Big news! The new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - or the DSM as it's more commonly known - will change the way kink is defined in terms of mental health. The current version lists any type of sexual interest and activity that is not solely focused on people and their genitals as paraphilias. This allows for the claim that people who have such interests may be mentally ill when really, they are probably completely normal healthy people who just happen to get turned on by feet, or diapers, or balloons, or whatever the case may be. The DSM-5, which is coming out in May, still defines those things as paraphilias but then contains a new category - of paraphilic disorders. Paraphilias are things happily and healthily and consensually enjoyed by those who participate. A paraphilic disorder is a paraphilia which causes distress or harm to the person who is practicing it or to others. I know, that's still really open to interpretation but this is a great move. It is a statement by the most influential mental health professionals in North America that kinky sex and BDSM is not, in and of itself, unhealthy. Just like any other activity or interest, it's only unhealthy if it's hurting the person who does it or other people involved. This will be of great help to those who find themselves unfairly persecuted because of their sexual interests like people who lose their jobs when bosses or co-workers find out they're kinky or parents who lose custody or visitation rights - and yes, this does happen. Now, anyone who tries to use someone's sexual interests against them will not necessarily have the support of the DSM, they will have to show that there is actual harm.
The best step, I think, would have been for the concept of paraphilia to have been left out entirely as it's clear from the explanation above that if the paraphilia isn't causing any distress to anyone, it's no big deal and doesn't need to be discussed and if the paraphilia is causing distress, there's an underlying issue completely unrelated to the paraphilia as evidenced by the fact that lots of people have paraphilias and have no problems with them. In the case of a paraphilic disorder, it's much more likely that the person has some other issue such as obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, coping issues, stress, that are expressing themselves around the fetish or kink. It's not the kink that's the issue, it's the thing that's driving the distressing expression of the kink that's the issue. So this new categorization isn't perfect, to be sure, but at least it's a step forward in the recognition that lots of people have kinks, lots of people are into BDSM, and they are not, because of this, sick, weird, mentally ill, dangerous or abnormal. I think we should call it a small victory for now.
Here's an article with more information.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Thursday, April 18, 2013
My Hero for the Day
I had a story in my news feed this morning about a high school student who is protesting a presentation at her school by abstinence crusader Pam Stenzel. This young woman, Katelyn Campbell, who's age is not listed but couldn't be older than 17 or 18, has shown not only the wisdom to detect the false information in Stenzel's presentations and the violation of student's rights by forcing them to attend a blatantly religious themed assembly, but also the guts to stand up and say no in spite of mounting consequences to her academic life. She deserves a huge round of applause and all the support she needs to see herself vindicated.
So for some background on this, Pam Stenzel is an abstinence 'educator' of the absolute worst order. She travels the US giving speeches to all kinds of groups of kids but mostly high schools, teaching them about all the bad things that will happen to you if you have sex. Her presentations are riddled with inaccurate information. She says that condoms are not effective in preventing pregnancies and STI's and that abortion causes depression and suicidal thoughts. She says that abortions are painful and cause bulimia. Her presentations are chockful of gender stereotypes - she places both the blame and the responsibility for sexual activity almost solely on girls. She tells girls that they are devaluing and debasing themselves if they have sex and says that if their mothers give them birth control, it means they hate them. She says that a girl is ten times more likely to get an STI if she's on birth control. There is also a large dose of Christian Fundamentalism along with all of the other stuff. If you don't believe me, and if you don't mind throwing up in your mouth a little, take a look at this clip of one of her presentations.
I love that this crowd doesn't think she's funny - even though she's trying to make jokes. If that doesn't bother you, check this out!
Notice how its really just the girls who need to stop having sex and confess to their husbands what they've done.
Ok, so it doesn't take a genius to realize that this stuff is harmful. In fact, if you look at any recent research, you'll see that it's been irrefutably proven that this kind of 'education' is not effective in delaying the age of first sexual activity, reducing numbers of pregnancies, or preventing STI's. But I still applaud Katelyn for pointing it out and for standing up for all of the people in her school who were made to feel uncomfortable, ashamed, or downright terrified by Pam and her crazy shitshow. Katelyn refused to go to the presentation and started a protest against it. Her principal threatened to call the college she had been accepted to and tell them that she was a 'bad character' and a 'backstabber'. In a beautiful little response, Wellesley College tweeted yesterday afternoon that Katelyn need not be concerned about her spot for next year. Glad to see that they support her right to protest.
