Why do you - or people in general, for that matter - have sex?
Some may argue that the only reason we do - or should - have sex is to make babies. You've heard the reasoning ... sex without the possibility of procreation is a sin (or whatever negative label that particular person/group feels is appropriate) and blah, blah, blah.
I'm not even going to bother with that argument because most of us are reasonable enough to know that it's a big pile of BS. In reality, we often have sex / engage in sexual activity for the pleasure of it. It's fun, it's a great way to connect to yourself and/or your partner(s), and it feels good.
Up until this point I've focused on many aspects of sex ed -- birth control, sexually transmitted infections, and sexual diversity -- to name a few. I haven't spent much time talking about pleasure and things we can do to enhance the fun that can be sex.
Things are changing, starting now. After much consideration, I've decided to branch into a new venture. I am now officially a Passion Parties Consultant!
What does this mean? It means new offerings -- in the form of Passion Parties! It means talking about lots of fun stuff -- toys, lubes, creams and oils, to name a few. It means educating others -- particularly women -- about these products. And it also means I'm now selling lots of goodies!
AND it means contests! One is in the works now and I will be posting more information in the next few days.
I hope you're as excited about this as I am ... Stay tuned!
Candice :)
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Monday, August 20, 2012
Not If It's Legitimate Rape
Today's post is my commentary on an article published by The Telegraph today, entitled "Republican congressman: 'legitimate rape' does not cause pregnancies".
According to US Representative Todd Akin, "the female body has ways of trying to shut that whole thing down" if a woman has become pregnant following a "legitimate rape". Although he does not explain how a woman's body can tell the difference, he does claim to have gleaned this understanding of the female body from "doctors".
So there you have it folks, from a man who knows all about these things thanks to "doctors". Our bodies can just "shut the whole thing down" if we females become pregnant via "legitimate rape".
PHEW!
I guess we don't need access to safe, legal abortion after all. Who would've thought it could be so easy?
*Post-publishing addition: Still confused about what "legitimate" rape is? This article on Jezebel.com should help clear things up for you, and also highlight the ongoing idiocy of some (sadly) powerful and influential people. To me, this statement says it all:
[box]
Excerpt from The Official Guide to Legitimate Rape:
Let's stop differentiating between different types of rape as if they were different flavors at an ice cream shop. Politicians need to get over the pervasive fear that adopting a zero-tolerance attitude towards rape means that people will be able to disingenuously "cry rape" if they're having a bad day. That's not going to happen. You know what's way more dangerous? Allowing legislators like Akin to make declarative statements that are unarguably false. If you don't know how basic biology works, you shouldn't be able to hold a government position that gives you real power over the bodies of millions of women.
Sure, it would be a hell of a lot easier if uteri were able to define rape for us. But they can't, and it's insane to pretend otherwise.
[/box]
And there's also this great post, from PsychCentral.com, which talks about the actual statistics surrounding rape and pregnancy: Rep. Todd Akin, Abortion and Rape
According to US Representative Todd Akin, "the female body has ways of trying to shut that whole thing down" if a woman has become pregnant following a "legitimate rape". Although he does not explain how a woman's body can tell the difference, he does claim to have gleaned this understanding of the female body from "doctors".
So there you have it folks, from a man who knows all about these things thanks to "doctors". Our bodies can just "shut the whole thing down" if we females become pregnant via "legitimate rape".
PHEW!
I guess we don't need access to safe, legal abortion after all. Who would've thought it could be so easy?
*Post-publishing addition: Still confused about what "legitimate" rape is? This article on Jezebel.com should help clear things up for you, and also highlight the ongoing idiocy of some (sadly) powerful and influential people. To me, this statement says it all:
[box]
Excerpt from The Official Guide to Legitimate Rape:
Let's stop differentiating between different types of rape as if they were different flavors at an ice cream shop. Politicians need to get over the pervasive fear that adopting a zero-tolerance attitude towards rape means that people will be able to disingenuously "cry rape" if they're having a bad day. That's not going to happen. You know what's way more dangerous? Allowing legislators like Akin to make declarative statements that are unarguably false. If you don't know how basic biology works, you shouldn't be able to hold a government position that gives you real power over the bodies of millions of women.
Sure, it would be a hell of a lot easier if uteri were able to define rape for us. But they can't, and it's insane to pretend otherwise.
[/box]
And there's also this great post, from PsychCentral.com, which talks about the actual statistics surrounding rape and pregnancy: Rep. Todd Akin, Abortion and Rape
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Thank You
This flyer arrived in my inbox today and I wanted my blog to be the first place I share it. After all, my nomination for an Ontario College's Premier's Award is thanks to Sex Ed Central's ongoing growth and success.It is an honour to be nominated for such a prestigious award and I am grateful to many special family members and friends for their never-ending love, encouragement and support. Of course, thank you to my readers, followers and supporters for being part of this awesome journey. And thank you to Georgian College for this wonderful recognition!
Wish me luck at the Gala in November!
Candice :)
P.S. Thank you to Analyzed Marketing Solutions for taking care of all of my web needs!
Monday, August 13, 2012
The Benefits of Contraception
I'm a big-time advocate for contraception. There's been study after study and article after article demonstrating the positive effects birth control has on the lives of both women and men. But rather than make you read about all the facts and statistics around birth control, I'm opting to share a video with you instead.This video from the Guttmacher Institute arrived in my inbox not so long ago, and I was so impressed that I wanted to share it with the world! So world, here's your opportunity to learn about how awesome birth control really is. Although this video uses American statistics, the benefits are the same for women everywhere.
Enjoy!
Candice
[box]
Related Links:
Hormonal Birth Control Options
Non-Hormonal Birth Control Options
Birth Control: You Have Options - 1
Birth Control: You Have Options - 2
Pregnancy & Contraception
Declines in US Teen Births
[/box]
Thursday, July 19, 2012
The end of HIV in BC?
Medical experts in BC are taking a new approach to reducing the spread of HIV, by testing everyone who has ever 
been sexually active.
Personally, I think it's refreshing to see a new approach to reducing the spread of HIV. What do you think?
[box]
Source: CBC News
Medical experts in B.C. are seeking to have every person in the province who has ever been sexually active tested for HIV/AIDS, saying the initiative could be "the beginning of the end" of the disease.
Key to the strategy is a test that can reveal in less than one minute whether or not someone is HIV-positive, which was demonstrated at a Vancouver medical conference Wednesday.
"Everybody should be tested,” said Ken Buchanan, of the advocacy group Positive Living BC. “Obviously, the people in more high risk situations should be tested more often, but everybody should be tested."
One of the leading experts in the province, Dr. Julio Montaner, says the widespread testing will lead to a very big result.
"Elimination of HIV is possible,” said Montaner, Director of B.C.'s Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS.
New data shows that recent initiatives to offer all B.C. hospital patients an AIDS test resulted in one per cent of those tested finding out they're HIV-positive.
Montaner said that extrapolating those statistics to the entire B.C. population could mean there are another 3,500 people in the province who are HIV-positive and don’t yet know it.
A new advertising campaign also revealed at the conference declares that the testing initiative could be "the beginning of the end of HIV."
One goal of the campaign is to counter the fear of an HIV-positive result that scares many away from getting tested.
"HIV still carries a stigma of fear or shame. It doesn’t have the cache or heroism or struggle that's associated with other conditions," said Scott Harrison, Program Director, Urban Health, HIV/AIDS, at Providence Health Care.
But Buchanan noted that more people might be willing to get tested if the process is improved.
"People aren't made aware when they are testing who is going to get that information. And we are also concerned with adequate, pre-test counselling," he said.
Montaner acknowledges that mandatory testing is not an option, but hopes the public will voluntarily join the campaign —especially because 99 per cent of the test results will be negative.
[/box]
been sexually active.Personally, I think it's refreshing to see a new approach to reducing the spread of HIV. What do you think?
[box]
B.C. aims to end HIV/AIDS with widespread testing
Source: CBC News
Medical experts in B.C. are seeking to have every person in the province who has ever been sexually active tested for HIV/AIDS, saying the initiative could be "the beginning of the end" of the disease.
Key to the strategy is a test that can reveal in less than one minute whether or not someone is HIV-positive, which was demonstrated at a Vancouver medical conference Wednesday.
"Everybody should be tested,” said Ken Buchanan, of the advocacy group Positive Living BC. “Obviously, the people in more high risk situations should be tested more often, but everybody should be tested."
One of the leading experts in the province, Dr. Julio Montaner, says the widespread testing will lead to a very big result.
"Elimination of HIV is possible,” said Montaner, Director of B.C.'s Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS.
New data shows that recent initiatives to offer all B.C. hospital patients an AIDS test resulted in one per cent of those tested finding out they're HIV-positive.
Montaner said that extrapolating those statistics to the entire B.C. population could mean there are another 3,500 people in the province who are HIV-positive and don’t yet know it.
A new advertising campaign also revealed at the conference declares that the testing initiative could be "the beginning of the end of HIV."
One goal of the campaign is to counter the fear of an HIV-positive result that scares many away from getting tested.
"HIV still carries a stigma of fear or shame. It doesn’t have the cache or heroism or struggle that's associated with other conditions," said Scott Harrison, Program Director, Urban Health, HIV/AIDS, at Providence Health Care.
But Buchanan noted that more people might be willing to get tested if the process is improved.
"People aren't made aware when they are testing who is going to get that information. And we are also concerned with adequate, pre-test counselling," he said.
Montaner acknowledges that mandatory testing is not an option, but hopes the public will voluntarily join the campaign —especially because 99 per cent of the test results will be negative.
[/box]
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Mmmm concrete
This has nothing whatsoever to do with sex or sex ed or sexuality or ... well, you get the picture.
While going through my YouTube account I was reminded of this video of myself at the Eiffel Tower, during my trip to Europe in 2008. It's a fun video and it makes me laugh every time I watch it, so I thought I'd share!
Enjoy!
- Candice :)
While going through my YouTube account I was reminded of this video of myself at the Eiffel Tower, during my trip to Europe in 2008. It's a fun video and it makes me laugh every time I watch it, so I thought I'd share!
Enjoy!
- Candice :)
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Reducing the risk of HIV
You may have already heard that the US FDA has recently approved a new drug to fight the spread of HIV. Clinical trials of Truvada have shown that the drug can be effective in reducing the transmission of HIV. This is, of course, great news in terms of slowing the transmission of the virus.That said, there are so many factors involved in HIV transmission and prevention, and it's difficult to say exactly how Truvada might actually impact transmission rates. For one, it's expensive, at nearly $14,000 per year. When you consider who is at highest risk for HIV, those people are not likely to have an extra $14k sitting around for this drug. While financial aid is available to those who are HIV+ it is not offered to those testing negative (aka the target market for this drug).
Secondly, trials have shown that it's most effective if taken daily ... and medication compliance isn't exactly a "for sure" thing at the best of times. The article I read stated that even study participants struggled with taking the drug every day. Factor in real life and who knows what the numbers might actually be.
HIV is a complicated virus and has proven to be very good at adapting to its environment ... and becoming resistant to drugs used to treat it. The same could happen with Truvada, if taken by people who are already HIV+. This is yet another potential roadblock. Although people are required to be tested for HIV prior to taking Truvada, there's still the risk of someone being tested before HIV antibodies are detectable in their bloodstream. This means that someone can be taking Truvada but actually be HIV+, which would increase the risk of the virus developing a resistance to Truvada.
Overall, it's a hesitant step, but a step forward nonetheless! Fingers crossed that this drug lives up to its potential and makes a dent in the approximately 50,000 new cases of HIV in the US every year.
[box]
Source:
FDA approves drug to reduce HIV risk (Boston Herald).
Recommended Reads:
Washington Post: FDA approves Gilead Science's Truvada as first drug to reduce risk of sexually acquired HIV
Sex Ed Central: HIV/AIDS
[/box]
Back to the OYC
It has been far too long since I've sat down to enjoy the pleasure of writing. I've missed this!
So, to catch you up on my world ...
Mark and I moved into our new home on Canada Day and have been busy unpacking and settling in. On Friday the house was hit by lightening, which has definitely been a challenging experience. We are now in the process of replacing the luxuries destroyed by the hit ... not to mention anxiously awaiting the repair of our a/c as we hit record temperatures today.
