On Friday, one of Nevada's most important industries took a big step toward gender equality. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean men in leotards will now be serving cocktails on casino floors at 9 a.m., but it does mean that people who like to have sex with men will legally be able to purchase an opportunity to do so.
Technically, male prostitution wasn't expressly prohibited before, but health codes required "that prostitutes must undergo 'cervical' testing for sexually transmitted diseases," leaving those without a cervix out of a job. Bobbi Davis, owner of the Shady Lady Ranch, hired an ACLU lawyer to ask that the language be changed, and the health board approved the request. Davis intends to have male prostitutes working for her in the new year. Like her female employees, they'll decide whether to accept men, women or both as clients.
Although Davis and other brothel owners will probably be happy to have a new revenue stream in tough economic times, you know that whenever the subject of men having sex with men comes up, somebody's going to A) be unhappy and B) say something remarkably stupid on the record. In this case, the outrageously offensive overstatement of the day award goes to George Flint, longtime lobbyist for the Nevada Brothel Owners Association (and a former Assemblies of God minister), who called the decision "Pearl Harbor for the brothel industry." He predicts "fallout and backlash" because "Some may feel it's a repugnant thing to do or something that does not have the appetite of the state as a whole." As opposed to female prostitution, which everyone's thrilled about? Yep, if you ask Flint. "We've worked hard for years to make the traditional brothel business in this state socially acceptable and something we can be proud of that most Nevadans accept," he said. But clearly, a population that's cool with female prostitution, gambling and drive-thru wedding chapels will find the idea of men selling sex unacceptably tacky. Of course.
On Thursday night, Michelle Duggar gave birth to her 19th child via emergency C-section. Michelle had been suffering from gallstones and elevated blood pressure last weekend, and at some point her health made it necessary to deliver Josie Brooklyn three months before her due date and at only 1 pound, 6 ounces. Michelle is reportedly resting comfortably, while Josie is stable in the neonatal intensive care unit, but neither is necessarily out of the woods.
Unfortunately, only time will tell how the extremely premature baby will fare. In the meantime, as OpenSalon blogger LadyMiko put it, "One question is going off in my head like a strobe light: Even in the healthiest of circumstances, how many children can a woman have, before it becomes a danger to her health? I'm not asking this as a judgment, but as a sincere question." Luchina Fisher and Lauren Cox at ABC News asked the same question of Rhode Island OB-GYN Joanna Cain, and learned that "women who've borne more than five children risk hemorrhage and even the loss of their uterus because repeated pregnancies sometimes thin the walls of the uterus." Furthermore, "women such as Duggar, after their child-bearing years, are also at greater risk of incontinence and even uterine prolapse, in which the uterus falls to the pelvic floor."
Vyckie Garrison, a former member of the "Quiverfull" religious movement that's spiritually responsible for the Duggars' enormous brood, suffered a partial uterine rupture during one of her seven pregnancies, and doctors told her that for the sake of her own health, she shouldn't conceive again. But according to her religious beliefs at the time, using contraception or even abstaining from sex when she was ovulating would be defying God's will. In a recent post on her "No Longer Quivering" blog, Garrison reprints a letter she once wrote to a 21-year-old mother of two who wondered if there were any circumstances under which it would be all right for a woman to "abstain during her fertile time." When she wrote it, Garrison was stull fully committed to the Quiverfull lifestyle.
I know you are well aware that often when a doctor tells a woman that future pregnancies might jeopardize her life -- it is simply not true. It is rare that pregnancy is actually life threatening to the mother. In many cases, when a woman's health is severely compromised, infertility goes along with the health condition (i.e. amenorrhea due to extreme weight loss or gain, etc.) -- this most likely is God's way of protecting the woman from the risks of pregnancy during that time. But what about the cases when the woman's reproductive system continues to function normally in spite of her other health conditions, or in the (very rare) case of a woman whose health is otherwise fine -- it is only pregnancy which puts her at risk?
Many would argue that in those cases, a couple ought to trust God to supernaturally close the woman's womb. After all, she cannot get pregnant outside of the will of God -- and He knows whether a pregnancy will endanger her life, so He can be trusted to do what is best for the woman in her situation. Abstaining during the woman's fertile period would be a lack of faith and therefore, the couple should not expect to receive God's protection for the woman's health.
