Haha, a win for local porn stores: [...]]]> And now, onto some horrifying news: a Cornell doctor is performing female genital mutilation on girls with large clitorises, and using a vibrator to test the results. HORRIFYING. We suspect more will be unearthed with this case–are these girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, intersexed, or just not “perfect”?

Haha, a win for local porn stores: Indiana Supreme Court declines to hear the New Albany adult store case, presumably much to ROCK’s chagrin.

Elsewhere in the defense of porn, sex blogger and advocate Violet Blue has begun Our Porn, Our Selves. She slams anti-porn forces here and here, and other blogs notice. Meanwhile, sexologist Charlie Glickman describes both sides of the porn debate and includes an interesting study that notes correlation between high porn consumption and male aggressivity.

As a sex-positive, pro-sex industry advocate, I’ll write on this a bit. Glickman reminds us that correlation does not equal causation, an important reminder indeed. PAPER supports every adult’s right to enjoy porn [and other fun given us by the sex industry], and does not believe porn is a truly addictive substance. However, such studies are extremely interesting and worth pursuing, when ethical, non-sex-negative researchers are doing the work. Such research begs questions: what sort of content are these extremely aggressive men watching? Does it interfere with their relationships? Likewise, what underlies high porn consumption in various populations? When sex-negative groups point out violence and degradation in porn–which certainly is part of some porn content, and not in the sense of kink and consent–they have something of a point. It’s just that we at PAPER seriously doubt porn turns people into sociopaths, just like violent video games and movies don’t turn people into sociopaths.

One thing you can do, if you’re into porn, is make sure you’re consuming the work of good companies. Our best advice is to Google the company, and start digging. And look at the porn: do you see performers returning? Does the company include clips of the performers talking about the experience? Does the company proudly record that all performers are over 18? Exploitation happens, but not all companies exploit. Be sure what you’re watching doesn’t. And if you don’t care if it does, ask yourself, seriously, why.

Louisville’s Pride Parade was last Friday!

A homophobic recovery outfit is seeking to expand in the Clifton neighborhood.

Oh, those theocrats: they’re not giving up on the Uganda kill the gays bill. And apparently, neither is Texas. More about this particular conservative lunacy here. Also, Montana fundies are trying to overturn a new gay rights law.

Alert! Knockoff condoms are on the shelves and do not protect you. Another reason to practice safer sex, people.

The FDA has approved ella, a form of emergency contraception effective for five days after the possible conception. Awesome! Anti-choicers are, naturally, mad.

On Yaz? Good news: the generic Gianvi is now available.

Louisiana has passed an ultrasound requirement before getting an abortion. You’d think with the worst environmental disaster in American history on, right at their shores, they’d have better things to worry about than trampling on women’s rights.

The Radiance Foundation perpetuates anti-choice lies.

Lastly, a little more on that philandering evangelical, Mark Souder, who called his affair “torrid”:

In “Lessons from a broken man,” the cover story of the next edition of WORLD, a popular evangelical magazine, Souder offers a number of revealing glimpses into his struggles to stay faithful to his wife, and the political pressure cooker that he says can destroy the Beltway marriages of even the most die-hard believers.

“I prayed multiple times a day, sang hymns with emotion and tears, felt each time that it wouldn’t happen again, read the Bible every morning,” Souder said in one of more than a dozen e-mails to WORLD’s editors. “So how in the world did I have a ‘torrid’ (which is an accurate word) many-year affair? How could I compartmentalize it so much?”

To the evangelical mind–and here, your intrepid Webmistress is speaking from experience, as she was once herself a devout evangelical–this is the portrait of sinful nature. No matter how much good one does or fervent one’s belief, one gives in to sinful desires. I imagine Souder is either wondering why God never delivered him of these desires, or hating himself for being so sinful. As amusing as such scandals are, they are perhaps full of this sort of ontological heartbreak; as glad as I am to see a sex-negative legislator like Souder come crashing down, I feel a certain pity for him. His worldview has failed him. The reality is that most of us are hardwired for lust, and that we shouldn’t feel guilt for it. We should live in a world where this was an accepted fact, and people allowed to make arrangements for it, rather than repress ourselves in shame only to see that repression breed personal hell.

