Suggests something I've wondered about for years...
Psychiatry Ponders Whether Extreme Bias Can Be an Illness
By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 10, 2005; Page A01
The 48-year-old man turned down a job because he feared that a co-worker would be gay. He was upset that gay culture was becoming mainstream and blamed most of his personal, professional and emotional problems on the gay and lesbian movement.
These fixations preoccupied him every day. Articles in magazines about gays made him agitated. He confessed that his fears had left him socially isolated and unemployed for years: A recovering alcoholic, the man even avoided 12-step meetings out of fear he might encounter a gay person.
*****
Mental health practitioners say they regularly confront extreme forms of racism, homophobia and other prejudice in the course of therapy, and that some patients are disabled by these beliefs. As doctors increasingly weigh the effects of race and culture on mental illness, some are asking whether pathological bias ought to be an official psychiatric diagnosis.
*****
It would be truly ironic if this amounts to something. Recently, the Holy Terrors have been falling back on the old claim that homosexuality is the mental disorder. Next thing you know, they'll be arguing that a woman's orgasm is a sign she's a witch.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
From Nov. 2005..more on being gay, gay, gay
From Nov. 2005
All Worked Up About Conversion Therapy
by J.T. Benjamin
copr. 2005
In case you didn't know, or knew but had simply forgotten, a couple of months ago I came to the startling conclusion that I must be gay. I'd gone to the website of Focus On The Family, read the section titled, "Helping Boys Become Men, And Girls Become Women," and took a good, hard look at my own childhood. Based on their criteria, I showed all the signs of "gender confusion" as a kid and that, as a
result, I must be gay. I don't understand why I still lust for women in all their glorious looks, moves, colors, shapes, and forms, but it does explain my
longtime desire to play the Emcee role in my local theater group's production of "Cabaret."
Still, it ain't easy being gay. Certain segments of society don't want you teaching their kids, serving your country, or entertaining you on stage and screen. They don't even want to sell you a used car. Hell, some prominent religious figures and politicians have even blamed gay people for the destruction wreaked by Hurricane Katrina. Something about God's wrath for New Orleans' decadent, permissive lifestyle. How would you like THAT bit of guilt around your neck?
So I kept reading the information on the Focus On The Family's website, and it turns out they advocate a form of "conversion" or "reparative" therapy to turn people from gay to straight. I figured, what the heck. I'll give it a try. I did a little homework and here's how my initial conversation with a conversion therapist might go.
*****
So, Mr. Benjamin, if you'll just pay your retainer check we'll banish those nasty homosexual tendencies and have you watching football and drinking beer on the couch in no time.
Uh, just a minute, Doctor...Kuvacky. I hope I said that right. I still have a couple of questions. How's this work again?
It's very simple. Homosexuality is a mental health disorder. As such, it can be treated through therapy so that your homosexual tendencies can be curbed or
stifled, and you can then engage in a normal, heterosexual lifestyle.
Actually, I did some reading on that. The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of disorders in 1973. It seems this woman named
Evelyn Hooker studied psychological tests of groups of homosexual and heterosexual men and she found out there was no difference between the psychological makeups of the two groups. The APA decided if gay men didn't act like they suffered from a disorder, homosexuality shouldn't be considered a disorder.
Well, Mr. Benjamin, what the APA didn't take into account was the fact that homosexuality is ITSELF the disorder they're looking for, so it's no wonder they
noticed no difference.
I see.
Anyway, it's well known that homosexual lobbying groups pressured the APA to remove homosexuality from the list of disorders. Now, if you'll just sign that check...
They did? Is that a common practice in the psychiatric community? Do schitzophrenics lobby the APA to remove multiple personality disorders from the
list? Do manic depressives lobby to remove bi-polar disorders from the list?
Mr. Benjamin, we're getting off the subject, here, namely your desire to be heterosexual.
That's right. I've got another question. How successful is this treatment overall?
There's a long list of testimonials to the treatment's effectiveness. On Dr. Dobson's website, he says there are more than eight hundred success stories.
I saw that. Any names? Reports? The website didn't provide any documentation or references.
Uh, not that I'm aware of. Still, eight hundred successful treatments is very impressive, don't you think?
