Sexplorations

When are children too old to breastfeed?

2010-07-17T20:33:00.002-04:00

I just saw an interesting video on reddit, and it was label NSFL (not safe for lunch). So naturally I had to see it. It is about a woman who chooses to breastfeed her children past the age of one (one stopped at 5, the other is nearly 8 and still breastfeeding).

At first I was shocked, but then I realized that it wasn't quite shock that I was feeling. Afterall, I am a self-proclaimed lover of outliers and the exception to the rule. I love people who are asexual, transgender, or kinky, so if I am so okay with everyone else being different, then why did I have a problem with this? It struck me that maybe I wasn't shocked, but disgusted.

I questioned myself - what was so inherently disgusting about breastfeeding children? I know that throughout history, women have traditionally breast fed for extended periods of time, both because it was a cheap, easy, readily available, and nutritious food for their children, and also because it aided in preventing pregnancy (although it is a myth that it is impossible for women to get pregnant while breastfeeding, it does reduce the chances of ovulation).

So historically, this was normal for women. In the video, the children seemed active and healthy, there was no physical harm being done (in fact, there may be some benefit since antibodies and things to aid the immune system are passed from mother to child through breast milk).

So why was I, and obviously the person who originally posted it in reddit, upset at the act?
I believe it stems from the (over)sexualization of breasts. In our society, the default understanding of breasts is a sexual one. We like to see women showing off their cleavage, we pay strippers to show us their breasts, and women get implants to make theirs bigger. When I say boobs, you are more likely to think sexy thoughts than child rearing ones. Even as a woman who has no children, the breasts' primary function for me is pleasure.

I'm not the only one thinking this. I have heard multiple men comment that they find it hard when their wives/partners first begin to breastfeed, because they see the nipple come out and they are hardwired to think "sex" and then they see a baby attached to it, and their brain gets confused. Sexy thoughts and babies don't go together. They find it hard to watch, because it takes a while to desexualize bare breasts.

I think this is what we are partially reacting to when we get concerned about extended breastfeeding. We are a pedophile-fearing culture. You only need to begin to say the word and people's blood pressure sky rockets. We have a special kind of hatred for people who sexualize children, and when we see a woman breastfeeding a child that is out of diapers, and that can walk and talk, I think we tap into that pedophile-phobia.

If we see a mother that breastfeeds past a year, she is deviant. Pedophiles are deviant. Breasts are sexual, and give sexual pleasure. She is engaging in an act that we see as echoes of sexual behaviour that we engage in with adults, but instead she is doing it with her walking, talking, toilet trained children. Worst of all, they can talk about how much pleasure it gives them to breastfeed, and that just makes our brains explode!

They like it! Oh dear lord, the twisted world she has created for them! Child abuse! Pedophile! Deviant!

Obviously, logic kicked in for me, and the children are not in any physical danger. The only danger that they face is if they get told what is happening is weird enough times, then they will be convinced that not only is being breast fed weird, but that they must be the worst type of weird for liking it. The end result is either hating themselves for liking it, or hating their mother for making them *think* they liked it.

Essentially, the only psychological harm that can really be done is if society tells them that breast feeding at an older age is hurting them psychologically. Essentially, it is a self fullfilling prophecy - if we tell them enough that they are screwed up, they will become screwed up.

So what do we do? Well, we should probably just leave people alone. There are online communities of mothers who choose to breastfeed past 12 months, which can aid mothers in helping to understand that although they are a minority, they are not alone, and not crazy. Actually, the AAP (American Academic of Pediatrics) actually recommends breastfeed for a full year or longer because of the health and psychological benefits.

Science and human history seem to be on the side of the minority of women who choose to breastfeed for an extended length of time. I wonder, if there wasn't any stigma against breastfeeding longer, would we have healthier children? How many women choose to share breastfeeding with their children for longer? Are we possibly discounting a potentially valuable child rearing practice out of oversexualization of breasts and fear of pedophilia?

Part of me wonders.

In love and lust,

Lilith

Note: Breast is mentioned 26 times in this post.

"Success" or "Failure" of a Relationship*

2010-07-14T19:22:00.005-04:00

Hello all! I'm back, sort of. I apologize for the break in posting but life, school, work, and heat waves happen. I actually should be doing homework, but I wanted to try to get a quick post in.

So, I have actually written about this before on leftos but I had an interesting conversation with my older brother today and wanted to share it.

For context, my older brother, let's call him Alex, is 32 and has never had much luck in dating. He's probably had two serious gfs in his lifetime, and he proposed to both of them, and they both dumped him. He's started going out with another girl "Jasmine". She's 10 years younger than him and has two children, although one of those children is living with his father. Jasmine is a sweetheart, and so is her daughter. He fell hard and fast, and she actually fell back, which excited me! He would be such a great dad, and he's so good with children, I thought this was going to be perfect.

Then he got dumped.

"I feel like a failure"

After being dumped after falling so hard, my brother felt like a failure and a loser. Understandable, don't we all feel like that sometimes? He felt a little lost, and maybe like what he had done was a waste of time. He invested so much time, energy, and emotion into her that when things didn't work out, he felt like he had nothing to show for all his effort.

This is where I start to get preachy.

What's the point of a relationship anyway?

I feel like religion and Disney has had a big impact on my life when it comes to how I used to view dating. I used to be just like my brother, and if a relationship ended, I felt like I would have been better off without that relationship, and I felt like I had taken a step away from my goal, which was marriage. After all, that's the point of dating - to get married.

I think we often romanticize the idea of marriage. In my church, we were told not to start dating someone unless we could see ourselves getting married to that person, because God has someone picked out especially for you that would make you happy, and would be your soul mate, and a failed relationship was like failing to understand what God's plan for you was. Not to mention, if you date someone, you might get tempted to kiss them or hold their hand or something, and anything you do with someone that is not your (future) spouse is cheating on the person God has chosen for you. So the whole point of dating is to determine if this is the person God has chosen for you, with an expectation that if the first person that you date is the person that God intended for you, then God will make sure your relationship will last, and you can live happily ever after.

I also blame Disney

To be fair, it's not just Disney, but there is a romanticization of getting married. Disney movies are based off of people falling in love, finding their "Prince Charming", soul mates fighting against the odds to be together. We are taught stories have a happy ending (and marriage is the ending, right?) This is not just from Disney, but is also from media, fairy tales, and the messages that are ingrained in us since kids, and to tell you the truth, part of it is capitalistic. We are sold a fairy tale. Don't believe me? I work in Hallmark where we sell wedding gifts, and many of them have a Cinderella, or Prince-and-Princess-in-a-Castle theme. Many wedding cards even say "Happily ever after". We are sold fantasies about the perfect wedding, the perfect dress, and the perfect reception. We are sold the idea that weddings are so special and magical that everyone needs to have one (and spend lots of money on it - because you spend money on the person you love). When someone announces that they are engaged, everyone is supposed to get all giddy and happy for them, and then there are questions about "Can I see your ring?" "Who are your bridesmaids?" "When is the wedding?" "Do you know what colours you're going to do?" Don't get me started on the parents either.

Marriage is romanticized and seen as the final result of a successful relationship. You can't get anymore committed than marriage! You have reached the relationship zenith!

Wait a minute....

Obviously I don't believe this anymore. I think that we learn important things from relationships, even ones that end. We find out what we like (and don't like), how to compromise, to fight in a healthy and respectful way, what we are attracted to, how to be romantic, to not be so nervous that we end up throwing up on our date, to make small talk, how quickly are we supposed to fall in love, how to not abandon our friends even if we are in love with someone, and how to problem solve. We learn how to be with other people for more than 48 hours straight without wanting to rip their head off. We learn how to control our sexual impulses, and even how to embrace them. We learn how to be in a relationship, and that is a lifelong learning process.

Not only that but we might get to experience things that we wouldn't have otherwise experienced: seen new movies, went to different cities, tried new foods, seen new TV shows, met new people, learned new languages (or at least words in that language), learned new things about science, history, art, sports, fashion, or politics that we would never have been exposed to on our own. You can gain new passions, learn new tricks, and get to see the world through someone else's eyes in a way that you might not have done if it wasn't a sexually charged relationship.

Not to mention, there is a special kind of companionship that you get from a partner that might get you through tough times. You might also go through tough times that you wouldn't if you were single, and you learn and grow from that.

Maybe ending a relationship is success?

With the romanticizing of marriage and demonizing of divorce, sometimes we forget that leaving someone might be a success in your books. Abused woman often go back to their abusers seven or eight times before they finally leave (or get killed). Maybe in that case it's a success for a person to finally leave an abusive relationship.

