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:

"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]

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 ...

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

 

Happy Valentine's Day

What's a blog about sex without a little romance now and then?

Enjoy a Valentine's Day chuckle while you read this Huff Post Comedy article.

Enjoy and happy love day!

Candice :)

[box]

How to Get It Right This Valentine's Day

By: Lee Kolbert

This post is mainly for those men who are perplexed at the inner workings of the female brain. These are good men who aim to please, but understand that making a woman happy on any holiday, but especially Valentine's Day, can feel like they are aiming for a moving target.

As a small gift to the male readers out there, I'm going to reveal a few girly tidbits that will make your celebrations go a bit smoother this year.


Should you buy clothing as a gift?
Tread carefully here. I say avoid it all together:

• You are sure to get the size wrong. Too large means you think she looks larger than she is. You can't recover from this. Too small will remind her of all the reasons why she hates her body. On the other hand, if you buy something way too small, it could send the message that in your eyes, she is much smaller (which we LOVE to imagine is really going on in your simple brains). This is a risky one and only advanced-level players should attempt this move.


• Something sexy? Why? Isn't she sexy enough without the item you just bought?


• Workout clothes? Are you kidding me? Do you think she needs to work out? It DOES NOT MATTER that she has been telling you that she needs to work out and wants to buy some workout clothes. Your job is to ignore such nonsense and tell her she looks fine. Just do it.

What about jewelry?

• Diamonds, gold, designer labels... all very expensive. Are you part of the 1%? If the answer is yes, then buy jewelry and you are done. I recommend something from Tiffany & Co. Congratulations you will have a fantastic Valentine's Day. Thank you for reading my blog. Please check back again soon.


• If you are not wealthy, consider what type of jewelry you are going to buy that looks nice but doesn't scream "fake." Oh... she will know and so will her girlfriends. There are some stores with nice jewelry of high quality. If your girl likes this sort of thing,  Brighton and Pandora are not cheap but they are trendy, strong, guaranteed and a safe bet. If you buy their "knock-offs" from a large urban department store, she will know when they tarnish or break in six weeks.


• The safe answer with jewelry is: If you can't do it right, don't do it at all.
  

Food

• Chocolate and other food (bakery treats) is nice but be prepared to be blamed a few days later when she looks in the mirror and regrets it.


• Last year "someone" bought me one of those edible fruit arrangements. These are beautiful arrangements but must be disassembled immediately so they can be refrigerated, and when I found out how much it cost, I refused to eat even one piece. For that money, we could have provided a goat and two chickens to a family in Uganda. In your efforts to please, don't be wasteful. Nobody wants a side of guilt while enjoying smartly carved cantaloupe.


• Diet food? Why? Does she need to lose weight? Careful there...

Gym membership

• You really don't have a clue, do you? Gym membership is never a great Valentine's Day gift. It is something you purchase and drop on the floor and then find and say, "Hey, look what I found! Let's check this out. Hey, it even comes with a personal trainer named uh... Bjorn, who looks strangely like that Beckham dude!"  
  But not on Valentine's Day. Save this smooth move for March 1.

Message in a bottle

• Aw, that's so sweet. Everyone love a little romance. After she opens it, she'll secretly wonder when you'll be surprising her with the jewelry, chocolate or clothing.

Now that I've cleared everything up for you, you should be good to go. Good luck and let me know how it all works out for you.

Originally Published on The Huff Post Canada, February 13, 2012.

[/box]

Seniors are having more sex, and getting more STIs

As our population ages, we as a society are faced with many never-before-encountered dilemmas ... one of which is the drastic increase of STI infections amongst seniors.

We're living longer than ever, and with the advent of sexual enhancement drugs (aka Viagra and its relatives), more seniors are sexually active now than ever before. Combine "more sex" with an overall lack of awareness of STIs and zero risk of pregnancy, and it's not surprising that we're seeing such a substantial increase in STI infections amongst our older citizens.

I think it's great that older people are continuing to enjoy their sexuality. Sex amongst consenting adults is a wonderful thing. But the infections?! Not so wonderful. Rates of chlamydia and syphilis, for example, have nearly tripled among adults aged 45 to 64 in the last 10 years. Yikes!

The following article provides lost of great information about the increase in STIs amongst seniors, and what the experts think. Read on and enlighten yourself!