Well, it depends. How many people actually tried the treatment? If the treatment has a ninety-percent success rate or even seventy-five percent, that is
impressive. But if it's less than, say, fifty percent, that's not so hot, wouldn't you say?
Uhh, Mr. Benjamin...
Actually, I took the liberty of doing some research on that question, myself. In a 1999 article in Angles, The Policy Journal of The Institute For Gay And
Lesbian Strategic Studies, Dr. Douglas C. Haldeman, PhD cites several studies which show conversion therapy success rates somewhere between twenty-five and thirty-eight percent. So taking Dr. Dobson at his word, eight hundred success stories mean at least sixteen hundred failures for the treatment. Dr. Haldeman also talks about the fact that most of the "success" stories documented in the studies were of
bisexual men, not homosexuals. Don't you think that's fudging the numbers a bit? Counting a bisexual man as a success when he was already leaning in that direction?
You seem like a "glass-is-half-empty" type of person, Mr. Benjamin. All this emphasis on failure. We'll have to work on that. There are plenty of
testimonials from many, many successful patients of the treatment.
I noticed that. I read some of them. Virtually all of these success stories are from men. And they all seem to be heavy-duty fundamentalist Christian men,
too. A lot of talk about prayer and Bible study.
Prayer's a very powerful tool, Mr. Benjamin.
But if I'm a Buddhist or a Muslim or a woman, am I shit out of luck?
You're not a woman, Mr. Benjamin, this is where the gender confusion comes in. We need to get started right away, it seems.
And what about long-term success? What're the chances that if I go through treatment and I'm cured, that I won't fall off the wagon again in the future?
You seem to have the answers to your own questions before you ask them, Mr. Benjamin, so why don't you tell me?
Dr. Haldeman reviewed several conversion therapy studies in 1994 and he found that not one could claim any substantial rate of long-term success. In fact,
one religious-based program reported that more than ninety percent of the "successfully treated" subjects had continued to have homosexual fantasies and
behavior after treatment was completed. If you were "converted" to heterosexuality, should that be happening?
Uh, Mr. Benjamin...
Can you cite one objective study which shows this therapy actually works?
Conversion therapy has a track record...
The American Psychiatric Association has denounced conversion therapy.
As we discussed earlier, the homosexual lobby has...
So has the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, The American Federation of Teachers..."
Mr. Benjamin...
The National Education Assocation...
Mr. Benjamin!
The Royal College of Nursing......
What about all those successfully treated people Dr. Dobson refers to? Are they liars?
Not at all. If they're genuinely happier for having gone through conversion treatment, more power to them. I won't begrudge anybody their happiness. But even
placebos can have beneficial effects. And I'm just wondering how many of those success stories are of people who've genuinely gone from gay to straight, and
how many just SAY they're happier as heterosexuals, just to get the pressure off. And how many more have said, "This is bullshit. I'm outta here?"
Mr. Benjamin, the ink in that pen's going to dry out if you don't...
And the peer pressure must be enormous, don't you think? Especially coming from Dr. Dobson's crowd. They say homosexuals are an abomination. The worst of the worst. Responsible for all kinds of bad things, from 9-11 to AIDS to hurricanes. If you wanted to get out from under that kind of heat, you'd say just about anything, wouldn't you, Doctor? In fact, I've got just one more question for you.
(Sigh). Go ahead.
Why do the same people who call homosexuality a mental health disorder call homosexuals evil and an abomination? If they're mentally ill, they can't be
held responsible for being sick, can they? That's like calling someone evil for contracting cancer or for having depression.
Mr. Benjamin, I think it's clear we're both wasting our time, here. You're not really interested in treatment.
I guess you're right. If I don't want to spend time and money on a treatment that has no record of working on a disorder that's not a disorder, and which has
been denounced by every reputable psychiatric and psychological association in the country, yeah. I'm not interested. Sorry to have wasted your time, Dr.
Kuvacky. Did I say that right?
Actually, the name's C-V-A-C-Q-U-E. The "V" is pronounced like a "W." And there's no "Y" on the end.
Your name's pronounced, "quack?"
Yes, Mr. Benjamin. As in a duck.
I was thinking more as in, "fraudulent charlatan hawking cockamamie hare-brained pseudo-psychological bullshit."
