NSRC Staff at Dialogues 

Jezebel posted the most adorably bizarre video of a penis doing its best Teletubbie impersonation (NSFW). I immediately reposted onto my Facebook because, you know, sharing is caring. And I care enough to subject my friends to my strange sense of humor.

[youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7vg8AYVCMQ]

While I get that not everyone finds a penis playing peek-a-boo with its own foreskin as funny as I do I did not anticipate the response left by a male friend:

Surgically altering babies should be outlawed. That is an adult decision. Otherwise it’s mutilation. Period.

The issue of circumcision is always one I avoid. I do not have a penis and will not have children so I get to steer clear of this hot-button sexual values issue. But, as I repeatedly read his comment, I realized what was bothering me about it: I prefer a foreskin-free penis.

Typing that sentence makes me wince. Who am I to have a preference for cut cock? Is it shallow? Destructive to men? I try to rationalize my desire via the freedom of personal choice.

Then I realize that this choice is not as personal as I would like to believe. I live in a culture that regularly circumcises boy babies. Nearly every penis I have seen up close has been sans-foreskin. The penis in its given state looks as alien to me as the unmodified female form looks to so many guys raised in a Maxim world.

So why do I so love the sight of a circumcised penis? William Street from the movie Chameleon Street said it best:

I’m a victim brother. I’m a victim of 400 years of conditioning. The man has programmed my conditioning. Even my conditioning has been conditioned!

Several male lovers/boyfriends have made bitter remarks about their circumcision. There is no going back, no way to know what it would be like if that little peice of skin had been left alone. They must feel helpless, a taboo emotion for men.

Everyone experiences, at some point, a sense of anxiety about their genitals. Females can willfully ignore what sits between their legs while transgender and intersex individuals often silently sit with horrific anxieties about feeling outside of the body definitions. Men are constantly in contact with their own junk and exist in a culture of open cock dialogue. Whether big, small, crooked, cut or foreskin adorned, most men experience some level of what I call weenxiety.

A student once asked me, “Sometimes I see pictures of girls, uh, genitals and some of them weird me out. What if- what if a girl I like thinks that about mine?” This is a perfect example of weenxiety. Does it look right? Is it normal? Is my manstick manly enough?

This isn’t limited to guys lacking pornstar level dicks. My most well-endowed ex was obsessed with proving himself through sex. He had to be the best, his dick had to be the biggest most perfect thing ever. He clung to his big dick like a rescue raft in the stormy social ocean.

To a certain extent, I think guys measure themselves sexually with their weens. During a discussion with teens about object oriented sexual attraction and one young man said, “But girls are different! There’s only one thing they want from us.”

“What?,” I asked.  He simply pointed to his crotch.

National Sexuality Resource Center is pleased to announce a fabulous new resource, the Black Youth Project Website. Here is some info about their work:

[custom:http://vimeo.com/7581190]

Black Youth Project Website

Our goal for the site is to generate new media information, blogs, art, conversations, webinars, data, research, policies and movements that will expand the human and social capital of young black youth, facilitating their empowerment through highlighting their voices and experiences.

We hope you’ll visit and use the site today and frequently in the future. And please let others know the BYP site . It’s truly a first-of-its kind online resource that explores the attitudes, actions and decision making of black youth by including their lives, ideas and voices.

There are a number of features on the site that we invite you to explore:

• Black Youth Blogging – daily blogs by black youth on important and controversial topics and links to black youth bloggers
• Rap Lyrics Database – the first public searchable database of rap music lyrics based on Billboard charts
• Curriculum Workshop – teachers, social workers, community activists, and artists can download and add to curriculum centered on the experiences of black youth and use data from the Black Youth Survey.
• Black Youth Create! – uploaded videos, spoken word, webisodes and other offerings made by black youth
• Research and Resources – listings/links to latest reports, research, books, films, documentaries, organizations and websites focused on black youth
• Survey Data & Findings – the Black Youth Project Survey includes the most extensive dataset on black youth
• Black Youth in the News – articles on black youth from newspapers across the country

If you have a relevant site that could link to us, let us know. We’d be happy to include links to relevant sites

So please use the BYP site frequently for research, information, dialogue and just keeping yourself up-to-date on the issues of concern to young Black Americans. We want you to be part of the conversation at blackyouthproject.com!

Thanks,

The Black Youth Project Team

In prepping for a graduate class I'm teaching on sexuality education and social policy, I recenlty reread Kristen Luker's book, When Sex goes to School, in which she analyzes and describes the 100+ interviews she conducted over twenty years with individuals on both sides of the sex education debate that have been warring for the past half century.  I think she does a good job summing up the history of these battles as well as provides some interesting insight into the players, particularly how they became passionate about this issue, on both sides. The only major problem I have with her books, and one she points out as a major limitation to this work, is the lack of non-white voices and an analysis of race and ethinicity - I think this is highly likely due to the fact that issues regarding race and ethinicity are often excluded as are voices from communities of color and other so-called "minority" groups when it comes to sex ed.  Having worked in sexuality education for almost twenty years, I can honestly say that there wasn't much that was surprising or anything that I hadn't heard before, at least until I reached the last chapter. "Chapter Nine: Sex education in America and whether it works or doesn't -- and why that's not the right question"

While reading it, I came to a realization that answers a question that I've been struggling with for a very long time. In fact, the realization was so strong it felt as though the idea was brightly illuminated and I felt a warm glowing sensation in my head.  You see, for my job as well as my professional and personal convictions regarding sexual health and healthy sexuality, I spend a great amount of time talking to educators, researchers, students, friends, family members, and many others about why I think it is important that we reframe the ways that we think about sexuality education and sexuality research, shifting away from a model that focuses on disease and prengancy prevention that I believe pathologizes sexuality and sexual behavior in a way that is harmful and confusing.  One of the responses I constantly receive regards the evidence of such an approach and whether or not it will continue to work; and to be honest, this is a part of the conversation where I tend to flounder a bit.  "Chapter Nine" allowed me to understand why I have such a hard time answering this question, and I disagree with Dr. Luker about whether or not this is the right question.  The problem is not whether or not it works but how we (and I mean everyone from researchers to students to politicians to parents to teachers) decide whether or not it works. 

For example, I was sitting in a talk being given by Dr. Douglas Kirby, whose name and work is the most oft-cited as evidence that comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) works, at the sex::tech conference last year, and  I felt that something wasn't quite right with his evidence that these programs work because the young people who participated in them waited an average of eighteen months longer to become sexually active than those who didn't.  All I could think was, "So what?"  For years, I was what I call a "Kirby Disciple" meaning that I spoke in my community, at school boards, in classes, at cocktail parties, basically wherever anyone would let me talk about sex education, and I would extol the findings of Dr. Kirby as PROOF that CSE worked.  While I have not completely fallen from grace from the Church of CSE, I realized at some point in my career that this simply was not enough, that there must be something more that allows individuals  work towards lifelong sexual happiness and fulfillment in their lives and relationships and not just avoid a disease or unwanted pregnancy, at least I hope that is possible.

Hence the struggles over trying to answer the question about how we can evaluate programs that use a sex-positive model of sexuality education focusing on promoting healthy sexuality across the lifespan, and my inability to answer those tough questions about things such as evidence and other stuff needed to convince people to give you money.  It wasn't until I was rereading Dr. Luker's book that the solution became brilliantly clear.  We are not using the appropriate criteria to determine whether or not a sexuality education program works or not.  Don't get me wrong, of course we want there to be less disease and less unwanted pregnancy through behavior modifications, but I don't think these biological measures and behavioral indicators are the only evidence we want to show whether a program works or not! 

A portion of Dr. Luker's book is devoted to discussing the differences in biological outcomes and behaviors in other countries, specifically Sweden and France.  Much like the work of Amy Schalet in the Netherlands and others, conclusions are drawn that the sexuality education students receive is not necessarily that much better than those in the U.S. or that young people's behaviors are drastically different when it comes to contraceptive use, age of sexual initiation (or my favorite, sexual debut), or number of sexual partners. The biggest factor seems to be the fact that they are not American.  This is usually followed by discussions of homogeneous versus heterogeneous groups as well as the size difference in national populations, and, as Dr. Luker points out, that young people in these Western countries have not made sexuality problematic or pathological in the ways that Americans do (and do so well - in other words, they aren't as fucked up about sex as we are).  This is the ANSWER.  We know that they have lower rates of STIs and unwanted pregnancies (and not just during the teen years but across the lifespan when compared to Americans) not because their behaviors are so different but because their feelings and attitudes about sex and sexuality are so different!!!

We are not going to stop collecting data on teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, particularly in evaluating projects that receive federal funding, until Hell freezes over, thaws out again, and freezes one more time. This is the "real scientific proof" that sex education programs work or don't work.  I propose that in addition to these measures we incorporate additional instruments that look at some of the psychological aspects regarding sex and sexuality, such as self-esteem, self-confidence, self-worth, personal satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, control, shame, guilt, fear, etc., so that we can get a better picture of what is happening with regards to the types of programs that we develop and how they effect the way people feel.  A program that has an outcome of a young woman waiting to have sexual intercourse eighteen months later than her peers and who is more likely to use a condom at the end of those eighteen months, may still have the effect of making this same young woman feel shame, guilt, and fear about her sexuality and the sexual behaviors in which she has chosen to engage.  At the same time, a young man who feels confident about his decision to have sexual intercourse because he receives social support to do so through his abstinence-only sex ed program may not be prepared to prevent an unwanted pregnancy when he and the woman he plans to marry become sexually active.  We need to know more about what types of sexuality education not only allow individuals, couples, and groups to make physically healthy and appropriate decisions about their sexual behaviors but to feel happy and fulfilled about those sexual behaviors and their lives. 