I also use abuse in a very broad way. I know I had a two year relationship with someone (from 15-17 years old) and things had been getting bad near the end. I finally got fed up and ended it, and didn't realize how lucky I was to do that till I was much older. I didn't recognize the warning signs and didn't realize just how close I was to having some very bad things happen to me. Although people thought that I was "giving up", "not working it out" or "bailing when things got tough", through the wonders of hindsight, I think it was one of the best decisions I have ever made. I am so proud of myself - for making a relationship "fail".

The point is, that most relationships end in other ways besides your partner dying. Does that mean that most relationships shouldn't happen? Does that mean that most people are failures at relationships? If I was in a relationship that was heading down a bad road, does that mean that the whole relationship was a bad thing? Does that mean that I should have never dated him? How should we judge what makes a relationship a "success" or a "failure"?

How we should conceptualize the importance of relationships

Rating a relationship as a "success" or "failure" doesn't do us much good. It doesn't tell us what elements of a relationship are "successful" or what causes "failure". It doesn't acknowledge what we learned, or what benefits (or dangers) a relationship has. It doesn't acknowledge the impact that a relationship has on you, or what you can take from one past relationship into a present one.

In fact, the only positive thing that the success/failure conceptulization does for you is make you feel good for being in a relationship that lasts. However, even then, it puts the emphasis on a relationship lasting rather than the quality of a relationship, having to balance your needs with someone else's, how mature you are, or whether the relationship is a positive influence in your life or not.

I would argue that it would be better to take a more humanistic approach, and instead of seeing the end goal of life/relationships as marriage, we should see the goal of life to become a fully actualized person. Translated: you want to become a mature, moral person who has control over your life, and will leave a positive impact on the world. So instead of asking "Did this relationship work out?" ask yourself, "How did this relationship make me a better person?" Another concept is put eloquently by Dan Savage as "The Campsite Rule", essentially, when your relationship ends, you ask yourself if this person is in the same condition, or better, than when you first met them?

If we look at relationships through this lens, then we can see how teen dating (when you don't have a very strong/realistic expectation of getting married) is beneficial, how leaving a relationship may be good, either before or after things get very bad, and how you can still be thankful and have positive feelings for a relationship that ended very badly.

Now, I'm an unrepentant optimist, so I believe that there is something positive to be gained from every relationship, even if it is just "Wow, I'll never date someone like that again!" I think it's easier for people to gain closure, feel better about themselves (and their ex-partners), and engage in healthy coping behaviours.

And finally, just to let you know, it looks like Alex and Jasmine are going to get back together. I'm happy for them.

In love and lust,

Lilith

*edited

Coltor: Foreskin Restoration

2010-07-05T22:34:00.004-04:00

So, I wanted to include some male issues in my blog, and there are just certain topics that I feel a man would be more qualified to write about. Foreskin restoration is one of those issues. I personally find the subject fascinating, and I managed to find someone who is willing to publicly speak about it. I want to thank Coltor so much for agreeing to be a guest blogger. If you wish to contact him to ask questions, or provide some (hopefully positive) feedback, you can e-mail him here.

Hope you enjoy!

-Lilith

Your first question may be: What good is a foreskin anyway?

The easy answer: sexual satisfaction and sensitivity.

If you live in the United States, there is a good chance that you've never even seen a penis with an intact foreskin. If you ever get the chance to examine one, you'll notice a stark difference from its circumcised brethren. The glans (head) of the penis, as well as the interior of the foreskin, is covered with mucosal membranes that, with a foreskin, is moist and soft (similar to the inside of a woman's lips or clitoral hood). When a foreskin is absent, the glans becomes keratinised-- rougher and drastically less sensitive.

This study revealed that, on average, 5 areas of the foreskin are more sensitive than the most sensitive part of a circumcised penis. Men with uncircumcised penises also had more penile sensitivity overall than circumcised individuals (due to a lack of keratinisation).

As well as housing dense pockets of nerve endings and preventing keratinisation, the foreskin serves an important sexual function. When up-and-down movements are applied to an uncircumcised penis (through masturbation or intercourse), the foreskin acts as a rolling bearing [illustration]. The rolling motion not only provides plenty of pleasure to nerve endings in the foreskin and penis, but it also reduces the need for lubrication. You can see a significant difference in masturbation techniques of circumcised and uncircumcised men. Uncircumcised men use a rolling motion on their sensitive areas and circumcised men use a rubbing motion.

On top of all that, you can hide your heroin in there.

If the foreskin is such a great thing, why do we lop it off?

To get it out of the way, there is a common myth about foreskins. It states that keeping a foreskin clean is difficult, so it's better to circumcise. Yes, it's another piece of skin to wash in the shower. No, it is not difficult to clean.

Currently, circumcision is only a cultural norm in relatively small parts of the world. Though there is a minority of people doing it for legitimate medical reasons (occasionally the foreskin is so tight, it causes painful erections), there isn't any research to suggest that it's a necessary surgery. In fact, not a single accredited national or international medical agency condones the practice in a non-consensual setting (with infants, for example) [see references at bottom]. I will mention that a few studies suggest that uncircumcised men are at a higher risk for a HIV infection, but in reality, you should be protecting yourself from STDs with condoms or other barrier protection. (There is a fierce debate on the legitimacy of these studies)

Some cultures do it for religious reasons, some to prove their manhood. I'm really not an authority on cultural anthropology, so I will not be getting into that. I do, however, have a little local background on the United States.

Depending on where you live, the cultural norm has been caused by a variety of things. In the United States, I would say it has a lot to do with an older generation not wanting their kids to masturbate. John Harvey Kellogg (yes, “Corn Flakes” Kellogg), and many other physicians of his time advocatedcircumcision to prevent masturbation. Kellogg said in his book, Plain Facts for Old and Young,

“[Circumcision] should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed.”

and

“In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid [phenol] to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.”

As you very well know, we aren’t a society that burns off clitorises with acid. For some reason, though, circumcision continues to be a popular choice.

What I believe to be the BIGGEST reason for circumcision is a lack of information. If every expectant mother knew that not a single medical association recommends routine postnatal circumcision, I'm sure rates would be much lower than they are.

Now we're down to "intimate time with the author."

Why am I telling you this?

I tell you this because I'm restoring my foreskin, also known as "tugging."

As an infant, my parents had me circumcised in what they believed my best interest. Later in life, I discovered the foreskin restoration movement. It's an online community of men walking the slow road toward once again having a foreskin.

Growing back a body part that got chopped off?! How does that work?

It's based on a basic dermatological principle. When a force is applied to skin over time, newer skin cells form between existing ones. If a person is obese and then loses a lot of weight, it is not uncommon to see extra folds of skin on their body. Their skin grew to accommodate the larger surface area needed.

How do you create that force?

This is an answer that could be several pages long. To grossly simplify the process, part of a man's shaft skin is stretched over a device and either held in place with surgical tape or friction. Then, tension is applied to the device. Elastics (rubber bands), suspender straps, and weights are the most common ways of applying this force. This force is applied for a number of hours a day (time depends on the person's schedule, how comfortable and concealable the device is, and experience).

What will the new foreskin be like?

While it's not possible to regrow certain parts of the foreskin that were removed (I will never have the nerve ending groupings, ridged band, or muscular tissue present in a "true" foreskin), the glans and inner skin will be smooth and moist like those with a traditional foreskin. Already 7 months into tugging, (I started getting serious about it in the last 6 weeks) I’m definitely more sensitive and there is enough slack skin for the rolling motion to be present. From my anecdotal evidence, rolling is incredibly better than rubbing.

How long will it take?

Though there have never been studies on it, personal reports online say somewhere between one and four years. The actual time depends on how much skin was removed during circumcision, your individual body, and how dedicated you are to wearing your device.

Do you have any other reasons for doing it?

Yes. Part of discovering the differences between circumcised and uncircumcised penises left me in want of a foreskin, not only because I was “missing out” on such a great thing, but because I felt incomplete, in a way. Like I had been robbed of my right to sexual pleasure for no reason except for tradition. Like I had been mutilated without my consent. It’s weird to feel regret for an action that wasn’t my own, but I regret that my parents chose to have me circumcised. For a little while, I did hold resentment for them. I asked my mother why I was circumcised. It was recommended by an (ex)husband of one of my aunts (he was a physician). I do not blame my parents for their ignorance, as they were trying to make decisions in my best interest, but it does disgust me that there was such a lack of information to them at the time. I have not told them about my choice to restore, and I don’t know if I ever will. I don’t really have a reason to.

When it comes down to my motivations for writing this article, I'm not trying to drum up business for people who sell these tugging devices, I don't even expect many people to want to restore their foreskin. I just want the world to know how barbaric and outdated the practice of circumcision is. It leaves your child physically scarred, and in some cases like myself, emotionally scarred. The decision is theirs, not yours.