*Emphasis added by Candice

[box]

Sexual activity and STD rate up among seniors

Published February 2, 2012 on CNN.com

New research published Thursday by the British Medical Journal shows that 80% of 50 to 90 years olds are sexually active.  And with that, cases of sexually transmitted diseases have more than doubled in this age group over the past 10 years.

“You never have to retire from sex,” says clinical psychologist Judy Kuriansky. “But you should always behave as the 20-30 year-olds do. You need to be cautious about it.”

Numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that incidences of syphilis and chlamydia in adults aged 45 to 64 have nearly tripled over the past decade. Cases of Gonorrhea are up as well.

“In general, I would say that older people are really enjoying their sexuality,” says Ian Kerner, sex therapist, CNNHealth.com contributor and founder of GoodInBed.com. “People can be sexual throughout their lives, until the day they die.”

Researchers are quick to point out that there’s a huge lack of data on STDs in older populations. The authors of the BMJ editorial also note that older women are more vulnerable physiologically.  “Post-menopausal changes to the vagina, such as thinning of the mucosa, narrowing and shortening of the vagina, and decreased lubrication leave women more vulnerable to minor genital injuries and microabrasions that facilitate the entry of pathogens,” they write.

With age, as parents teach their kids, comes responsibility. So why are parents exposing themselves to these avoidable risks?

“They just don’t think it can happen to them” says Kuriansky. “STIs (sexually transmitted infections) really started making news in the ’80s and ’90s. The fears and the warnings didn’t hit their generation.” They also didn’t expect to be sexual. “It’s the Jane Fondas of the world and men in their 80s like John Glenn, who divorced his wife and married a younger woman,” she says.*

Kerner is quick to point out that the 50+ age group is one of the fastest-growing demographics for online dating. “They wouldn’t even necessarily classify themselves as older,” he says. “It’s often the second time around for them. They’ve been married, have adult children, and they don’t have the same concerns or the same stressors that other people might face.”

Interestingly, one study found that men aged 40+ who were taking drugs for erectile dysfunction were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with an STD in their first year of usage. However, that same study also found that those same men were significantly more likely to be diagnosed in the year prior to starting the medication. That suggests the drug doesn’t so much alter the risk-taking behavior, but rather facilitates it.*

Older men can be wary of condom use because it can contribute to erectile dysfunction. Women assume since they’re above child-bearing years that condoms are unnecessary.

“Just as we spend a lot of time advising kids to practice safer sex, we need to do the same things for ourselves and our parents,” says Kerner.

And perhaps even our grandparents.

Experts purport more awareness from the media would go a long way. Kuriansky also suggests more questioning and counseling by physicians. “If you’re really going to do something about it,” she says, “you have to be tested for herpes and other viruses. Now, you have to request that. They’re not in routine blood tests. [They] should make it routine.”

[/box]

Say what? Queer terms re-explained

Hello everyone,

For my first post, I thought it would be good to go through some terms used in the LGBT (etc) community that you may (or may not) have heard before. These terms go beyond the standard acronym (for an explanation of the acronym, check out Candice's article here) and explain some of the more complicated labels or terms used within the queer community. With respect to the word queer, I use it very often to identify myself and others within the LGBT community, but not everyone is comfortable with this term.



First off,

Sex: Sex here refers to one's biological sex, genitalia, chromosomes or physical anatomy.

Gender (or Gender Identity): The gender that a person sees themselves as, or our mental representation of our gender. This includes labels like male/masculine, female/feminine, woman, man.

For some, our sex and gender match and we would label these people

Cisgender: a match between an individuals assigned sex and gender identity or gender expression. For many of us (but not all!) these things do match and we fill the behaviour deemed "socially appropriate" for one's gender. Ciswoman and cisman also fall under this term.

For many, many others, our sex and gender may not match, and a general label for these people is

Transgender (also Trans*): someone who identifies other than or opposite to the gender than they were assigned at birth. I included the asterisk beside trans because trans is often used as an umbrella term to encompass a whole lot of other identities and labels. Trans* or Transgender is a very inclusive term to use to refer to the Trans* community and is generally safe to use. Some  people may refer to themselves as a transman or transwoman and generally expect the same treatment a cisgender woman would with respect to pronouns (he/him and she/her), preferred name use and your general demeanour. I will get more into these sorts of things in a later post.

Now, one's sex and gender are very separate from one's sexual orientation (hetero/homo/bi sexual). Not all cisgender people are straight and not all transgender people are gay. Any combination of sex, gender and sexual orientation is possible.