Got that? If you abstain just because some doctor told you pregnancy could kill you, God will get mad and wreck your health anyway -- so what have you got to lose? Garrison adds a postscript written recently, years after she left the Quiverfull movement and her abusive husband, admitting that even that wasn't as extreme as what she truly believed at the time. "I didn't come right out and say that I honestly doubted that for some women, pregnancy is a life-threatening condition. (My years as a staunch pro-life advocate taught me that the 'life of the mother' argument was really only a convenient fallacy promoted by the pro-aborts.)" Chillingly, Garrison says she still refused to believe it after that uterine rupture nearly killed her and her son. Because if God personally authorizes each pregnancy for a specific purpose, why would he greenlight one that would leave a child -- or six or seven or 18 children -- motherless?
Enduring a dangerous pregnancy, then, is simply a test of faith. In an e-mail, Kathryn Joyce, author of "Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement," told me, "What may be more disturbing than these potentially deadly health effects is the response that Quiverfull women might get from the movement's leadership, many of whom emphasize that women's duty to bear many children should be viewed as a 'missionary' calling, with all the risks that traditional missionary work entails." And if you don't survive all those risks? Well, we know God doesn't fuck anything up, so it must have been something you did. Says Joyce, "Other leaders have said that women's health problems during or related to pregnancy are the result of unrepented sin -- in other words, their own fault." And yes, this God would, in fact, punish a woman for sinning by leaving her children motherless. In an interview for Salon, Vyckie Garrison told Joyce that after doctors advised her not to conceive again, her religious leaders told her that if she died doing her maternal duty, God would care for her family."
According to MSNBC, while Michelle Duggar was hospitalized last weekend, a reporter asked what she'd do if doctors told her that future pregnancies might be life-threatening. Her reply was as heartbreaking as it is mind-boggling to most of us: "I don't know. I'm not at that place. I guess we would just cross that bridge when we got there. If there was something that were life threatening for me, that would be a matter of prayer."
It turns out hookup culture isn't a sign of the coming apocalypse, nor is casual sex emotionally corrupting young adults. (No surprise here.) If there's something the matter with kids these days, don't blame it on sex.
This "no duh" news come by way of a University of Minnesota survey of the sexual habits and psychological well-being (based on "body satisfaction, self-esteem and depressive symptoms") of 1,311 young adults in their late teens and early 20s. Researchers simply found no discernible difference in the mental health of kidults in committed sexual relationships and freewheeling bed-hoppers. The study also noted that cases of depression often exist before adolescents lose their virginity or engage in unsafe sex. Of course, self-reports of anything -- perhaps especially when it comes to sexual history and the nuances of one's emotional health -- is fallible. Also, the study focused on participants' most recent sexual experiences as opposed to conducting an in-depth review of their entire sexual history. So, these findings are best used as a counterweight to the hand-wringing and condemnation provoked by the "hookup generation."
However, the researchers were careful to make note of health risks of another sort: Previous research has found an association between "positive attitudes about casual sex" and "a history of sexual aggression among men and attitudes conducive to intimate partner violence." (Yet another perk to being a gal.) And, of course, there is always the major, undeniable risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Lead researcher Marla E. Eisenberg says the study underscores "the need for [safe sex] messages in sexuality education programs and other interventions with young adults." Maybe that would be a more useful educational message than one about the psychological damage of sleeping around, hmm?
Another day, another stupid, sexist ad campaign. This time, it's Burger King, who've taken to enticing British men toward their otherwise unpalatable breakfast fare with "the world's first guilt-free showercam." Visitors to their showercam site (you have to be 18 or over to enter -- it's that sizzling HOT!) can "choose what she wears and sings," then watch her "shake her bits" in the shower to a pop song while clad in a BK-themed bathing suit. (Do fries go with that hamburger bikini top?) Today a comely lass was soaping herself up to "(Hit Me) ... Baby One More Time." I wish I could make this shit up.
But wait, punters, there's more -- you can win a date with her. "One seriously lucky person will get to share a couple of Breakfast Big Fillers and pancakes with our sizzling shower babe in the London Leicester Square Burger King restaurant -- you never know, it just might be the start of something beautiful (and she might even sing for you)!"
Pancakes in a Leicester Square Burger King -- tell me I'm not dreaming!