Sitting at a hotel bar in Puerto Vallarta, chatting with a lively group of sexuality studies conference goers, the last thing I expected to find drawing my attention was grainy-single camera coverage of a congressional meeting. But as we lounged in the humid, open air tavern, my eyes slowly shifted towards the television hovering over our bartenders head displaying CNN's coverage of the House floor. While I had always imagined that some sense of joy would come with seeing that the health care reform bill passed through the House of Representatives, my imagined excitement was drowned out by the attachment of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to the bill.

Having returned to the US and found myself once again within reach of a computer and an internet connection, I scoured the internet trying to make sense of this unfortunate piece of legislation. After perusing all variety of impassioned rhetoric and fuzzy claims about the amendment, I was able to find enough quality reporting to come up with a clear outline of the Amendment, its origin and its potential consequences.

What is the Stupak-Pitts Amendment?

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment bans purchasing any insurance policy that covers abortion with a federal subsidy. In the new exchange program being proposed, most of the potential buyers will be using federal subsidies. In order for insurance companies to compete in this market, their policies will need to be geared towards customers using federal subsidies, and thus will need to exclude abortion coverage.

Why did the Stupak-Pitts Amendement become part of Health Care Reform bill?

While the Democrats control both the Senate and the House of Representatives, their ability to successfully pass health care reform is hindered by the presence of conservative Democrats. In order to appease these Congressmen, the Stupak-Pitts Amendment was allowed to be voted on as part of the Health Care Reform bill. Its existence is hoped to be the necessary evil that will allow for the Health Care Reform bill to be passed.

Is Stupak-Pitts assured a place in the Health Care Reform bill?

No, it is not. The Senate can pass its own version of the Health Care Reform bill, and all indications so far are that this version of the bill will not include Stupak-Pitts. Assuming the Senate passes its own version of Health Care Reform, the Congressional Conference committee, comprised of the heads of the various Congressional Comittees, will meet to reconcile the difference in the two separate bills. It is at this point that Stupak-Pitts can be stripped from Health Care Reform before the final version of the bill is put up for vote.

What are the consequences of Stupak-Pitts?

If Stupak-Pitts is removed from the Health Care Reform bill, it is questionable whether conservative Democrats will vote with the majority of the party to pass Health Care Reform. If the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is included, some liberal Democrats have threatened to vote against the Health Care Reform bill.

In either scenario, the negative consequences fall squarely on the heads of Americans who cannot afford health care. The government subsidized exchange program was designed to provide services for Americans who cannot afford health care at the moment. Unless the Health Care Reform bill passes without the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, Americans who cannot currently afford health care with either be left without access to proper reproductive health coverage or with the same glaring lack of overall health coverage that currently exists.

 

When I first took my partner down to meet my parents, we were returning from a weekend getaway in Monterey. We went out to a nice dinner and then headed to their house to relax & socialize for a bit before continuing our journey back home to San Francisco. The conversation (inevitably) turned toward my childhood & whatever embarrassing pictures could be displayed or stories related.We ended up focusing on my early childhood years...

 

I was lucky to go to an awesome preschool. I don't have many concrete memories of it (I'm more of an emotional memory kind of kid--I remember how things *feel* rather than how they actually *were*), but I remember it being one of the happiest times of my life. Getting messy, learning new information about the world, hanging out with all my besties, climbing anything in front of me, having camp-outs, playing with animals, roughhousing...you get the idea.

 

 

 

One of the things the preschool did was have parents create scrapbooks for their kids--one of the coolest things ever, in my humble opinion. I mean, not only capturing pictures of me at that age, but my artwork & words put down verbatim--oh the things I said! And man, that tendency to tell stories? Definitely inborn. Also inborn? We chuckled at the part that described my personality: 'Shy, strong-willed, aggressive' (yep, all three simultaneously--and still true today!), 'Does not take defeat well.'

 

 

We kept flipping through the pages. Picture after picture of me; shaving with my dad (one of my *favorite* things to do), straddling my trike with hips cocked & a tough look on my face (premonition of me on my motorcycle so many years in the future?), and most importantly (and frequently) me playing dress-up. When we reach the picture of me wearing an adult-sized petticoat up around my chest with a baby tucked under one arm steering a shopping cart with the under all topped off by a football helmet, my partner turned to me and said: 'Even when you were a kid, your gender was THIS BIG.'

 

All I could do was shrug & nod with a sheepish grin. Yeah--that and I wanted it all, even back then.

 

I used to joke that I was a fag trapped in a dyke's body. Back when I had time to perform, my bio started: 'The bastard love child of an opera singer and a madman, Charlie was taken in by drag queens and schooled in proper faggish fashion, diction, etiquette, and grandiose metaphor.' I still tell people that 'My mother was an opera singer, so I was raised by queens.' The point of the story is, I was not only raised with gay men as role models, but I identified with so many of the specific emotive and playful aspects they embraced from the culture of theater/music within which they made their lives. So what the hell does that make me?

 

Part of the problem is that I can't decide. I can't commit to being one or the other. I took a boy's name so I could feel comfortable wearing dresses; I have more ties and more dicks than most of my 'butch' partners--and get more use out of them too; last year I lopped most of my chest off, but then kept growing my hair out to ridiculously feminine proportions. I struggled for a long time trying to figure out if I was trans before realizing I was just genderqueer. A queer genderqueer, to be ever so elusively precise. Because that's the thing--it's not that I wanted to be a boy or a girl. I just wanted to be a kid playing dress-up, and let my whims and whimsy take hold every day. Let the imaginative power and magic shape my interactions with the world through choosing the presentation that shapes my role in it. I wanted to be able to (re)invent myself everyday.

 

 

 

A big part of the problem is that I rarely like baggy clothes, and when I do bust out that wardrobe I merely resonate dyke--more sexual identity than gender identity. In addition, my 'boy' is usually either a queeny preener or a dapper prancer.  Give me a tight, trashy shirt & slutty pants (see: Queer as Folk, Emmett) or something beautifully tailored & labeled (see: Glee, Kurt). Those + female secondary sex characteristics (does not equal) dancing queen--at least not in the way I want it to.

So I read as 'girl' most of the time. And because I have the experience, I can play that role well--often so well that individuals don't see the subtler shades of gender that ripple across my skin when I turn my face to the world. They don't see that this 'femme' thing is just a front, that I make my way with a coy but deliberate tribute to all things camp, that there is a subtle subterfuge to each wardrobe decision. They see a fragment, a slice, a sliver of the spectrum. Thankfully, though, I know those who know & love me see the small but fiercely beating heart of agirlboy wonder making its way in the world, one teetering-heeled step at a time.

 

 

 

 

Yesterday I sent out an appeal on behalf of the National Sexuality Resource Center, asking our community to call in to reject Orrin Hatch's sneaky attempts to add $250 million for abstinence-only education into the health reform package. Thanks to all of you who made calls.

Today, I came in to work to find this email in my in box:

"Hi - I just had to comment about your cheesecake photo that went out with a letter urging people to reject abstinence-only sex education.  While I agree with the philosophy and am familiar with the research documenting the failure of that type of sex education, the style of photo you chose to include with the email was overtly sexual and undermined your message. I agree that 'sex sells' but this seems, to me, to set the wrong tone for an important issue.  A more business-like image would have convinced me, but I don't feel comfortable forwarding the letter to other friends to request their support."

I was dumbfounded. And saddened. And disappointed, that a woman anthropology professor--one who probably considers herself progressive on gender and sexuality issues (she is on our mailing list, after all)--would not take me seriously because of the way I looked. And even worse, that she would try to shame me because she perceived my appearance as being sexual. I say perceived, because I have examined and re-examined my pic--no lowcut blouse, no suggestive look, but I do have a fondness for red lipstick.

In my life, I have had blue hair, unshaved legs and pits, four or five facial piercings at a time, worn flannel shirts (they were a mistake) and tiaras, and gone to formal events wearing fake teeth. I took my bottle of tooth black on the plane to my grandmother's funeral because it made me feel safe. I have gone out in full masculine drag, including moustache, plus lipstick. I have performed as a female-born female impersonator. I got a flattop on a military base in the middle of Texas.

When my son, who is four, wanted to wear a dress to preschool, I was scared that someone would try and shame him for busting their very binary concepts of gender. Then I went out, got him a dress with big buttons that he could undo himself, practiced funny retorts with him, and sent him off to school with a shirt and jeans as backup. I am a dyke, a mom, a sexuality activist, and many, many other things--none of which require wearing lipstick, but none that preclude it, either.  Do I have to prove that I am committed to smashing the way we think about gender and sexuality? Evidently, even after twenty years of activism, my lipstick says I do.

I have been able to enjoy gender and femininity as performance--and I also understand that there are many people who don't get to 'enjoy' how their gender is expressed or perceived; that for many people the way they look is not just play, but something that poses a danger to them daily as they move through the world. That kind of courage is something that I haven't lived, but have felt viscerally as I held my butch girlfriend's hand in a public bathroom in Texas. I get that my choice to look more conventionally feminine is a choice that I am able to make, and that privileges accompany it--as does the privilege I get from being white and educated.

This woman--who claims she believes in our work-- was offered the opportunity to make a call to end abstinence-only education, a failed strategy that reinforces heteronormative behavior, waiting until 'marriage' for sex, and traditional gender roles for both men and women. Instead, she used her time and energy to write me a personal email to put me down for the way I looked, and to attempt to embarass me because she thought I was sexy. (To which I say: not embarassed, and thanks.)

When I read about the girl who was gangraped by more than twenty boys in Richmond this week, and heard girls from her school say that she 'asked for it' because she had gone off with the boys in the first place, I cried, because I thought we had gotten past the point where we tell women that because of the way they look, or the choices they make, they somehow deserve to be thought of as less human than someone else. And when the Matthew Shepard Act passed this week, I thought about my son and his dress and his barbie backpack, and all of my hot gender outlaw friends, and knew that someone is recognizing--and protecting--the courage they have to be just who they are, damned if you like it or not.