Other possible sexual orientations are

Pansexual: someone who is attracted to a wide range of gender identities or sexes. The gender or sex is irrelevant to whether an individual will be attracted to someone else.

Asexual: someone who does not experience sexual attraction.

However, there are still a whole host of other gender labels that people choose to identify with that do not include cisgender, transgender, male/masculine or female/feminine.

Genderqueer (or gender non-conforming): gender identities that fall outside or between the typical gender binary of man/woman. This includes people who identify as both genders (genderqueer, bigendered), people who identify as neither gender or androgynous and people who move between genders (genderfluid).

Another term that applies to gender that you may not have heard before is

Intersex: an individual who presents atypical combinations of physical, chromosomal and genital features that usually distinguish female sex from male sex. This could be a very wide range or hormonal, chromosomal or genital expressions and individuals could have biological aspects of both sexes. By law, we are all labelled as either male or female at birth even when there are genital or chromosomal abnormalities which presents problems for intersex people's gender identity and sex. The term hermaphrodite is considered very outdated and not politically correct.

I hope that this made sense and cleared up some confusion that you may have had about these terms. They are used very specifically and are often not interchangeable. If you have any other questions about terms like this or are looking for an even more in depth list (there are so many more!) please do not hesitate to contact me at jocelyne@sexedcentral.com!

It's official - we've grown!

Exciting news! Sex Ed Central has GROWN and now officially includes a VOLUNTEER!

Can you tell I'm super excited about this?

I want to give a big, warm welcome to Jocelyne, who will be contributing to SEC as a volunteer writer. After years of volunteering (which I still do, and you should too!) I am so excited to be able to welcome Jocelyne to Sex Ed Central.

I will be posting more information - including Jocelyne's bio - soon! You can anticipate great articles and blog posts from someone who has a wealth of sexuality knowledge and experience - not to mention a passion for advocacy!

Welcome, Jocelyne! We're so happy to have you on board!

:)

Candice

The Catholic School Board vs GSAs ...

It's time for the Catholic School Board to crawl out of the long-gone days of the DSM's old school notion of homosexuality (aka homosexuality = mental illness). It's time for them to wake up and realize that sexuality - in all its shapes, sizes, colours and directions, is natural.

WAKE UP!!!

While we're waiting, I want to share this article with you. It's about a formal complaint made by a teacher against a former principal. Frances Jacques was the principal at St. Joseph Catholic high school (Mississauga) last year. The complaint refers to Jacques turning down a request by students to form a Gay-Straight Alliance at their school. After their request was denied, the students fought publicly to form this group.

In fact, if you've been reading my blog for a while, you might recall me writing about this in June of last year: "Catholic students are fighting for Gay-Straight Alliances ..."

Obviously, I'm on the side of the GSA in this case. That said, I want to clarify something: Yes, this complaint has been made against a specific person, however, I don't think that this is a one-person issue by ANY means. This is a school board issue (and beyond that, an issue within the Catholic faith and the Vatican, but I'm not taking that one on). So while I agree with the concept of taking on the school board's stance on banning GSA's, I don't agree with pointing the finger at one specific person. I can only imagine the pressure that Jacques was under, and by reading comments made by St. Joe's students, this has never been a personal issue between Jacques and the students. I repeat, this is a Catholic School Board Issue! (If you need more convincing, read the last sentence of the article, which I've italicized).


You can be sure I'll be following this one closely, and I will keep you posted. In the meantime, read this article from TheStar.com and leave a comment below ...

Emphasis added by myself.

[box]

College asked to investigate Catholic principal who banned gay-straight alliance

By Kristin Rushowy, Education Reporter

Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2012


Ontario’s College of Teachers has been asked to investigate a Catholic principal for professional misconduct after students were banned from starting a gay-straight alliance at their Mississauga high school.

In a formal complaint, teacher Thomas McCue asks that the college look at the alleged “actions or inactions” of Frances Jacques, principal of St. Joseph Catholic high school last year, that could have “put certain groups at increased risk, which is contrary to the code of conduct of members.”

McCue is referring to a group of students led by Leanne Iskander, who asked to form a gay-straight alliance but were turned down. They said the principal instead offered talks with the school’s chaplain or that they join other groups already running at the school.

Even though gay-straight alliances are common in public schools, Catholic boards have not allowed them, given the Vatican’s stance against homosexuality.