However, this post isn't about our new home (more on that soon!) ... it's about the following announcement:
I am pleased to say that I will be facilitating a workshop tomorrow night at the Orillia Youth Centre. If you haven't been following me for long, you may not know that the OYC is where I "started out" with workshops. I am excited to head back there for some thorough and honest discussion with the youth. We'll be talking about STIs and contraception ... as well as whatever topics come up! If you're in the area, you should stop by and check it out tomorrow (July 18) at 5pm!
I'll let you know how the workshop goes!
Candice :)
So, to catch you up on my world ...
Mark and I moved into our new home on Canada Day and have been busy unpacking and settling in. On Friday the house was hit by lightening, which has definitely been a challenging experience. We are now in the process of replacing the luxuries destroyed by the hit ... not to mention anxiously awaiting the repair of our a/c as we hit record temperatures today.
However, this post isn't about our new home (more on that soon!) ... it's about the following announcement:
I am pleased to say that I will be facilitating a workshop tomorrow night at the Orillia Youth Centre. If you haven't been following me for long, you may not know that the OYC is where I "started out" with workshops. I am excited to head back there for some thorough and honest discussion with the youth. We'll be talking about STIs and contraception ... as well as whatever topics come up! If you're in the area, you should stop by and check it out tomorrow (July 18) at 5pm!
I'll let you know how the workshop goes!
Candice :)
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Newsworthy Sex: Mom of first IVF baby has died
I really enjoyed this article. It's amazing how far we've come in just 34 years, and this woman had the courage to be 
the first!
Enjoy!
Candice :)
[box]
By Linda Carroll
Lesley Brown, the woman who gave birth to the first test tube baby has died at age 64 after a brief illness, the British newspaper The Telegraph reports.
Brown sought out the experimental new treatment, in vitro fertilization, after nine years of trying to get pregnant on her own with her husband John.
She gave birth to a daughter, Louise, in 1978 with the help of two British specialists Dr. Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards.
Louise told the BBC, “Mum was a quiet and private person who ended up in the world spotlight because she wanted a family so much. We are all missing her terribly.” Lesley Brown died June 6 at Royal Bristol Infirmary, The Telegraph reported.
Louise’s birth was the beginning of a “revolution,” says Dr. Anthony Wakim, director of assisted reproductive technologies at the Magee-Women’s Hospital at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
“I still remember exactly what I was doing,” Wakim remembers. “I had just started my internship at the University of Maryland and I was pumping gas into my car when I heard it on the radio. It was just mind-boggling. To my mind it was almost science fiction. It was very far fetched.”
It wasn’t long after when groups in the U.S. developed the expertise to produce babies through in vitro fertilization, Wakim says.
And that changed everything for parents who had been suffering with infertility.
“It was a very big deal,” Wakim says. “Before that we had to rely on micro-surgery to break up the adhesions that were scarring the tubes. Those surgeries could drag on for three or four hours and the results were not so good. The scarring could recur and many times there were ectopic pregnancies.
“I look back and I’m flabbergasted.”
The news of Lesley Brown’s death caught Janice Evans by surprise.
“I felt sad when I heard,” says Evans, an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “Think about the courage and persistence she must have had. She was a real trail blazer. As were Steptoe and Edwards.” Edwards was awarded the 2010 Nobel Prize for developing IVF. Steptoe died in 1988.
Lesley Brown’s story underscores how persistent people can change the world. “If the three of them hadn’t been so determined there would have been a big gap for the many couples who struggle with infertility,” Evans adds.
The iconic photo of Edwards with Lesley and Louise sums it all up, Evans says.
“Edwards has his arm around Lesley, and Louise is standing next to them holding her son. You get the feeling looking at that photo that they were all in the fight together not just to make a change in the Brown family but to push frontiers.”
Today, the results of that groundbreaking birth are all around us. In 2010, 58,727 babies were born through IVF in the U.S., says Sean Tipton, director of public affairs for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine
“It’s remarkable to think that if you look around a preschool classroom, a big chunk of those kids may have come from IVF,” Evans says.
[/box]
You can read the original article here on MSNBC.com
the first!Enjoy!
Candice :)
[box]
By Linda Carroll
Lesley Brown, the woman who gave birth to the first test tube baby has died at age 64 after a brief illness, the British newspaper The Telegraph reports.
Brown sought out the experimental new treatment, in vitro fertilization, after nine years of trying to get pregnant on her own with her husband John.
She gave birth to a daughter, Louise, in 1978 with the help of two British specialists Dr. Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards.
Louise told the BBC, “Mum was a quiet and private person who ended up in the world spotlight because she wanted a family so much. We are all missing her terribly.” Lesley Brown died June 6 at Royal Bristol Infirmary, The Telegraph reported.
Louise’s birth was the beginning of a “revolution,” says Dr. Anthony Wakim, director of assisted reproductive technologies at the Magee-Women’s Hospital at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
“I still remember exactly what I was doing,” Wakim remembers. “I had just started my internship at the University of Maryland and I was pumping gas into my car when I heard it on the radio. It was just mind-boggling. To my mind it was almost science fiction. It was very far fetched.”
It wasn’t long after when groups in the U.S. developed the expertise to produce babies through in vitro fertilization, Wakim says.
And that changed everything for parents who had been suffering with infertility.
“It was a very big deal,” Wakim says. “Before that we had to rely on micro-surgery to break up the adhesions that were scarring the tubes. Those surgeries could drag on for three or four hours and the results were not so good. The scarring could recur and many times there were ectopic pregnancies.
“I look back and I’m flabbergasted.”
The news of Lesley Brown’s death caught Janice Evans by surprise.
“I felt sad when I heard,” says Evans, an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “Think about the courage and persistence she must have had. She was a real trail blazer. As were Steptoe and Edwards.” Edwards was awarded the 2010 Nobel Prize for developing IVF. Steptoe died in 1988.
Lesley Brown’s story underscores how persistent people can change the world. “If the three of them hadn’t been so determined there would have been a big gap for the many couples who struggle with infertility,” Evans adds.
The iconic photo of Edwards with Lesley and Louise sums it all up, Evans says.
“Edwards has his arm around Lesley, and Louise is standing next to them holding her son. You get the feeling looking at that photo that they were all in the fight together not just to make a change in the Brown family but to push frontiers.”
Today, the results of that groundbreaking birth are all around us. In 2010, 58,727 babies were born through IVF in the U.S., says Sean Tipton, director of public affairs for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine
“It’s remarkable to think that if you look around a preschool classroom, a big chunk of those kids may have come from IVF,” Evans says.
[/box]
You can read the original article here on MSNBC.com
Saturday, June 9, 2012
You need to see this: Jesus in Drag
Wow.
Not only did this man - Tim Kurek - recognize his own bigotry, he decided to put himself in the position of those he had learned to oppress - the LGBT community. He realized that the stereotypes he had been taught his entire life didn't fit with the reality around him, and he really did something about it.
He is raising the funds ($8,000) he needs to have the book edited and publicized.
For those of you who aren't sure (I wasn't), here's the definition of Pharisee:
Read about his journey, his book and how we can all help by visiting his Indiegogo page.
Again ... wow!
- Candice :)
Not only did this man - Tim Kurek - recognize his own bigotry, he decided to put himself in the position of those he had learned to oppress - the LGBT community. He realized that the stereotypes he had been taught his entire life didn't fit with the reality around him, and he really did something about it.
He is raising the funds ($8,000) he needs to have the book edited and publicized.
Please support him -- even $1 makes a difference!
For those of you who aren't sure (I wasn't), here's the definition of Pharisee:
1. capitalized : a member of a Jewish sect of the intertestamental period noted for strict observance of rites and ceremonies of the written law and for insistence on the validity of their own oral traditions concerning the law (Merriam-Webster dictionary)
Read about his journey, his book and how we can all help by visiting his Indiegogo page.
Again ... wow!
- Candice :)
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Happy Pride Month
June is Pride Month!
I'm proud to stand up publicly as an LGBT Ally and share some of the great things happening around me this month.
Before I get started on that, I want to share with you a video that gave me both goosebumps and warm fuzzies. President Obama's latest video reminding all of us of what has been, and is yet to be, done in the fight for equality.
(You can also watch the video here: Obama Declares June 2012 Pride Month)
Stay tuned for more about Pride Month and some of the great events and celebrations you can attend!
Candice :)
Target
U.S. retailer Target has jumped back into the debate on marriage equality. You can now buy PRIDE t-shirts on their website, with 100% of the proceeds going to support a group working to bring marriage equality to Minnesota.
This isn't the first time Target has been involved with the debate on equal rights; two years ago the company came were under fire after financially supporting a gay-marriage opponent running for political office. Fortunately, this time they're on the side of equality and are supporting the LGBT community.
YOU can get involved and support equal rights in Minnesota too! Simply order your PRIDE tshirt here! They're only $12.99 and every penny will support what should already be a reality - the right for every individual to marry the person they love.
You can read more about this here.
- Candice
This isn't the first time Target has been involved with the debate on equal rights; two years ago the company came were under fire after financially supporting a gay-marriage opponent running for political office. Fortunately, this time they're on the side of equality and are supporting the LGBT community.
YOU can get involved and support equal rights in Minnesota too! Simply order your PRIDE tshirt here! They're only $12.99 and every penny will support what should already be a reality - the right for every individual to marry the person they love.
You can read more about this here.
- Candice
p.s. HAPPY PRIDE MONTH!
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Ball Dropping
If you were expecting that title to lead to a post about testicles ... well ... it's not going to. But I'll try to dig something testicular up for you, just so you're not disappointed. :)
Actually, this post is a feeble attempt to reach out to you and let you know that, while I seem to have dropped the ball on posting over the past couple of months, I'm still around! We are now into the final 5 weeks of the school year, and things are craaaaazy busy!
Sorry about the ball dropping. I'll be back soon. For real this time.
Candice
Actually, this post is a feeble attempt to reach out to you and let you know that, while I seem to have dropped the ball on posting over the past couple of months, I'm still around! We are now into the final 5 weeks of the school year, and things are craaaaazy busy!
Sorry about the ball dropping. I'll be back soon. For real this time.
Candice
Saturday, May 12, 2012
It is official: Obama is on our side!
Marriage equality is once again at the forefront of the political arena in the United States. While the issue has always been emotionally and politically charged, it's taken on a new intensity since Obama announced that he supports gay marriage.
Obama's announcement has triggered intense reactions from all sides. Politicians, celebrities, religious leaders and the American public alike are all weighing in. Mitt Romney, the republican most likely to challenge Obama in the 2012 Presidential race, was quick to remind us that he is opposed to same-sex marriage. This has provided a rallying point for conservative Christians in the US, and given them new leverage in their anti-Obama attacks. It's also provided a reinforced point of support for Romney's bid for President.
Regardless of the political turmoil, Obama's support has offered renewed life to the fight for marriage equality. Not only has Obama supported marriage equality at full strength, he's offered a clear path for others to publicly endorse it as well.
Given the reaction to Obama's announcement over the past few days, it's easy to see that the coming weeks and months are going to be interesting, to put it mildly. Whether this will be helpful or detrimental to Obama's campaign for re-election is yet to be determined. For now, I'm holding onto faith that Americans will opt for progression rather than regression. Fingers crossed!
Candice
[box]
P.S. Want to read more about this issue?
NPR.org: Reaction To Obama's Same-Sex Marriage Support: From Serious to Silly
NPR.org: Obama's Gay Marriage Stance Stirs Black Community
Huffington Post: Obama's Same-Sex Marriage Stance Welcomed by Hollywood Executives
AlterNet.org: It's Great That Obama Endorsed Same-Sex Marriage -- But Now What?
Zee News: Most approve Obama's same-sex marriage decision
BBC News: Gaga and Glee star back President Obama on gay marriage
[/box]
For those of us on the pro-equality side, this is a huge step. Obama has officially separated himself from every other sitting US President with his support. Thank you, Barack Obama, for living in the present and recognizing the future, rather than obsessing over the past. Thank you for NOT being a homophobic bully, and thank you for supporting equal rights for the LGBT community.
Obama's announcement has triggered intense reactions from all sides. Politicians, celebrities, religious leaders and the American public alike are all weighing in. Mitt Romney, the republican most likely to challenge Obama in the 2012 Presidential race, was quick to remind us that he is opposed to same-sex marriage. This has provided a rallying point for conservative Christians in the US, and given them new leverage in their anti-Obama attacks. It's also provided a reinforced point of support for Romney's bid for President.