A boss once commented that he knew what Freud would say about my wearing lipstick [Freud said it was a secret desire to castrate men]. I smiled, and put on another bright red coat. If you want to find my lipstick a threat or a distraction, so be it. But you just might miss me changing the world--and you'll be missing your opportunity to do the same.

Today, I'm writing in honor of the the Morality in Media's (MIM) WRAP Week: White Ribbons Against Pornography, which is also supported by one of my favorite anti-gay organizations, Concerned Women for America (CWA).  According to the MIM website the event, which is being held all week from October 25 through November 1, "WRAP week is intended to educate the public about the extent of the pornography problem and what can constitutionally be done about it." The CWA goes on to point out the truth about all of us "Pornography advocates" who apparently claim that porn is a "victimless crime" are delusional and spreading lies - I'd like to point out that I am a proud advocate and voracious consumer of pornography, particularly of the online and amatuer produced variety and I have NEVER stated that it is a victimless crime.  Mainly, because pornography is no longer a crime in United States - either producing it or viewing it.  Of course, I know there are legal issues regarding the production and distribution of porn and that these laws may vary from state to state.  I'll let my lawyer friends weigh in on this one.

I want to counter their claims (and misuses of research) with the idea that pornography is actually the opposite of "dangerous" and can actually be beneficial to helping individuals and couples practice lifelong sexuality education and explore their sexual pleasures, fantasies, and desires in a safe and practical way. First, I want to point out that my own research has shown that young men tend to claim that pornography is one of the main resources for understanding the realities of sexual behaviors.  That fact may frighten some of you because you might be concerned that what they see in commercial porn may not be truly representative of what happens in real life.  To that, I suggest that you give them a little credit for having the critical skills of being able to distinguish between highly produced movies and reality.  I would also suggest that this is one more reason why it is so very important that schools and parents provide the necessary education to make sure they have critical thinking skills when it comes to being media consumers.  Then, think about it.  Where else are young people (or adults for that matter) going to turn to get the graphic depictions that enable understanding of the physics and mechanics of behaviors if not pornography?  I am pretty sure there are not many health education books or biology books that provide the actual details of intercourse much less oral sex, anal sex, playing with sex toys, rimming, mutual masturbation, and I could go on and on and on. 

Next, I want to ask you to consider the reasons that adults consume pornography.  Let's say that it's becuase we get tired of the same old sexual activities we've been doing since puberty and allow us to consider what the anti-porn people refer to as needing more and more to be able to achieve sexual arousal and pleasure.  So what. I think we might want to openly acknowledge that our sexuality and our sex lives change over time, whether it's due to age and changing bodies or becuase we are in long-term relationships.  We crave novelty just as we do in other parts of our lives. Contrary to the idea of porn being dangerous, I suggest that porn is one of the best places to explore your sexuality, to learn new things to try out, and to fulfill your fantasies. It is not an accident that every time a new technology emerges that one of the first things we do is make new, more easily accessible forms of pornography or perhaps that it is actually the desire for new and more easily accessible pornography that drives technology.  Most of us love to access porn and want to do so without any fear, shame, or guilt for doing so.

Finally, let's consider ways in which individuals, couples, or even groups of people can have safe, consensual sexual experiences without having to leave the safety and comfort of their own homes.  Of course, I am not in anyway suggesting that porn or any kind of online interactions become a replacement for actual live human interactions.  But I do think it can be a safe alternative for some people who may want to explore and have a little fun but aren't necessarily interested in picking someone up at a bar, going to a sex club, or cruising in a park or highway rest area.  Then there's the individual or couple in a committed relationship who may want to have other types of sexual encounters but have agreed to a boundary that live, in the flesh sexual encounters are off limits.  They may choose to engage and interact with others online by chatting, camming, exchanging photos and videos, or even just going online to look at user-generated porn on amateur sites.

For all of these reasons, I think that we ought to consider promoting greater pornography consumption (and production in this user-generated content world we live in) for people of all ages as a way of learning about sex and sexuality throughout our lives and as a way of expressing and exploring our sexualities.  We hear a great deal of discussion about the blurring of the virtual and real worlds as more and more people participate in online social networks and other sites on which content is produced by users - photos, blogs, music, videos, and even live video streams from our offices and homes.  So why not think the same way when it comes to our sexual lives?

On that note, I encourage all of you to celebrate WRAP by getting off online just a little bit more than you were probably going to do anyway.  Have fun!

I sit next to my attorney silently, facing the immigration judge. I am told my case (aka my life, aspirations and my body) is under his jurisdiction. I am dressed as professionally as possible to aptly represent my "Alien of Extraordinary Ability" status. I nervously look around the room. My dark eyes catch another attorney behind us signaling me to take off my hat. Promptly I take off my favorite accessory (my only sign of faggotry) to show my compliance with the US judicial practices. The judge begins his inquiry, to which my attorney reveals my HIV status, and my inability to adjust my status even though my petition for permanent residency to the US was granted on the basis of my claim as an "Alien of Extraordinary Ability" in February 2002. The pain of hiding underground, days of unemployment, hunger, fear of accessing treatment leading me to near death flashes across my mind. Where would I turn for the wasted seven years of my life? Will this judge be able to understand the lost wages, aspirations, depression and most of all the psychological violence of being separated from my beloved parents? It is clear my journey to justice is only beginning. This blog post is my first public step in ending isolation, silence, fear and their antecedent dysfunctions that the HIV ban on immigration and travel has wrought upon my life. It has disrupted my educational, work and all major life aspirations. I have silently watched my friends getting married, accessing green card, completing their PhD's and accumulating life assets. I have very vocally over the last six years worked with LGBT immigrants, helped them with their asylum claims, and watch them move on with their lives. Whereas, I have had to hide in fear, live on friends couches, clean apartments, meticulously plan my travels within the US, face Kaposi Sarcoma, PCP (all very avoidable if medications are accessed on time). Publicly my body is mapped as that of an Immigration and Education Policy Expert, whereas privately I have been intimately aware that any inkling of my health status would have me labeled "diseased, public burden". Yet I know that my life and story is not the only one, there are several HIV positive immigrants silently waiting for some form of relief, as they continue to work hard, and pay taxes. The United States has denied the entry of HIV+ people for both short term travel and immigration since 1987. This exclusionary practice follows a long history of excluding immigrants into the United States on public health grounds. Since the 1890’s the US Congress empowered the federal government to turn back those with loathsome or dangerous contagious diseases. The rational for such exclusions ostensibly being two folds; i) protecting the public health of US citizenry and ii) Reducing the burden on health care expenses of the US government. The intersections of racism, xenophobia and public health becomes evident when these bans are contextualized within the demographic profiles of generations of incoming immigrants and those who are excluded. In the early 1990’s during the Haitian Refugee crisis, all Haitian detainees at Guantanamo were forcibly tested for HIV, and those found positive were detained in Guantanamo under un-hygienic conditions. The Haitian Centers Council successfully fought a case for the release of the terminally ill detainees. The entire situation created a renewed fear of “diseased foreigners”, and prompted Congress to consider legislation that legally deemed HIV+ persons as “inadmissible”. Review of the congressional hearing proceedings reveals deployment of xenophobic, HIV phobic and homophobic remarks by those in support of the ban. A large coalition of medical, legal and LGBT rights organizations opposed the ban, but in wake of virulent AIDS phobia and stigma of the early 1990’s, and fear of a flurry of HIV+ immigrants driving up health care costs in the US, the ban was adopted. The ban has disproportionately impacted immigrants of color, since majority of recent immigrants to the US are from Latin America, Caribbeans, Asia and Africa. It can also be argued that the ban like other bans in the past is deeply rooted in scientific racism, xenophobia and homophobia. Efforts to remove the HIV ban have largely been organized by HIV/AIDS, LGBT rights and some immigrant rights organizations. In 1990, several medical, Gay and Lesbian and Immigrant organizations such as Gay Men’s Health Crisis, the American Medical Association lobbied the Health and Human Services (HHS) to remove HIV from its list of inadmissible diseases. As the HHS was preparing recommendations, the then Republican dominated Congress pushed through a bill that eventually made it a law to ban HIV+ individuals from entering the country. Since then, extensive on the ground organizing has been conducted by grass-roots immigrant organizations, who worked to push policy organizations to bring the removal of the ban back as an agenda item, to their work. In May of 2006 the “Lift the Bar Coalition” was formed, lead by Gay Men’s Health Crisis, Queers for Economic Justice, The Audre Lorde Project, Immigration Equality, HIV/AIDS organizations such as African AIDS Services and AIDS Action along with immigrant rights organizations such as the National Immigrant Justice Center. As the New Voices fellow I was one of the lead community organizers around the initiatives to "Lift the Ban”. I recall organizing community forums, strategizig with coalition members, while every cell in my body wanted to announce loudly my own health status, and the ways I have had to hide in fear. On July 2008, after years of significant on the ground organizing, and lobbying “Lift the Bar Coalition” was successful in removing the HIV ban language from the “Immigration and Nationality Act”. The coalition met with offices of Senator John Kerry and Representative Barbara Lee to tag the removal of the ban along with the “President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief” (PEPFAR).HIV still remains on the list “inadmissible diseases” with the HHS. The HHS has recently released renewed guidelines indicating a possible laxer standard, we are yet to see these being finalized. As I continue to wait to adjust my status, I have begun my own journey to health and justice. Justice for me would be the very undoing of stigma in legal and societal practices for people living with HIV and AIDS, people from disability communities, and many other folks who are labeled diseased and marginalized. On the eve of the National Equality March, I challenge all of us to go beyond notions of equality under the law, and invite us to re imagine the basic foundation of our LGBT movement as "transformative justice". While cost-benefit analysis along with equality as a rhetoric helped us push the lifting of the HIV Ban with lawmakers on H street, the struggle is yet to be over. Justice will be served to me when I can visit my beloved parents after being separated from them for 13years. I will see justice when every immigrant is imagined as a human being with dreams, aspirations and emotions. Justice will shine when all LGBT people will be able to live life free of shame and fear, and for each of these to happen we need to go beyond our focus on public policies, we need to expand our work to incorporate strategies that fundamentally alter power relations in society. As I get ready to hit the "publish" button on my laptop, I fear of what may come from being public through this blog while my case is still pending. At the same time I am letting go of pain, fear and silence that almost drove me to near death. Finally, I have to admit I am planning on "getting on the bus" for National Equality March, however mine is a bus for justice, peace, redistribution of economic resources, labor and human rights, all intrinsically related to the liberation of LGBT people. Find me marching with friends and long time allies at the National Gay Lesbian Taskforce . The Taskforce over the years has shown me they are reflexive about their mistakes, build on victories and have historically fought for policy changes along with building a movement for social justice. Whom ever you march with, party with or end up hooking up with at the after march revels; ensure to spread the passion for liberation and justice. Note: this post is dedicated to my beloved mother, father, my friends and allies; Myna Mukherjee, Raili Roy, Sougato Kerr, Nancy Ordover, Carl Utt, Navid Alam, Amar Puri, Maria Nakae, Ken Williams, Prantik Saha, David Fuentes, Shweta Malhotra, Marian Thambynayagam, Angela Mooney D'Arcy, Mia Mingus, Sonali Sadiquee, Kerry Lobel, Beth Zemsky, Amber Hollibaugh, Abbie Boggs, Suzanne Pharr,Joo Hyan Kang, Trishala Deb, Mimi Jefferson, Debra East, Leslie Van Barselaar, Jo Anne Demark, Monami Maulik, Bo Young, Joey Cain, Lisa Thomas Adeyemo, Sue Hyde, Lisa Weiner Mahfuz, Rodrigo Brandao, Michelle Lopez, Susan Misra, Ruso Panduro, Marta Doanayre, Piali Mukhejee, Paul Knox and all the hot leather daddies who have helped me rediscover my body and ability to experience pleasure.

