drawings, as an artist, I can’t help but think that these things must be tolerated.

Okay, that’s enough for now. Check out the BoingBoing comment thread and KOS for a lot more on both sides of the issue.

If you have some extra money, donate it to CBLDF. If you know someone who is about to get in trouble for possessing cartoons (or a book, etc.), refer the person to CBLDF and the ACLU.

  1. “Comics and print cartoons (sometimes also called komikku コミック), in the Japanese language and conforming to the style developed in Japan in the late 20th century.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manga [<]
  2. Here’s a link via Wired of his actual plea agreement. I think he screwed himself. [<]
  3. I’m sure that statement will get some unwanted Google hits to my blog. [<]
  4. If you missed it, the argument was about Lisa Simpson, the cartoon character, being depicted in sexual situations, and a law in Australia was being applied. My earlier article also referred to the U.S. Protect Act and related laws that have arisen in the Handley case. [<]
  5. No, I’m not taking credit for it, but I did post it in December, damnit! [<]

Outing: Is sex off limits?

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

Recently, a Washington DC news anchor, Doug McKelway, while hosting a local interest news program called Let’s Talk Live, interviewed Mike Rogers about outing hypocritical politicians. The movie is Outrage1 and Mike Rogers can be found at BlogActive.com. The interview made McKelway rather hot and bothered because he told Rogers that he would like to punch him in the face (more or less).

What exactly is the outrage here? Many, of which Mike Rogers is one, have dedicated themselves to unearthing the hypocrisy of politicians at any level who engage in homosexual behavior yet routinely vote against gay rights issues. Is outing the sexual behavior of a hypocritical public official the right thing to do?

I think that each of us has a right to our private lives. Sex is just one facet of things that should be private. If we don’t need to know the intimate conversations you have about politics or money, why do we need to know the intimate conversations regarding your sexual activity? Of course, if the activities in which you engage are illegal, then those activities become a matter of public record. The intimacy is over because the right to privacy ends.

However, any action that you take as a public official that is counter to the actions you take in your private life is a real problem. If you are Eliot Spitzer (former New York Governor, New York Attorney General, Manhattan District Attorney) and you prosecute prostitutes all the while secretly engaging the services of prostitutes in multiple jurisdictions, you are not only hypocritical but you are violating the law. You cannot be trusted. Eliot was outed, sexually speaking, but Eliot is not gay.

During the interview, McKelway asks Rogers about the outings of certain public officials like Larry Craig, who was infamously arrested in the bathroom of a Minneapolis airport while attempting to obtain sex from the person in the adjacent stall. Larry Craig, apparently, has also voted against gay rights issues on multiple occasions. Rogers also mentions Florida Governor Charlie Christ, who recently announced he will run in the US Senate race in 2010. While Larry Craig’s issues are rather obvious, Charlie Christ’s issues are not. Although rumors have spread for years about both gentlemen, Christ has yet to have anyone provide proof publicly of his non-heterosexual behavior. (I don’t follow the news stories on Christ, so I am more than willing to be corrected on the facts.)

If a public official, particularly one that holds an elected position, is engaging in personal behavior that is contradictory to his/her publicly stated positions or to his/her public actions (such as a voting record), then I think that the personal behavior should be known. If Larry Craig were to dress up in women’s clothing and hang out in gay bars in order to bag a guy at a DC hotel, I really don’t care. However, if Larry Craig takes a consistent public stance against people who otherwise engage in the same behavior he does, and he echoes that stance with a voting record to match, I think Larry Craig should be outed. I don’t mean to beat up on Larry Craig, poor guy, but he’s the most recent posterchild for hypocritical sexual activity.

The question becomes this: Why is sex off limits to outing? We often out people for financial misdeeds, such as Sam Donaldson for being against farm subsidies yet consistently accepting federal subsidies for his goat ranch (or whatever) in New Mexico. That is just one example of a hypocrisy uncovered, and that was a hypocrisy committed by a private individual functioning in a public capacity (news reporting), who also reports on the hypocrises of other public figures. 

Did the message about our sexual lives being private become overdone? I don’t care what anyone does in their private lives, but if I am going to vote for you, or if you are appointed by someone else to act on my behalf, then your personal behavior better withstand the public scrutinty of a position you hold publicly. If you consistently think gays shouldn’t marry or adopt children or even be allowed to work anywhere, and you are consistently engaging in homosexual behavior, watch out! I am the public and I think I have the right to know.

Doug McKelway needs to get off the horse he’s riding because it’s way too high.

  1. IMDb: Outrage [<]

Sean Tevis is Back

Wednesday, May 13th, 2009

Back in July, 2008, I alerted State of Protest readers to the novel way Kansas resident Sean Tevis used the Internet as a political campaign tool in order to make an incredible attempt to oust the obsolete incumbent Arlen Siegfreid, a Kansas state representative, a right-wing conservative who is anti-abortion, pro-censorship, anti-same-sex marriage, pro-surveillance, and pro-creationism (in public schools). Regardless of the fact that the outcome was not in Tevis’ favor, he created an historic moment for the record number of donors he acquired as well as the uniqueness of his technologically progressive approach.

Simon Owens, at Bloggasm, brings to our attention that Tevis is at it again this year, announcing his plan to run in 2010.

So in Tevis’ new plan, he would visit a minimum of 50 politicians across the state and US to not only share the information he gathered from his constituents, but also to promote his own ideas for transparency in government.

Take a look at the Bloggasm article, which reviews Tevis’ past and future campaigns, and then head over to Tevis’ site and see what he’s been up to.