“So many people were rather lukewarm toward governor Romney and were really looking for some more tangible reasons to support him,” said Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values, who led the ballot drive that banned gay marriage in Ohio in 2004. “Then lo and behold, it just fell out of the sky when Obama came out and endorsed same-sex marriage. . . . We are going to make this our key issue: the attack on marriage.” (The Washington Post, May 11, 2012)
Regardless of the political turmoil, Obama's support has offered renewed life to the fight for marriage equality. Not only has Obama supported marriage equality at full strength, he's offered a clear path for others to publicly endorse it as well.
"Voters and elected officials who might have wanted to step up and have been afraid, they will be less afraid do to do so now," said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in a conversation.
Obama, she said, has cleared "political space for other elected officials who may have felt they could not be as clear" as they now can be. She added: "I predict that every person running for office this year will be asked this question." (BBC News, May 10, 2012)
Given the reaction to Obama's announcement over the past few days, it's easy to see that the coming weeks and months are going to be interesting, to put it mildly. Whether this will be helpful or detrimental to Obama's campaign for re-election is yet to be determined. For now, I'm holding onto faith that Americans will opt for progression rather than regression. Fingers crossed!
Candice
[box]
P.S. Want to read more about this issue?
NPR.org: Reaction To Obama's Same-Sex Marriage Support: From Serious to Silly
NPR.org: Obama's Gay Marriage Stance Stirs Black Community
Huffington Post: Obama's Same-Sex Marriage Stance Welcomed by Hollywood Executives
AlterNet.org: It's Great That Obama Endorsed Same-Sex Marriage -- But Now What?
Zee News: Most approve Obama's same-sex marriage decision
BBC News: Gaga and Glee star back President Obama on gay marriage
[/box]
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Get A Taste For Life!
What are you doing for breakfast, lunch, or dinner today?
If you're cool like
me, you will be out supporting your local AIDS Service Organization (ASO) by eating at a restaurant participating in A Taste For Life!
What is A Taste For Life, you ask? Well, it's an annual fundraiser where people like us go out for breakfast/lunch/dinner/dessert/drinks to a participating restaurant, and 25% of our food and drink bill goes to our local ASO. It's a great way to fight HIV/AIDS in your local community.
If you're in the Cambridge/K-W/Guelph area, get out there and support ACCKWA or the AIDS Committee of Guelph. If you're not in the Guelph/Tri-Cities area, get out there and support your local ASO!
Maybe I'll see you there!
:)
If you're cool like
me, you will be out supporting your local AIDS Service Organization (ASO) by eating at a restaurant participating in A Taste For Life!What is A Taste For Life, you ask? Well, it's an annual fundraiser where people like us go out for breakfast/lunch/dinner/dessert/drinks to a participating restaurant, and 25% of our food and drink bill goes to our local ASO. It's a great way to fight HIV/AIDS in your local community.
If you're in the Cambridge/K-W/Guelph area, get out there and support ACCKWA or the AIDS Committee of Guelph. If you're not in the Guelph/Tri-Cities area, get out there and support your local ASO!
Maybe I'll see you there!
:)
A Breastfeeding Dad
This article is from Out Magazine. The author shares his experience as a transgendered, breastfeeding dad. Read, learn and enjoy!
[box]
Why I'm a Breastfeeding Dad
4.24.2012
By Trevor MacDonald
I'm a transgender parent: not the parent of a transgender child, nor a parent who transitioned after having kids. Rather, I transitioned from female to male, and then later became pregnant—as a trans man. I had a healthy pregnancy, and birthed my baby naturally. And in that first moment when I saw my baby and held him in my arms—smelling his amazing, newborn baby smell—I became addicted to him.
Just last week, my little guy turned 1 years old, and I can say that my initial intense feeling toward him has only become more powerful over time. Part of its effect is to make me highly sensitive to my child's needs, despite the awkward moments we sometimes endure in public as a nursing couple.
I was on an airplane a few months ago and my baby began crying during the descent. I unbuttoned my shirt and latched him on; from what I've read nursing can really help to ease the pain in a baby's ears due to changes in pressure on a flight. When we landed, a fellow passenger came to stand in front of me and said, "Why are you breastfeeding this baby?"
I looked around and reminded myself that, on a crowded airplane, she probably couldn't do us any physical harm. I explained, "Oh, I'm transgender. I birthed him myself, and so now I'm breastfeeding him."
"Well you're going to ruin his ears flying with him like this. This baby needs a real boob, man."
I was born female but transitioned to male at age 23 by taking testosterone. My voice dropped, I grew facial hair, and my body shape changed. One year later, I had male chest-contouring surgery that removed most of my breast tissue. I retained my female reproductive organs, but I felt (and still feel) fully male, and anybody seeing me on the street would never guess that I'm anything but a regular dude. This is how I'm happy.
In fact, after my transition, I was so very happy and comfortable that I quickly settled down with Ian, the love of my life (yes, I'm that complicated - I'm not just any old transgender guy, I'm a gay transgender guy, and it is perfectly right for me). Soon we decided we'd like to have a family together. We looked into adoption, but then decided that the homegrown variety would be best for us. We consulted with a few doctors who suggested that I stop taking my testosterone and wait for my cycles to return to normal. They did, and we married and got pregnant. We were so traditional, even, that our due date was exactly forty weeks from the day of our wedding.
I chose to breastfeed our son as best I could. Due to my previous surgery, I don't make all the milk that he needs, so I use what is called a supplemental nursing system (SNS) to feed him donated breast milk. The SNS consists of a long, narrow feeding tube that sits in the donated milk in a bottle. I place the tube just by my nipple so that my baby latches on to the tube as well as my nipple. He then gets all the breast milk that I'm able to produce simultaneous to the supplement that he draws from the bottle. All of his feedings are done at my chest. After one year of this, we are still both enjoying our breastfeeding relationship.
My breastfeeding journey has not been easy. It's physically very challenging to latch a baby on when you have next to zero protruding breast tissue. Learning to juggle the SNS in addition to this made nursing even harder for us. So why do I bother? Why don't I just give my baby his donated breast milk in a bottle and call it a day?
I started out nursing purely for the health benefits. I read that any amount at all of my own milk would contain antibodies specifically designed by my body to protect my son—unique from any other substance in the world. I also learned that the mechanical action of breastfeeding promotes normal jaw development. Who doesn't want a normally developed jaw? I thought. But looking back on this last year, I have come to believe that breastfeeding, for us at least, is far more than this. Breastfeeding is the easiest way for me to comfort my child when he is upset, tired, hurt, or scared. It works well for us and keeps him happy.
I wish I'd been eloquent enough at the time to explain these things to the woman on the airplane, but what I said was, "I hope you have a good vacation." I wanted her to leave us alone.
She returned with, "Well, you should know that Jesus loves you."
After this, I focused on Jacob and babbled at him endlessly as if I were a child myself. "I'm so sorry that your ears hurt on the way down. You poor little thing. I love you soooooooo much. Now that we're in Vancouver we'll get to visit your grandparents who are very, very excited to see you."
I kept hugging my boy and chatting to him until the woman left and then I sobbed, fumbling for my things while the other passengers quietly filed off the plane.
I'll never forget the kind words of a fellow traveler who witnessed the whole episode. He came to find me at the luggage belt, looking terribly serious. "Don't you ever let anyone take the joy of this baby from you," he said. Then he repeated it one more time, with emphasis, "Don't you ever let anyone take the joy of this baby from you."
Wherever you are, gentle stranger, thank you, and I won't.
Trevor MacDonald lives in Winnipeg, Canada, with his partner, baby, and dog. He is currently a stay-at-home dad, and has an honors BA in political science from the University of British Columbia. While remaining secure in his identity as a gay man, he breastfeeds his baby boy because of the zillions of studies that prove that breastfeeding is a healthy, biologically normal choice for babies. He writes about his queer breastfeeding adventures on his blog at www.milkjunkies.net.
[/box]
[box]
Why I'm a Breastfeeding Dad
4.24.2012
By Trevor MacDonald
I'm a transgender parent: not the parent of a transgender child, nor a parent who transitioned after having kids. Rather, I transitioned from female to male, and then later became pregnant—as a trans man. I had a healthy pregnancy, and birthed my baby naturally. And in that first moment when I saw my baby and held him in my arms—smelling his amazing, newborn baby smell—I became addicted to him.Just last week, my little guy turned 1 years old, and I can say that my initial intense feeling toward him has only become more powerful over time. Part of its effect is to make me highly sensitive to my child's needs, despite the awkward moments we sometimes endure in public as a nursing couple.
I was on an airplane a few months ago and my baby began crying during the descent. I unbuttoned my shirt and latched him on; from what I've read nursing can really help to ease the pain in a baby's ears due to changes in pressure on a flight. When we landed, a fellow passenger came to stand in front of me and said, "Why are you breastfeeding this baby?"
I looked around and reminded myself that, on a crowded airplane, she probably couldn't do us any physical harm. I explained, "Oh, I'm transgender. I birthed him myself, and so now I'm breastfeeding him."
"Well you're going to ruin his ears flying with him like this. This baby needs a real boob, man."
I was born female but transitioned to male at age 23 by taking testosterone. My voice dropped, I grew facial hair, and my body shape changed. One year later, I had male chest-contouring surgery that removed most of my breast tissue. I retained my female reproductive organs, but I felt (and still feel) fully male, and anybody seeing me on the street would never guess that I'm anything but a regular dude. This is how I'm happy.
In fact, after my transition, I was so very happy and comfortable that I quickly settled down with Ian, the love of my life (yes, I'm that complicated - I'm not just any old transgender guy, I'm a gay transgender guy, and it is perfectly right for me). Soon we decided we'd like to have a family together. We looked into adoption, but then decided that the homegrown variety would be best for us. We consulted with a few doctors who suggested that I stop taking my testosterone and wait for my cycles to return to normal. They did, and we married and got pregnant. We were so traditional, even, that our due date was exactly forty weeks from the day of our wedding.
I chose to breastfeed our son as best I could. Due to my previous surgery, I don't make all the milk that he needs, so I use what is called a supplemental nursing system (SNS) to feed him donated breast milk. The SNS consists of a long, narrow feeding tube that sits in the donated milk in a bottle. I place the tube just by my nipple so that my baby latches on to the tube as well as my nipple. He then gets all the breast milk that I'm able to produce simultaneous to the supplement that he draws from the bottle. All of his feedings are done at my chest. After one year of this, we are still both enjoying our breastfeeding relationship.
My breastfeeding journey has not been easy. It's physically very challenging to latch a baby on when you have next to zero protruding breast tissue. Learning to juggle the SNS in addition to this made nursing even harder for us. So why do I bother? Why don't I just give my baby his donated breast milk in a bottle and call it a day?
I started out nursing purely for the health benefits. I read that any amount at all of my own milk would contain antibodies specifically designed by my body to protect my son—unique from any other substance in the world. I also learned that the mechanical action of breastfeeding promotes normal jaw development. Who doesn't want a normally developed jaw? I thought. But looking back on this last year, I have come to believe that breastfeeding, for us at least, is far more than this. Breastfeeding is the easiest way for me to comfort my child when he is upset, tired, hurt, or scared. It works well for us and keeps him happy.
I wish I'd been eloquent enough at the time to explain these things to the woman on the airplane, but what I said was, "I hope you have a good vacation." I wanted her to leave us alone.
She returned with, "Well, you should know that Jesus loves you."
After this, I focused on Jacob and babbled at him endlessly as if I were a child myself. "I'm so sorry that your ears hurt on the way down. You poor little thing. I love you soooooooo much. Now that we're in Vancouver we'll get to visit your grandparents who are very, very excited to see you."
I kept hugging my boy and chatting to him until the woman left and then I sobbed, fumbling for my things while the other passengers quietly filed off the plane.
I'll never forget the kind words of a fellow traveler who witnessed the whole episode. He came to find me at the luggage belt, looking terribly serious. "Don't you ever let anyone take the joy of this baby from you," he said. Then he repeated it one more time, with emphasis, "Don't you ever let anyone take the joy of this baby from you."
Wherever you are, gentle stranger, thank you, and I won't.
Trevor MacDonald lives in Winnipeg, Canada, with his partner, baby, and dog. He is currently a stay-at-home dad, and has an honors BA in political science from the University of British Columbia. While remaining secure in his identity as a gay man, he breastfeeds his baby boy because of the zillions of studies that prove that breastfeeding is a healthy, biologically normal choice for babies. He writes about his queer breastfeeding adventures on his blog at www.milkjunkies.net.