Remember this, dear readers: the theocrats who want to legislate our sex lives don’t believe the wide wonderful diversity of human sexuality is natural. They believe it is transgression against divine law. And even believing this, they cannot control themselves and cannot see the failure of their beliefs for what it is, because this belief has been drilled in so hard it overrides common sense.

ROCK Drinking Game Rules

1 shot for [...]]]> Speaking of turkeys, the ROCK blogger’s at it again. Debunking of this post is here. The ROCK blogger followed up the first Oprah rant here. Since we at PAPER tend to be a little hedonistic, we’ve come up with a drinking game for reading ROCK blog posts—or anything ROCK produces!

ROCK Drinking Game Rules

1 shot for each piece of shoddy logic.
1 shot for each link to a study by a fundie with no scientific credentials.
2 shots for each false dichotomy.
3 shots for each time they act like only men view porn.

Cheers!

[Clips of the show that so irked the ROCK blogger available here.]

And now on to non-ROCK links. The Stupak drama continues: the George Washington University School of Health predicts that the Stupak Amendment would utterly choke abortion access. Jezebel reacts here. And in another cute trick after threatening to cut their charity work if gays are given rights, Patrick Kennedy has been banned from receiving communion because he is pro-choice. Classy.

There is an abortion rights win to report, though: anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers in Baltimore must clearly label themselves as non-abortion providers. Excellent.

Sexism at work: doctors are skeptical about need for drugs that boost female sexual desire.

Here’s a story about someone “transitioning” from porn star to non-porn-star. Also, here’s a followup about the Belle du Jour story from last week—very worth reading.

Color us unsurprised: out in Africa, Rick Warren preaches the homophobia. Meanwhile, a new study finds that homosexuality was not a factor in the infamous abuses by Catholic priests.

Really? Fox tries to say female conservatives are more persecuted than female liberals. Link is to an article showing otherwise, largely because of Fox’s crappy treatment of liberal women.

Cuba is offering free penis implants.

Women should show 40% of their skin to attract a man, says this study. Not sure how well that one holds up!

Here’s something gleeful: check out the ROCK-mocking in this C-J article. ROCK’s radio show continues, and ROCK prez Bryan Wickens got more free press from the Southeast [...]]]> And your intrepid webmistress has news, action alerts, and adventures for you. First off, TOMORROW, 10/28, is National Comprehensive Sex Education Call-In Day. Learn more from the organizers here.

Here’s something gleeful: check out the ROCK-mocking in this C-J article. ROCK’s radio show continues, and ROCK prez Bryan Wickens got more free press from the Southeast Outlook. The radio show is essentially an hour-long advertisement for ROCK—the other “practical solution” Wickens has offered on the show is going into school libraries and asking for books to be removed. Charming. In the SECC article, Wickens reminds us that “‘liberty’ is at the heart of everything,” which is funny, since censorship doesn’t seem much like liberty. Wickens adds that without Judeo-Christian principles this country will be torn apart, and that the country’s “moral decay” is shown by “the need for greater government control.” The article does not seem to be online, but it is nothing more than the usual back-patting incoherence one expects from ROCK. Also, Thursday, 10/29, ROCK will be having an event at Kye’s. Email us at paperkyanaATgmailDOTcom if you want to be involved in counter-activities.

And on to more dumb things: SuperFreakonomics asks why all women don’t become prostitutes. While PAPER wholeheartedly supports sex workers and believes it can be a great career choice, to wonder why all women don’t wander into the field at any level smacks of bad econ, attention-grabbing, and a misogynistic undertone. More here.

About the online prostitution subculture. Rather sex-negative in tone, but a look into how the internet is affecting the world’s oldest profession.

Utter crap: a new documentary says HIV and AIDS aren’t connected.

How do we like our contraception? Well, condoms now rival the Pill.

Snarking sexist shite from Details, Jezebel style.

Excellent and informative: The Pro-Life Pretense, which debunks “pro-life” legislators. This article was heavy on my mind Saturday when I escorted at the abortion clinic; and, I’m pleased to say, your intrepid webmistress’ take on Saturday morning is an editor’s pick at Open Salon.

More abortion links: study on abortion and mental health, and anti-choice FAIL from Law and Order. Seriously, cut the shit, TV shows.

Out of state homophobes again threaten gay marriage. Maine, don’t do another Prop 8!

In better news, hate crimes against gays are now federally prohibited. About time.