Coming hot on the pumiced heels of Method's leering "Shiny Suds" misfire, it's clear a lady can't even bathe in peace anymore. Yes, she's undressed and wet and soapy. We get it. What genius got paid to come up with this?
I could go all blah blah blah offensive blah blah blah objectification of women blah blah blah nice nod to your voyeur pervs here, and in fact I will, but first, a reminder. We are all for sexy and witty and clever here. This, however, is not that. This is softcore to peddle hash browns. Not entirely surprising from the people who earlier this year gave us the blowjob sandwich campaign -- but gross nonetheless.
Here's what really sticks in our craw like soggy onion rings, though: A Burger King spokesman told Advertising Age yesterday, "Our research showed that breakfast is a male-centric audience for Burger King; it doesn't resonate as well with women -- we are targeting the people who are buying breakfast." In other words, sod off, wenches. You are mere bits shakers in the King's eyes, here to dance and sing with fried eggs on your boobs because we tell you to. Your insubordinate lack of support for our flame-broiled goodness exiles you from the realm of valued customers. We're busy reaching out to the fan base who can associate our products with their morning spank routine.
Message received. And it makes us want to hurl our morning meal right down the throne.
On Wednesday, the New York Times published an Op-Ed by Rep. Bart Stupak, in which he aims to "set the record straight" on his amendment to the House healthcare reform bill, which would severely restrict access to abortion. Today, Rep. Lois Capps -- author of the Capps amendment, which would preserve the 1976 Hyde Amendment's ban on federal funding for abortions without interfering with any coverage that comes from private funds -- responds with a post at RH Reality Check that might as well be called "Bart Stupak, Your Pants Are on Fire."
Wrote Stupak, "While many accusations have been thrown around in recent months, the intent behind our amendment is simple and clear: to continue current law, which says that there should be no federal financing of abortions. Our intent was not to change, add or take anything away from federal law." Capps annihilates that claim and several others one by one, reinforcing the fundamental point she makes twice in bold letters: "The Stupak-Pitts Amendment goes well beyond current law by contracting access to abortion services and is in no way the simple extension of the Hyde Amendment its proponents claim." If you're in the mood for some satisfying righteous indignation, go read the whole thing.
Toward the end of November, advice columnist Amy Dickinson and University of North Dakota student Josh Brorby both drew criticism from the feminist blogosphere for writing intensely wrongheaded things about rape. To recap, Dickinson received a letter from a woman who explained that, while drunk at a frat party, she went to a guy's room with him. "Many times, I clearly said I didn't want to have sex, and he promised to my face that he wouldn't. Then he quickly proceeded to go against what he 'promised,'" says the letter-writer. "I guess my question is, if I wasn't kicking and fighting him off, is it still rape?" Correct answer: Yes. Dickinson's answer: "First, you were a victim of your own awful judgment," followed shortly thereafter by, "You don't say whether the guy was also drunk. If so, his judgment was also impaired." See, your decision to drink at a party demonstrates such poor judgment you really need to take some responsibility for getting raped. His decision to rape, however, is mitigated by his judgment-trashing drunkenness! Duh. Amy then gets around to what she should have said in the first place -- "If you didn't consent, you were raped" -- but follows it up with quite possibly the worst advice I have ever seen in an advice column: "You must involve the guy in question in order to determine what happened..." To her credit, she says something about him needing to take responsibility -- just like the woman who, let's not forget, had the "awful judgment" to drink at a party -- but it's kind of overshadowed by the fact that she just told this woman to ask her rapist if she was raped. So that's the Ask Amy deal.
The Josh Brorby deal is, he wrote a piece for the Dakota Student in which he attempted to satirize the thought processes of rape-minded college dudes, but instead came awfully close to offering what Jill at Feministe called "a rapist's playbook." Sample text "She's good and buzzed now, right? Maybe a little unconscious? Whatever, bro, it's a one-night stand. This is where you drop the line, something funny yet titillating to let her know your intentions. Try this one on for size: 'Let's have sex,' and if that doesn't work, drop this bomb on her: 'Hey I'm going to have sex with you now.' If you're a real dare devil just pull down your pants and get to it." As Jill wrote, "[S]atire by definition requires wit, and, well, let's just say that 'wit' doesn't apply here, unless it is prefixed by 'dim' or a choice four-letter word. There's also a difference between 'satire' and 'repetition of actual events. Satire holds power and reality up for mockery and challenge through irony or derision; none of that is present in this article. It is instead a mash-up of common rape-promoting and apologizing tropes."