Additional resources:

http://www.goofyfootpress.com/links/circumcision/ - Paul Joannides, author and publisher of The Guide to Getting It On has assembled a great set of links on circumcision. I highly recommend you go pick up a copy of his book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration - The Foreskin Restoration Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_device - A list of non-surgical foreskin restoration devices. See the ‘references’ section for links to where you can see pictures of the various devices (or purchase one, if you’re so inclined)

http://foreskin-restoration.net/forum/ - An online support forum for restorers or potential restorers. It also functions as a forum for the “intactivist” network.

http://www.intactamerica.org/ - Intact America, the most active group of activists against circumcision and female genital cutting (FGC) that I know of.

http://sexisfun100.blogspot.com/2007/01/sif-48-circumcision-and-foreskin.html - The podcast episode that is the reason I even know about foreskin restoration.

Medical organizations that do not advise circumcision:

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)

Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP)

Australasian Association of PediatricSurgeons (AAPS)

Canadian Pediatric Society (CPS)

I cannot possibly list every medical society that condemns the practice, but I feel that four credible sources should suffice.

- C. Lesage

Bright Pill - "The Pill" for Men

2010-06-25T23:17:00.001-04:00

First: http://www.israel21c.org/201006238085/health/a-birth-control-pill-for-men

Second: I'll refer to terms and arguments that have been explained previously under Education in this post.

Third: Woohoo!

Summary

There is a biochemist in Israel, Prof Haim Breitbart, who says that he has come up with a substance that stops sperm from being effective. It blocks a biomechanical process that allows the sperm to survive. He is currently working with mice, and has found two different doses of the chemical to be effective in creating sterility in mice for one month and three months. He has come up with both a pill and an injection, although the pill has earned the nickname the "Bright Pill" as a reference to Dr. Breitbart's name. He says that a human version could be available in as little as 5 years.

What's very promising and important is that it doesn't appear to lead to behavioural changes in mice, and they still have a sex drive and are sociable. One of the complaints about female oral contraceptives is that they are hormonal, therefore they affect many different parts of the body and can change mood, weight, instances of cancers, and drastically increase the risk of blood clots. Most women experience only minor side effects and seem willing to put up with them. However, this new male pill would not be hormonal, therefore the only affected cells would be sperm, causing much fewer and less varied side effects.

Ways in which it can Help

I'm a strong believer in doubling up protection. Any single method of contraception has its own failure rate, but these failure rates become practically non-existent when two methods are used together. To do some math, if oral contraceptives have a typical use failure rate of 8%, and condoms have a typical use failure rate of 12%, then things start to get scary. However, if you combine birth control and condoms together, you have a typical use failure rate of 0.0096%, or 0.96/100 women getting pregnant over the course of a year. That's right, not even a full woman getting pregnant out of a 100 (I love non-sense fractions).

If you have a male option for contraception besides condoms, this may allow both partners to be (reversibly) sterile, which drops the pregnancy rate down to almost nothing. This doubling up of protection would be great for couples that are monogamous and have already been tested for STIs.

Not to mention, if a woman has to take a pill once every day, there are going to be days when it won't be taken on time or she might forget. I'm sure this has been the cause of more than one panicked woman watching the days tick by on the calender. Although there are alternatives, such as Depo provera, a shot given once every three months, many women find the side effects to be much greater with the higher levels of hormones. A pill or shot that is taken once every three months with little to no side effects would reduce the potential for the product to be incorrectly used, meaning it would have a lower "typical use" failure rate.

I'm also sure that there are some males that are paranoid enough when it comes to contraception that they would gladly take on the role of contraceptive-pill-taker. And let's face it, when it comes to contraception, being a little paranoid maybe isn't such a bad thing.

However, it's Not a Miracle Pill

Let's all remember though that this pill is still in the works and is not available yet. Although it doesn't have any big side effects in mice, humans are a whole other species, and we can't predict 100% what side effects the pill might have. Although mice trials are promising, we still don't know how effective the Bright Pill will be.

I also question how accessible this pill might be to teenagers because new medications are usually more expensive, and since there are no other benefits of the Bright Pill besides sterility, guys wouldn't be able to use the excuse "it's for my acne" or "it's to lessen my cramps" in order to get their parents to pay for it. They would have to be honest and say that they were, or were at least considering becoming, sexually active. Although parents tend to be more forgiving with the sexual activity of boys, there are still parents out there that would feel it was morally wrong to let their teenage sons go on the Bright Pill.

Let's also remember that it would NOT protect either partner against STIs. STIs are still a huge health problem in our society, and it's important not to take the Bright Pill as a new way for men to get frisky with multiple women and not have to worry. The Bright Pill would not be an excuse to be lazy or indifferent about condom use. STI testing and condom use still need to remain a central focus in sexual health conversations, especially with youth and those who take part in high risk sexual behaviours.

In Conclusion

I'm super excited. Well, more like a controlled and cautionary excitement, but let's face it - I'm still psyched! People have been asking for this for ages, and science might actually deliver it in time for my (potential) children's generation.

I'm a believer in having as many options as possible available so that each couple (or threesome, or foursome, etc) can choose the forms of protection and contraception that are right for them. Having more options that are male-centric can help to relieve some women from the pains of the side effects of birth control pills.

Although I have a lot of reservations about the Bright Pill, I am hopeful that it will be able to live up to the hype.

In love and lust,
Lilith

My Decision Regarding Breast Reduction

2010-06-23T12:17:00.002-04:00

Let me preface all of this discussion with a link to the documentary called "The Perfect Vagina" and is about the practice of women getting labiaplasty, where essentially doctors cut off, (well, they call it "trimming") a woman's inner labia (yes, those deliciously sensitive inner lips) as to be more visually appealing. Women as young as 15 are asking for this surgery. The vast majority of cases are not for medical reasons, and the lips are considered to be within normal range for women.

This documentary really challenged me, not because I feel insecure about my lady bits, but because I want to get a breast reduction. I'm a 38F, and my breasts are not firm at all. They never have been. They haven't been round or firm since I started getting them. Some days I look in the mirror and see grannie titties. When I go to the gym, there is no sports bra that I have found that will contain them. This is sad because I really like my breasts, like having big breasts, and like boobs in general, but I wish that they were firmer, stayed in place, and were round. It would help me fit in bras and shirts, have less back problems, and be able to exercise. But now, after watching this video, I wonder which is the bigger problem: being restricted in running, or thinking that having a surgeon cut away at my breasts (and all the scarring, lack of sensation, and difficulty breast feeding this can lead to) is the only solution? Maybe the problem is in my head rather than in my bra.

After watching this movie, and seeing those girls want to do what I saw as mutilation to their bodies so that they could look a certain way, I wondered how much of my desire to have a breast reduction was practical, and how much was wanting to have my breasts be like everyone else's. I started to think about it, and there were other practical solutions for me. Instead of running, I could swim or do pilates/yoga. I know that wearing tighter shirts when exercising helps me out. I could try out different brands of bras; how do I know that there isn't a sports bra out there for me? Yes, it's harder to find clothes, but is surgery the answer for that? Yes, I have to go to a chiropractor regularly, but building up my back muscles, encouraging good posture, and wearing bras that fit will help me with my back, and surgery doesn't mean that my back problems will go away.

Why are these other practical solutions not the first things that come to mind? Why am I so eager to have major surgery that has so many complications, especially when I am so young and don't even have kids yet? I think my desire to look like everyone else and have "normal" breasts is driving me. And as the documentary pointed out - how do I know what normal is? If I am making judgements based on photoshopped, air brushed models and actresses, of course I am going to feel inadequate. If I am looking at small breasted girls, or girls with small frames, of course I am going to feel like I'm not normal! If I am watching porn with girls that have breast implants, then yes, I am going to feel like my breasts are unnatural.

About a year ago, I went to a cosmetic surgeon for a consult, and having him examine my breasts was like a smack to the face. You wouldn't believe how he treated me, and my body. He listed everything that was wrong with my breasts and all the things he couldn't fix. He said that he could fix that one breast was "longer" than the other, but couldn't fix that one was higher than the other. He also couldn't fix the flab under my arms that comes from wearing bras and being a girl of a certain weight. He could fix the size of my nipples, but that I would lose some sensation. He couldn't fix that one breast was wider than the other. He couldn't fix that they were situated low on my chest, but could "tighten them up" so that it would be less noticeable.

Thank god I am the rebellious type. When I heard "fix" the first thing that went through my head is "there is nothing to fix!" which is ironic because I was the one that was going to him to have a breast reduction. I didn't go back. He challenged me (unknowingly) to love myself, and love my breasts, and all their "imperfections". My breasts do not need to be fixed. Yes, I have to work with what I have. I need to buy different shirts, and do different exercises. I will probably get very saggy boobs later in my life, especially if I breast feed. My breasts will never be firm (well, they might get firm when I breast feed, if I ever do), but dammit, I am not cutting them up. Not at this time of my life. My partner loves my breasts, my friends love my breasts, and let's face it, they are an aspect of my sexuality.