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Now 42 years ago, the United States Supreme Court struck down any remaining anti-miscegenation laws in the case Loving vs. Virginia, Mildred and Richard Loving’s challenge to the state of Virginia’s ban on the marriage between people of different races.  But, a recent Justice of the Peace’s denial of a Louisiana couple’s application for a marriage license indicates that the debates over interracial marriage are hardly over.

Anti-Miscegenation In Louisiana in 2009

Keith Bardwell, a Louisiana justice of the peace, denied Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay, an interracial couple, a marriage license citing concerns for their children.  The couple does not currently have children, so the justice is operating under the assumption that, once married, the couple would seek to have children, presumably through conception rather than adoption.  This heteronormative assumption, that is that heterosexual sex is a superior form of sexuality and should be limited to the confines of marriage and for the purpose of reproduction only, is not a new justification for banning interracial marriage.  In fact, it has been the most oft cited reason for doing so, though opposition to such relationships is also driven by racist views that are not as explicitly stated.  Fearing that his decision may be read as one fueled by racism, Bardwell noted that he has Black friends, “piles and piles” of them (what an odd expression to use to refer to Black people, one invoking nostalgia of the days of lynching and mass murder of Blacks) and has even let some use his bathroom.  Under pressure by politicians to resign, he has stood by his position and declared that he refuses to resign.

The Problem With Anti-Miscegenation

As I’ve just hinted at, many note that they oppose the union of people of different races because of concern for the well-being of multiracial children.  They’ll be confused, they’ll be teased, they won’t know who they are in this world.  The most obvious problem with this logic is the assumption that children will ever factor into the equation.  How do we know that Humphrey and McKay will want to have children?  How do we know that, if they do, they won’t seek to adopt children, maybe white kids, or Black kids, or kids of some other race?  What’s further troubling is the assumption that only married (interracial) couples are having kids.  With estimates somewhere around 40% of children being born to unmarried mothers, it seems that it’s about time to loosen the link between marriage and family in our ideology, as that link has long been loosened in practice.  If we remove parenting from the equation, will the uneasiness with interracial love and sex disappear?  What about interracial same-sex couples?  My sense is that the uneasiness would still be there due to the racist ideology that is so deeply entrenched in our society and values.

Anti-Miscegenation and Children

According to this judge, interracial couples tend to break up at a higher rate than intraracial couples.  Unfortunately, some research on sexuality and relationships backs up this claim.  But, with a concern for children, we might need to be alarmed by the skyrocketing divorce rate in general – one that is not unique to interracial couples.  Though I admit that there is some truth to Bardwell’s otherwise misguided logic, I have to point out that we’re placing the solution of a societal problem in the individual.  Just as we surgerically operate on newborn infants that do not fit into the rigid sex categories (i.e., male and female) instead of challenging society’s obsession with the female/male binary, we’d rather prevent interracial unions from existing or at least from reproducing than to address the racism that is endemic in our society.  The reason that interracial (and inter-class and inter-education level) couples dissolve at a higher rate, at least according to the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey, is that one’s partners are not as well integrated in other critical components of one’s life, like friends and family.  I have no doubt that this is due to parents’ and friends’ rejection of one’s partner that is different with respect to social class, race, and/or education level.  (Just think of how many white parents are uncomfortable with their child’s relationship with a Black person, or Latino person, and, unfortunately, the reverse is sometimes true as well.)  I also think about conflicts that arise around race in interracial couples that wouldn’t otherwise arise.  A great example is the fight that the interracial couple in the film Something New have, in which Brian (played by Simon Baker) has trouble understanding everything that Kenya (played by Sanaa Lathan) goes through as a high-ranking Black woman in a mostly white and male accounting firm and even notes that he’s tired of talking about race and racism, something he has the privilege of turning off if he’s not interested in discussing it.

A Personal Story

I should note that this story comes as no surprise.  When returning to New Orleans from a cruise to the Caribbean with my parents, we had to go through US Customs – the usual practice for US travelers who have left the country.  We went through the entry process as a family, rather than as individuals, to speed up the process.  The Customs agent who processed our entry was at first confused – “wait, you’re all together?”  It was immediately evident that her confusion stemmed from her assumptions about families (that they’re all of the same race) and the differences in our skin color.  It left us feeling angry and confused.  What a pleasant welcome home.  This assumption that families are all of the same race is not uncommon.  It comes up almost every time I’m out with my parents at stores and one of us asked if we need help, though we’re already being helped.  (I don’t get it.  Why would a stranger stand so close to someone while they’re at the register checking out unless they’re actually with that person?  Even if we’re not read as relatives, is it really that uncommon for friends to be of different races?  Yes, actually.)

For two personal reasons, this disgusting story in Louisiana is of great interest.  I’m the product of a lasting and loving interracial couple.  I know who I am as a person who is simultaneously Black and white.  I’m no less aware of the realities of race and racism because of my white ancestry (a concern sometimes noted for children who are white and of color, as seen in the film Losing Isaiah) and I’m not disconnected from my white ancestry because of my Black ancestry.  Any dilemmas I have every faced around “who am I?” has been the result of narrow constructions of race (how many forms have I filled out as Black and white that only allowed me to pick one, and I assume Black given the “one drop” rule) and the racist ideology that mandates intraraciality for relationships and family.  Secondly, as a biracial person, any and every relationship I will enter will be interracial, unless, of course, my partner is also Black and white.  Though I have had some frustrating conversations with past partners, mostly white, I note again that this is due to racism of our country.  They’re discomfort talking about race or any gaps in their knowledge about race, racism, and the histories and cultures of people of color is largely due to an education system driven by white supremacy and the invisibility of non-whites.

Are Interracial Couples Better than Intraracial Couples?

Aside from my concerns for relationship quality for interracial couples, those that are largely the result of the system of racism and not individuals’ malicious intentions, I think that interracial couples offer some benefits that intraracial couples cannot.  In my own case, and I’d say for our President, Barack Obama as well, being raised in a way that gives multiple view points and resources allows for viewing the world outside of a singular way.  I find that I am comfortable interacting with Black people and white people by virtue of my upbringing.  This has also translated into being comfortable interacting with most people different than myself, as I have not come from a world where everyone looks and thinks like me.  I should note that I’m aware that it might be easier for me than other multiracial people because I am light-skinned, and thus sometimes read as white or some race or racial combination that is not as devalued as a Black racial identity.  (That is, some may feel safer interacting with me because I’m not assumed to be Black.)

And, my personal bias is toward seeing marginalized forms of love triumph.  I love the movie Something New.  I love Saving Face, which features a Chinese lesbian couple that has to deal with the conflict between traditional Chinese culture and coming out.  I love the Bubble, a film that addresses same-sex love across the Israeli and Palestinian conflict.  It is beautiful to see love triumph over hatred.  But, in these films, the realities of hatred, oppression, and prejudice are present, as they are in such couples in real life.  I stand by the position that these are problems society needs to address, not for the couples themselves to solve.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again: I really enjoy bad television.  Granted bad is a subjective term, there's something to be said about realizing how bad the show you're watching is and still being unable to tear your attention away from it.  The program in question today is the Maury Povich Show and in particular his exposes on teen girls who want to have a baby.  This one is perhaps my favorite:

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uneIieUrgI]

 

The general pattern of these shows is that the 'deviant' teen in question is usually booed by the audience and gently berated by Maury into recognizing the irresponsibility of their decisions or possible future choices.  What does it look like if we however maybe take a step into Victoria's shoes?  I proceed by presenting a possibly feminist re-reading of her character.  Here we go...