It's not so much that Katelyn needed to win this and actually stop the presentation from happening. It's just that students should, and really do need to, have both sides of the story. Students should be made aware of the fact that Stenzel has been roundly criticized for giving misinformation and they should know the actual facts as opposed to what she says. They should have resources so that they can sit in that room and judge fairly for themselves whether they agree with her or not. And they should have the right to choose not to attend the presentation. The fact that none of those things were available and that the school would attempt to force their students to listen to someone berating and scaring them and offer them no alternative information is baffling and scary to me. They should have at least allowed and welcomed Katelyn's protest and allowed her to give out her information - letting the students decide for themselves. But that's exactly what this boils down to. Katelyn's principal and Pam Stenzel and their ilk want to tell teenagers what to do. The last thing in the world they want is for them to think for themselves. They want them to blindly follow where they lead them and meekly do what they are told. But is that the kind of education we really want? What do we get when we teach our children to sit back, listen and obey? We get a generation of blind followers. Is that what we want? Or do we want a generation of thinkers, questioners, innovators and leaders like Katelyn?
So for some background on this, Pam Stenzel is an abstinence 'educator' of the absolute worst order. She travels the US giving speeches to all kinds of groups of kids but mostly high schools, teaching them about all the bad things that will happen to you if you have sex. Her presentations are riddled with inaccurate information. She says that condoms are not effective in preventing pregnancies and STI's and that abortion causes depression and suicidal thoughts. She says that abortions are painful and cause bulimia. Her presentations are chockful of gender stereotypes - she places both the blame and the responsibility for sexual activity almost solely on girls. She tells girls that they are devaluing and debasing themselves if they have sex and says that if their mothers give them birth control, it means they hate them. She says that a girl is ten times more likely to get an STI if she's on birth control. There is also a large dose of Christian Fundamentalism along with all of the other stuff. If you don't believe me, and if you don't mind throwing up in your mouth a little, take a look at this clip of one of her presentations.
I love that this crowd doesn't think she's funny - even though she's trying to make jokes. If that doesn't bother you, check this out!
Notice how its really just the girls who need to stop having sex and confess to their husbands what they've done.
Ok, so it doesn't take a genius to realize that this stuff is harmful. In fact, if you look at any recent research, you'll see that it's been irrefutably proven that this kind of 'education' is not effective in delaying the age of first sexual activity, reducing numbers of pregnancies, or preventing STI's. But I still applaud Katelyn for pointing it out and for standing up for all of the people in her school who were made to feel uncomfortable, ashamed, or downright terrified by Pam and her crazy shitshow. Katelyn refused to go to the presentation and started a protest against it. Her principal threatened to call the college she had been accepted to and tell them that she was a 'bad character' and a 'backstabber'. In a beautiful little response, Wellesley College tweeted yesterday afternoon that Katelyn need not be concerned about her spot for next year. Glad to see that they support her right to protest.
It's not so much that Katelyn needed to win this and actually stop the presentation from happening. It's just that students should, and really do need to, have both sides of the story. Students should be made aware of the fact that Stenzel has been roundly criticized for giving misinformation and they should know the actual facts as opposed to what she says. They should have resources so that they can sit in that room and judge fairly for themselves whether they agree with her or not. And they should have the right to choose not to attend the presentation. The fact that none of those things were available and that the school would attempt to force their students to listen to someone berating and scaring them and offer them no alternative information is baffling and scary to me. They should have at least allowed and welcomed Katelyn's protest and allowed her to give out her information - letting the students decide for themselves. But that's exactly what this boils down to. Katelyn's principal and Pam Stenzel and their ilk want to tell teenagers what to do. The last thing in the world they want is for them to think for themselves. They want them to blindly follow where they lead them and meekly do what they are told. But is that the kind of education we really want? What do we get when we teach our children to sit back, listen and obey? We get a generation of blind followers. Is that what we want? Or do we want a generation of thinkers, questioners, innovators and leaders like Katelyn?
Monday, April 15, 2013
Vibration for Voice
I have always been a proponent of vibrators and all the wonderful things they can do, and not just what they can do for your sex life. A story that came out last month and continues to make news gives us yet another wonderful use for the vibrator. It improves your singing voice!