When I came out of the closet, I told myself that I needed to be true to me and to my own desires, and rejected the idea that I was going to pretend that I was someone that I wasn't. I didn't care if my sexual orientation was not something that other people would appreciate, but being me, being proud of who I was, and not letting society dictate what my sexuality should or should not be was the important thing. If I take my breasts as an aspect of my sexuality, then dammit, I'm not going to let other people tell me what my breasts should or should not be. My sexuality/breasts are not something that need to be fixed. My inner labia are not something that need to be fixed. If there was a pill to cure my pansexuality, then I wouldn't take it. So why am I willing to undergo surgery to "fix" my breasts?

This is not to say that all women should make the same decision as me. Only an individual woman can make the decision for what is right for her. This is not to pass judgment on other people's decisions, and this is not to say that other women who get the surgery are thinking the same things as me, or making the same connections I am. I am merely saying that I would rather be a rebel, and be natural, and proud of my natural, imperfect body than have other people tell me what to be. The surgery is not what is best for me, telling other people to fuck off is what is best for me.

In love and lust,
Lilith

The Power of Pro-Choice (Part 2)

2010-06-22T14:47:00.006-04:00

Welcome to the Power of Pro-Choice - The sequel. We've already spoken a bit about abortion and parenting, so now let's turn to Adoption, Birth Control, Education, and Consent. Will I make this post a trilogy? Maybe... if you want me to.

Adoption

Adoption is one of those things that is often cited as an option for women, and yet how accessible it is, is something that is rarely talked about.

For health and genetic reasons, I am considering not having biological children. I like the idea of adoption, and I would love to adopt in the future. When I told my mom this, she replied, "Are you sure you want to adopt?" and I said yes, probably locally, to which she replied, "All the children from CAS (Children's Aid Services) are from drunk and abusive mothers. Do you really want to get a kid with FAS (fetal alcohol syndrome) and it wasn't even your fault? Can't you just have biological children?"

There is a huge stigma that is associated with adopting local children. The comments from my mom really shocked me, and so I posted on facebook to see what other people thought about it. Even within my super liberal and feminist social group - some actually agreed. What the consensus boiled down to was this: if you want a healthy baby, try for an international adoption (which is pricey and according to some websites can cost between $25,000 to $50,000), and if you don't want to pay, you will have to "settle" for a child who is disabled. Wow.

So, as I sadly found out, there is not only a stigma against children who have disabilities as being less desirable and not good enough for well-off parents, but there is also a stigma that all children available in Canada through adoption are somehow "broken". Hidden in this are huge financial barriers for potential parents. Although there is no fee associated with adopting a child through CAS in Canada, private Canadian adoption can still cost $15,000-25,000 (see previous link). So with the bias against children with disabilities, and then the stereotype that all Canadian children available through public adoption have disabilities, no wonder most people choose international adoptions. The hefty price tag associated with international adoptions means that potential parents may not consider adoption an option.

As well, there is a certain stigma attached to women who give up their child for adoption. We just plain don't know what to do with them. When a woman is pregnant, everyone is trained to be giddy, give presents, ask to see ultrasound photos, and ask to touch her belly. Even perfect strangers now view the pregnant body of a woman as public. It is perfectly acceptable to ask a stranger when she is due, if she is having a boy or a girl, and if she has picked out a name yet. Women who are giving their children up for adoption are caught in an odd limbo where people expect them to be excited about being a parent, but they are not choosing parenthood. In fact, we are so uncomfortable with women (especially young women) that are thinking about giving their children up for adoption, that they are routinely told to spend a summer at an Aunt's place, go away from family and friends, or to try to hide her figure so we don't have to think about it. This is not for the woman's benefit, but for the benefit of those around her that are unsure of how to navigate the social rules of pregnant women seeking to put their children up for adoption.

Of course, no one ever mentions the emotional difficulty that a woman can go through after giving up her child for adoption. Motherhood is praised as a natural, healthy experience full of support, love, and the most rewarding experience a person can have. So what of women who actively choose not to embrace motherhood with open arms? Are they somehow a cold-hearted, callous bitch for not wanting their children? Are they broken for being able to give up such a cute and cuddly child?

Most people are comfortable with parents who wish to adopt, because we are seeing people embrace parenthood. However, when we see women reject this option, it makes us feel uncomfortable, unsure, and there is an instinct to distance ourselves from that person.

With all this stigma, is it any wonder that a woman might regret giving her child up for adoption? No matter how logical and sane her reasons are, there are parts of society that silently accuse her of being sick or inhuman. The sanctification of motherhood means that she will constantly be asking "what if?", and this curiosity can lead to doubt, and doubt to guilt for her actions.

Even more sinister, what if she feels relief? What if she feels relief that it's over? Is she a monster for feeling better that a chapter is closed in her life and she can embrace a new one? These complex feelings can easily be framed as guilt and become toxic over time. As a society, we need to look at what we can do to help support birth mothers, and make this a valid option for women to choose.

This is also where I want to challenge those that say "I regret my abortion" and use it as an argument for the criminalization of abortion. I ask, since there are women out there that regret giving up their child for adoption, should adoption then be criminalized? Of course the answer is no, because the fetus is allowed to be carried to term. The objections and concerns are still not actually in the health or well-being of the mother, but rather in the birth of the child (again, once the child is born, it's on its own - especially if it is gay, non-white, or has a disability).

Contraception and Condoms

This is where a huge part of my passion lies. One of the core tenets of being pro-choice is the idea that women (and men) have the right to control their own fertility, body, and sexuality. With the invention of female-centric birth control (the pill), women have been able to separate parenthood and sexuality. Women are able to independently control their fertility without relying on men to follow through (whether it was wearing a condom, or pulling out). This unprecedented control that emerged in the 60s meant that women could admit to something that had been true all along: women have sex for reasons other than getting pregnant!

We like orgasms! We like being intimate with our partners! We like to explore our bodies, give pleasure and receive it. We have fantasies, cravings, and appetites, and we want to satisfy them. Women are sexual beings capable of wanting sexual pleasure for the sake of pleasure.

Obviously, some people don't like this. A common theme in a lot of Western, Greek, and Roman writing, philosophy, and religious thought includes what is commonly referred to ask the Virgin/Whore dichotomy, or the Madonna complex (not Madonna the singer, Madonna as in Mary the virgin mother of Christ). Basically the idea is this: there are two groups of women: The good girls, and the bad girls. The chaste and the promiscuous. The pure and the dirty. I know which category I fall into!

Basically, if a woman is sexual, or admits to sexual pleasure, then she is dirty, undesirable, the worst parts of what it means to be female. She doesn't care about her body, she has no morality, enjoys getting abortions, whores herself out, and isn't worth the dirt under her fingernails. She is the seductress who tempts men who can't control themselves, the bearer of Original Sin, and she threatens the stability and sanctity of marriage. She's a societal atomic bomb, ready to blow apart social order with the bat of a heavily mascaraed eyelash. She is as much of a threat to social order as terrorists and communism (which is the same as socialism, fascism, and totalitarian (read: big) government dontcha know).

You can imagine the issues that I might have surrounding this.

Back to the heart of the matter: Although the number of people who condemn birth control in general is shrinking, there is still this idea that if women are "prepared" to have sex, that makes them a slut. If a girl is dating a guy, and she shows up with condoms, does that mean that he will think she is too sexually aggressive or forceful? Will it be a turn off that she was thinking about having sex, like she does it all the time? What if she brings condoms or goes on the pill, but then says no to sex? Is she a cock tease? If a male in a heterosexual relationship brings a condom, is that a sign of pressure on or expectations of the girl?

In youth, one of the number one issues when it comes to not using contraception is fear of how the other partner will react. Young people are especially sensitive to the social assumptions around condom use. What if there are two men, they get intimate, and one pulls out a condom, does this mean he has a lack of faith in the STI status of his partner? Is it a silent accusation that his partner is unclean and all the stigma related to STIs? If a girl is on the pill, and she asks her partner to wear a condom, is it because she wants a back-up method of birth control, or because she suspects that he has an STI?

If a girl wants to go on the pill and is still living with her parents, does she have the self-efficacy and agency to do this? Is it affordable for her? Is she able to get appointments with her doctor without her mom there (I recently talked to a 19 year old that was still accompanied by her mother)? What if her parents find the pills? Will she be subject to punishment for being "slutty" or praised for taking care of herself and acknowledging the consequences of sex (if she is indeed sexually active)?

I'm sorry to leave this section without going into the Vatican's stance on condom use in sub-Saharan Africa and how the pope claims condoms makes HIV infection rates worse, but I tried to write a section and it turned into a post of its own. Maybe I will touch on it in another post, but know that I am thinking many, many things on the subject, and to not discuss it is a conscious decision.