Clearly, Victoria is a modern girl-on-the go who knows what she wants. She is gonna have her baby.  Clearly Victoria has thought out her decision and planned accordingly.  She's been preparing herself by building up an array of baby care paraphernalia.  That's right, if her baby loses its pacifier, that's okay, she's got three more.  She also has a vivid financial plan for how to take on the monetary burden of a child.  She's prepared to sell her body to care of her child.  This clearly points to her a sexual agent who has cast off the rhetoric of sexual fear so often aimed at teens.  In fact, she's so unabashedly unashamed about her sexuality that she's willing to not only cast off parental guilt by having sex in her mother's bed but able to confront society's stigma of teen sexuality by having sex in public places including parking lots, staircases and playgrounds.  The last of which points her ability to successful claim her own sexual nature and symbolically debunk the myth of the absence of childhood sexuality.  As a sexual agent with plans for the future, why do we insist on demonization Victoria, our teen sexuality warrior?

No, but seriously, putting aside this sarcastic tonality, why is the underlying logic that captivates both myself and the rest of the Maury viewing population?  One aspect of spectactorship that may have a hand in this is that television talk shows simultaneously place the viewer as an audience member and an omniscient viewer by cutting between shot of the stage directly and by pulling back to show audience responses and interactions.  This affect makes us both identify as the audience and have a critical outsiderness to it.  Does the audience's disapproval match our own or does their mass response serve us to question their motives?

These exposes also utilize several sensationalizing functions such as detailing the numbers of sexual partners, the age of sexual partners, the exchange of money or other items for sex and the public locations of sexual interactions.  In surveying several of these types of episodes it becomes clear that maybe the numbers are fictive or skewed.  For example, when touting total numbers of sex partners, the sums are always multiples of five, Victoria of course alleging fifteen, and also thirty seems to be quite a popular number as well.  Another episode makes sure to note that the teens involved have slept with older men, always highlighting 'in their fifties' or 'sixties.' The girls are generally depicted in their introduction montages on the street, up against chainlink fences or posing in front of dumpsters.  What do these images say about the way these issues are being framed visually.  Finally, there seems to be a ludicrousness about the motives: one girl is proud to admit that she had sex with a guy for a cheeseburger....with bacon. Sarcastic voice aside, if Angelique wanted a bacon cheeseburger that bad, why shouldn't be allowed to use sex to get it?

These shows present a hyberbolic representation of female teen sexuality.  These girls are in turn demonized for being sexual beings and in addition are berated for exhibiting a false consciousness for their desires whether that be reproductive or sexual.  I'm not necessarily saying that I may agree with these girls' decisions, but they ways in which they are hyped-up serve to further alienate young viewers from their own sexual feelings and choices by barraging them with an audience that shames and stigmatizes.  An audience in fact in which they are a part when watching these shows.  Furthermore, these teens are overly represented as working class women of color highlighting the ways in which racism interacts with negative representations of young girls' sexuality.

I so want to applaud the girls for yelling back at the audience when verbally attacked and provoked, but the way that the show is produced, their rebuttals are framed as comical.  It's a difficult question that I must pose to both myself and others: what are we really laughing at here?

 

Recently one of my friends suggested that I watch an episode of Glee, a new series about a high school teacher who attempts to bring some meaning into his life and the life of his students by restoring the status of the glee club. Although at times I got scared that Glee was just High School Musical but in series form, this show got my approval due to the discussions it contained surrounding sex, especially teenage sex. And because of the singing and dancing. Obviously.

 

In the second episode, the female lead, Rachel, goes to a celibacy club meeting in an effort to spend more time with her boy crush, even though his abstinent cheerleader girlfriend is head of the club. They start doing an exercise meant to help them practice leaving space for Jesus in between themselves using a balloon to demonstrate the appropriate distance to stand apart. Irritated, Rachel vocalizes her objection to the club in a thoughtful diatribe. She explains how studies show that celibacy does not work in high schools and explains how bottling up emotions and hormonal urges has negative effects and causes teenagers to act out in unhealthy ways. I was stunned, especially since I feel like I’m always reminded of how talking about sexuality, especially teen sexuality, can negatively  affect of your reputation. However, Glee mentions this topic is many different ways, including demonstrating different reasons why teens have sex, talking about sexual urges that teens are feeling, sexual concerns of teens, and sexual orientation. Since I am a sexuality nerd, I got really excited that these topics were being discussed on television. Plus they were accompanied by renditions of Journey and Beyonce songs. Fantastic.

 

During her rant, Rachel also suggests that the way to handle teen sexuality is to be prepared. However, there’s the question of what being prepared means. The Right’s definition would include something like, “preparing children for a life rich in Christ and grounded in morals” whereas the Left’s would be more focused on providing children with information to make informed decisions regarding their sexuality. As long as these definitions are different, the battle of sexual education will continue. And given the history of things, it’s going to be a long battle.

 

Allowing teens to be prepared also means granting teens agency, which is something that would never happen. It’s just funny because it makes me reflect on my teenage years when I would have friends with ridiculous rules regarding sexuality, like no dating boys until graduation and no going over to a boy’s house unless the parents were going to be there. And there was always a phone call to make sure that the parents were indeed there. All of my friends who had dating rules enforced upon them were girls. These rules are just so crazy for me to comprehend but demonstrate the stifling of teenage sexuality and the idea the female sexuality is something to be protected and not discussed.

 

Rachel also covers the topic of the missing discourse of female desire. She states that, “girls want sex just as much as guys do.” I was a little stunned when I heard these words shouted on a primetime show whose target audience extends to teens because of the lack of discourse on female desire in sexual education today. Much of sex education focuses on the anatomical aspects of women. Desire is never mentioned. Women are expected to be silent about sexual desires. The clitoris and all its pleasure holding capabilities are rarely discussed, and masturbation is not covered by most sex education programs. The fact that girls want sex just as much as guys do is a fact that has been kept silent for many years. However, once the secret’s out, maybe we can start moving towards a more comprehensive sexual education system. By having this line written into the script, Glee has gotten my attention.

 

So if you’re not doing anything later and you like singing, dancing, and comical story lines surrounding teen sexuality, check out Glee. It’ll be good for at least one season before they start having to use far fetched story lines to keep it interesting.

Research has repeatedly shown that abstinence only sex education both fails to prevent teen pregnancy and STIs, and leaves young people with inaccurate sexuality information. Public opinion polls have been overwhelmingly in favor of removing abstinence only sex education. President Obama’s budget plan in May reflected both scientific and popular opinions of abstinence-only sex education, as funding for these programs was removed for 2010 with resources set to be directed towards comprehensive teen pregnancy prevention.

But the end to the abstinence-only sex education era was unnecessarily put on hold as Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) proposed a renewal of abstinence-only sex education for the next 5 years at a cost of $250 million. The proposal, an addition to the ongoing health care reform bill, passed through the Senate Finance Committee with a 12-11 vote in its favor. Debates will now begin between Senator Hatch’s proposal and a comprehensive sex education policy proposed by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) that  won a 14-9 vote from the Senate Finance Committee.

The Sexuality Education Month of Action is an opportunity for young people and their allies to speak out and support honest and accurate sexuality education programs. Numerous organizations around the country are giving their support to grass-roots organizers who are trying to educate their communities about the need for better sexuality education. Here are some of the ways you can get involved:

• Learn about the Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act. The REAL Act provides funding for comprehensive, age appropriate sexuality education. Unlike abstinence-only sex education, that provides flawed and inaccurate information, the REAL Act is designed to give young people the necessary facts and skills to help them make informed decisions about their sexuality. Fact sheets about the REAL Act are available through SIECUS and Advocates For Youth.

• Contact your elected officials and let them know that comprehensive sexuality education is a necessary part of healthcare reform. Sign the petition in favor of the REAL Act as well as the petition against Senator Hatch’s $250 million abstinence-only program.

• Support events in your community and organize one of your own. Siecus is providing a list of upcoming events in support of comprehensive sex education across the country. You can have your own event listed by providing information about the event along with the exact date, location, and time of the event, a contact organization and phone number or email to pmalone@siecus.org. Get your congregation involved by sending in postcards showing support for comprehensive sexuality education to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

Get involved in Sex Ed Action Month and help ring in a new era of open and accurate sexuality information.

Normal.dotm 0 0 1 468 2672 SFSU 22 5 3281 12.0 0 false 18 pt 18 pt 0 0 false false false

In our graduate seminars, we talk a lot about race and color, including how whiteness is cherished and celebrated in and outside the United States.

 

These class discussions and other conversations with my fellow students and friends made me think about the various fairness products that are marketed and sold back home. (In no way am I trying to be the voice of my nation. These are just MY views on such 'beauty' products.)

Here's a fine example of what I'm talking about:

 

[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI5WCNR81YM&feature=related]

 

So clearly, once you're beautiful (i.e. fair, white) you can achieve anything! Name, fame, money and power! You can realize your inner dreams and talents 'cos opportunities are endless!

So what happens if you're not fair? Well, basically then you're nobody! You're boring, unwanted and invisible. Your life sucks! (and not in a pleasurable way!)

 

Not only that, if cannot get married because of your dark complexion, all you need to do is use a cream! Look at this for instance:

 

[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lN26TMwm6s&feature=related]

 

Use it for a couple of days and see the results! You'll impress your guy and his mother in no time! How gendered and how setreotypical is that!

 

Ummm, but wait, isn't skin color largely genetic? So the fairness creams/soaps/sprays just suck out all the melanin? That doesn't sound right! It probably just washes away dead skin cells, leaving it smoother and cleaner with a momentary glow. It cannot possibly change one’s life! Common!

 

It often worries me how whiteness and fairness has become a virtue among some social groups:

 

[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-9tcXpW1DE&feature=related]

 

The message in the above video is clear - 'not so far people' are looked down upon by 'fairer' folks. The only way to shut them up is by 'becoming' like them, and if possible, a shade lighter! Intra-race racism? (I'm sure there's a better academic term for this.)