Dr. David Ley, a professor at the University of Alberta, has found that use a vibrator against the muscles in the throat, around the vocal chords, can relax them and improve the strength and range of the voice. Yay for vibrators. Here is the best story and video I could find, that really explains what he's done. What the story doesn't tell you is that it was staff and the Traveling Tickle Trunk that helped him choose that Siri vibrator. We've always known that vibration is good for muscle massage. We work with physiotherapists who use massage for all kinds of muscle therapy. Vibrators stimulate blood flow and that helps muscle to relax and stretch out. So when Dr. Ley came in with this idea, our staff weren't surprised at all.
We're pleased to see this story getting so much press because we want everyone to understand how awesome vibrators are for all kinds of reasons. It's certainly stimulated a lot of interest in the Lelo Siri!
Dr. David Ley, a professor at the University of Alberta, has found that use a vibrator against the muscles in the throat, around the vocal chords, can relax them and improve the strength and range of the voice. Yay for vibrators. Here is the best story and video I could find, that really explains what he's done. What the story doesn't tell you is that it was staff and the Traveling Tickle Trunk that helped him choose that Siri vibrator. We've always known that vibration is good for muscle massage. We work with physiotherapists who use massage for all kinds of muscle therapy. Vibrators stimulate blood flow and that helps muscle to relax and stretch out. So when Dr. Ley came in with this idea, our staff weren't surprised at all.
We're pleased to see this story getting so much press because we want everyone to understand how awesome vibrators are for all kinds of reasons. It's certainly stimulated a lot of interest in the Lelo Siri!
Thursday, March 14, 2013
The European Union Rejects a Ban on Porn
The European Parliament has rejected a proposed ban on pornography. The ban was a part of a report by the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality to eliminate gender stereotypes in the European Union and its member states. The report looks at all types of gender stereotyping and discrimination against women in the media and recommends several actions - one of which is a complete ban of any type of pornography. On Tuesday, the parliament voted in favor of passing the report but rejected the section regarding the porn ban.
If the report had been passed in full, the ban would not have become law but it would have been the EU's seal of approval on such an action and provided support for any country wanting to pursue censorship of pornography.
I heard about this proposal just last week and was completely shocked. Most countries in Western Europe have a very liberal attitude towards sex in general and access to porn is even easier and more abundant than it is in North America. This report originated in the Netherlands. I wondered where such a proposal could be coming from when lots of members of the EU seem to have a pretty open attitude toward sexual expression. Then I read the recommendations of the report and was torn. I agree with the authors of the report that women are represented unequally in the media and are very often portrayed in demeaning and sexualizing ways. I do believe this is a problem. However, where I differ with the authors of the report is the solution to that problem. They want to enact measures to make it illegal to portray women in these ways. I don't see how that is even possible. This is a subjective issue - what one would consider demeaning and sexualizing, another may not. The message and intention behind any piece of media could be interpreted in a number of different ways. Who will be the one to say which interpretation is correct? And even if it was possible to determine that, how would these laws be enforced? The sheer volume of media produced in the EU (and everywhere else for that matter) makes it pretty much impossible to vet everything before it goes out for public view. It's just not realistic.
The report's proposal of a ban on pornography is even more problematic than it's other recommendations because it doesn't propose just a ban on violent or demeaning porn, it proposes a ban on all porn. This assumes that absolutely all pornography portrays women in demeaning ways. That's simply not true. Sure, yes, a lot of it does, but certainly not all. Do you just go ahead and ban all forms of sexual expression because there might be some that could be considered objectionable? This is a pretty severe form of censorship.
The other problem with the whole approach in this report is that it favors punishment and legalism rather that discourse and education. It doesn't encourage conversations about this issues, it just advocates banning anything that could be a part of the problem of objectifying and sexualizing women. Because this is a subjective issue, I think a much better approach is to put together bodies that create public education campaigns that encourage people to really look at and consider the messages they receive in the media rather than passively consuming them. I think we need to encourage people to question and to make complaints directly to producers of media that we find offensive - tell them that we don't like it and we are not going to support them with our dollars. In the long run, that will have a much bigger effect than just handing down fines. Fines hurt but losing your customer base hurts much more.
You can find more information on the report and the vote here and here.
If the report had been passed in full, the ban would not have become law but it would have been the EU's seal of approval on such an action and provided support for any country wanting to pursue censorship of pornography.