To sum it all up: The world has a long way to go before birth control and contraception become more socially acceptable and accessible.

Education

One issue of the proper implementation of contraception and STI prevention relates to education. In the US, there are still states that fund abstinence only education, which give false information regarding the effectiveness of condom use and birth control, and have actually managed to convince teens that contraception is so ineffective that they may as well not use it. Even the one recent study that shows that abstinence only education may delay sex has been met with great criticism.

An example of giving false information regarding effectiveness comes from failure rates for different forms of contraception such as birth control pills and condoms. There are actually two different standard rates of failure. One is the failure rate for "perfect use". This means using the product as instructed every single time. Let's face it though, pills are missed, condoms are not stored properly or not used every time, and shots can be taken late. This is where we get our second, and much higher failure rate from, the "typical use". This higher rate is not the fault of the product, and comes from human error. What I find interesting is that people say that abstinence is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. Well, sort of. That's "perfect use", but if they are going to quote "typical use" for other contraceptives, then they should also quote the "typical use" for abstinence which involves a whole lot of improper application of the method, especially since abstinence from vaginal intercourse only prevents pregnancy, there are still many ways to get STIs without participating in vaginal intercourse. This is just one example of the skew in our educational system that fails to provide teens and adults with accurate sexual health information.

Personally, I believe that people have a right to their sexuality and to express that sexuality. Now, not all expressions of sexuality are necessarily healthy. Many sexual activities do have some risk of an unwanted outcome, such as STIs, pregnancy, or even boundaries not being respected, which can result in sexual assault. It is important that we educate people using accurate information, and allow people to make informed decisions, as well as give them the tools and powers to enforce boundaries. I may not agree with the decisions that some people make, but hopefully they can look at the facts, make a choice, and own that choice and its consequences.

I know, I'm an idealist, but I also believe that it's important for people to receive non-biased information. When people are manipulated and lied to, and then make decisions based on false information, they are no longer able to make true informed choices, and therefore not able to fully control their sexuality.

Similarly to my arguments regarding other aspects of being pro-choice, I believe it's important that people be fully educated about all the options and risks for each choice, as well as the supports that are out there. This empowers people to make the decision that is right for them, and feel that they own that decision and its consequences. This goes for many things regarding sexual health including abstinence, contraception, parenting, adoption, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, etc.

Consent

Finally, I want to briefly touch on consent. Because being pro-choice is about the belief that people have the right to bodily integrity, control over their sexuality and fertility, and making decisions for themselves, being pro-choice is inherently anti-rape and anti-sexual assault. The notion of not just consent, but fully informed consent is crucial. (On a side note, children are never able to consent to sexual activity with an adult. Never.)

When I say sexual assault, I have a very complex understanding of sexual assault. It is not just something that scary men do to strangers in the middle of the night at a park, but it is also something that happens on dates, between partners, and even includes incest. If we want to fight for women (and men) to be able to make choices and have control over their bodies, it is important to address the unfortunate reality that sexual assaults are very common. About half of all Canadian women have experienced sexual violence.

Ending sexual violence against women needs several concurrent courses of action. We need to 1) Stop the culture of rape. If rape and sexual assault are so common in society, we need to figure out what feeds into the belief that sexual assault is okay/not recognizing certain activities as sexual assault and stop that. 2) Preventing sexual assault is not just the responsibility of women, but also of men. 3) Support people who have experienced violence by offering non-biased support, counseling, and safe housing. 4) End the victim-blaming culture that makes people fear breaking their silence. 5) Recognize that sexual assault affects more than the direct victim, but also family members, friends, and children of the victim. 6) Recognize the true cost of sexual assault: emotionally, physically, financially, and the cost of human life.

My Choice to be Pro-Choice

I know that I have only covered a few of the issues that I am concerned about when it comes to being pro-choice, and almost every sentence in here could warrant it's own blog dedicated just to it. My true purpose was to plant some seeds of interest and curiosity, encourage people to get informed, and also dispel some myths that being Pro-Choice is only about abortion rights or access to abortion. Being pro-choice is really about empowering people to make informed decisions about their bodies and their sexuality, while respecting the choices other people have made.

I wanted to end on a positive note though. Although we still have a long way to go, our society has definitely progressed over the past couple decades. Abortion has been legalized in Canada (although access to it is still an issue), contraception and condoms have become more affordable and easier to obtain, sexual violence support centres have been established, homosexuality has been decriminalized (although still stigmatized), interracial couples are more accepted now (it wasn't that long ago that was illegal too). Some schools have day care now, hopefully a trend that will continue. Women are pursuing post secondary education more than ever (even though women still only make 70 cents on the dollar compared to men, and the glass ceiling is still a reality).

We have a long way to go, but we have also come a long way, and that is heartening and something to feel proud about. We shouldn't look at the ground we have gained and say "well, that's enough now", but understand that it is only the beginning.

What are you fighting for?

In love and lust,

Lilith

A Note to Cornell University: Get the F*** away from little girls' clits!

2010-06-19T23:22:00.002-04:00

Note: This blog contains some crude language. Although I usually prefer to state my opinions in an even handed, respectful way, sometimes circumstances call for swearing. This is one of those times.

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is something that is so horrific, that even Canada's new immigration guide mentions it as a "barbaric practice" that won't be tolerated in Canada. There is a belief that FGM is something that happens "out there" in Africa, but we can add another country to the list: The United States of America.

Cut Clits and Vibrators on 6 Year Olds

The World Health Organization defines FGM as "procedures that intentionally alter or injure female genital organs for non-medical reasons." At Cornell University, there are three doctors who are currently performing surgery to reduce the size of babies' clits by shortening the shaft. They claim that this surgery is humane because it tries to "spare the nerve endings" of the clit, so that these girls can experience sexual pleasure through the clit later in life. Beyond this, in order to prove the the clit is still functioning, one doctor, Dr. Dix Poppas, examines the girls while in the presence of a parent, and uses a vibrator on the girls' inner thighs, vaginas and clits and asks them to report on a scale of 0-5 how strongly they feel the vibrations. This procedure is not medically necessary and has no benefit to the girls. Since it is being done on girls over the age of 5 years, there is a very good chance that they will remember this, and can be traumatized.

According to the Pediatric Urology website from Cornell University, these surgeries are performed on girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). This is basically a disorder that affects your adrenal glands causing the body to produce more androgen, a type of male sex hormone. Because of this, girls who have the disorder grow larger clitorises. There is nothing wrong with the clit, it is not painful, will not get infected or negatively affect bodily functioning, it still has sensation and can perform its function (giving pleasure).

In some rare cases, CAH can cause clits to become large enough that a doctor might qualify the child as intersex, or having ambiguous (not clearly male or female) genitalia. The published report for the doctors doing the procedures did not specify whether the girls were considered intersex, but did say that this surgery was in the best interests for the girls' proper sexual and psychological functioning.

This is where I call bullshit.

Bullshit!

The intersex community has spoken out against "corrective" surgery performed in infancy for decades. Time and time again, they have described the horrors of being raised a gender that they did not identify with, difficulty experiencing sexual pleasure, and the sense of violation and betrayal of not being given a choice. Indeed, the community has spoken out about how difficult and traumatizing it is to be paraded around for med students, specialists, and visiting doctors and having their genitalia become a public spectacle. They have spoken about the pain of not being accepted for who they are, and what their bodies look like. (Click here for an article describing how performing surgery on intersex infants is a violation of human rights)

So, who should I believe when it comes to the proper psychological and sexual development and functioning of people with CAH: the doctors who want to publish papers, or the intersex community that has lived through the experience? As a feminist, I have to side with the people who have to live this reality.

This begs the question, why are doctors so concerned with shortening girls' clits?

Part of a Pattern

As a feminist, I see everything as interconnected. I see this procedure happening in a society that also encourages women to "trim" (ie: cut off) their labia minora in order to look more "attractive". (Click here for a disturbing documentary on the trend in the UK). Women are getting plastic surgery to "rejuvenate" (ie: lasered in order to tighten) their vaginas. Women are being constantly told to make their genitalia smaller, tighter, and hairless. It's almost pedophilic in nature (and I'm not using that as a scare tactic, but as a recognition that women are being told to look youthful, virginal, and not 'womanly').

I also see this surgery occurring in a society where a gender binary is so ingrained into our culture that it's impossible to fill out a form, go to the washroom, or speak about someone in third person without declaring a sex. If men are from Mars, and women are from Venus, then those who don't conform to a gender binary are from the dark side of the moon. We don't want to see them, hear from them, or talk about them.