 

Corporates spend a lot of time and energy researching their target consumers. Of course there the question of what came first? The chicken or the egg? Was there always a need for creating fairness? Did the marketers study people's aspiration or did they create this market through such campaigns by feeding consumer's minds with bogus claims?

 

It amuses me that most brands selling such fairness products are not domestic. Nivea, Garnier, J&J and many others have spent millions of $$ conducting R&D on Eastern markets to come up with skin whitening merchandise.

 

Oh, and if you thought their target audience is just women, you're wrong! Men too have been using fairness products. As the following clips suggests, men can finally 'come out' as they now have their own personal line of fairness products. Of course, men's fairness creams are packaged in blue, grey and black as opposed to pink in case of women :)

 

[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgBevCTBTJw&feature=related]

 

It's completely macho to make yourself go a few shades lighter 'cos now, women will run after you!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

San Francisco State University’s College of Ethnic Studies is turning 40 and celebrating this week by kicking off a four day international conference and gala event, “Ethnic Studies 40 Years Later: Race, Resistance and Relevance.”

 In 1968-1969, S.F. State students, staff, faculty and community allies walked out of their classrooms and offices and demanded the establishment of four new departments devoted to the creation of access to relevant education by and for people of color: La Raza Studies, Asian American Studies, African American Studies and Native American Studies. The now famous SF State Strike produced the College of Ethnic Studies—but not until thousands of students, staff and faculty put everything on the line so that we could all now enjoy an education based on greater truth and relevance for all aspects of humanity.

We have those heroes to thank in addition to the current faculty of Ethnic Studies who are heroes in their own right—moving forward and adding to the powerful vision initially created in 1968-69. This week is a great opportunity to think about how your own education would have been different without what they did. Even if you have never taken an ethnic studies class you have benefited by the revolution in education itself that started here at SF State with the creation of the College of Ethnic Studies in 1968-69. Without that revolution, what truths about diverse communities of people would have been missing? What kind of impact would that have on the work you now do—your very framework for seeing the world and your role and responsibility within it?

Really. Think about it.

The College of Ethnic Studies and the Department of Sexuality Studies share many commonalities. Both are committed to social justice and operate within an anti oppression framework, both teach thousands of students each semester, both offer master’s degrees that no other university in the nation offers, both formed out of resistance to their erasures within academia and both have become international leaders in ensuring that they never be erased from academia again. Both also share common enemies and naysayers—those people who argue that the very existence of ethnic studies, women’s studies and sexuality studies is irrelevant or those who say that the relevance has played its time out because traditional academic disciplines now completely and successfully integrate race, sex and gender. They don't. These people share much with those who tried to shut down the strike—and they are still wrong. Dead wrong. Ignorance about ethinic studies, women’s studies and sexuality studies actually kills people—literally.  

As Former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders, M.D. says, “The U.S. is in a sexual health crisis and ignorance is no cure.”

This week, the international conference is offering dozens of panels, discussions, workshops, films and displays. On Friday there will be a panel titled Moving Queers: Sexuality and the Field of Ethnic Studies, which will explore the contributions of queer and LGBT people within the field of ethnic studies.

I asked Amy Sueyoshi, a professor appointed in both Ethnic Studies and Sexuality Studies (who is a panelist in the Moving Queers presentation) what her thoughts were in general about ethnic studies and sexuality studies, race and sex and she said, “race, gender and sexuality will always be inseparable” and that “the College of Ethnic Studies, over the decades, has done a great job of including sexuality and gender”. I couldn’t agree more—all you have to do is take a look at the faculty within the College of Ethnic Studies to see that gender and sexuality are high priorities. For example, you see names like Rafael Diaz and Tomas Almaguer—powerhouse academic researchers and community activists whose work focuses on sexuality and race.

Last summer, NSRC’s Summer Institute focused on race, gender and sexuality—Amy was one of the lead faculty—and students from all over the country engaged in extremely challenging and rewarding discussions on race, sex and gender. NSRC also obtained funding to specifically provide scholarships to students of color who are marginalized within the academic field of sexuality itself, which led to the largest number of students of color ever at one of our Summer Institutes. This past summer I worked with the Human Rights Campaign Foundation to advise on new research looking at the intersections of race, sexuality and gender for LGBT people. Last year, I also attended the Racial Justice Institute at the Creating Change Conference as well as The Fellowship meeting in Atlanta....In other words, our work on race and sexuality intersects ongoingly.

At NSRC, our vision for sexual literacy involves amplifying the voices of people of color, people with disabilities, low income people, older adults etc…within sexuality education/research/policy, where their voices have traditionally been absent or downplayed. We all lose out because of their silences and we all have a responsibility to do something about it. In that sense, we too are following the model laid out by the founders of the College of Ethnic Studies—we are making visible and relevant the knowledge that we do not yet have and desperately need for the survival and wellness of entire communities of people.

Resistance. Relevancy. Access. Revolution.

As Amy Sueyoshi says, it is clear that race and sexuality always have been and always will be linked.

I look forward to exploring the space that links us even closer as we move forward over the next 40 years in both fields. We have so much to continue to learn from one another.

But for now, it’s time to celebrate, learn and express our gratitude to the College of Ethnic Studies in every way that we possibly can! 

See you at the conference!

_______

If you can’t attend the conference in person, you can follow the conference happenings and participate in Active Voices, the conference’s live twitter event: www.twitter.com/ethnicstudies40

 

 

On November 1st, my father will turn 73. My mother turned 64 this month. It has never escaped my attention that my parents got a bit of a later start on the whole producing offspring thing. This was not for lack of trying, but in the end, it was fertility drugs that gave my parents the children they wanted. Knowing this, combined with also knowing that they almost didn't get to keep me once I was here because I was born ill, helps me to understand my parents; their concerns, their worries, their protectiveness, their lack of holding back any and all opinions about my life, (and as much as I sometimes hate to admit it, they are often right) and their willingness to do whatever they could for their daughters. In short, I would give them an "A" for excellent parenting.

In a very gender conforming society, oddly, it was my father who was the more physically affectionate of my parents. My mother certainly didn't lack in physical affection (especially when it came to making boo boos better, which was her specialty as she was a RN), but it was my father that I remeber playing with both my sister and I. My favorite was "clock", where he'd pick me up by my ankles and swing me back and forth while I giggled and he made clock noises (yes, it was an exciting childhood). As I watch my father get older, it is these memories that I hold onto, knowing one day in the not so distant future, these memories will be all I have left.

One set of memories that I hold rather close are my bath time memories. Not so much the bath itself (my sister, being older, would hog the deeper end of the bath so I didn't get as much hot water. This may still be a point of contention), but after the bath. My sister and I would dry off as much as little girls dry off, and then race to the couch wrapped in our towels to cuddle on the couch with our father (and our beloved dog). With each of us leaning against him, our towels haphazrdly covering our bodies, we would snuggle with our father as he read us a bedtime story. I can almost remember my favorite story, can see some of the pictures from the book in my mind, but that detail escapes me. The detail that doesn't escape me though was feeling safe and content. My father was my protector.

In a way, this memory makes me sad. Not because there was anything unhappy about it, not because my sister often hogged the dog as much as she hogged the deep end of the bath, but because I know that somewhere in this society is a person, maybe more than one, who would read what I just wrote and wonder if there was something "funny" going on. There is someone out there who would wonder at the appropriateness of a father cuddling his daughters when they were covered in only a bath towel. Yes, somewhere out there is a person who would spoil what I consider a dear memory with possible implications of something not innocent, not pure, and not loving. I know this because someone, more than one someones in fact, did that with a family in Arizona who happened to use the ever growing technology we have at our disposal to actually record via camera a happy bathtime between three little girls and their father. Below is a link to one of the stories ran on abc news.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/arizona-couple-suing-bathtime-photos-prompt-wal-mart/story?id=8624533

I realize that sexual abuse happens. I realize that one should not turn a blind eye towards the abuse of a child (or anyone). But, I also wonder exactly how sick our society has become when something as innocent as bathtime photos, photos that many families cherish, become a point of suspicion of abuse. This family lost their children for a month to the state, they were scrutinized, their home searched, personal possessions confiscated as evidence, and they were labeled as "sex offenders" (a label that needs no official stamp, is often applied before a verdict in court by the public, and leaves an ugly stain even if allegations are found to be baseless, as in this case), all because someone judged this family's happy bath time photos as indecent. To make matters worse, the little girls were subject to invasive medical procedures to check for any signs of sexual abuse. As an adult female, my least favorite visit to my physician involves a speculum, but at least I know why this is a necessity. For three little girls, having been taken in what I imagine was a stressful and terrifying ordeal by strangers, transported to a medical office, poked at, prodded in places they have been told no one is supposed to prod them in, then asked vague questions about their parents that they probably didn't quite understand (I imagine it went something like this: "does daddy ever touch you down there? How does that make you feel?"). I wonder: who really abused these girls?

This story is not common, at least not so common that a new case happens everyday and is exploded all over the news I religiously surf the net for. There have been art shows suspended over pictures of nude children (one in particular happened in Australia and involved a piece of artwork owned by Sir Elton John and created by artist Nan Goldin, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483748/Elton-John-defends-photograph-seized-child-porn-art-raid.html), and awhile back I read something about a man being arrested because he pointed his camera in the direction of a naked child on a public beach. However, regardless of how common these stories hit the mainstream media, the results appear to be the same: there is a public outcry over child pornography. Even in the case of the Arizona family, while the court threw the case out and the judge determined the pictures were not an indication of abuse, certain news outlets made it pretty clear that the Wal mart emploee did the right thing, because "what if"?

I wonder "what if?" too. What if I lived in a society that wasn't so negatively sex obsessed that even a precious family moment is turned into allegations of child abuse? What if I lived in a society that wasn't so intent on finding monsters under childrens beds that oftentimes society puts the monsters under childrens beds? What if I lived in a society where nudity didn't equate with sex or dirty or sin? What if I lived in a society with a little common sense?