Mr. Benjamin, are you calling conversion therapy some kind of snake-oil?
Hey, if it cvacques like a duck...
All Worked Up About Conversion Therapy
by J.T. Benjamin
copr. 2005
In case you didn't know, or knew but had simply forgotten, a couple of months ago I came to the startling conclusion that I must be gay. I'd gone to the website of Focus On The Family, read the section titled, "Helping Boys Become Men, And Girls Become Women," and took a good, hard look at my own childhood. Based on their criteria, I showed all the signs of "gender confusion" as a kid and that, as a
result, I must be gay. I don't understand why I still lust for women in all their glorious looks, moves, colors, shapes, and forms, but it does explain my
longtime desire to play the Emcee role in my local theater group's production of "Cabaret."
Still, it ain't easy being gay. Certain segments of society don't want you teaching their kids, serving your country, or entertaining you on stage and screen. They don't even want to sell you a used car. Hell, some prominent religious figures and politicians have even blamed gay people for the destruction wreaked by Hurricane Katrina. Something about God's wrath for New Orleans' decadent, permissive lifestyle. How would you like THAT bit of guilt around your neck?
So I kept reading the information on the Focus On The Family's website, and it turns out they advocate a form of "conversion" or "reparative" therapy to turn people from gay to straight. I figured, what the heck. I'll give it a try. I did a little homework and here's how my initial conversation with a conversion therapist might go.
*****
So, Mr. Benjamin, if you'll just pay your retainer check we'll banish those nasty homosexual tendencies and have you watching football and drinking beer on the couch in no time.
Uh, just a minute, Doctor...Kuvacky. I hope I said that right. I still have a couple of questions. How's this work again?
It's very simple. Homosexuality is a mental health disorder. As such, it can be treated through therapy so that your homosexual tendencies can be curbed or
stifled, and you can then engage in a normal, heterosexual lifestyle.
Actually, I did some reading on that. The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of disorders in 1973. It seems this woman named
Evelyn Hooker studied psychological tests of groups of homosexual and heterosexual men and she found out there was no difference between the psychological makeups of the two groups. The APA decided if gay men didn't act like they suffered from a disorder, homosexuality shouldn't be considered a disorder.
Well, Mr. Benjamin, what the APA didn't take into account was the fact that homosexuality is ITSELF the disorder they're looking for, so it's no wonder they
noticed no difference.
I see.
Anyway, it's well known that homosexual lobbying groups pressured the APA to remove homosexuality from the list of disorders. Now, if you'll just sign that check...
They did? Is that a common practice in the psychiatric community? Do schitzophrenics lobby the APA to remove multiple personality disorders from the
list? Do manic depressives lobby to remove bi-polar disorders from the list?
Mr. Benjamin, we're getting off the subject, here, namely your desire to be heterosexual.
That's right. I've got another question. How successful is this treatment overall?
There's a long list of testimonials to the treatment's effectiveness. On Dr. Dobson's website, he says there are more than eight hundred success stories.
I saw that. Any names? Reports? The website didn't provide any documentation or references.
Uh, not that I'm aware of. Still, eight hundred successful treatments is very impressive, don't you think?
Well, it depends. How many people actually tried the treatment? If the treatment has a ninety-percent success rate or even seventy-five percent, that is
impressive. But if it's less than, say, fifty percent, that's not so hot, wouldn't you say?
Uhh, Mr. Benjamin...
Actually, I took the liberty of doing some research on that question, myself. In a 1999 article in Angles, The Policy Journal of The Institute For Gay And
Lesbian Strategic Studies, Dr. Douglas C. Haldeman, PhD cites several studies which show conversion therapy success rates somewhere between twenty-five and thirty-eight percent. So taking Dr. Dobson at his word, eight hundred success stories mean at least sixteen hundred failures for the treatment. Dr. Haldeman also talks about the fact that most of the "success" stories documented in the studies were of
bisexual men, not homosexuals. Don't you think that's fudging the numbers a bit? Counting a bisexual man as a success when he was already leaning in that direction?
You seem like a "glass-is-half-empty" type of person, Mr. Benjamin. All this emphasis on failure. We'll have to work on that. There are plenty of
testimonials from many, many successful patients of the treatment.