When these doctors are mutilating these girls (and it is mutilation that is both physically and psychologically harmful as argued in this bioethics forum), they are not doing it for the sake of the girls. There is no medical need to alter these healthy and functional clitorises. They have an idea of what the ideal (although not necessarily healthy) genitalia should look like. They are performing surgery because it is more comfortable for the rest of society because we don't accept intersex or trans people. They are doing it because they believe it is better to mutilate someone's genitalia without her consent, rather than have someone look at her and go "oh".

As a queer woman, it would be easier for society if I was straight. It would be more comfortable for religious people and my parents. It would be easier to get married and be less offensive to certain people. However, if there was a surgery to "cure" my queerness, it would never cross my mind to get it. I love who I am, and I love the community that I have around me. Self-acceptance is something so powerful that I would hate to deny someone else that experience. I don't want other people making choices about my body, my sexuality, or my future. As someone who is pro-choice, I believe in the right to bodily integrity, the ability to make decisions, and support no matter what that decision is. How come we are not granting our daughters this right?

And as a reminder, there was no indication in the journal article that these girls' conditions were extreme enough to warrant the designation of intersex. For all we know, they just had above average size clitorises.

Are we as a society more comfortable with FGM than intersex people or girls with large clits? Unfortunately we are more interested in using surgery to potentially harm these girls rather than deal with the fact that some women have big clits, and some women have REALLY big clits.

For the record, many girls who have big clits don't even know that they have big clits until they start watching mainstream porn or become sexually active with other girls. Even then, with all the jokes about men not being able to find the clit, don't you think it would be nice for a guy to be able to see it from the across the room and go "bullseye!" Dare I even suggest that big clits could be attractive, a turn on, or even trivial in the eyes of a partner? Where did we get the idea that big clits were bad? Why do we need surgery to "fix" fully functional and healthy genitalia? Who decides if a clit is "too big"? I don't have CAH - but what if, at birth, a doctor looked at me and said "well, that's just not attractive" and decided to "beautify" my clit? At least I can tell you that there is no one looking at male babies and saying "now that penis is a whopper, maybe we should cut it down to size!"

Deep Breath

I am an idealist. I would like to see a world where people are happy with who they are and what they are born with. I want to live in a world where people don't have to use surgery in order to conform or feel beautiful. I want a society where diversity is embraced and found attractive rather than a disorder which needs to be corrected. We are not cookie cutter creatures that are clones of one another. So what is our obsession with the knife?

Just please, put down the knife.

What is happening is doing serious harm to these girls. They have the possibility of having pain during arousal for the rest of their lives, less sensation, and infection. Psychologically, they risk feeling violated and mutilated because they were not given a choice. Not to mention the procedure of using a vibrator to stimulate these girls and have them report back to a male doctor about how strongly they feel the sensations in front of their parents at an age where they can fully remember this is potentially catastrophic. Legally speaking the doctor is getting the consent of parents, however, the fact that Poppas is doing this research without the oversight of an ethics committee (which is necessary if you are doing any human research project) is criminal. Criminal.

Do SOMETHING!

If you are as enraged by this as I am, I suggest sending a letter to the University and demand an explanation, or that the university have a "No FGM" policy. Be creative, be angry, be serious, just *say something*.

You can contact the University's Public Relations Office

Or the Urology Department

Or write a letter to your local newspaper.

Or pass on this blog and the others that I have linked here.

Get educated, get active, and stop this from happening!

In love and outrage,
Lilith

Predictors of Condom Use (Part 1)

2010-06-16T22:59:00.002-04:00

So, as someone who would like to one day become a sexual health educator (or am I already one?) I am very interested in research that looks at predictors of condom use. If we want people to use condoms, whether they are gay, straight, having a one night stand, using toys, are a professional, trying to prevent STI transmission, or just trying not to get pregnant, then we need to look at what factors affect whether someone might choose to use a condom or not. Is there anything that as educators we can do to help encourage people to wrap it before they tap it? What thoughts go into the decision making process? Do people use condoms because they fear the possible unwanted outcomes of unprotected sex? Do people like condoms? What if one partner wants to a use a condom and the other doesn't?

Well, I can tell you what is true amongst my group of friends, but we're all weirdos and highly non-representative, so I'll take my cue from published scientists on this one, and see what their peer reviewed studies say.

Be Skinny

Yes, scientists are once again nagging on overweight people to lose some weight. Apparently, if you are obese, you are far more likely to engage in unprotected sex, get STIs, and have an unplanned pregnancy. According to the final number crunches: Women who were single and obese were 4 times more likely to have an unplanned pregnancy than their single healthy weight counterparts (weight class was determined by BMI). Obese women were also 70% less likely to go on the pill, and were 8 times more likely to use less effective forms of birth control (like withdrawal). They were also less likely to seek out information about birth control. Men who were obese and under 30 were more likely to have contracted an STI than less hefty men.

Now, I don't think anyone is suggesting that somehow gaining some extra weight suddenly makes you allergic to latex or turns birth control pills toxic. Now, there has not been a scientific study to follow this up yet that looks at the cognitive and social processes that contribute to lower rates of contraception, but I can probably hazard a few guesses.

One theory is that it could be related to self-esteem and self-respect. I remember hearing stories from gay men talking about how they didn't use condoms during the 80s, even during the AIDS crisis (which is still on-going I might add) because they felt self-loathing and shame. Using a condom in order to help protect your health and your life means that you want to live, see the future, and that you are someone worth protecting. Now, I'm not saying that obese men or women have a death wish, but I think that if you lack self-respect because society tells you that you are not desirable, both as a sexual being and a person, then that can affect your self-esteem and protecting your body and your future may not be the highest priority for you.

One thing that the study found was that obese men and women were less likely to have had a sexual partner in the past year, and tended to have fewer sexual partners. If someone feels that their weight is a barrier to sexual activity with other people (whether this is true or not is definitely up for debate) then when they do get into a sexual situation with another person, they may feel less agency to bring up condoms. If there is a general belief out there that condoms are annoying, get in the way, ruin the mood, or that asking your partner to use a condom is somehow an insult or accusation, then someone who feels less sexual empowerment and agency may not bring up condom use out of fear.

Not to mention, birth control pills can get pricey and have some interesting side effects. Since obese women are statistically less likely to have regular sexual partners (many exceptions to the rule do exist), then these women may choose to not go on the pill. When they do get into a sexual situation, it could be a complete surprise to them, and they might not be prepared.

It was also found in the study that obese people were more likely to have obese partners, which can also create a doubling effect, where if the cognitive and social processes which are acting to prevent one person from enforcing contraception use are at play, then it's more likely that those same processes are also affecting the second partner. And, since obese men under 30 are more likely to have contracted an STI, this means that there is a slightly higher chance that an infected man could pass this onto obese women (who tend to not use condoms as much, and are more likely to engage in sexual activity with him).

Now, there is no empirical evidence to back up my theories (yet!), but I do encourage anyone to comment and volunteer their thoughts or theories.

Again, I want to stress that being obese is not necessarily indicative of having low self-esteem, no sex life, or not being loved. This was a study that was conducted with thousands of people in France. In statistics, especially in psychology research, the larger the sample size, the easier it is to pick up on more subtle differences in populations, since the outliers get muted, and you have a much clearer vision of the average. This is basically the "individual results may vary" fine print. Individuals are not the average, and to say that the average woman of a certain weight behaves a certain way is not a prediction of all women of that weight. It's a trend, an average, and just a statistic.

So what can we do with this? Well, we can start to understand that weight has more than just a physical affect on people's health. Weight puts people into social categories and parts of society, and these people are treated differently. If you are treated differently, it is reasonable to expect that you may behave differently. We need to understand that weight is not just a physical category, but a social one too, and both categories affect sexual health, including health behaviours such as condom and contraception use.

I would love to see more research done on self-esteem, self-respect, and how a person's self-image of being sexy or not contributes to contraception, especially condom use.

I have a ton more research where that come from: stay tuned!

In love and lust,
Lilith

The Power of Pro-Choice (Part 1)

2010-06-14T23:00:00.002-04:00

If I make the statement, "I am Pro-choice," what can you assume about me? Obviously, in some circumstances, I believe it is okay for a woman to get an abortion. Unfortunately, it seems like that is the only defining factor for being pro-choice, and one that is easily misconstrued and demonized. It's funny because I have had conversations with people who said that they are pro-life, and then go on to say many things that I consider to be very pro-choice. Now, I believe in the right to self-identifying, and I wouldn't demand that someone take on a label that they didn't feel comfortable with, but I would also argue that the term "pro-choice" has been hijacked, and like the word "feminist" has been demonized and caricatured.

So when I say that I am Pro-choice, what does that mean to me? Well, the beliefs are infused into the term: choice. It is about women being able to choose. Choose *all* three options when she is pregnant. Part of this is a belief that all three choices must seem like viable options. Beyond this, I believe a woman has the right to equality, to bodily integrity, and control over her sexuality.