[/box]
Sunday, April 15, 2012
It's been a while
Wow, it's been a month since my last post.
If you've missed me, sorry about the long absence. It's been a busy month, and I needed to take some time to get the rest of my life organized. Work is busy and Mark and I have been digging in some "roots" to our local community ... we now have a doctor, dentist, chiropractor and a massage therapist. Mark's business - Analyzed Marketing Solutions - has also been busy and he has several new clients, as well as some great new services to offer.
Things are falling into place nicely!
Now that I'm back, you can expect the sex talk to commence shortly.
Candice
If you've missed me, sorry about the long absence. It's been a busy month, and I needed to take some time to get the rest of my life organized. Work is busy and Mark and I have been digging in some "roots" to our local community ... we now have a doctor, dentist, chiropractor and a massage therapist. Mark's business - Analyzed Marketing Solutions - has also been busy and he has several new clients, as well as some great new services to offer.
Things are falling into place nicely!
Now that I'm back, you can expect the sex talk to commence shortly.
Candice
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
The Issue of Marriage
This image is circulating around Facebook right now, and it's so awesome I wanted to share it with you. Let's work together to wipe out homophobia!
- Candice
- Candice
Monogamish Ethics
Yep, it's monogamish again.
Yep, it's Dan Savage again.
This one comes to us from the Savage Love Letter of the Day (SLLOTD) iPhone app and was posted on Monday, March 12, 2012. What attracted me to this post was the fact that, while the broad topic is communication and the ethics of disclosure, the issue itself is unique to nonmonogamy.
FYI: contains coarse language.
Enjoy!
[box]
My wife and I have been married eighteen years, basically since high school. We opened up our marriage two years ago. She quickly attracted an avalanche of attention online, and has had a couple of lovers. It has done her—and us—good. But my own experience has been the opposite of hers: tepid interest online; endless correspondence with sort-of interested parties; a few disastrous dates.
I'm writing to get your opinion on a point of ethics, and also your permission. The few women who have expressed interest so far—other than the two who wanted long-term monogamy from me or nothing—only did so as long as they thought I was cheating on my wife. As soon as they realized that I was hooking up with her approval, they were no longer interested. I find it ironic that I worked so hard to do the ethical thing by opening up my marriage, only to find that the ethical thing itself is a buzzkill, but anyway.
There's a bit more at stake here aside from some kanoodling: both before marriage and now, I never successfully dated or hooked up (I was a bit of an ugly duckling adolescent), and this endless rejection is starting to affect my libido and my self-worth. I need to get past it. I'm very honest and can't actively deceive anyone, unless I'm convinced it's just part of the game. Do I have your permission to pretend I'm cheating on my wife in order to not cheat on my wife with someone who gets off on the thought of me cheating on my wife? My wife is fine with this.
What The Fuck, Over
First, some theories—yanked out of my ass just now—about the women who bailed on you after they found out you weren't a CPOS:
1. They were looking to do something dirty and wrong, WTFO, and once they found out you were proposing something clean and correct, they were no longer interested.
2. They were cheating on their husbands and were looking for a "mutual assured destruction" pact—you couldn't expose her as a CPOS because she would be able to expose you as a CPOS.
3. They were after two particular and overlapping ego boosts. They were turned on by the thought that you were willing to "risk everything" to fuck 'em (because they were just that irresistible), WTFO, and they wanted to feel superior to—and more desirable than—whatever the woman you had at home. MomLogic ("What Moms Are Talking About") did a piece on this a few years ago: "52% of women have had sex with a married man: Momlogic contributor Shannon Fox says one of the reasons women will sleep with a married man is because women tend to be very competitive. 'If they can get a man who's committed to someone else, they take it as a win.'"
That said, WTFO, I'm with your wife. I don't see any harm in deceiving women who are aroused by deception about the fact that you're not deceiving your wife. Deceiving people is wrong, ethically speaking, but the deception here is mild and no one is or will be harmed by it. These women you "deceive" get a "win" by sleeping with a married man and you get to enjoy a little libido- and self-worth-enhancing pussy. Don't go on and on about how your life will be destroyed if your wife should ever find out—don't actively deceive anyone (your impulse there is a correct)—but don't feel obligated to set them straight if they assume you're a CPOS.
Permission granted, WTFO.
[/box]
Yep, it's Dan Savage again.
This one comes to us from the Savage Love Letter of the Day (SLLOTD) iPhone app and was posted on Monday, March 12, 2012. What attracted me to this post was the fact that, while the broad topic is communication and the ethics of disclosure, the issue itself is unique to nonmonogamy.
FYI: contains coarse language.
Enjoy!
[box]
Permission Slippage
My wife and I have been married eighteen years, basically since high school. We opened up our marriage two years ago. She quickly attracted an avalanche of attention online, and has had a couple of lovers. It has done her—and us—good. But my own experience has been the opposite of hers: tepid interest online; endless correspondence with sort-of interested parties; a few disastrous dates.
I'm writing to get your opinion on a point of ethics, and also your permission. The few women who have expressed interest so far—other than the two who wanted long-term monogamy from me or nothing—only did so as long as they thought I was cheating on my wife. As soon as they realized that I was hooking up with her approval, they were no longer interested. I find it ironic that I worked so hard to do the ethical thing by opening up my marriage, only to find that the ethical thing itself is a buzzkill, but anyway.
There's a bit more at stake here aside from some kanoodling: both before marriage and now, I never successfully dated or hooked up (I was a bit of an ugly duckling adolescent), and this endless rejection is starting to affect my libido and my self-worth. I need to get past it. I'm very honest and can't actively deceive anyone, unless I'm convinced it's just part of the game. Do I have your permission to pretend I'm cheating on my wife in order to not cheat on my wife with someone who gets off on the thought of me cheating on my wife? My wife is fine with this.
What The Fuck, Over
First, some theories—yanked out of my ass just now—about the women who bailed on you after they found out you weren't a CPOS:
1. They were looking to do something dirty and wrong, WTFO, and once they found out you were proposing something clean and correct, they were no longer interested.
2. They were cheating on their husbands and were looking for a "mutual assured destruction" pact—you couldn't expose her as a CPOS because she would be able to expose you as a CPOS.
3. They were after two particular and overlapping ego boosts. They were turned on by the thought that you were willing to "risk everything" to fuck 'em (because they were just that irresistible), WTFO, and they wanted to feel superior to—and more desirable than—whatever the woman you had at home. MomLogic ("What Moms Are Talking About") did a piece on this a few years ago: "52% of women have had sex with a married man: Momlogic contributor Shannon Fox says one of the reasons women will sleep with a married man is because women tend to be very competitive. 'If they can get a man who's committed to someone else, they take it as a win.'"
That said, WTFO, I'm with your wife. I don't see any harm in deceiving women who are aroused by deception about the fact that you're not deceiving your wife. Deceiving people is wrong, ethically speaking, but the deception here is mild and no one is or will be harmed by it. These women you "deceive" get a "win" by sleeping with a married man and you get to enjoy a little libido- and self-worth-enhancing pussy. Don't go on and on about how your life will be destroyed if your wife should ever find out—don't actively deceive anyone (your impulse there is a correct)—but don't feel obligated to set them straight if they assume you're a CPOS.
Permission granted, WTFO.
[/box]
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Savage Says: Another Gold-Star Pedophile
This week's Savage Love really made me stop and consider what it would be like to have an off-limits sexual desire / fetish / kink.I can't imagine having to spend my entire life resisting my sexual interests and desires -- desires which, as Dan points out -- we don't choose. This particular column features an individual struggling with one of the most taboo and potentially damaging attractions - pedophilia.
I particularly like that Dan commended this man for his determination to resist his desires, and encouraged society to be more compassionate towards him and others experiencing similar struggles. He also points out the huge gaps in service and support currently available to "gold star pedophiles" -- and the potentially damaging regulations in place in many countries -- including Canada and the US.
Dan's response really made me stop and think, and I hope it does the same for you.
Note: I've added the emphasis in Dan's response.
[box]
March 7, 2012 by Dan SavageI'm a gay man in my late 20s who has been trying to deal with an attraction to young boys since I hit puberty. I know that what I feel is wrong and wish to Christ that I could have a normally wired brain. I have never abused a child; I do not look at child pornography. But I need to speak to a therapist because I can't get through this on my own. Bottom line is I'm afraid. Seriously afraid. I don't know what my legal rights are and I don't know how to go about getting more information without incriminating myself. I'm sure there are more people than just me who need to talk about this. My problem is that I'm not financially stable enough to afford seeing someone for more than a few sessions. I just can't keep saying I'm fine, and I can't let healthy relationships fall apart because I'm unable to talk to anyone about my problem.
Can't Wish It Away
I shared your letter with Dr. James Cantor, a psychologist, associate professor at the University of Toronto, and editor in chief of Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. (Follow Dr. Cantor on Twitter @JamesCantorPhD.) The first thing he said, CWIA, was that you deserved praise—he called you "an ace"—for making it this far without having committed an offense.
But accessing the support you need to get through the next six or seven decades of life without sexually abusing a child—support the culture should provide to men and women like you in order to protect children—isn't going to be easy, Dr. Cantor said, particularly if you live in the United States.
"Other countries have created programs to help people like CWIA," said Dr. Cantor. "Germany has Prevention Project Dunkelfeld, which includes a hospital-based clinic and anonymous hotlines that people who are attracted to children can call when they need to talk to someone, vent, or debrief. In Canada, we have the Circles of Support and Accountability—groups of volunteers who provide assistance and social support and who, in turn, receive support and supervision from professionals."
But Canada funds these programs only for people who committed a sexual offense. The Circles
program isn't open to "gold-star pedophiles," my term for men and women who have successfully struggled against their attraction to children without any support or credit. (Yes, credit. Someone who is burdened with an attraction to children—no one chooses to be sexually attracted to children—and successfully battled that attraction all of his adult life deserves credit for his strength, self-control, and moral sense.)
Sadly, in the United States, we've taken steps that make it harder for pedophiles to get the support they need to avoid offending.
"One of the recent regulations in the United States is mandatory reporting," said Dr. Cantor. "These regulations vary by region, but in general, if a client has children or provides care to children and admits to experiencing sexual attraction to children—any children—the therapist is required to report the client to the authorities, regardless of whether any abuse was actually occurring."
The goal is to protect children, of course, and that is a goal I fully support as a parent and a human being. But broad mandatory reporting policies have an unintended consequence: People like CWIA—people who need help to avoid acting on their attraction to children—are cut off from mental health professionals who can give them the tools, insight, and support they need. Mandatory reporting policies, designed to protect children, may be making children less safe.
"The situation is not completely hopeless, however," said Dr. Cantor. "Therapists with training and experience working with people attracted to children are keenly aware of the delicate legal situation that both they and their clients are in. A good therapist—a licensed therapist, please—will begin the very first session by outlining exactly what they must report and what they may not report."
So long as there is no specific child in specific danger—so long as you don't have children (please don't), CWIA, and don't work with children (please don't)—your therapist is required to keep whatever information you share confidential.
"CWIA should ask questions about confidentiality before disclosing anything to a therapist," said Dr. Cantor. "He can ask these questions over the phone before making an appointment or even revealing his name."
To find a therapist, CWIA, you can contact—anonymously—the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (http://atsa.com/request-referral).
"Although that group is primarily about services to persons who have already committed an offense," said Dr. Cantor, "the professionals in their referral network are able and willing to help people in CWIA's situation as well."
Even the few sessions you can afford will help, CWIA.
[/box]
I particularly like that Dan commended this man for his determination to resist his desires, and encouraged society to be more compassionate towards him and others experiencing similar struggles. He also points out the huge gaps in service and support currently available to "gold star pedophiles" -- and the potentially damaging regulations in place in many countries -- including Canada and the US.
Dan's response really made me stop and think, and I hope it does the same for you.
Note: I've added the emphasis in Dan's response.
[box]
Another Gold-Star Pedophile
March 7, 2012 by Dan SavageI'm a gay man in my late 20s who has been trying to deal with an attraction to young boys since I hit puberty. I know that what I feel is wrong and wish to Christ that I could have a normally wired brain. I have never abused a child; I do not look at child pornography. But I need to speak to a therapist because I can't get through this on my own. Bottom line is I'm afraid. Seriously afraid. I don't know what my legal rights are and I don't know how to go about getting more information without incriminating myself. I'm sure there are more people than just me who need to talk about this. My problem is that I'm not financially stable enough to afford seeing someone for more than a few sessions. I just can't keep saying I'm fine, and I can't let healthy relationships fall apart because I'm unable to talk to anyone about my problem.