Recently, I read Judith Levine's Harmful to Minors for both an assignment and as part of my thesis reading. Chapter 10, titled "Good Touch" covers a great deal of ground regarding the current anxiety that parents and professionals that work with children feel regarding touch and children (but I suggest the whole book, it's a great read). Parents worry that touch will be misconstrued by others as abuse, while professionals worry about the same thing. The results are policies that ban professionals from touching the children they work with and parents wondering when Child Protective Services will be knocking on their door. What's worse, Levine points out that parents themselves may question if touches that were once considered common are actually abuse (one example she gives is of a father who bathes with his daughter wondering if he is "doing something harmful to his child", 181, because his daughter sees his penis). I also wonder what the effect will be on a generation of children who grow up either with little touch, or being confused over whether the touch was "good" or "bad". But I'm sure they'll be able to find a therapist who will be able to help them understand just how "bad" the touch was. 

The very laws that have been enacted to protect children are the very laws that are hurting them. Google "zero tolerance" and "touching", and you will find a slew of articles and blogs related to schools that have enacted no touching rules. No holding hands, no quick pecks on the cheek, no hugs. Sounds like a fun school experience (I remember the days of high school hugging; when an administrative person told my freshman boyfriend and I to seperate because we were hugging "too long", I got testy. This administrative person said "it looks like more then what I get", and I commented back "you don't get much, do you?" I didn't even get a reprimand for being a smart ass). Apparently, the administration decided to make sure no lawsuits resulted from sexual harassment charges. Looks like that abstinence message is getting pounded in solidly. Then there's sexting. When we start putting kids in jail, charging them with a crime for possessing naked pictures of . . . themselves, there's a problem (not to mention the message we are sending kids about their own lack of agency and the dangerousness of their bodies). And ultimately, when the state can take away happy children because mom and dad wanted to memorialize happy bath time moments, we need to examine what (or who) it is exactly that children need protection from.

What if I lived in a time where I could have my happy memories, my intimate moments, my hugs, touches, and banter all without wondering who was scrutinizing, looking, searching, and accusing me or someone I cared about of "inappropriate" behavior?  

A pharmacy in London launched a calculator that uses the six degrees of separation concept to determine your number of indirect sex partners. The idea is that every time you sleep with one person you sleep with all of their previous sex partners. I get the idea but the execution is a low-grade scare tactic rooted in false assumptions about sexual risk.

 

Risk of contraction is not about a number pinned to your slutty lapel. Risk of contraction is about specific behaviors. Did you use a condom every time? Was lube involved? Were there visible sores? Were you having oral, vaginal or anal sex? Did your partners use protection? These are questions that can help determine your risk, not the number of sexual partners.

I know, we like nominal figures to figure out where we lay on the sexual totem pole. A number is comforting, easy to understand but ultimately misleading. Think about BMIs or simply weight. The numbers say something but they don’t paint the whole picture.

The heart of the calculator is in the right place but the underlying assumption is that fear will motivate people to use condoms and get tested. The fear of slut shaming is an easily accessible tool. I looked around at comments from people who calculated their indirect sexual partners and one concept popped up repeatedly: EEEWW! DIRTY!!

We make the immediate mental leap from indirect sex partners to direct and feel this sense of shame. 14 million people? I fucked 14 million people! Quelle horror!

Calm down. You did not really sleep with 14 million people just like you don’t really know Brad Pitt through six degrees of separation.

This isn’t to say that having sex with lots of people doesn’t make you more likely to contract an STD/STI. It does. But there is more to the picture than that. Type of sex, partners’ sexual histories, partners’ sexual health, your health, and levels of protection used are several very important mitigating factors.

What I find most intriguing about this calculator is that we use a number to asses sexual risk in part because speaking about STD/STI history is a taboo. The calculator does not ask important questions like "How often do you use protection?", "Have you contracted an STD/STI?" or "How long did you go untreated after contraction?" These are not polite questions to ask, though the amount of people and their ages and gender seem to be. 

Imagine a culture that spoke about STDs/STIs like other illnesses.

"Yeah, I was feeling really run down and it turned out to be syphilis."

"I stayed in last night because my herpes infection was acting up."

We cannot fathom discussing sexual health when sex itself is the elephant in the room. Dampening discussions about sex in turn promotes serious anxieties that we turn into cultural boogiemen. STDs/STIs become faceless scourges lurking in strangers' pants. And how can we root out those monsters? A good solid number that tells us the imagined our imagined exposure rates. we can then modify our behavior to better avoid these specters.

This is not to say that STDs/STIs aren't a problem. They are an issue that we can deal with socially but we prefer to fumble in the dark with sexual health instead of broad daylight. we readily accept flu vaccines but some scream themselves horse over the bogus actrocity of the HPV vaccine.

I read a lot of news. I'm kind of addicted to news like I'm addicted to coffee and cigarettes, which is not to say that I read the news because I enjoy it, but because it's a necessary part of my day. I start with news from the Northwest so I can keep up on the happenings back home. I then expand to cover a variety of mainstream national news stations, including Fox (I like to know my enemies), followed by more obscure news. 

This week, I payed close attention to "Everything but Marriage" and Wal-Mart. If you don't know, "Everything But Marriage" was a bill introduced in Washington that was supposed to expand rights for same-sex couples giving them basically equal rights compared to married heterosexuals, except no marriage certificate. I believe the logic went something like this: religious conservatives, believing non heterosexual relationships to be the epitomy of sin and moral collapse and certainly not worthy of acknowledgement in a kind, loving way, get quite stingy and selfish with the word "marriage", claiming it is a special religious "right" that only a man, a woman, and their government can participate in (personally, I think this makes all heterosexual marriages a little closer to polyamory than anyone is willing to admit, but that's another story). So Washington State said "fine, you religious conservatives can keep your word, but we'll extend the rights to same sex couples because after all, it's only marriage, not the benefits, that you are trying to protect, right? And besides, I'm sure same-sex couples won't miss the stupid unity candle ceremony anyway."

There are only a few arguments that religious conservatives use in claiming same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed to happen: 1. Homosexuality is a sin and immoral and there should be lots of burning in hell over this immoral sin. 2. If people are allowed to marry the same gender, what next? Kids and animals? 3. It's not good for the children, 4. (one of my favorites, masking bigotry in pseudo intellectual argument, and always following failed religious babble, and generally including the phrase "gay agenda") Why do we need to grant homosexuals SPECIAL RIGHTS? If they want to marry, they can marry some one of the opposite sex too, and 5. But marriage is a sacred religious institution designed for a man and a woman. . . packaged specifically by Bride Magazine and DeBeers Jewlers, wrapped in a travel package, and copyrighted by GOD (I think the Pope may have a patent pending on the cumberbund). "Marriage is sacred" religious conservatives claim. Besides, why should same-sex couples get to enjoy being themselves, happy to enjoy the partner of their choice, when religious conservatives themselves must hide their own lust from GOD in bathroom stalls and behind spouses who they actually don't much care for? It just isn't fair.

These arguments are old and tired, and I won't bother with another rant on why they are illogical and plain stupid. You know the song and dance. 

What happened in Washington State is clear proof that what it boils down to is that those religious conservatives citing any number of the abpove reasons and many more against same-sex marriage just don't want to share, and certainly don't feel they should have to share with people they have deemed worthless of equal rights. 

The governor of Washington thought maybe she could appease both sides, granting rights but no "marriage" certificate. The most telling quote is as follows: "This isn't about benefits, it really isn't," said Gary Randall, president of the Faith and Freedom Network. "It's about redefining marriage." I want to go on, and on, and on about how wrong this is, but I don't have to, and I haven't even reached my point yet. Here goes. . .

R-71 seeks to overturn what was granted by the state. Petitioners petitioned, so according to law, they get to have their day at the ballot boxes. I see what happened with Prop 8 about to happen in my own home State. On October 14, lawmakers from Washington will be traveling to California to ask the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to allow them to make the names of the petitioners public. One giant list of people trying to limit the rights of anyone who is not heterosexual. One giant list accessible to anyone. Opponents of making this list public claim there will be harassment by gays and lesbians towards the people who signed the petition. Hmmm. . . what does this potentially sound like? Could it be that opponents of providing equal rights to same-sex couples fear they will be victims of a . . . WITCH HUNT? Are they afraid they might be shunned or treated badly? Maybe people will say nasty things to them about being cold hearted, selfish ignorant pricks?

Personally, I don't care what they are worried about. Maybe it's about time that the conservative religious groups and individuals who signed this petition had a taste of what it feels like to live in fear, to be treated like a social pariah, to be shunned. I know that for me personally, if I had a child and saw for instance the name of my child's teacher on that list, I'd pull my kid from the class.

I'm sure none of this will happen. I'm pretty sure that the list won't be made public, but it sure is nice to know that there is already some fear from the potential fallout.  

I hope the list gets made public.

As for Wal-Mart. . . next time.

(Originally posted on wiqaable.com)

One of the few things I can't handle is people's injury stories. People talk about their injuries and scars as if they would make them more brave or honorable or whatever, but frankly, I think it's disrespectful to talk about painful stories in front of a person who just can't handle it. Is it about masculinity? Do you need to talk about your scars to prove how "dangerous" or "strong" you are? Well, I don't care. So next time you see me, please don't talk about breaking your bones.

This is because I've never had any big injury since I was born. I've never broken my bones, I've never gotten into car accidents, and I've never fallen down the stairs. I've been so fortunate that I don't know how painful it would be to get your bones broken, and I would imagine the most extreme pain possible right before I pass out. That's a painful imagination.

I've never been really sick either, except for occasional skin problems I always had growing up. I've never gotten a flu, I've never had food poisoning, and I've never been hospitalized. I'm not saying that I've always been healthy, but if health is determined, simplistically, by the absence of disease or injury, I've always enjoyed my health.