Because this has turned into such a long post (like many people, I have a lot to say on subjects that I'm passionate about) I will break it up into multiple posts. The first will cover beliefs on abortion and parenting, and then another post will deal with issues of adoption, birth control, and consent. Even with my super long posts, I am not going to get to cover every issue, and expect more discussions about being pro-choice to come later, including possible topics such as the relationship between the LGBT community, the kink community, and the pro-choice community. Maybe even something about different methods of giving birth. Oh dear, I have my work cut out for me I'm afraid.

Access to Abortion

So down to business: In Canada abortion is legal, but access depends on where you live. Hospitals are not required to staff doctors that will perform them, and in reality, doctors are only trained on how to perform abortions if the doctors pursue training. This means that most doctors are not adequately trained to perform the procedure, even in the case of emergencies. Unfortunately abortion is something only people in urban cities have access to.

Although the Canadian Health Act has been interpreted to include abortion as part of universal coverage (for any Americans reading, that means that it is part of our health benefits as citizens), there are still some provinces that have no access to abortion at all, such as Nunavut, and New Brunswick does not fund abortions (even though they are being sued, and the federal government has threatened to fine them for not following federal law). For more history, check out the Pro-Choice Action Network. Of course, aboriginal women on reserves, or women living in rural areas, and women in the maritimes, are disproportionately affected by the lack of access to a doctor willing to perform abortions. Since some provinces only provide partial coverage, there are some situations where there is a financial barrier to accessing abortion. Furthermore, students studying out-of-province or women who have to go to another province to access abortion services may not have any coverage for the procedure creating another barrier.

Even when clinics and hospitals exist where women are able to access abortion, the threat of protesters is very real. Every year Canadian anti-choice demonstrators take part in 40 Days for Life, where they hold a 24 hour vigil outside of clinics complete with empty cradle, candles, and signs. Here in Ottawa, although the protesters are told to remain on the opposite side of the street from the clinic (yes, they are two car widths away from the clinic), as soon as they put down their signs, they are private citizens again and can hand out pamphlets filled with misinformation, doctored photos, and scathing religious judgment to women entering and leaving the clinic.

They also take photographs of the women entering the clinic, and get full names of staff members. With photos of women entering and leaving the clinic being posted online, and people throwing rosaries at you (this actually happened to fellow pro-choicer, it hit her in the face), it can be intimidating to go to a clinic. Imagine if you had a family member that was protesting the clinic, or if you were a recognizable person? There is a true threat to confidentiality, even though what is happening is a medical procedure. Although some provinces and some cities do have "Bubble Zone" legislation preventing protesting directly outside the clinic, most clinics do not have this, and it is relatively easy to bypass. For cases like those in Toronto, a clinic has to be bombed first before a bubble zone can be granted.

Although Canada has access to abortion for many women (although definitely not all), there is still an issue of education. In high school there was a friend of a friend of mine (as all horrible stories begin) who became pregnant and was given American information regarding abortion and believed it would cost her hundreds of dollars. Since she was in high school and had no job, and was too scared to tell her parents, she decided to go on the vodka diet and drank nothing but vodka until she miscarried. I know a couple readers are probably reading this with wide eyes silently screaming "What about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS)? What if she didn't miscarry, what other methods would she resort to? What if she gave herself alcohol poisoning and died? What if she had complications from the miscarriage and needed medical attention?" and yes, all of those are completely legitimate concerns, none of which the girl was educated on or knew that she should even be concerned about. Even in a city with access to a clinic and a hospital where she could get an abortion fully covered, she still went through a risky self-abortion procedure that threatened her health.

Still, other countries do not have any access to safe and legal abortions. For example, Amnesty International publicized its findings that Nicaragua's total ban on abortion was preventing women from receiving adequate medical care, causing maternal deaths to rise. The Anna Project reports that 70,000 women die each year from botched backstreet abortions globally. Not having access to safe and legal abortion is something that kills women, and it's important that any talk about abortion include countries where women do not have control over their fertility or their health.

Getting back to more Canadian views: the stigmatization of women who have abortions can be incredibly detrimental to women. Having an abortion is a stressful time, and this stress makes women vulnerable. If biased groups tell women that the stress they are having is actually a form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that is called Post-Abortion Syndrome (which is not recognized by any large credible psychiatric or psychological association), then women can be taught to interpret stress as a sign of victimization and abuse. In the United States, women are actively counseled to sue their doctors for this.

The fact is, any unintended pregnancy is stressful, and all three options are stressful. Ask any parent, and they will tell you parenting is the most stressful thing you can do. It is not uncommon for women to regret giving up their child for adoption or to feel some sense of ambiguity if they choose abortion. Some women may feel that having a child wouldn't be so bad, but that they don't have the money or support systems in place to make it work (more on this later). Although anti-choice activists are quick to point out the negative feelings associated with abortion, they seem to completely ignore the negative feelings that can be associated with parenthood, adoption, or even miscarriage.

Abortion brings out complex feelings. Regret for having become pregnant, wondering 'what if', feeling like you are somehow a failure, the pain of unwanted sex or rape, etc. Many studies suggest that women achieve the best psychological outcome if they make a decision for themselves, and not due to pressure from outside influences. This is true for all pregnancy options, not just abortion. Women who are forced into an option that they don't want will most likely suffer for it. The more agency and non-judgmental support a women has, the better her chances of viewing the event (whether it be parenting, adoption, or abortion) as positive. For more information, you can read a paper I wrote on The Myth of Post Abortion Syndrome and what women actually need. (The link will redirect you to a downloadable pdf of my paper).

In the end, I want women to feel positive about whatever choice they make.

Parenting

Abortion is obviously not the only choice that a woman can make. Being pro-choice is not about being pro-only one choice, it is pro ALL choices. So how do you support a woman in parenting?

One way would be to support mothers financially. In Canada we partially achieve this through having universal health care, but in other countries mothers may not have access to prenatal and postnatal health care. We can also protect access to maternity leave, encourage paid maternity leave, and have significant child benefits. In Canada, mothers currently receive $100/month per child. Although I think this is a great start, child care is still largely very expensive and inaccessible to many mothers. There are many that find it easier to stay home with two children, because the cost of child care means that it would actually be more expensive to work than to stay home.

Another way to support women would be through education. In Ottawa, there is a conservative radio talk show host who famously bashed the Youth Services Bureau (YSB) program to teach parenting skills to young, at-risk mothers. He said that YSB didn't deserve the funding, and that funding could have gone to much better things than teaching mothers things that they should just... know.

After all, parenting is completely natural and there is no learning curve associated with it whatsoever.

*ahem* What he forgets is that not every woman has a great mother to teach them these things. I know that if I ever choose to have children, that my mother will be there teaching me the whole time. However, if my mother was addicted to crack, abusive, dead, or had disowned me, I would be lost. It's important to be able to break the cycle of poor parenting, abuse, and/or neglect, and we have to encourage women that have the will, but not necessarily the resources to become better parents.

Groups like that are not just good ways to give information, talk about where mothers can access other resources such as free baby clothing or diapers, but it's also a way for women to build community. It helps them build networks of supportive women who can help them deal with the emotional struggles of parenthood. Parenting is not something that can be done alone. You need friends, teachers, and help. If a woman feels that she is lacking resources and a support system, parenting can seem like less of an option.

Many women also feel like to become a parent would interfere with their ability to pursue education or a career. This is where I am a big supporter of on-location childcare, such as having daycare at your workplace, or having it available through the school you are attending. Even though having daycare available at work can actually make a company money, it is still a rare option for women. Even colleges and universities that boast about excellent childcare facilities can be inaccessible because the waiting times for a spot can be years, which isn't all that helpful unless you apply before you get pregnant. Looks like women with an unplanned pregnancy are stuck.

If women feel like they have to choose between parenthood and education or career advancement, then parenthood becomes less of an option for women. As well, it creates a financial divide with women who pursue careers as more financially independent and women who choose to parent (especially parent young) as more financially dependent on others, or restricted in terms of their career options. If women feel that they cannot realistically have an education or a career while raising a child that is the result of an unintended pregnancy, then parenthood becomes less of an option.

What I find the hardest about doing pro-choice work supporting parenting is that the people that are most opposed to affordable housing, affordable childcare, extended maternity/paternity leave, and supports for single parents or at-risk mothers are the same people that are most staunchly opposed to abortion. I often feel like being "pro-life" is actually pro-pregnancy, and as soon as the child is born, the woman and her child no long matter or are eligible for support.