I noticed that. I read some of them. Virtually all of these success stories are from men. And they all seem to be heavy-duty fundamentalist Christian men,
too. A lot of talk about prayer and Bible study.
Prayer's a very powerful tool, Mr. Benjamin.
But if I'm a Buddhist or a Muslim or a woman, am I shit out of luck?
You're not a woman, Mr. Benjamin, this is where the gender confusion comes in. We need to get started right away, it seems.
And what about long-term success? What're the chances that if I go through treatment and I'm cured, that I won't fall off the wagon again in the future?
You seem to have the answers to your own questions before you ask them, Mr. Benjamin, so why don't you tell me?
Dr. Haldeman reviewed several conversion therapy studies in 1994 and he found that not one could claim any substantial rate of long-term success. In fact,
one religious-based program reported that more than ninety percent of the "successfully treated" subjects had continued to have homosexual fantasies and
behavior after treatment was completed. If you were "converted" to heterosexuality, should that be happening?
Uh, Mr. Benjamin...
Can you cite one objective study which shows this therapy actually works?
Conversion therapy has a track record...
The American Psychiatric Association has denounced conversion therapy.
As we discussed earlier, the homosexual lobby has...
So has the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, The American Federation of Teachers..."
Mr. Benjamin...
The National Education Assocation...
Mr. Benjamin!
The Royal College of Nursing......
What about all those successfully treated people Dr. Dobson refers to? Are they liars?
Not at all. If they're genuinely happier for having gone through conversion treatment, more power to them. I won't begrudge anybody their happiness. But even
placebos can have beneficial effects. And I'm just wondering how many of those success stories are of people who've genuinely gone from gay to straight, and
how many just SAY they're happier as heterosexuals, just to get the pressure off. And how many more have said, "This is bullshit. I'm outta here?"
Mr. Benjamin, the ink in that pen's going to dry out if you don't...
And the peer pressure must be enormous, don't you think? Especially coming from Dr. Dobson's crowd. They say homosexuals are an abomination. The worst of the worst. Responsible for all kinds of bad things, from 9-11 to AIDS to hurricanes. If you wanted to get out from under that kind of heat, you'd say just about anything, wouldn't you, Doctor? In fact, I've got just one more question for you.
(Sigh). Go ahead.
Why do the same people who call homosexuality a mental health disorder call homosexuals evil and an abomination? If they're mentally ill, they can't be
held responsible for being sick, can they? That's like calling someone evil for contracting cancer or for having depression.
Mr. Benjamin, I think it's clear we're both wasting our time, here. You're not really interested in treatment.
I guess you're right. If I don't want to spend time and money on a treatment that has no record of working on a disorder that's not a disorder, and which has
been denounced by every reputable psychiatric and psychological association in the country, yeah. I'm not interested. Sorry to have wasted your time, Dr.
Kuvacky. Did I say that right?
Actually, the name's C-V-A-C-Q-U-E. The "V" is pronounced like a "W." And there's no "Y" on the end.
Your name's pronounced, "quack?"
Yes, Mr. Benjamin. As in a duck.
I was thinking more as in, "fraudulent charlatan hawking cockamamie hare-brained pseudo-psychological bullshit."
Mr. Benjamin, are you calling conversion therapy some kind of snake-oil?
Hey, if it cvacques like a duck...
Gay Cooties! Gay Cooties!
A reprint from Sept 2005
ALL WORKED UP ABOUT GAY COOTIES
By J.T. Benjamin
Copr. 2005
After all these years, the truth can finally come out.
As the father of four, I’m always on the lookout for
resources that will help me be a better parent.
That’s why I read with great interest an article
called “Helping Boys Become Men, and Girls Become
Women” at www.focusonyourchild.com
/develop/art1/A0000684.html. The article discusses
how many children can suffer from “gender confusion”
between the ages of 5 and ll years of age. I found
myself recalling my own childhood as I read the
following list of “evidences” of such gender
confusion:
1. A strong feeling that they are “different” from
other boys. (Hm. I was younger, smaller, and
scrawnier than most of my peers. Smarter, too. Being
astonishingly, painfully shy at that age, I was much
happier reading in my room than trying to fit in with
the other boys. Sure made me feel different).