This week, both Dickinson and Brorby issued public apologies for their respective failures of sensitivity (and arguably, common sense). One of them basically offered a standard "I didn't mean anything by it" eff you. The other wrote an extremely thoughtful essay taking responsibility for the blatant screw-up. And if you're thinking the middle-aged female advice columnist must be the one knows how to give a proper apology, while the random college dude is the one who refused to acknowledge his mistake, you've got it backwards. Dickinson is Goofus here, and Brorby is shockingly, refreshingly Gallant.
For example: Goofus still shies away from the word "rape." "After saying in advance that she didn't want to have sex," writes Dickinson, "she did have sex." Yeah, sex after you've made it clear you don't want sex? Better known as "rape." Gallant, on the other hand, does not hesitate to acknowledge that even drunken frat boys -- perhaps especially drunken frat boys -- can commit rape, and it is not only the alcohol that makes them do it! "Rapists aren't monsters in dark alleyways, true; they are the person walking across the street, that guy in Spanish class, the man you saw fist-pumping at a party last week. And these men aren't born rapists, monsters within waiting to pounce out. No, they are created by the notion that it is okay to view women as nothing more than an achievement, a challenge, or an object to be used during a one-night stand. "
Goofus says she didn't really do anything wrong, except for phrasing one thing a bit brutally, and acts as though "not intending to offend" is the same thing as "not being offensive":
Because "Victim" wondered where the line was, I tried to draw it for her. My intent was to urge her (as I often urge readers) to take responsibility for the only thing she could control -- her own choices and actions -- but I regret how harshly I expressed this.
I certainly didn't intend to offend or blame her for what happened, and I hope she will do everything possible to stay safe in the future.
Um, Goofus, implying she didn't do enough to stay safe in the first place, simply because she made the choice to drink alcohol at a party, is exactly why people accused you of victim-blaming. But it's great to know you didn't intend to do that. Twice. Also, if you're going to make claims about what you said -- e.g., "I told her that the perpetrator should be confronted by authorities at school because he might have done this before and might do it again unless he is stopped" -- it's best if the original document backs you up on such statements. Because when it doesn't, people will be tempted to write things like, "Goofus lies through her teeth."
Gallant, meanwhile, tells the truth and accepts responsibility, even when it means acknowledging that he simply shouldn't have written what he did:
I was wrong to think that humor could be used to look at a problem that is so visceral and prevalent in universities. In the article - no matter how each individual received it - I did not take into account the fact that many women have dealt with situations incredibly similar to the one I presented. I did not consider that in writing a satirical piece on such a personal issue, I was taking my position as a man for granted, ignoring the fact that such humorous overtones allow men who may think like the satirical character created to feel okay with their behavior, or to joke about deep sexual issues. The approach I took (I now know) did not address the issue in a way that could help; it only propagated the intense and still-existent rape/predatory culture that pervades our society.
For this, I am truly sorry, and I apologize to all readers of the Dakota Student. It was a gross mistake on my part to submit the piece.
Finally, Goofus gives a vague nod to the importance of Talking About It -- "I'm grateful that she chose to share her question with all of us, because talking about it will help others" -- while Gallant actually takes the time to think about and discuss the issue in greater depth, sharing what he's learned from all the criticism: "In all of this, though, there is a blessing of sorts: I now have the opportunity to write about the issues I wanted to originally discuss in a serious arena with a larger audience than previously available. I can address the problem of the predatory-sexual mindset that some men have without hiding behind a character or beating around the bush (things I shouldn't have done in the first place)." And then he does just that, and it's terrific.
Even Brorby's sincere, well-considered apology can't completely undo any damage his original piece may have caused, but as Jill put it, "it does seem like Josh is making a very serious effort to be a good and productive ally." Meanwhile, it seems like Amy is making a very serious effort to rationalize telling a rape victim she should be ashamed of her "awful judgment." So if you ever need some guidance on how to take constructive criticism and own your mistakes, you might just be better off writing to a North Dakota college student than a professional advice columnist.
It's Hard Being An Egalitarian
40 Years After Rossi, Mommies Propagate Prejudice