Can't Wish It Away
I shared your letter with Dr. James Cantor, a psychologist, associate professor at the University of Toronto, and editor in chief of Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. (Follow Dr. Cantor on Twitter @JamesCantorPhD.) The first thing he said, CWIA, was that you deserved praise—he called you "an ace"—for making it this far without having committed an offense.
But accessing the support you need to get through the next six or seven decades of life without sexually abusing a child—support the culture should provide to men and women like you in order to protect children—isn't going to be easy, Dr. Cantor said, particularly if you live in the United States.
"Other countries have created programs to help people like CWIA," said Dr. Cantor. "Germany has Prevention Project Dunkelfeld, which includes a hospital-based clinic and anonymous hotlines that people who are attracted to children can call when they need to talk to someone, vent, or debrief. In Canada, we have the Circles of Support and Accountability—groups of volunteers who provide assistance and social support and who, in turn, receive support and supervision from professionals."
But Canada funds these programs only for people who committed a sexual offense. The Circles
program isn't open to "gold-star pedophiles," my term for men and women who have successfully struggled against their attraction to children without any support or credit. (Yes, credit. Someone who is burdened with an attraction to children—no one chooses to be sexually attracted to children—and successfully battled that attraction all of his adult life deserves credit for his strength, self-control, and moral sense.)Sadly, in the United States, we've taken steps that make it harder for pedophiles to get the support they need to avoid offending.
"One of the recent regulations in the United States is mandatory reporting," said Dr. Cantor. "These regulations vary by region, but in general, if a client has children or provides care to children and admits to experiencing sexual attraction to children—any children—the therapist is required to report the client to the authorities, regardless of whether any abuse was actually occurring."
The goal is to protect children, of course, and that is a goal I fully support as a parent and a human being. But broad mandatory reporting policies have an unintended consequence: People like CWIA—people who need help to avoid acting on their attraction to children—are cut off from mental health professionals who can give them the tools, insight, and support they need. Mandatory reporting policies, designed to protect children, may be making children less safe.
"The situation is not completely hopeless, however," said Dr. Cantor. "Therapists with training and experience working with people attracted to children are keenly aware of the delicate legal situation that both they and their clients are in. A good therapist—a licensed therapist, please—will begin the very first session by outlining exactly what they must report and what they may not report."
So long as there is no specific child in specific danger—so long as you don't have children (please don't), CWIA, and don't work with children (please don't)—your therapist is required to keep whatever information you share confidential.
"CWIA should ask questions about confidentiality before disclosing anything to a therapist," said Dr. Cantor. "He can ask these questions over the phone before making an appointment or even revealing his name."
To find a therapist, CWIA, you can contact—anonymously—the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (http://atsa.com/request-referral).
"Although that group is primarily about services to persons who have already committed an offense," said Dr. Cantor, "the professionals in their referral network are able and willing to help people in CWIA's situation as well."
Even the few sessions you can afford will help, CWIA.
[/box]
Thursday, March 8, 2012
The Regression of Sex Education in Utah
I must say, I'm incredibly disappointed that this is really happening. The passing of Bill HB363 19-10 by the Utah Senate is absolutely ridiculous. Dropping sex ed from the curriculum all together, enforcing abstinence-only education as the "this or nothing" option, prohibiting teachers from discussing homosexuality AND prohibiting any discussion of contraception. Not to mention the "married and monogamous only" approach to talking about sex and the complete removal of an optional comprehensive sex ed program.
WAKE UP UTAH SENATE!
Sex is everywhere! How can you possibly think that anything good will come of depriving your students of such a fundamental education? Has the increase of unintended pregnancies and STI infections in Texas taught you nothing?!
For the sake of all children and youth in Utah, I hope this bill doesn't get any further. I thought schools were supposed to prepare children for, y'know, real life.
[box]
The Huffington PostLaura HibbardFirst Posted: 03/ 7/2012 12:13 pm Updated: 03/ 7/2012 4:12 pm The Utah state Senate passed a bill Tuesday that would allow schools to drop sex education, prohibit instruction on how to use contraception, and prohibit discussion of homosexuality in class,The Salt Lake Tribune reports.
Legislators passed Senate bill HB363 19-10 after a short debate during which many senators expressed their belief that sex education is meant for the home, not school.
"To replace the parent in the school setting, among people who we have no idea what their morals are, we have no ideas what their values are, yet we turn our children over to them to instruct them in the most sensitive sexual activities in their lives, I think is wrongheaded," Republican state Sen. Stuart Reid said, according to The Salt Lake Tribune.
The bill lifts the current requirement that all public schools must teach sex ed in grades 8 through 12. Districts would decide whether to offer sex ed classes that teach an abstinence-only curriculum, or not offer the course at all.
Teachers would be barred from talking about homosexuality even if asked about it by a student, KTSU-TV reports. They also must restrict their sexual education curriculum to advocating abstinence before marriage and remaining faithful to your spouse.
Those who voted against the bill are concerned that without formal sex ed, students' lack of sex knowledge will spark higher rates of sexually transmitted disease and teen pregnancies in the state.
"I believe knowledge is the most important aspect in anyone's lives," Democratic state Sen. Gene Davis said, according to the Daily Herald. "A child needs the right and correct answer."
Last month, Republican state Rep. Francis Gibson said that in the Utah school district he represents, the abstinence-only curriculum is not producing positive results, and that unexpected teen pregnancy is still a problem.
"I would hope as we make this decision, that we won't think if we say abstinence only, that fairy dust will have been sprinkled and that teen pregnancy will no longer be a problem," Gibson said, according to an earlier piece by the Daily Herald.
This decision by the state Senate to pass the bill comes after similar regulations have passed nationwide. Last November, the Wisconsin state Senate passed legislation requiring schools to promote abstinence in sex ed classes, but didn't prohibit lessons on contraception.
[/box]
Watch some of the Senate debate for yourself:
- Candice
WAKE UP UTAH SENATE!
Sex is everywhere! How can you possibly think that anything good will come of depriving your students of such a fundamental education? Has the increase of unintended pregnancies and STI infections in Texas taught you nothing?!
For the sake of all children and youth in Utah, I hope this bill doesn't get any further. I thought schools were supposed to prepare children for, y'know, real life.
[box]
Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Bill In Utah Passes Senate, Prohibits Talk Of Homosexuality In Class (VIDEO)
The Huffington PostLaura HibbardFirst Posted: 03/ 7/2012 12:13 pm Updated: 03/ 7/2012 4:12 pm The Utah state Senate passed a bill Tuesday that would allow schools to drop sex education, prohibit instruction on how to use contraception, and prohibit discussion of homosexuality in class,The Salt Lake Tribune reports.
Legislators passed Senate bill HB363 19-10 after a short debate during which many senators expressed their belief that sex education is meant for the home, not school.
"To replace the parent in the school setting, among people who we have no idea what their morals are, we have no ideas what their values are, yet we turn our children over to them to instruct them in the most sensitive sexual activities in their lives, I think is wrongheaded," Republican state Sen. Stuart Reid said, according to The Salt Lake Tribune.
The bill lifts the current requirement that all public schools must teach sex ed in grades 8 through 12. Districts would decide whether to offer sex ed classes that teach an abstinence-only curriculum, or not offer the course at all.
Teachers would be barred from talking about homosexuality even if asked about it by a student, KTSU-TV reports. They also must restrict their sexual education curriculum to advocating abstinence before marriage and remaining faithful to your spouse.
Those who voted against the bill are concerned that without formal sex ed, students' lack of sex knowledge will spark higher rates of sexually transmitted disease and teen pregnancies in the state.
"I believe knowledge is the most important aspect in anyone's lives," Democratic state Sen. Gene Davis said, according to the Daily Herald. "A child needs the right and correct answer."
Last month, Republican state Rep. Francis Gibson said that in the Utah school district he represents, the abstinence-only curriculum is not producing positive results, and that unexpected teen pregnancy is still a problem.
"I would hope as we make this decision, that we won't think if we say abstinence only, that fairy dust will have been sprinkled and that teen pregnancy will no longer be a problem," Gibson said, according to an earlier piece by the Daily Herald.
This decision by the state Senate to pass the bill comes after similar regulations have passed nationwide. Last November, the Wisconsin state Senate passed legislation requiring schools to promote abstinence in sex ed classes, but didn't prohibit lessons on contraception.
[/box]
Watch some of the Senate debate for yourself:
- Candice
Happy International Women's Day!
I just wanted to write a quick post about what day it is today - International Women's Day!
I think this day is very important to celebrate to recognize women as important people in our communities. Women are the driving force in the world and do 60% of the world's work. I know so many amazing women in my life that are leaders, educators, innovators, mentors and caretakers.
From the International Women's Day website:
[box]
International Women's Day is a global day celebrating the economic, political and social achievements of women past, present and future. In some places like China, Russia, Vietnam and Bulgaria, International Women's Day is a national holiday.
Suffragettes campaigned for women's right to vote. The word 'Suffragette' is derived from the word "suffrage" meaning the right to vote. International Women's Day honours the work of the Suffragettes, celebrates women's success, and reminds of inequities still to be redressed. The first International Women's Day event was run in 1911. 2011 was the Global Centenary Year. Let's reinvent opportunity for all women.
[/box]
[gallery link="file" orderby="title"]
Note the google icon change for IWD
So happy International Women's Day and go thank a woman who has made a significant impact on your life!
-Jocelyne
I think this day is very important to celebrate to recognize women as important people in our communities. Women are the driving force in the world and do 60% of the world's work. I know so many amazing women in my life that are leaders, educators, innovators, mentors and caretakers.
From the International Women's Day website:
[box]
International Women's Day is a global day celebrating the economic, political and social achievements of women past, present and future. In some places like China, Russia, Vietnam and Bulgaria, International Women's Day is a national holiday.
Suffragettes campaigned for women's right to vote. The word 'Suffragette' is derived from the word "suffrage" meaning the right to vote. International Women's Day honours the work of the Suffragettes, celebrates women's success, and reminds of inequities still to be redressed. The first International Women's Day event was run in 1911. 2011 was the Global Centenary Year. Let's reinvent opportunity for all women.
[/box]
[gallery link="file" orderby="title"]
Note the google icon change for IWD
So happy International Women's Day and go thank a woman who has made a significant impact on your life!
-Jocelyne
Sexy Research: Sex Ed, First Sex
It's time for some sexy research!I received this article from the Guttmacher Institute this morning. It makes a great case for comprehensive sex education. And you know how I feel about comprehensive sex ed! :)
Note: I've added the emphasis (aka bold and italics).
Read and enjoy!
[box]
SEX EDUCATION LINKED TO DELAY IN FIRST SEX
Teens Getting Information About Both Abstinence and Contraception
Have Healthier Outcomes Than Those Who Receive No Sex Education
Teens who receive formal sex education prior to their first sexual experience demonstrate a range of healthier behaviors at first intercourse than those who receive no sex education at all. This is particularly so when the instruction they receive includes information about both waiting to have sex and methods of birth control. These findings come from a new study, “Consequences of Sex Education on Teen and Young Adult Sexual Behaviors and Outcomes,” by Laura Duberstein Lindberg and Isaac Maddow-Zimet of the Guttmacher Institute.
The authors analyzed data from 4,691 men and women aged 15–24 who participated in the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. They found that 66% of sexually experienced females and 55% of sexually experienced males reported having received information about both abstinence and birth control prior to first intercourse. Eighteen percent of sexually experienced females and 21% of males had received only abstinence instruction, while 16% of females and 24% of had had no instruction on either topic. However, these measures do not correlate directly with any specific “abstinence-only” or “comprehensive” sex education programs (see below).
Respondents who had received instruction on both abstinence and birth control were older at first sex than their peers who had received no formal instruction and were more likely to have used condoms or other contraceptives at first sex; they also had healthier partnerships. Those who had received only abstinence instruction were more likely to have delayed first intercourse than were those who had had no sex education, but abstinence instruction was not associated with any of the other protective behaviors at first sex. Moreover, condom use at first sex was significantly less likely among females who had had only abstinence instruction than among those who had received information about both abstinence and birth control. The study found no relationship between sex education and current sexual behaviors, suggesting the need for ongoing education after the onset of sexual activity.