2. A tendency to cry easily, be less athletic, and
dislike the roughhousing that other boys enjoy. (Hm
again. When I DID interact with other boys, we’d most
often play a friendly little game called “pinata.”
Guess who got regularly whacked with the stick. The
second most popular game we played was “punching
bag.”)
3. A persistent preference to play female roles in
make-believe play. (When I played make-believe, it
was most often alone in my room, so I played ALL the
roles.)
4. A strong preference to spend time in the company of
girls and participate in their games and other
pastimes. (Well, yeah! They didn’t try to beat me
up! Plus, they smelled nice and I got a tingly, fun
feeling in my stomach when one of them would smile at
me or hold my hand.)
5. A susceptibility to be bullied by other boys, who
may tease them unmercifully and call them “queer,”
“fag”, and “gay.” (My God. That sentence just
described my entire existence from the ages of 5 to
10).
6. A tendency to walk, talk, dress, and even “think”
effeminately. (Let’s see. I had a high-pitched
voice, I had a large vocabulary for my age group, I
was well-mannered and “a sensitive child,” and, to
quote Jason Wallace just after he caught me behind the
monkey bars and just before the first of many punches
to my undersized gut, “Gee, kid! You run like a
girl!” I confess that when I was seven years old, I
once put on the underwear of one of my classmates,
Trudy Francis. In my defense, it was an honest
mistake; she’d accidentally put on my
Fruit-of-the-looms. We were playing “I’ll show you
mine if you show me yours” and in the excitement of
the moment, we both got a little distracted.)
7. A repeatedly stated desire to be—or insistence that
he is—a girl. Not guilty. Still, six out of seven is
an ominous sign.
I can only come to one conclusion from this little
self-test. I must be a homosexual. When I was a kid,
I apparently suffered from an undiagnosed, scorching
case of gender confusion and it turned me gay as a
quiche.
Oh, sure, I’ve repressed my homosexuality well. I’ve
married a woman and fathered four kids, I drink beer,
I can’t dance worth a damn and I’ve memorized the
teams, final scores, and MVPs of every single Super
Bowl ever played. I haven’t just been in de-closet,
I’ve been in de-nial.
The only thing I don’t understand is why all this
time, I’ve only EVER been interested in having sex
with women. Men do nothing for me. Not even Brad
Pitt. Oh, well. Nobody’s perfect.
The “Focus On Your Child’ website is managed by the
Focus On The Family organization. In case you didn’t
know, or knew but had simply forgotten, FOTF is one of
the most influential lobbying groups for the Christian
Right, whom I’ve dubbed the “Holy Terrors.” FOTF has
spearheaded movements to introduce Intelligent Design,
prayer, Abstinence Only education in schools, and, of
course, anything anti-gay. FOTF is a big-time
opponent of same-sex marriage, AIDS education, and
anti-gay discrimination laws, and anything looking,
sounding, smelling, or being even remotely homosexual
in nature. This group got pissed off because Ellen
Degeneris did the voice of “Dorrie” in the Disney
film, “Finding Nemo.” They seem to be afraid that any
contact whatsoever a homosexual person will spread an
epidemic of “Gay Cooties.”
Homosexuality is, in the eyes of the FOTF and of the
Holy Terrors in general, one of the worst of the worst
in terms of the degeneration of this Great Nation.
Homosexuality isn’t just a “lifestyle choice,” it’s a
mental illness. Seriously.
The article refers to homosexuality as a “disorder.”
Since it’s a disorder, it can therefore be treated and
cured. This is, sadly, not a new belief. The
American Psychiatric Association had homosexuality
listed as a disorder in their “Diagnostic And
Statistical Manual” until 1973. Back in the “good old
days,” homosexuality was “treated” with incarceration,
involuntary commitment to mental hospitals,
castration, genital mutilation, hysterectomies,
electroshock treatments, and even lobotomies.
Small wonder so many homosexual people have been “in
the closet” all these years. They’ve been afraid for
their sanity, their bodies, and their very lives.
Nowadays, in more “enlightened times,” a qualified
therapist can “treat” homosexuality with what’s called
“conversion” or “repairative” therapy. I’ll discuss
that in more detail next month. For now, I want to
say I haven’t decided whether to pursue therapy for
myself just yet.