Lamda Legal has a new documentary out about getting anti-sodomy laws repealed. More good legal news: ruling eases transgender name change process.

Awesome: William & Mary students have elected a transgender homecoming queen.

Lastly in news: a gallery of photos from the Loveland Park in Korea. Very interesting—we hope to see more!

Lastly: we’ve added links to the blogroll, to the feminism page, and the abortion page.

And a very happy Halloween to you all.

Here’s how anti-choice adoption centers really work.

More on the prostitution debate in Rhode Island.

Great news: Church of England drops case against fetish photographer!

On going to Canada to get married.

Gawker asks if “bonnet porn” can save the publishing industry. If you’ve been in Walmart lately, you [...]]]> Here’s the week in sex rights news on this harmonious date:

Here’s how anti-choice adoption centers really work.

More on the prostitution debate in Rhode Island.

Great news: Church of England drops case against fetish photographer!

On going to Canada to get married.

Gawker asks if “bonnet porn” can save the publishing industry. If you’ve been in Walmart lately, you might have noticed all the Christian romance novels. Apparently that’s a bigger market than I had already imagined. Ah, repression!

Speaking of repression at work, here’s a regular feature at Joe My God listing the week in “holy crimes.” Notice how many involve sex crime.

The theme in this week’s newspost does seem to be religion, doesn’t it? Let’s break down PAPER’s attitude toward religion for anyone concerned.

First, PAPER is not anti-religious, but PAPER is secular. We know too well the importance of separating church and state, and many PAPER members know far too well that religion can be a toxic influence on a life. That said, your religious beliefs are and should be your own—and that means, truly, your own, not the government’s.

We absolutely oppose all policy and law which has only religion or religious tradition as its basis. Religion is very essentially a matter of faith, while policy and law very essentially need to apply to the observable world. Plainly faith and the observable world are removed from each other.

Because PAPER is concerned only with the observable world, PAPER champions science and humanism. On the scientific ground purely religion-based policy or law fails, because religion and science simply aren’t after the same kinds of knowledge. Anti-choicers, for example, tend to be evangelicals, and base their anti-choice views on a Christian notion that God makes no mistakes and therefore no fetus should be aborted. And so, they work to illegalize abortion, and refuse to acknowledge the thousands of circumstances that might make a woman consider an abortion or the harm that comes to women receiving back-alley abortions (remember, illegalizing abortion will never get rid of it). Likewise, stigmatizing homosexuality has not gotten rid of homosexuality—it has only made the lives of homosexuals miserable and denied them their rights. The scientist boggles at the ignorance that strives to illegalize abortion or stigmatize gayness, while the humanist weeps at the total inhumanity of it.

Abortion and gay rights are just two issues—big issues, but only two issues—that sex rights encompasses. Sexuality is a real, observable, and wonderful thing that affects humanity on a profound scale. Its effect is certainly as powerful as religion’s, but constantly sexuality is demonized. To be god-fearing is to be good and upstanding; to be sexual is to be dirty and sinful. We say, this is the 21st century and these notions are ridiculous. Let us make policy and law based on what we can observe and verify, and let religion breathe outside the confines of politics.

So, we at PAPER welcome everyone, of any faith. We are not interested in destroying religion. We only ask that you keep your religion out of policy and law, and we will keep our policy and law out of your religion.

One of the arguments I hear most often used in defense of pornography, prostitution, and the [...]]]> … so we’re going to commence deconstructing the newest post by Bill Womack right now. (Not going to bother commenting directly on the ROCK blog after the last little go-round.) This little gem of refusing to think critically begins thus:

One of the arguments I hear most often used in defense of pornography, prostitution, and the sex industry is, “If adults want to do or view that stuff, what’s the big deal? Nobody’s getting hurt.” For folks who really believe that, there is a very sobering article from National Review Online that is worth a read. To summarize: Rhode Island decriminalized prostitution in 1980. In the ensuing decades (and especially in recent years) the state’s sex industry has flourished, but apparently at least in part due to human trafficking. Young women, and oftentimes teenage girls, are being coerced or lured into “Asian massage parlors” or strip clubs (which often double as brothels) and are enslaved into prostitution.

First, let’s be really, really clear, once again. No decent people, which includes PLENTY of sex-positive people and sex industry advocates, are okay with exploitation. Human trafficking is a horrible, horrible thing, and it’s a horrible person that trafficks a fellow human being. All clear? Good. Now, let’s note that Rhode Island decriminalized prostitution because prostitutes lobbied for the state to do so. Interesting, huh?