“Sex education is important to teens’ healthy development,” said study author Lindberg. “It should cover a wide range of topics, including both how to delay first sex and how to use contraceptives, and should be reinforced over the course of young people’s development. Reaching teens with comprehensive information before they have sex should be a key goal.”
The authors point out that this study is based on the reports of teens and young adults who were asked if they had received formal instruction prior to age 18 on “how to say no to sex” or on “methods of birth control.” The measures do not correlate directly with any specific sex education programs. However, the authors suggest that their findings complement results of program evaluations showing that a comprehensive approach to sex education is associated with healthier sexual behaviors than is an abstinence-only approach.
“Consequences of Sex Education on Teen and Young Adult Sexual Behaviors and Outcomes,” by Laura Duberstein Lindberg and Isaac Maddow-Zimet, is currently available online and will appear in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health.
For a comprehensive review of research findings on the effectiveness of comprehensive and abstinence-only sex education programs, click here.
[/box]
Learn more about the Guttmacher Institute and all they do for sexual and reproductive health!
- Candice
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
A Slut, You Say?
I want my insurance to pay for my birth control ...Why, you ask? Because I'm a slut and a prostitute, of course!
Have you heard about Rush Limbaugh's most recent offensive statement? I'm referring to the one where he called a young woman a slut and a prostitute because she wants health insurance to cover contraception. Because, y'know, she must be having so much sex that she needs him to buy her pills for her ... and then he'd be paying her to have sex. So she's obviously a prostitute, right? But it's OK, as long as she posts the videos on the internet for him to enjoy.
I have to admit, I have mixed feelings about this whole thing. On one hand, I'm horrified, disgusted and outraged. On the other, I find Limbaugh's "arguments" to be so inaccurate - and downright ridiculous - that they're funny. So after you read the first article I've posted below, read the second and watch the video of Jon Stewart showing just how pathetic Limbaugh really is.
Then tell your friends.
[box]
Rush Limbaugh called the woman who was denied the right to speak at a controversial contraception hearing a "slut" on Wednesday.
Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown Law School, was supposed to be the Democratic witness at a Congressional hearing about the Obama administration's contraception policy. However, Darrell Issa, the committee chair at the hearing, prevented her from speaking, while only allowing a series of men to testify about the policy. Fluke eventually spoke to a Democratic hearing, and talked about the need for birth control for both reproductive and broader medical reasons. She mentioned in particular a friend of hers who needed contraception to prevent the growth of cysts.
To Limbaugh, though, Fluke was just promoting casual sex.
"Can you imagine if you were her parents how proud...you would be?" he said. "Your daughter ... testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she wants President Obama to provide them, or the Pope."
He continued:
"What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."
Limbaugh then said, "ok, so she's not a slut. She's round-heeled." "Round-heeled" is an old-fashioned term for promiscuity.
Limbaugh's comments came on the same day that Fluke was mentioned during a debate in the Senate about the so-called "Blunt Amendment," which would override Obama's contraception rule. Sen. Barbara Boxer brought up Fluke's testimony, recounting what she would have said at the Congressional panel if she had been given the opportunity.
[/box]
[box]
Unless you've been doing yourself a favor by not paying attention to Rush Limbaugh, you've probably heard about the conservative radio host calling Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" for supporting contraceptive insurance coverage -- and you're probably outraged.
Thankfully, Jon Stewart came to the rescue on Monday night's "Daily Show" with a humorous take on the despicable comments which have advertisers fleeing Limbaugh's show faster than you can say "Liability."
We might all learn something from how Stewart dealt with Limbaugh's remarks, including his insinuation that the amount of birth control you take correlates to how much sex you're having, and that women benefit financially somehow from having regular sex. Instead of getting mad, Stewart didn't allow himself to be shocked:
Stewart got the most material out of how the GOP presidential candidates and Fox News hosts Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly reacted to Limbaugh. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich simply disagreed with the semantics used, and everyone on Fox seemed to think there was nothing wrong with the reasoning. Stewart reiterated that the issue isn't about sex, it's about a healthcare mandate that would support women's reproductive health whether conservatives like it or not, just like liberals have to deal with government spending on things they don't believe in.
Watch the full clip [below] to hear Stewart take on Megyn Kelly's hypocritical reaction and Limbaugh's "creme de la creepy" comment that confused him the most.
[/box]
[box]
[/box]
Don't forget to leave a comment below!
- Candice
Have you heard about Rush Limbaugh's most recent offensive statement? I'm referring to the one where he called a young woman a slut and a prostitute because she wants health insurance to cover contraception. Because, y'know, she must be having so much sex that she needs him to buy her pills for her ... and then he'd be paying her to have sex. So she's obviously a prostitute, right? But it's OK, as long as she posts the videos on the internet for him to enjoy.
I have to admit, I have mixed feelings about this whole thing. On one hand, I'm horrified, disgusted and outraged. On the other, I find Limbaugh's "arguments" to be so inaccurate - and downright ridiculous - that they're funny. So after you read the first article I've posted below, read the second and watch the video of Jon Stewart showing just how pathetic Limbaugh really is.Then tell your friends.
[box]
Rush Limbaugh: Sandra Fluke, Woman Denied Right To Speak At Contraception Hearing, A 'Slut'
Rush Limbaugh called the woman who was denied the right to speak at a controversial contraception hearing a "slut" on Wednesday.
Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown Law School, was supposed to be the Democratic witness at a Congressional hearing about the Obama administration's contraception policy. However, Darrell Issa, the committee chair at the hearing, prevented her from speaking, while only allowing a series of men to testify about the policy. Fluke eventually spoke to a Democratic hearing, and talked about the need for birth control for both reproductive and broader medical reasons. She mentioned in particular a friend of hers who needed contraception to prevent the growth of cysts.
To Limbaugh, though, Fluke was just promoting casual sex.
"Can you imagine if you were her parents how proud...you would be?" he said. "Your daughter ... testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she wants President Obama to provide them, or the Pope."
He continued:
"What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."
Limbaugh then said, "ok, so she's not a slut. She's round-heeled." "Round-heeled" is an old-fashioned term for promiscuity.
Limbaugh's comments came on the same day that Fluke was mentioned during a debate in the Senate about the so-called "Blunt Amendment," which would override Obama's contraception rule. Sen. Barbara Boxer brought up Fluke's testimony, recounting what she would have said at the Congressional panel if she had been given the opportunity.
[/box]
[box]
Jon Stewart Slams Rush Limbaugh's Sandra Fluke Comments: 'He Is A Terrible Person'
Unless you've been doing yourself a favor by not paying attention to Rush Limbaugh, you've probably heard about the conservative radio host calling Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" for supporting contraceptive insurance coverage -- and you're probably outraged.
Thankfully, Jon Stewart came to the rescue on Monday night's "Daily Show" with a humorous take on the despicable comments which have advertisers fleeing Limbaugh's show faster than you can say "Liability."
We might all learn something from how Stewart dealt with Limbaugh's remarks, including his insinuation that the amount of birth control you take correlates to how much sex you're having, and that women benefit financially somehow from having regular sex. Instead of getting mad, Stewart didn't allow himself to be shocked:
"Personally, I don't get too worked up about the things Rush Limbaugh says because he is -- and has been for many years -- a terrible person."
Stewart got the most material out of how the GOP presidential candidates and Fox News hosts Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly reacted to Limbaugh. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich simply disagreed with the semantics used, and everyone on Fox seemed to think there was nothing wrong with the reasoning. Stewart reiterated that the issue isn't about sex, it's about a healthcare mandate that would support women's reproductive health whether conservatives like it or not, just like liberals have to deal with government spending on things they don't believe in.
"To the people who are upset about their hard-earned tax money going to things they don't like: Welcome to the f*cking club," Stewart said. "Reimburse me for the Iraq war and oil subsidies and diaphragms are on me!"
Watch the full clip [below] to hear Stewart take on Megyn Kelly's hypocritical reaction and Limbaugh's "creme de la creepy" comment that confused him the most.
[/box]
[box]
Video: Jon Stewart on The Daily Show - Rush Limbaugh, March 5, 2012
[/box]
Don't forget to leave a comment below!
- Candice
Monday, March 5, 2012
A note on gender
I wanted to follow my first post with a better explanation of some trans/gender issues which will hopefully shed light on the subject. Also, just a note that I am not trying to speak on behalf of the trans* community nor do I have the experience of being trans*. I write from the perspective of a cisgendered person.
Firstly, when discussing gender, some people might say "What's there to discuss??" as some aspects of gender seem
very clear cut. Obviously there are people who identify as male and female and we've recognized this for thousands of years. However, when something such as gender is so deeply engrained in our society and culture we do not always actively think about it and we grow up as "fish in water", not questioning or knowing anything different. But as humans, we are much more complex than this and therefore we form a concept of our own personal identities and our gender identities. We put so much thought into certain aspects of our personal identities, such as what clothes we wear, what we do for a living, our personalities and even our favourite colour! So why don't we put as much thought into constructing our gender identity and gender expression? Truthfully, many people do put a lot of thought into constructing and analyzing their gender identities but we are not generally encouraged to do this in western society. This creates a very narrow view of gender (the gender binary system with only male and female) and anyone who does not fit within that view is met with a lot of resistance.
There have been many new theories of gender proposed, such as the gender "scale" or the "authentic gender model" (akin to the kinsey scale of sexual orientation) which better represent the range of sexes, gender identities and expressions of humans.
A note on interacting with trans* people. If you do not have much (or any) experience with working or interacting with people with varying gender expressions, including trans* and genderqueer individuals here are some things to keep in mind:
Always use their preferred pronoun (he/him or she/her) and name. If you do not know these, then simply ask. Asking is always better than assuming.
Be open minded to different gender expressions and be respectful. Many trans people experience transphobia on a daily basis simply based on the way they look. Many cisgender people have preconceived notions of how gender is expressed, and it is important to keep an open mind and be respectful of others. Remember like the golden rule - treat others the way you want them to treat you.
Trans* people are much more than trans, and their identities are made up of many other things than simply being trans, just as a cisgender person's identity is made up of much more than just their gender. So acknowledge it, but don't make it the focal point of how you know or relate to that person.
If you are interested in discussions on gender and learning more about the trans* community, I found this wonderful video on youtube called Trans Basics created by the people behind the Gender Identity Project. It is a bit long but entirely worth the watch!
- Jocelyne
Firstly, when discussing gender, some people might say "What's there to discuss??" as some aspects of gender seem
very clear cut. Obviously there are people who identify as male and female and we've recognized this for thousands of years. However, when something such as gender is so deeply engrained in our society and culture we do not always actively think about it and we grow up as "fish in water", not questioning or knowing anything different. But as humans, we are much more complex than this and therefore we form a concept of our own personal identities and our gender identities. We put so much thought into certain aspects of our personal identities, such as what clothes we wear, what we do for a living, our personalities and even our favourite colour! So why don't we put as much thought into constructing our gender identity and gender expression? Truthfully, many people do put a lot of thought into constructing and analyzing their gender identities but we are not generally encouraged to do this in western society. This creates a very narrow view of gender (the gender binary system with only male and female) and anyone who does not fit within that view is met with a lot of resistance.There have been many new theories of gender proposed, such as the gender "scale" or the "authentic gender model" (akin to the kinsey scale of sexual orientation) which better represent the range of sexes, gender identities and expressions of humans.
A note on interacting with trans* people. If you do not have much (or any) experience with working or interacting with people with varying gender expressions, including trans* and genderqueer individuals here are some things to keep in mind:
Always use their preferred pronoun (he/him or she/her) and name. If you do not know these, then simply ask. Asking is always better than assuming.
Be open minded to different gender expressions and be respectful. Many trans people experience transphobia on a daily basis simply based on the way they look. Many cisgender people have preconceived notions of how gender is expressed, and it is important to keep an open mind and be respectful of others. Remember like the golden rule - treat others the way you want them to treat you.
Trans* people are much more than trans, and their identities are made up of many other things than simply being trans, just as a cisgender person's identity is made up of much more than just their gender. So acknowledge it, but don't make it the focal point of how you know or relate to that person.
If you are interested in discussions on gender and learning more about the trans* community, I found this wonderful video on youtube called Trans Basics created by the people behind the Gender Identity Project. It is a bit long but entirely worth the watch!
- Jocelyne
Friday, March 2, 2012
Ovarian Stem Cells
I read this article this morning, and I found it so interesting that I just had to post it right away.