Although McCue has named Jacques in the complaint — because she was the front-line official involved — the complaint could have much wider implications for the Catholic system’s approach to such clubs.

As McCue followed media reports on the St. Joseph’s incident, “it all seemed unreal to me,” he said in a telephone interview from the Montreal area, where he now lives with his same-sex partner.

“When I shared it with the staff (at his current school), they thought Ontario was living in the 1960s.”

(The St. Joseph’s teens eventually started a club called “Open Arms,” after Ontario’s Catholic bishops and school trustees bowed to public pressure and allowed groups to address bullying based on sexual orientation.)

Jacques retired at the end of the 2010-11 school year as planned but is still a member of the teachers’ college.

McCue’s complaint also asks the college to examine if Jacques failed to maintain the standards of the profession, because without a gay-straight alliance support group “to address issues of bullying, some students may feel that their emotional well-being was being compromised.”

“In any case, given the recent suicide at an Ottawa Carleton District (board) school as well as a spate of other horrible incidents around North America, it is time that this issue be taken seriously,” he wrote in his complaint.

“There is a book and video entitled It gets Better. The understanding is that once a (gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender) student makes it to adulthood, life gets better. This is all fine and good, but it needs to get better now, not in four years.”

The complaint, sent to the college last November, includes several studies showing the importance of safe, supportive social environments for gay and lesbian teens.

“The studies clearly indicate that a ‘diversity club’ is insufficient to properly address the unique issues facing gay and lesbian youth,” McCue wrote.

The college has 120 days to investigate and determine whether to proceed to a disciplinary hearing.

“Our legislation prohibits us from talking about a matter until it reaches the stage of a formal hearing,” said Brian Jamieson of the Ontario College of Teachers. “I cannot confirm or deny whether a complaint has been registered, and we are not allowed to discuss matters under investigation.”

Bruce Campbell, of the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, said no one at the board was aware of the case and that, regardless, he could not respond “due to the personnel-related nature of such a complaint.”

He contacted Jacques twice on the Star’s behalf; she said she had not been contacted by the college. “She has not been advised of this and did not wish to comment on it,” Campbell also said.

McCue taught in Ottawa public schools before moving to Montreal in 2007. He grew up in Barrie.

“I kind of felt sick to my stomach” after reading that St. Joseph students had been denied, especially after they were brave enough to ask for — and then publicly fight for — a gay-straight alliance at such a young age, he said.

“It’s clear in Ontario College of Teacher regulations that you can’t put students at increased risk,” said McCue, 41.

The question is if this is “conduct unbecoming a member,” he added. “Would most members consider this not to be proper?”

Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, director of the equality program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said her organization has not taken a position on the case because it is not familiar with the college’s disciplinary process.

However, she said she will follow its progress.

“It is one of the many ways people are expressing their concern with the fact that students were not provided with the supports they need,” she said.

“It’s a very interesting take (on the issue).”

The incident at St. Joseph’s highlighted the difficulty facing Catholic schools as the province looked at ways to fight homophobia, something students — in both Catholic and public schools — have said they want.

Since then, the Ontario government has directed schools to allow anti-homophobia clubs if students demand them, although the word “gay” does not have to be in their title.

Just last week, Catholic educators suggested calling such groups “Respecting Difference,” but said the groups could not be activist, protest or discuss sexual attraction or gender identity.

[/box]

Comments posted on TheStar.com by St Joe's students ....

[box]

amandaann: you have GOT to be kidding me.... a CATHOLIC school teacher cannot say on record that they console of a gay-straight alliance. they have to speak on the behalf of the school board. clearly this article is BEYOND bias. i went to St. Joes and i have NEVER met a nicer, kinder woman in my life. Francis let us students have the club, she let us feel loved and appreciated. reading this article makes me SICK and disgusted that you would make her look like a monster when she is nothing but an open soul.

[/box]

[box]

BadWolf07: You're going after the wrong person

I'm a student at St Joes, I was involved in trying to start a gay-straight alliance, and although that I agree she may have done some things that put some students at additional risk, but I don't think it was because she was hateful and intolerant in any way. The banning of gay-straight alliances in Catholic schools is a board-wide, if not province-wide issue. Ms Jacques is a really nice person and the greatest principal we ever had. She felt bad for what she had to do about our GSA (she cried at a meeting once, she was so upset). She was always there to help, and I really don't think she should be pulled out or retirement and punished for something she did out of ignorance or because the board instructed her to.

[/box]