Pro-Awesome

I guess I wanted to finish with a statement about what pro-choice personally means to me. I remember when I was younger, I was pro-life/anti-choice. When I was asked what women should do in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, I preached that if they aren't ready to have children, women shouldn't have sex. Rape was not a priority for me. I laid down moral judgments on women so fast that no one had time to even challenge me. Women who had sex before marriage were sluts, all pregnancies within a marriage were wanted, women made the decision to have and abortion flippantly and without thought. Abortions were monstrous acts of violence that scarred women forever (both mentally and physically), and those that performed them and had them were inhuman. The sexually repressive and judgmental hate that boiled in me was a hidden weight that I didn't know I had.

When I was 15, many things happened. I had sex for the first time, I came out of the closet, and I left my ultra-right-wing-scary-cult church. I remember the exact moment that I became pro-choice. I remember standing at the bus stop, completely alone. It was a nice warm fall day and the sun was shining. I remember that I was struck with the notion that I didn't know other women. I didn't know their situations, families, morals, or experiences. I was just 15. I didn't know the world. How could I stare a woman in the face and tell her that I knew more about her and her life than she did? Who was I to decide for several generations of women what they should do with their lives? I was incredibly humbled. It was a realization that I didn't know what I thought I knew, and that life wasn't black and white, but greys, pinks, and rainbows.

In that moment, of acknowledging my small place in the world and just how much I had to learn, I was overwhelmed. Even thinking of that moment now, it brings tears to my eyes, just as it did then. I had to sit on the side of the road and just take the biggest breath in I had ever taken. When I exhaled, I exhaled as fully as I could. I wanted to make my chest as small as I felt in relation to the vast complexities of life. I breathed out, and let go of all that hate, all that judgment. Most of all, I let go of all the pain that I felt. The pain of self-denial. The pain of hurting people around me.

I have a new pain: the pain of regret. I regret what I said to people. I made people feel unsafe and it was so easy for me to be cruel to them. I regret the time that I lost when I was so consumed with adult politics and affairs instead of just being a child, learning how to get along with others.

I like this pain though. It keeps me grounded, keeps me humble. It gives me empathy for those on the other side of the fence. It gives me perspective. I continue to learn from my past and use it to try to make the world a better place.

In the end, that is what being pro-choice is really about, making the world a better place by giving women agency, education, control, and options

In love and lust,

Lilith

P.S. The sequel has arrived!

Definition of Healthy Sexuality

2010-06-08T20:03:00.003-04:00

So as I was writing the description of this blog, I realized that I would have to define healthy sexuality. It seems like it should be something rather intuitive. Images of healthy sexuality are a little bit more vague and abstract. The image of a suburban housewife with two kids that has sex twice a week seems like something pretty mundane. But is mundane healthy? What about everyone else that doesn't fit that scenario? We know that sexual diversity is everywhere, so how do you pick out what is healthy and what is unhealthy?

No surprise, society is filled with tons of different sexual mores and values. People may believe that only heterosexual relationships are healthy, or that sexual activity should be within the confines of marriage. I even have some friends who think that it is 'wrong' to save sex for marriage and that to pressure people into this, or exalt those that do manage to do this, harms people, and puts them at risk. So how is one supposed to navigate this highly politicized and polarized topic? Is it possible to formulate an objective definition of healthy sexuality?

I want to argue that first, we need to stop confusing healthy and normal. If something is "normal", "mundane", or "boring", that doesn't make it healthy, and furthermore, do average people even know what normal is? Second, I want to take a look at a community that has at it's core some values that I have chosen to adopt: Mutual Pleasure, Informed Consent, Harm Reduction, and embedded in that are the principals of Communication, Education, and Respect for Yourself.

Does Normal=Healthy?

So let's start off with the confusion of healthy and normal. Indeed, I would argue that one of the most commonly asked questions about sexuality is: Am I normal? But normal is an odd word, because it just means average. Unfortunately it's normal for women in North America to be raped or sexually assaulted in their lifetime. Although this is "normal" this is in no way healthy. Many women still have difficulty achieving orgasm strictly from penetration - does that mean that a woman who is multi-orgasmic through only penetration is somehow unhealthy? The point is, being unique doesn't have to be a bad thing, and it certainly doesn't mean you're unhealthy.

I also want to argue that what is actually common, and the perception of what is common, are not always the same depending on where you are getting your information. For example, if you are a 16 year old virgin and watch Oprah only to find out that teens are having sex parties in which girls are wearing bracelets advertising what sexual services they offer, you may feel like you are the only virgin around anymore. It doesn't matter that most North American surveys indicate that the average age of first intercourse is around 17 years old for both males and females. I can't even begin to explain some of the inaccurate things you might think are normal if you are getting your info from porn.

Healthy Sexuality is something you DO

Back to our original question: how do you define a healthy sexuality? I mean, there is such a thing as an unhealthy sexuality, right? The dark menace of pedophiles and sexual sadists lurk deep in our psyches and are brought to mind readily. Obviously someone who hurts children or rapes others must be unhealthy.

So here's what I think: As far as sexual thoughts go, it's difficult to address them or categorize them since they are so personal and intangible. I also think we can't really help who/what we are attracted to (this is a complex issue that I will have to deal with in another post, but let's leave it at this for now). And although therapy might be able to get at the root of certain issues related to anger, or feelings of abandonment, it's hard to separate out what things we can help, and what we can't.

However, we can control our actions and we're always responsible for them. So when it comes to healthy sexuality: I believe it's a practice, not a particular set of attractions or feelings.

To figure out what I think is healthy, we'll turn to a group of people that has explored the boundaries between pleasure, the taboo, and the potentially harmful: the BDSM community!

Core Values

This community has three main values at their core*:

1. Mutual pleasure of everyone involved, with each participant self-defining what pleasure is. You get to decide what turns you on, what gives you pleasure, and what you want to have happen. On top of this, you need to ensure that your partner knows about what turns you on, and what you want to happen. You also need to listen to what your partner finds pleasurable.

2. Informed Consent. Each participant has to fully consent to everything happening, and has the right to withdraw consent at any time. Part of consent is ensuring people are fully informed of the risks, the types of activities that are about to go on, and people are in the right state to consent (first timers are not encouraged to do so intoxicated, and kids are automatically not considered able to consent). Again, consent is necessary to ensure that there is mutual pleasure.

3. Harm Reduction. Every effort is taken to reduce the risk of dangerous physical harm for all parties. Although you can reduce the risk to a level you are comfortable with, this doesn't mean that it's completely gone, and back-up plans are formulated in case something goes wrong.

Hidden in these three principals are three other necessary components: communication, education, and respect. You need to communicate beforehand in order for both of you to consent, and agree upon what is pleasurable for both of you. You also need to be educated as to what the risks of any particular activity are, and how to reduce those risks. Thirdly, you need to have respect for yourself and respect for your partner. This respect will ensure that consent is respected, and that you don't put yourself or your partner at unnecessary risk.

As apart of this self-respect, I would like to add in the notion of self-love as well. The best sexual experiences are ones where you love yourself enough to be honest about what you find pleasurable, and love yourself enough to demand safety. When you love yourself and are happy with who you are, then there is less of a risk of feeling bad or guilty after a sexual encounter.

Now, read those values again, and instead of picturing people in leather and tied up, picture two people about to have sex for the first time. Can you imagine if our society took the same approach to sexuality that the BDSM community took? Imagine if we were obsessed with mutual pleasure, communication, consent, and harm reduction. What would our sexual society look like?

I have to hand it to the BDSM community. If you want a bunch of people who are obsessed with informed consent, mutual pleasure, and risk reduction, go talk to the people with the whips, chains, and ball gags. I love it!

Healthy People are Functional People

There is one final thing I would like to add, and it comes from my love of Abnormal Psychology. The bible of abnormal psych is currently the DSM IV (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4). The manual makes the distinction that in order for someone to be classified as having a disorder, say generalized anxiety disorder or depression, then his/her functioning in every day life has to be diminished. To some extent, it's the same with sexuality. If you can't get through a day at work without masturbating, and it's threatening your job, then that's not healthy.

It's not just your functioning, but also the functioning of people around you that counts. If you are a constant threat to the people around you, and consistently hurt the ones you love, then that's not healthy. If you cheat on every partner you have, chances are you're not going to win "Healthiest Sexuality of the Year" award anytime soon.

I realize that I am very liberal when it comes to my definitions of healthy, but they come from my love of science. In science, you observe the world around you. You observe series of events and consequences. In sexuality, I do the same. When I see negative outcomes, such as people getting sick or seriously hurt, I question whether that is good/healthy. When I see people happy, not just because they have experienced pleasure, but also happy with who they are as sexual beings, I think that's good/healthy. After all, I just want everyone to be pleased and happy, right?

Yeah, I'm an idealist, and I know that won't happen, but you have to have a direction to move toward, right?

In love and lust,

Lilith

*Yeah, I know, I wrote it all as a two-person scenario, but it was just easier grammatically. Nothing but love to those that prefer a 3+ person scenario!