The National Review article continues essentially to say that prostitution needs to be illegalized, but never addresses how that will help or harm sex workers who’ve chosen the profession. Likewise, it never addresses that human trafficking is hard to prosecute everywhere in this country, in part because it’s a fairly recently recognized issue and because victims have such difficulty coming forward. What we need are strong laws that recognize trafficking as a crime. The article says that for laws against trafficking to work, there must be anti-prostitution laws too—why? The authors cite trafficking in RI as if it were obvious proof, ignoring or dismissing other interpretations or, really, nuanced thought on the matter.

Of course, the ACLU is arguing against illegalizing prostitution. Writes Womack:

… trafficking has become a political football being tossed back and forth between those who want more enforcement, and groups like the state ACLU chapter who oppose prostitution criminalization on “ideological grounds.” I’d really like to see an ACLU elitist try to explain “sex-positive values” and “the freedom to choose” to the bleeding, 16-year-old Boston girl mentioned in the article. Or her family.

“Enforcement” is a tricky word. Let’s be clear again: the ACLU works against human trafficking. Prostitution is illegal because of prudery, plain and simple; regulate it well, and it’s just another industry. And let’s remember that the world’s oldest profession will never go away. It may go underground, and heaven help anyone caught in it then. Same phenomenon as back-alley abortions.

Oh, and calling the ACLU elitist never gets old, I suppose. This is because the ACLU is run by educated people and works on behalf of minorities. Well, just to be clear (again!), sex-positive people, and I’m pretty sure the ACLU, would be horrified by what happened to the girl. Sex-positivity is NOT about approving of any form of sexual activity, it’s about removing the stigma from sex and sexuality. “The freedom to choose,” as Womack seems to mean here, refers to the choices consenting adults make. But that’s apparently more than ROCK can understand.

Moving on:

The Rhode Island story, while profoundly disturbing, is also instructive. I look at Rhode Island and I see Louisville and southern Indiana on a slippery slope towards that future several years ago… Thankfully, a group of concerned citizens finally said, “Enough!” and started asking questions. Why are these places allowed to run rampant? Why don’t they have to conform to zoning and health code ordinances like other businesses do? What can we do to restrain the deleterious effects of these establishments, such as reduced property values, increased ancillary crime such as racketeering, drug use, and prostitution?

… notice how Womack asks for proper regulation, which is actually all I’m—and the ACLU, and prostitutes, and victims of exploitation—are asking for? What ROCK actually wanted, and continues to work toward, however, is to remove the adult industry from town. Big difference, that. One goal acknowledges certain basic realities and tries to protect everyone involved; the other establishes a backward Puritanical precedent that ignores what’ll happen if the adult industry is forced underground.

Womack then gets saucy and asks, “Why aren’t more people aware of the causal connection between pornography and trafficking, rape, and other sex crimes?” and links this idiotic article by Janice Shaw Crouse, noted antifeminist fundie from Concerned Women for America. True to form, there’s no science and really pitiful logic abounds; Womack must not have noticed how scathing most of the comments are. Yet again, let us note that genuine science has never found a causal link between porn and abuse and that genuine science actually shows that porn may reduce rape.

There’s a bunch of praise-singing for ROCK before Womack concludes,

The only people having fun are the predators who line their pockets with the profits from objectified men, women, and children, broken families and compromised communities. In Louisville and southern Indiana, our eyes are wide open. As long as places like Theatair X exist and perpetuate their lies, ROCK and concern citizens will be here to debunk them.

Well, actually, it’s pretty obvious there have been loads of happy customers, and that most porn users aren’t addicts or abusers. The adult industry and its consumers aren’t inherently predatory, though ROCK doesn’t seem capable of grasping that.

And ROCK, please, really, do debunk something about sex, sexuality, or the adult industry. We’d still love to see it. Do you understand what debunking is? It’s when you use solid evidence to prove your point. You link to studies by real scientists, not ideologues. You have to be able to understand all aspects of the issue and be able to address them clearly and coherently. You use logic and sense, not scare tactics and disingenuous conflations.

I guess a real debunking probably is too much to ask.

(X-posted from The Reverie and the Reality.)