This has the potential to change the way we understand women, our ovaries and ovum, as well as reproduction in general. This research suggests that women's bodies, similar to men, have the capability to grow new eggs over the course of our lifetime from stem cells in the ovaries. This is contrary to the widely-held belief that women are born with all the eggs we will ever have.
Very cool!
[box]
By: Christine Dell'Amore
National Geographic News
Published February 29, 2012 Women may make new eggs throughout their reproductive years—challenging a longstanding tenet that females are born with finite supplies, a new study says. The discovery may also lead to new avenues for improving women's health and fertility.
A woman has two ovaries, which release eggs during her monthly ovulation. (Learn more about the human body.)
Previous research had suggested that a woman is born with all the egg cells she will ever have in her lifetime.
But in recent experiments, scientists discovered a new type of stem cell in the ovaries that—when grown in the lab—generates immature egg cells. The same immature cells isolated from adult mouse ovaries can turn into fertile eggs.
Stem cells, found in embryos and certain adult body tissues, have the potential to grow into many different types of cells.
(See "Liposuction Fat Turned Into Stem Cells, Study Says.")
The finding reinforces the team's previous experiments in mice, which had identified a new type of ovarian stem cell that renews a female mouse's source of eggs throughout its fertile years.
That study, published in the journal Nature in 2004, was the "first to reach the conclusion that this long-held belief in our field—that young girls are given a bank account at birth that you can no longer deposit eggs to, just withdraw from—was no longer true," said study leader Jonathan Tilly.
By reinforcing these earlier results in people, the new study is a "big step forward" from the mouse work, emphasized Tilly, director of the Vincent Center for Reproductive Biology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
From a purely biological perspective, the concept that a woman would continually generate new eggs during her reproductive years makes sense—since men constantly replenish their sperm, Tilly added. (Read how men produce 1,500 sperm a second.)
"There's no fathomable reason," he said, why a woman would have evolved to carry stale eggs around for decades before attempting to get pregnant while men evolved to have fresh sperm always available.
Stem Cells From Donated Ovaries
At first, Tilly faced a roadblock in finding healthy human ovarian tissue to use for his research.
To get experimental ovary tissue in the U.S., the only current option is to use tissue that has been surgically removed from a person with a disease. In these cases, not only is the tissue unhealthy but surgeons also take out only small pieces, and it's impossible to know exactly which part of the ovary the tissue came from.
"If we're going to try to change a fundamental belief in this field regarding how human ovaries function, we needed to have ovaries that were indisputable in their abilities to contain these rare cells," he said.
A chance conversation with a Japanese colleague led Tilly to a source of healthy ovary tissue: Japanese women who'd undergone sex-reassignment surgery and had donated some of their reproductive organs to science.
With healthy tissue in hand, Tilly and colleagues repeated the same technique used in the mouse experiments to isolate the human ovaries' stem cells.
The team first identified ovarian stem cells via a gene-encoded protein that's unique to germ cells: eggs, sperm, and their precursor cells. This protein leaves little "ropes" on the surfaces of the egg precursor cells.
The scientists then used another protein called an antibody to "grab that rope" and tag it with a fluorescent marker.
When the entire pool of ovarian cells was marched single file through a special machine that detects the fluorescent tag, the egg stem cells were easily separated from all other cell types, and the human ovarian stem cells emerged "like a charm," Tilly said.
But the team discovered that egg stem cells are very rare in the ovaries—fewer than one percent of the organs' total cell count. That's a possible reason why ovarian stem cells have gone undiscovered for so long: They were "buried in the crowd," Tilly noted.
Decline in Fertility Due to Aging "House"?
Next the team needed a model for testing how ovarian stem cells would grow in the human body.
Since it's prohibited to legally experiment on a living person, the scientists injected the fluorescent-tagged stem cells into small pieces of human ovarian tissue and grafted that tissue onto female mice, which had been engineered to have no immune system and thus not reject the graft.
Within one to two weeks, the fluorescent human stem cells had developed into fluorescent immature egg cells, which were indistinguishable from the egg cells already present in the tissue.
By showing that the stem cells can produce immature egg cells in living human tissue, this experiment "sealed the identity of these newly discovered cells in women," said Tilly, whose study was published online February 26 in the journal Nature Medicine.
"The existence of these egg precursor cells in ovaries of women during their reproductive years does not conflict at all with the fact that fertility and ovarian function decline with advancing age," he added.
"Rather, our discovery of these cells in women indicates what we might need to rethink how the ovaries in women fail with age, by accounting for these cells as an important variable."
For instance, other scientists have found that sperm stem cells are still present in aging mice with atrophying testicles, but the cells have become nonfunctional. However, if the older stem cells are transplanted into a young mouse's testis, the cells "awaken and begin sperm production all over again."
(See "Human Testicles Yield Stem Cells.")
"Hence, in males, failure of the gonads with age is not due to a loss of these rare stem cells but rather deterioration of the 'house' that they live in."
Tilly suspects a similar phenomenon may be going on in ovaries as women age, which means they stop producing new egg cells.
Fluorescent Technology a "Real Advance"
For now, the new study can show only indirectly that women may be constantly producing new egg cells during their reproductive years.
Still, isolating stem cells via fluorescence is "the real advance, and for me the exciting thing about this work," said Justin Lathia, an assistant professor of cell biology at the Cleveland Clinic's Lerner Research Institute.
"We're now seeing a transition from having to study stem cells in mice to [being able to] isolate them as a single cell," said Lathia, who was not involved in the new study.
A technique to isolate stem cells is especially important with ovarian stem cells, since they're so rare in the ovary, he noted.
Lathia adds that he wasn't particularly surprised by the new study's results, since "the idea of ... stem cells from the ovary has been out there."
He noted that the team didn't follow through to see if a mouse or human could be born from an egg produced by a stem cell, though that's not necessarily a "huge thing."
Gaining Control of the Biological Clock
In the distant future, the discovery could greatly improve women's health, Tilly said.
For instance, finding these new cells in the human ovary could one day help scientists delay or halt menopause in women—something Tilly and his team have already done in a mouse.
By genetically engineering a mouse to maintain its egg-cell reserve as it aged, the team stopped what "in the lab we jokingly call the 'mouseopause,'" he said. (Read more about stem cells in National Geographic magazine.)
The rejuvenated mouse later avoided many of the health problems associated with ovary failure, such as osteoporosis and muscle loss—the same problems that affect post-menopausal women.
"If we could gain control of the [human] female biological clock ... you could arguably delay the time of ovary failure, the primary force behind menopause."
(Related: "Old Mice Made 'Young'-May Lead to Anti-Aging Treatments.")
What's more, scientists down the road could potentially use a woman's egg stem cells to create an "unlimited supply" of eggs, which could improve or even replace difficult fertility treatments.
"I don't want to give the idea that we can make a million eggs from a woman tomorrow," Tilly cautioned.
But "the future looks bright in providing women with more options to think about as they go through their lives."
[/box]
This has the potential to change the way we understand women, our ovaries and ovum, as well as reproduction in general. This research suggests that women's bodies, similar to men, have the capability to grow new eggs over the course of our lifetime from stem cells in the ovaries. This is contrary to the widely-held belief that women are born with all the eggs we will ever have.
Very cool!
[box]
Women Can Make New Eggs After All, Stem-Cell Study Hints
Finding may one day help delay menopause, improve fertility.
By: Christine Dell'Amore
National Geographic News
Published February 29, 2012 Women may make new eggs throughout their reproductive years—challenging a longstanding tenet that females are born with finite supplies, a new study says. The discovery may also lead to new avenues for improving women's health and fertility.
A woman has two ovaries, which release eggs during her monthly ovulation. (Learn more about the human body.)
Previous research had suggested that a woman is born with all the egg cells she will ever have in her lifetime.
But in recent experiments, scientists discovered a new type of stem cell in the ovaries that—when grown in the lab—generates immature egg cells. The same immature cells isolated from adult mouse ovaries can turn into fertile eggs.
Stem cells, found in embryos and certain adult body tissues, have the potential to grow into many different types of cells.
(See "Liposuction Fat Turned Into Stem Cells, Study Says.")
The finding reinforces the team's previous experiments in mice, which had identified a new type of ovarian stem cell that renews a female mouse's source of eggs throughout its fertile years.
That study, published in the journal Nature in 2004, was the "first to reach the conclusion that this long-held belief in our field—that young girls are given a bank account at birth that you can no longer deposit eggs to, just withdraw from—was no longer true," said study leader Jonathan Tilly.
By reinforcing these earlier results in people, the new study is a "big step forward" from the mouse work, emphasized Tilly, director of the Vincent Center for Reproductive Biology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
From a purely biological perspective, the concept that a woman would continually generate new eggs during her reproductive years makes sense—since men constantly replenish their sperm, Tilly added. (Read how men produce 1,500 sperm a second.)
"There's no fathomable reason," he said, why a woman would have evolved to carry stale eggs around for decades before attempting to get pregnant while men evolved to have fresh sperm always available.
Stem Cells From Donated Ovaries
At first, Tilly faced a roadblock in finding healthy human ovarian tissue to use for his research.
To get experimental ovary tissue in the U.S., the only current option is to use tissue that has been surgically removed from a person with a disease. In these cases, not only is the tissue unhealthy but surgeons also take out only small pieces, and it's impossible to know exactly which part of the ovary the tissue came from.
"If we're going to try to change a fundamental belief in this field regarding how human ovaries function, we needed to have ovaries that were indisputable in their abilities to contain these rare cells," he said.
A chance conversation with a Japanese colleague led Tilly to a source of healthy ovary tissue: Japanese women who'd undergone sex-reassignment surgery and had donated some of their reproductive organs to science.
With healthy tissue in hand, Tilly and colleagues repeated the same technique used in the mouse experiments to isolate the human ovaries' stem cells.
The team first identified ovarian stem cells via a gene-encoded protein that's unique to germ cells: eggs, sperm, and their precursor cells. This protein leaves little "ropes" on the surfaces of the egg precursor cells.
The scientists then used another protein called an antibody to "grab that rope" and tag it with a fluorescent marker.
When the entire pool of ovarian cells was marched single file through a special machine that detects the fluorescent tag, the egg stem cells were easily separated from all other cell types, and the human ovarian stem cells emerged "like a charm," Tilly said.
But the team discovered that egg stem cells are very rare in the ovaries—fewer than one percent of the organs' total cell count. That's a possible reason why ovarian stem cells have gone undiscovered for so long: They were "buried in the crowd," Tilly noted.
Decline in Fertility Due to Aging "House"?
Next the team needed a model for testing how ovarian stem cells would grow in the human body.
Since it's prohibited to legally experiment on a living person, the scientists injected the fluorescent-tagged stem cells into small pieces of human ovarian tissue and grafted that tissue onto female mice, which had been engineered to have no immune system and thus not reject the graft.
Within one to two weeks, the fluorescent human stem cells had developed into fluorescent immature egg cells, which were indistinguishable from the egg cells already present in the tissue.
By showing that the stem cells can produce immature egg cells in living human tissue, this experiment "sealed the identity of these newly discovered cells in women," said Tilly, whose study was published online February 26 in the journal Nature Medicine.
"The existence of these egg precursor cells in ovaries of women during their reproductive years does not conflict at all with the fact that fertility and ovarian function decline with advancing age," he added.
"Rather, our discovery of these cells in women indicates what we might need to rethink how the ovaries in women fail with age, by accounting for these cells as an important variable."
For instance, other scientists have found that sperm stem cells are still present in aging mice with atrophying testicles, but the cells have become nonfunctional. However, if the older stem cells are transplanted into a young mouse's testis, the cells "awaken and begin sperm production all over again."
(See "Human Testicles Yield Stem Cells.")
"Hence, in males, failure of the gonads with age is not due to a loss of these rare stem cells but rather deterioration of the 'house' that they live in."
Tilly suspects a similar phenomenon may be going on in ovaries as women age, which means they stop producing new egg cells.
Fluorescent Technology a "Real Advance"
For now, the new study can show only indirectly that women may be constantly producing new egg cells during their reproductive years.
Still, isolating stem cells via fluorescence is "the real advance, and for me the exciting thing about this work," said Justin Lathia, an assistant professor of cell biology at the Cleveland Clinic's Lerner Research Institute.
"We're now seeing a transition from having to study stem cells in mice to [being able to] isolate them as a single cell," said Lathia, who was not involved in the new study.
