Sex In The Public Square - Comments

PASS or Social Welfare Reform?

Elizabeth — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:17:25 -0700

In reply to Jill and Phil Fell Down the Hill:

Ney's material seems to indicate at least three different populations that can be thought of as having PASS. One is women who have had abortions. Another population is children of women who have had abortions. Another is people who grew up in societies where abortion is "rampant":

When up to 50 percent of North American pregnancies end by induced abortion, it is reasonable to consider a live newborn as a survivor. In any situation where a mother, spouse, grandparent or physician has seriously deliberated abortion, the live child has survived a carefully considered option to destroy him. In those few situations where a live aborted infant has been given adequate medical care, he has survived a highly technical assault on his life. (link)

Aside from the last sentence, which would seem to be an argument for universal health care, I'm not sure there is anything sane in that paragraph. Instead of diagnosing individuals with PASS, why don't we focus on diagnosing a sick society and treating it with universal health care, adequate income protections, and a guarantee of fully civil rights including reproductive freedom and high quality education for all?

I think "PASS" refers to when

Visitor — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:11:53 -0700

In reply to Jill and Phil Fell Down the Hill:

I think "PASS" refers to when someone gets an abortion, it's a traumatic experience for them and their families, and many of them feel guilty about it afterwards. Which is actually a semi-valid claim, as it does happen sometimes. But most people who would make that claim usually seem to be acting as if severe trauma and guilt, the type that needs major counseling or clinical intervention, is the most common result of having an abortion - which is not true. The most common result is regret in it having been necessary, which can be dealt with on one's own and doesn't cause any lasting mental problems, plus relief that they don't need to deal with an unwanted child.

Title: Some more acronyms

Visitor — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:02:02 -0700

In reply to Jill and Phil Fell Down the Hill:

Title: Some more acronyms for Dr. Ney Body: From Dr. Ney's web site:

The Hope Alive Program deals with men and women who suffer from PAS ( Post Abortion Syndrome), children and adults who have PASS (Post Abortion Survivor Syndrome) and men who are affected by LOPS (Lack of Partner Support) and everyone damaged by mistreatment especially childhood abuse and neglect (CAN).

Some more acronyms:

MUS (Making Up Stuff)

FB (Forced Birthers)

---PASS (Post Abortion Survivor Syndrome)---

WTF is that?

Body freedom and feminisms

Michael — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:23:00 -0700

In reply to Swimming naked: A declaration of independence :

It is of interest that such issues of body freedeom are barely within the scope of North American feminisms, or at least low on their sense of priorities.

This is in contrast to a number of European countries. In self-styled gender-neutral Sweden Bara Bröst, a militant feminist group have been campaigning for some years to have gender neutral regulations around swimwear, and recently won another victory in the city of Malmö .

A similar group in France, Les Tumultueuses, have stated that "C'est une action pour dénoncer la différence de traitement entre hommes et femmes, le corps des femmes étant systématiquement considéré comme plus sexuel que celui des hommes, et soumis à des normes de beauté" (this is an action to condemn the difference in treatment between men and women, women's bodies are routinely considered more sexual than men, and subject to standards of beauty). One of their manifestos is titled "Mon corps si je veux, quand je veux, tel qu'il est" (My Body If I Want When I Want, As It Is). They contrast this with the objectification of women's bodies.

Finland, in the sauna tradition, prohibits all swimwear in the public swimming pool in Helsinki, although the genders are separated into two separate pools. In Canada numerous court cases have established women's right to not be discriminated against in relation to swimwear.

Assertion #9

Elizabeth — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:11:30 -0700

In reply to Jill and Phil Fell Down the Hill:

For all that there is to dislike about Ney, and there is a great deal, I really was intrigued by his assertion #9:

9) There is nothing in sex education that cannot be part of a more effective general health education. Everything of value in sex education can be integrated with the necessary knowledge of how the body and mind work. We found that by using the young person's curiosity and letting them discover how their heart, lungs etc. work, gives them a natural desire to protect something very precious - their body and mind.

Indeed! It is an excellent idea to incorporate sexuality education into health education from the early grades through adult continuing education. Health includes sexual health. That we might decide toprotect our precious minds and bodies should not deter us from good comprehensive health education that includes medically accurate, research-based sexuality education that is not made misleading by ideologically driven agendas.

I also thought his assertion #14 was interesting, and I think you are absolutely right to point out the "tell" in it. But I also think there is a place where some of us on this side would agree with Ney: Chastity education does seem to give the impression that the only sex that "counts as sex" is penis-in-vagina intercourse, and since "protection" is learned as a part of "sex", anything that is not "sex" may perhaps be assumed, incorrectly, not to require any protection.

To be clear: I find Ney's positions and his methods ridiculous. So it's all the more interesting to think there are a few narrow places where we actually agree on a few things ;)

Speak Up! Media Training Materials Online

Elizabeth — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:59:00 -0700

In reply to Sex workers and the media:

Caroline, thank you for the post. It reminds me to remind everyone else that Sex Work Awareness's media training materials are available online

I disagree

Lou FCD — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:24:00 -0700

In reply to Swimming naked: A declaration of independence :

I don't think showing off your sexual organs in public places is ever going to become popular.

Pessimist.

It provokes a sexual response in the viewer with no possibility of outlet, thus causing anger.