I heard about this proposal just last week and was completely shocked. Most countries in Western Europe have a very liberal attitude towards sex in general and access to porn is even easier and more abundant than it is in North America. This report originated in the Netherlands. I wondered where such a proposal could be coming from when lots of members of the EU seem to have a pretty open attitude toward sexual expression. Then I read the recommendations of the report and was torn. I agree with the authors of the report that women are represented unequally in the media and are very often portrayed in demeaning and sexualizing ways. I do believe this is a problem. However, where I differ with the authors of the report is the solution to that problem. They want to enact measures to make it illegal to portray women in these ways. I don't see how that is even possible. This is a subjective issue - what one would consider demeaning and sexualizing, another may not. The message and intention behind any piece of media could be interpreted in a number of different ways. Who will be the one to say which interpretation is correct? And even if it was possible to determine that, how would these laws be enforced? The sheer volume of media produced in the EU (and everywhere else for that matter) makes it pretty much impossible to vet everything before it goes out for public view. It's just not realistic.
The report's proposal of a ban on pornography is even more problematic than it's other recommendations because it doesn't propose just a ban on violent or demeaning porn, it proposes a ban on all porn. This assumes that absolutely all pornography portrays women in demeaning ways. That's simply not true. Sure, yes, a lot of it does, but certainly not all. Do you just go ahead and ban all forms of sexual expression because there might be some that could be considered objectionable? This is a pretty severe form of censorship.
The other problem with the whole approach in this report is that it favors punishment and legalism rather that discourse and education. It doesn't encourage conversations about this issues, it just advocates banning anything that could be a part of the problem of objectifying and sexualizing women. Because this is a subjective issue, I think a much better approach is to put together bodies that create public education campaigns that encourage people to really look at and consider the messages they receive in the media rather than passively consuming them. I think we need to encourage people to question and to make complaints directly to producers of media that we find offensive - tell them that we don't like it and we are not going to support them with our dollars. In the long run, that will have a much bigger effect than just handing down fines. Fines hurt but losing your customer base hurts much more.
You can find more information on the report and the vote here and here.
Monday, March 11, 2013
From the 'What Where They Thinking?' Files
I was just perusing some sex toy catalogues and came across this:
WTF? I am open to pretty much everything and anything anyone wants to do but this one I just don't get. The box says that this strap is meant to help you 'control the rate and depth of fellatio'. Any woman that I've ever talked to has said that she can, and would very much like to, control the rate and depth of fellatio herself. She really doesn't need any help to do that. She doesn't appreciate the hands on the back of her head trying to control her so she sure as heck wouldn't appreciate a strap across the back of her head, pulling her down on her guy. I've never talked to any guys about this but I'm betting that they also wouldn't want a strap around the back of their head pulling them down when they're trying to give a blowjob.
Some people do love it when their partner shows them what to do or they want to be controlled or grabbed and pulled down in a moment of passion. I will concede that that can be totally hot with the right person under the right circumstances. But if you're into that, why would you want a strap? It's much more intimate and immediate to just grab your partner's head. Who wants a freakin' strap around the back of your head? It's not as easy to move your partner around with a stupid strap and it's not as direct. It just seems completely unnecessary to me - one of those things that a toy manufacturer thought was a good idea but has never given, or maybe even received a blowjob and never thought to ask someone who has.
WTF? I am open to pretty much everything and anything anyone wants to do but this one I just don't get. The box says that this strap is meant to help you 'control the rate and depth of fellatio'. Any woman that I've ever talked to has said that she can, and would very much like to, control the rate and depth of fellatio herself. She really doesn't need any help to do that. She doesn't appreciate the hands on the back of her head trying to control her so she sure as heck wouldn't appreciate a strap across the back of her head, pulling her down on her guy. I've never talked to any guys about this but I'm betting that they also wouldn't want a strap around the back of their head pulling them down when they're trying to give a blowjob.
Some people do love it when their partner shows them what to do or they want to be controlled or grabbed and pulled down in a moment of passion. I will concede that that can be totally hot with the right person under the right circumstances. But if you're into that, why would you want a strap? It's much more intimate and immediate to just grab your partner's head. Who wants a freakin' strap around the back of your head? It's not as easy to move your partner around with a stupid strap and it's not as direct. It just seems completely unnecessary to me - one of those things that a toy manufacturer thought was a good idea but has never given, or maybe even received a blowjob and never thought to ask someone who has.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