A technique to isolate stem cells is especially important with ovarian stem cells, since they're so rare in the ovary, he noted.
Lathia adds that he wasn't particularly surprised by the new study's results, since "the idea of ... stem cells from the ovary has been out there."
He noted that the team didn't follow through to see if a mouse or human could be born from an egg produced by a stem cell, though that's not necessarily a "huge thing."
Gaining Control of the Biological Clock
In the distant future, the discovery could greatly improve women's health, Tilly said.
For instance, finding these new cells in the human ovary could one day help scientists delay or halt menopause in women—something Tilly and his team have already done in a mouse.
By genetically engineering a mouse to maintain its egg-cell reserve as it aged, the team stopped what "in the lab we jokingly call the 'mouseopause,'" he said. (Read more about stem cells in National Geographic magazine.)
The rejuvenated mouse later avoided many of the health problems associated with ovary failure, such as osteoporosis and muscle loss—the same problems that affect post-menopausal women.
"If we could gain control of the [human] female biological clock ... you could arguably delay the time of ovary failure, the primary force behind menopause."
(Related: "Old Mice Made 'Young'-May Lead to Anti-Aging Treatments.")
What's more, scientists down the road could potentially use a woman's egg stem cells to create an "unlimited supply" of eggs, which could improve or even replace difficult fertility treatments.
"I don't want to give the idea that we can make a million eggs from a woman tomorrow," Tilly cautioned.
But "the future looks bright in providing women with more options to think about as they go through their lives."
[/box]
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Condoms and bedsheets
I read this article tonight, and one of the things that struck me was the slippery slope reference made near the end of the article:
Huh?
The article itself is about the upcoming introduction of condoms into the LA porn industry. As of March 5, adult film actors in LA will be required to use condoms. This measure is being introduced as an effort to promote safety and protect adult film actors from STI infections, such as HIV. (I've written about this before - see "How many HIV infections will it take?").
Opponents of this controversial regulation have expressed concerns equating to the "condoms aren't sexy" argument. Yes, condoms can be pesky ... but how sexy are STIs? I'm not so sure the burn of chlamydia or a lifelong herpes infection are all that sexy, either.
Monthly testing is great and all, but what about the 3-6 month waiting period in which HIV is NOT detectable? (Learn more: HIV/AIDS: An Overview).
It will be interesting to see what happens in the LA porn scene after these new regulations take effect. Will a sheath of latex be the end of porn production in LA?
Read the entire article below and don't forget to leave a comment!
- Candice
[box]
By Thane Burnett, QMI Agency
Scott Rhodes and his wife are ready to pack for a March break in Los Angeles.
The Canadians will remember clean socks and underwear.
Toothbrushes. HD camera. Lotions and lubes. A few sex toys.
"Nothing that looks too out of place for a couple on a romantic, sexy vacation," Rhodes assures of awkward questions from border security.
For the Windsor, Ont.-based adult film producer and his porn star wife, known as Maxine X, it'll actually be all business.
Though perhaps not as usual.
As the filmmakers shoot new sex features in L.A. -- heartland for English triple-X films -- they and other explicit movie producers face controversial new rules.
On March 5, health regulations covering carnal Hollywood -- and all of L.A. -- will require porn actors to wear condoms.
Concerned that viewers don't want a latex divide appearing between them and their video fantasies, opponents to the looming city ordinance believe film companies could pack up and move on.
"The industry has threatened to -- hollow threats I believe -- leave L.A. If so, we'll follow them," says Ged Kenslea, spokesman for Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a group that helped champion the new L.A. bylaw and which intends to extend the edict to other cities.
His group says the requirement will protect actors appearing in 50,000 L.A.-made adult films annually -- as many as 90% of which have no permits -- while sending a message of safe sex to viewers.
"People needed to adjust to wearing a seatbelt and learned to stand outside a restaurant to smoke," he reasons. "I'm not saying it will be easy."
However, some predict the cameras -- and bodies -- may still keeping rolling as they have been.
Rhodes and most other producers left it up to performers to choose whether or not to sheath -- Maxine shuns prophylactics -- confident in monthly testing of their stars for sexual infections. He can't see that changing.
"This is a bit like asking NASCAR drivers to only drive at 55 ... or no body checking in the NHL," says Rhodes, adding in frustration: "It's a buzz kill."
He wonders whether it will force productions underground -- ignoring safeguards -- or perhaps move to countries like Canada. But pretty bodies and support staff are abundant in L.A., and one of the only other states where adult film production has been cleared under anti-prostitution laws is New Hampshire.
Jason E. Squire, professor of cinema practice at the University of Southern California, is guarded about the impact.
"The question of what happens after March 5 is a wild card," is as far as he will go.
But Brad Armstrong is sure it shouldn't have gotten this far.
The Toronto-born adult film actor and director works for L.A.-based Wicked Pictures, one of the companies that dominate the industry.
For more than a decade, after early AIDS scares in the industry, Wicked made condoms mandatory.
The city ordinance now levels the playing field, but still, Armstrong's not happy, saying it will bring profit margins down for other producers.
"I think the bigger argument, why people are up in arms ... is this the first step?" he says from his office in the hotbed of the debate. "Once you let (officials) into the bedrooms, they'll soon be telling what sheets you should use."
As for Rhodes, he's not worried about the sheets, scripts or sex toys.
But he's now packing lots of condoms.
Source: Ifpress.com
[/box]
"I think the bigger argument, why people are up in arms ... is this the first step?" he says from his office in the hotbed of the debate. "Once you let (officials) into the bedrooms, they'll soon be telling what sheets you should use."
Huh?
The article itself is about the upcoming introduction of condoms into the LA porn industry. As of March 5, adult film actors in LA will be required to use condoms. This measure is being introduced as an effort to promote safety and protect adult film actors from STI infections, such as HIV. (I've written about this before - see "How many HIV infections will it take?").
Opponents of this controversial regulation have expressed concerns equating to the "condoms aren't sexy" argument. Yes, condoms can be pesky ... but how sexy are STIs? I'm not so sure the burn of chlamydia or a lifelong herpes infection are all that sexy, either.Rhodes and most other producers left it up to performers to choose whether or not to sheath -- Maxine shuns prophylactics -- confident in monthly testing of their stars for sexual infections. He can't see that changing.
Monthly testing is great and all, but what about the 3-6 month waiting period in which HIV is NOT detectable? (Learn more: HIV/AIDS: An Overview).
It will be interesting to see what happens in the LA porn scene after these new regulations take effect. Will a sheath of latex be the end of porn production in LA?
Read the entire article below and don't forget to leave a comment!
- Candice
[box]
It's a wrap: New bylaw demands condoms in L.A.'s Porn Valley
By Thane Burnett, QMI Agency
Scott Rhodes and his wife are ready to pack for a March break in Los Angeles.
The Canadians will remember clean socks and underwear.
Toothbrushes. HD camera. Lotions and lubes. A few sex toys.
"Nothing that looks too out of place for a couple on a romantic, sexy vacation," Rhodes assures of awkward questions from border security.
For the Windsor, Ont.-based adult film producer and his porn star wife, known as Maxine X, it'll actually be all business.
Though perhaps not as usual.
As the filmmakers shoot new sex features in L.A. -- heartland for English triple-X films -- they and other explicit movie producers face controversial new rules.
On March 5, health regulations covering carnal Hollywood -- and all of L.A. -- will require porn actors to wear condoms.
Concerned that viewers don't want a latex divide appearing between them and their video fantasies, opponents to the looming city ordinance believe film companies could pack up and move on.
"The industry has threatened to -- hollow threats I believe -- leave L.A. If so, we'll follow them," says Ged Kenslea, spokesman for Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a group that helped champion the new L.A. bylaw and which intends to extend the edict to other cities.
His group says the requirement will protect actors appearing in 50,000 L.A.-made adult films annually -- as many as 90% of which have no permits -- while sending a message of safe sex to viewers.
"People needed to adjust to wearing a seatbelt and learned to stand outside a restaurant to smoke," he reasons. "I'm not saying it will be easy."
However, some predict the cameras -- and bodies -- may still keeping rolling as they have been.
Rhodes and most other producers left it up to performers to choose whether or not to sheath -- Maxine shuns prophylactics -- confident in monthly testing of their stars for sexual infections. He can't see that changing.
"This is a bit like asking NASCAR drivers to only drive at 55 ... or no body checking in the NHL," says Rhodes, adding in frustration: "It's a buzz kill."
He wonders whether it will force productions underground -- ignoring safeguards -- or perhaps move to countries like Canada. But pretty bodies and support staff are abundant in L.A., and one of the only other states where adult film production has been cleared under anti-prostitution laws is New Hampshire.
Jason E. Squire, professor of cinema practice at the University of Southern California, is guarded about the impact.
"The question of what happens after March 5 is a wild card," is as far as he will go.
But Brad Armstrong is sure it shouldn't have gotten this far.
The Toronto-born adult film actor and director works for L.A.-based Wicked Pictures, one of the companies that dominate the industry.
For more than a decade, after early AIDS scares in the industry, Wicked made condoms mandatory.
The city ordinance now levels the playing field, but still, Armstrong's not happy, saying it will bring profit margins down for other producers.
"I think the bigger argument, why people are up in arms ... is this the first step?" he says from his office in the hotbed of the debate. "Once you let (officials) into the bedrooms, they'll soon be telling what sheets you should use."
As for Rhodes, he's not worried about the sheets, scripts or sex toys.
But he's now packing lots of condoms.
Source: Ifpress.com
[/box]
Friday, February 24, 2012
Have we learned NOTHING?
So, it's Friday evening and I am sitting on my couch, trying to write a witty and entertaining blog post. Unfortunately, it's just not flowing, so instead I am going to share a comic I saw on Facebook today. This comic, to me, sums up the current and pathetic state of affairs in the US and, to a lesser extent, Canada as well.
It frustrates me to hear about the seemingly endless array of anti-freedom, anti-love, anti-choice and anti-health arguments spewing from so many people. And it horrifies me to think that one of these "spewers" could be the next American president. Among other things, Rick Santorum is opposed to birth control, freedom of choice, nonmonogamy, sexual diversity, marriage equality and anal sex. But wait, it gets better ...
Yes folks, this is the man who is currently leading the race for the Republican presidential candidacy. I feel sick just thinking about it. Yes, he probably has a few decent points on his campaign ... but HOW CAN SOMEONE WITH SUCH NARROW-MINDED, ANTI-FREEDOM VIEWS REALLY BE A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN 2012?!?!?!?!?!?! Have we learned NOTHING from the past?!?!?
I guess the post did flow after all ...
- Candice
It frustrates me to hear about the seemingly endless array of anti-freedom, anti-love, anti-choice and anti-health arguments spewing from so many people. And it horrifies me to think that one of these "spewers" could be the next American president. Among other things, Rick Santorum is opposed to birth control, freedom of choice, nonmonogamy, sexual diversity, marriage equality and anal sex. But wait, it gets better ...
Santorum has stated that he does not believe a "right to privacy" is part of the Constitution. He has been critical of the Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which held that the Constitution guaranteed that right and overturned a law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives to married couples.[144] He has described contraception as "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be,"[8] and said in 2003 that he favors having laws against polygamy, adultery, sodomy, and other actions "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family".
In 2003, Santorum became the subject of a controversy regarding homosexuality when he juxtaposed same-sex marriage with pedophilia and bestiality during an interview.[145] The remarks drew a retaliatory response from gay rights activist Dan Savage, who launched a contest to coin a "santorum" neologism among his blog's readers.[146] The outcome was a description pertaining to anal sex,[147] and since 2004, the website Savage set up for the campaign has regularly been among the top search results for Santorum's surname, leading to what commentators have dubbed "Santorum's Google problem".[147][148] Santorum has characterized the campaign as a "type of vulgarity" that was spread on the Internet.[148] In September 2011, Santorum unsuccessfully requested that Google remove the content from its search engine index.[149]
Source: Wikipedia - Rick Santorum
BTW: Rick Santorum's "Google problem"
Yes folks, this is the man who is currently leading the race for the Republican presidential candidacy. I feel sick just thinking about it. Yes, he probably has a few decent points on his campaign ... but HOW CAN SOMEONE WITH SUCH NARROW-MINDED, ANTI-FREEDOM VIEWS REALLY BE A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN 2012?!?!?!?!?!?! Have we learned NOTHING from the past?!?!?
I guess the post did flow after all ...
- Candice
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)