Perhaps this is part of the reason why I don't like going to a hospital. I'm so unfamiliar with that super clean and slightly sorrowful atmosphere inside the building. I also don't really trust Western medicine because my mother is an acupuncturist. In addition, what I've noticed recently is that sexist American culture associates the acts of being sick and weak, going to the hospital, getting taken care of, and even taking care of someone, with feminine quality. I'm part of it; I believe it's not only me who think somehow recovering from a cold without medical care is something to be proud of, therefore, masculine. Simply put, in American culture, healthy is masculine, sick (and weak) is feminine.

I believe that health means differently to different people. It may entail physical, mental, and emotional health, and it may refer to having a perfectly functioning body or being able to feel empowered and enjoy everyday life. And I think to some people, being healthy also means being able to compromise their health without being afraid of bankruptcy.

I was astounded when I learned that there was no universal health care in the United States. I really thought it was a wrong piece of information. I thought it was a joke. Indeed, it's a ridiculous story that makes nobody laugh but makes everyone angry. When I was in Japan, I had access to health care through my father's Employee's Heath Insurance, just like anyone else. When my father was unemployed, I had access to health care through local government-supported health insurance, just like anyone else. In Japan, I enjoyed being healthy, which I believed was a basic human right. But I guess it's considered a privilege in some countries like the United States of America.

I'm still baffled by this fact--the world's arguable superpower cannot even protect its own citizens (let alone immigrants). What do you do when you get sick and if you don't have health insurance? You don't go to a hospital and just wait for the body to win. What do you do when you're house is on fire? I don't think you wait for your house to be burned down; you call the fire department. What do you do when the environment is polluted and destroyed? I don't think you wait for the rain forests to clean the air, for the ocean to dissolve the pollutant, or the Earth to get cold again; you stop driving, you turn off lights, and you stop buying things. It's as natural as that.

You might be wondering why I'm writing about health care on wiqaable. The reason is simple, health care access is about gender, race and sexuality, as much as it is about class, and immigration status, and so on. And, believe it or not, it's about life and death.

A study reports that 45,000 uninsured people die early deaths every year in the United States. This particular article reports that Dr. Wilper says, “Although blacks and Hispanics are more likely to end up uninsured, racial differences in the percentages of deaths was not statistically significant.” This is clearly a confusing, if not misleading, statement. First, it is true that African Americans and Latin@s are less likely to have health insurance. Second, it is true that people of color are more likely to get injured or sick because they are more likely to work and live in dangerous and polluted environment. It's called environmental racism. If we think of why and how people get sick, as well as whether they're insured or not, health care access obviously has everything to do with race.

Similarly, the issue of health care access speaks directly to Queer communities. How many years did Reagan take to admit and publicly announce that AIDS was a serious epidemic? Many of us remember what it means to be denied access to health care, and, health itself. Imagine what percentage of sex workers, female, male, or trans, have health insurance. Imagine what percentage of undocumented immigrants, from Mexico, China, or the Philippines, have health insurance. And those are the people we live together. Those are the people who support our daily lives. Those are, in fact, us.

How many more years are you willing to wait for universal access to health care? Even without looking at other countries, I frankly think that the United States should be deeply ashamed of its failure to take care of its residents. With its twisted idea of glorified masculinity, I really hope the U.S. will not start boasting about enduring its diseases or bragging about its injuries, without realizing that they are actually deep and fatal.

If you happen to be in San Francisco the first weekend in October, do yourself the favor of a lifetime and go and see the Sins Invalid performance at Brava Theater. A quick word of caution though: you need to buy tickets soon as the show will likely sell out each night.

The press release mentions Sins Invalid and NSRC's cultural consulting partnership and describes, "Sins Invalid is a performance event celebrating the power of embodiment and the tenderness of struggle, stripping taboos off of sexuality and disability and offering a vision of beauty that includes all bodies and communities."

I can't exaggerate enough the way Sins Invalid will likely transform the way you think about bodies, ability, race, sex and what it means to be human and beautiful....indeed, what it means to have pleasure itself.

When I first saw the performance two years ago I walked away feeling as though I learned more about sexual creativity and beauty in one evening than I had in years of studying gender and sexuality academically and working as a sexuality educator and disability rights activist. It is stunning and challenging on more levels than words can ever come close to describing. It also reinforces to me as a sexuality educator that the arts are perhaps the most important weapon in our arsenal in terms of educating the public about sexuality across the lifespan. 

After the show, it really occurred to me for the first time that the word "disability" may actually best apply to anyone who refuses to see and celebrate and learn from the beauty of bodily diversity and sexual/intimate expression. I used to be that person until I saw Sins, my own internalized ableism preventing me from seeing my full range of sexual/intimate possibility. This kind of life lesson can't be learned in a lecture or a book or even a really great breakthrough with a therapist. You have to feel it and not just think it. It is as Director Patty Berne says a kind of "magic".

At NSRC we include all diversities and elements not normally included in lifelong sexuality education and "disability" is one area that is far too often invisible, discounted, ignored, hidden......even at times by those who are most progressively advocating for sexual health, education and rights.... until now. 

As Sins Invalid's popularity continues to grow nation wide, the sexual health and rights of this nation will move ahead by light years. This is why Sins Invalid and NSRC make such great partners....and we are honored to include Sins invalid workshops and performances within our trainings, publications and web site.

Really, go see it. There's no way you won't be completely moved by it, there's no way you won't leave being a better professional sexuality educator, researcher, therapist, activist and human being. And there is no doubt in my mind that you will learn a thing or two about creativity within your own personal sex/intimate life. I promise that.

If you can't make it, you can still contribute to and learn from our movements ongoingly by talking about Sins Invalid and sexual literacy on their site and ours. Let us know how disability, sexuality and your work or your life connect....make it visible so we can all see and feel beauty in a new light.

Join us!

 

** Please note that show contains explicit content **

 

 

 

 

 

 

12.00 Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

            The current ACORN scandal says more about our assumptions of sex work and class than it says about the organization itself. Consider the whom and how of those breaking the story: two white, middle-class conservative students, both with a marked disdain for the organization, decided to expose the criminal mentality of ACORN by seeking advice on the financial side of prostitution. James O’Keefe, the man who posed as a pimp in the videos, even appeared on Fox’s Morning News show wearing a “pimp” costume while discussing his expose.  

 

[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGFXzPNtH3g]

 

            Aside from the questionable journalism ethics, which James Rainey discusses in the LA Times, there is something insidious about the way these activists decided to expose what they called a “thug mentality” in ACORN. I try to picture how this scenario would play out if activists were trying to expose criminal compliance in organizations for the wealthy, but any conservative figures have been ousting themselves so fast lately it seems like a moot point and I can’t imagine anyone deciding to go to a National Right to Life Office and asking them tips on how to break into abortion provider’s offices to cause some damage.

 

            A somewhat comparable scandal broke this summer with an investigative journalist Jeff Sharlet’s expose of the workings the C Street House in Washington D.C., a building registered as a church (and enjoying considerable below market rent for this status) that served as a home for several members of Congress run by a secretive religious organization called The Family, which was involved with both Senator Ensign and Governor Sanford.

 

           According to Sharlet, prominent members of The Family sanctioned Ensign paying off his Mistress using millions of dollars in Republican Party Funds while preaching family values. Sharlet also reported that The Family referred to themselves as a Christian mafia. What we should note is that he did his investigative journalism by going into the organization to see what he could see instead of going in with a specific agenda to bust them for their complacency in bankrolling mistresses and promoting extremist religious theology into the U.S. political scene.

 

            The link is tenuous, but both ACORN and The C Street house received financial windfalls in the form of federal funding (for the former) and substantial below-market rent (for the latter). Both organizations encouraged criminal activity to varying degrees, though the ACORN employees being complacent, even helpful, in the face of sex trafficking minors acted in a manner that is beyond reprehensible.

 

            But the way in which the activists exposed this is unnerving. Sex work exists in all classes but it is those working in the street, for the lowest pay, that endure the most harassment, danger and incidence of arrests. A disproportionate number of sex workers arrested are women of color, even though women of color make up the minority of sex workers. Adding to this targeting, 85-90% of arrests are women working on the street while these women make up only 20% of sex workers (stats pulled from here).

 

            Basically, poor women of color are the ones primarily arrested for prostitution, not the Ashley Dupres of the world. In this light, I understand why someone at ACORN might give tax advice to a prostitute. When I was a teen I lived in a low-income apartment complex with my girlfriend who was turning tricks at the time. I’ve spent plenty of time around sex workers before and I will tell you right now that “freelance performance artist” is the most common occupation on paper for sex workers paying taxes. Also, for some people in poor neighborhoods, sex work is part of the everyday reality and when you see your friends or neighbors suffering from targeted arrests, you want to help protect them when no-one else will.

 

            The activists’ tactics in exposing ACORN play perfectly into our assumptions that sex work is the province of the poor and non-white. They then dramatized the reactions of the few employees dispensing advice on illegal activity and extrapolated this to suggest that the entire organization is full of criminals, instead of providing a balanced report that some of the offices they went to would not go along with their ruse. Not to mention that these were front-end employees, not people higher up in the organization. If several people working for an organization are busted for selling drugs, do we then assume the entire organization is a drug front? Hardly.

 

            We seem to give a pass for sex workers providing for the upper echelons of society while vilifying those in the lower financial brackets. Somehow, if sex work is surrounded with opulence it becomes a fascinating world that we want to devote a series to, like Secret Diary of a Call Girl. Even public officials caught seeking services from expensive call-girls manage to ride out the storm and continue their political careers. This conceptual divide is best elucidated with the following quote from a sitcom character: “NO! I will not have sex for money! I only have sex for jewels, furs, or mixed securities, like a lady.” As ladylike as a mistress commiting extortion and blackmailing her on-again off-again Senator lover. That’s not a more complex form of prostitution, that’s entrepreneurship!