This comment reminds me of the debacle in Richmond KY, and smacks of blaming the victim, TigerTom.

I have very little experience of public nudism, but would it be fair to say that there are very few young people with handsome bodies doing it?

No, it would not. What difference does that make?

It's mainly old folk with withered bodies.

As I mentioned, that's not the case. And further, that's not only subjective (who gets to decide whose body is too "withered"?), but inherently rather arrogant, don't you think? Do I get to pass judgement on your body? (Don't worry, I happen to think the human form is beautiful in its all of its natural states.)

Also: so?

Plus, the voyeurs. The nudist is defenceless and naked, while _they_ are fully-clothed. Not good.

Why not? Define "good". Seems like people who choose to go without clothes would logically not mind being seen naked. It sort of follows, y'know?

So, aesthetically, emotionally and strategically, I say, cover up yer bits!

And we should all just do what TigerTom says because ...

I really hate to break it to you, TigerTom, but not everyone exists to please your delicate sensibilities. Just a thought.

Nay to NayNey

Lou FCD — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:04:06 -0700

In reply to Jill and Phil Fell Down the Hill:

It is interesting, Lorna. The original intent of this article was to speak to Stanek's nonsense in that blog post, and I intended to address her other bleatings appearing elsewhere on her blog. Once I got to digging into her support (and I use that term in its loosest sense) for that one post, the focus was sort of changed for me.

She seems little more than a mouthpiece for the religious opinions of others, with no inclination whatever to think about what she parrots before mindlessly repeating it. As such, I would see little point in continuing to bother with her at all except that apparently when she parrots a lot of people parrot her. It's a very strange echo chamber of vacuity.

As for Ney, yes. He should be aware of many things that he is seemingly not. Given the size of his personal Morton's Demon however, it's unsurprising that he's willing to pontificate so authoritatively without even a whisper of rational thought or evidence in areas in which by all indications he is either willingly ignorant or grossly misinformed. This is not at all unusual from the Religious Right.

Saying Nay to Ney

Lorna — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:47:03 -0700

In reply to Jill and Phil Fell Down the Hill:

It's interesting how we can read Jill Stanek's post on sex ed and youth and then find ourselves focused on Philip Ney. When I first read Stanek's piece on sex ed, I dismissed her as "pro-life" and insular in her thinking.

Then, I wondered about the Canadian psychiatrist, Philip Ney. I am ashamed to say both lost my interest when I noted their entrenched Christian beliefs and I looked no further than the "messengers2" site. I'm glad, LouFCD, you have a more inquiring mind!

It's unfortunate that I equate strong religious beliefs with a narrow outlook on how one is "permitted" to live life. This outlook seems to include issues with sexuality and how this sexuality may be expressed. I have friends who have a strong faith in God. I appreciate these friends because they don't make any attempt to inquire as to my beliefs nor do they attempt to "convert" me.

I believe each of us is entitled to our own beliefs and to live our lives in whatever manner we choose, as long as we respect the right of others to do the same. Granted, what goes along with this belief is responsibility, our lifestyle and our choices must not hurt or undermine others. Essentially, treat others as you would like them to treat you.

Ney, as a psychiatrist, has to be aware of the importance of substantiating research and findings. I doubt he would have earned his medical degree if he didn't. I'm guessing he knows what audience he's targeting and knows that placing an alphabet soup after his name and stating he's a psychiatrist will give him credibility with the sheep.

Ney uses emotion and rhetoric in an attempt to validate his personal beliefs. Each of us is entitled to our personal beliefs, but it seems unprofessional to me for Ney to use his understanding of human nature to influence his audience. I'd have some respect for Ney, if he made an effort to back up his personal beliefs with some scientific evidence.

And, for the record, we need sex education in schools! Children and youth will not be undermined through a sound education in safer sex, STIs, understanding their bodies, interpersonal relationships, choices in birth control ... whatever information the students ask to be made available to them.

The youth/students are the ones who know what information they need in order to stay healthy and safe. They know what information they need in order to make informed choices about their lives.

Problematic assumptions about nudity

Elizabeth — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:22:28 -0700

In reply to Swimming naked: A declaration of independence :

TigerTom, there are several problematic assumptions behind your comment.

First, it seems problematic to assume that seeing a person's breasts or penis or vulva is likely to provoke a sexual response in the viewer. This may happen sometimes and not others, but it hardly seems inevitable. Only in the cases where the viewer found the person they were seeing attractive would it seem likely.

Second, to imagine that there is "no possibility of outlet" also seems problematic. There may be no immediate outlet, but how many of us need immediate satisfaction of all our urges all the time?

Third, to worry that there are very few young people with handsome bodies doing it would seem in conflict with your first concern about sexual arousal. More importantly, "young" and "handsome" are very subjective terms. And would a wider range of people be interested if there were fewer prohibitions against it? On what do you base the guess that "it's mainly old folk with withered bodies"? (Many "old folk" I know have lovely bodies, by the way!)

Now, about the voyeurs. Voyeurs usually watch. That's why they're called voyeurs. If a person is being naked in public I can't imagine that they are objecting to being seen. So what are they defenseless against?

If there is a threat of violence I doubt that it comes from voyeurs. It is more likely to come from those who feel compelled to force their will on others. Does that compulsion, or the inability to control it, come from seeing people naked? I don't think so.