To be honest, I have a few doubts about the legitimacy
of those “evidences” I discussed earlier as signs that
I’m gay. I find it interesting that the little test
I’ve taken exploits a lot of misconceptions about the
differences between “gay” and “straight” behavior.
“Normal” boys roughhouse and play sports.
“Effeminate” behavior (including crying) in boys is a
bad sign. So is being un-athletic, quiet, feeling
“different”, and wanting to associate with members of
the opposite sex. Cross-dressers tend to be
homosexuals, and vice versa. The urge to “be” a
member of the opposite sex is equivalent to being gay.
Having a kid who torments other kids and calls them
“faggot” and “queer,” (the elementary school version
of “gay-bashing”) isn’t nearly as alarming as having a
kid who’s on the receiving end of the punches and the
teasing, since that’s a sign that kid might turn gay
as a result. The Holy Terrors seem to be more alarmed
with children growing up gay than they are with
children growing up to be bullies.
Ultimately, I’m just a little skeptical that I caught
a case of the Gay Cooties as a result of my traumatic
childhood. I just don’t FEEL like I’m suffering from
a mental disorder.
Plus, I’m still baffled by that whole
“only-attracted-to-women” thing.
ALL WORKED UP ABOUT GAY COOTIES
By J.T. Benjamin
Copr. 2005
After all these years, the truth can finally come out.
As the father of four, I’m always on the lookout for
resources that will help me be a better parent.
That’s why I read with great interest an article
called “Helping Boys Become Men, and Girls Become
Women” at www.focusonyourchild.com
/develop/art1/A0000684.html. The article discusses
how many children can suffer from “gender confusion”
between the ages of 5 and ll years of age. I found
myself recalling my own childhood as I read the
following list of “evidences” of such gender
confusion:
1. A strong feeling that they are “different” from
other boys. (Hm. I was younger, smaller, and
scrawnier than most of my peers. Smarter, too. Being
astonishingly, painfully shy at that age, I was much
happier reading in my room than trying to fit in with
the other boys. Sure made me feel different).
2. A tendency to cry easily, be less athletic, and
dislike the roughhousing that other boys enjoy. (Hm
again. When I DID interact with other boys, we’d most
often play a friendly little game called “pinata.”
Guess who got regularly whacked with the stick. The
second most popular game we played was “punching
bag.”)
3. A persistent preference to play female roles in
make-believe play. (When I played make-believe, it
was most often alone in my room, so I played ALL the
roles.)
4. A strong preference to spend time in the company of
girls and participate in their games and other
pastimes. (Well, yeah! They didn’t try to beat me
up! Plus, they smelled nice and I got a tingly, fun
feeling in my stomach when one of them would smile at
me or hold my hand.)
5. A susceptibility to be bullied by other boys, who
may tease them unmercifully and call them “queer,”
“fag”, and “gay.” (My God. That sentence just
described my entire existence from the ages of 5 to
10).
6. A tendency to walk, talk, dress, and even “think”
effeminately. (Let’s see. I had a high-pitched
voice, I had a large vocabulary for my age group, I
was well-mannered and “a sensitive child,” and, to
quote Jason Wallace just after he caught me behind the
monkey bars and just before the first of many punches
to my undersized gut, “Gee, kid! You run like a
girl!” I confess that when I was seven years old, I
once put on the underwear of one of my classmates,
Trudy Francis. In my defense, it was an honest
mistake; she’d accidentally put on my
Fruit-of-the-looms. We were playing “I’ll show you
mine if you show me yours” and in the excitement of
the moment, we both got a little distracted.)
7. A repeatedly stated desire to be—or insistence that
he is—a girl. Not guilty. Still, six out of seven is
an ominous sign.
I can only come to one conclusion from this little
self-test. I must be a homosexual. When I was a kid,
I apparently suffered from an undiagnosed, scorching
case of gender confusion and it turned me gay as a
quiche.
Oh, sure, I’ve repressed my homosexuality well. I’ve
married a woman and fathered four kids, I drink beer,
I can’t dance worth a damn and I’ve memorized the
teams, final scores, and MVPs of every single Super
Bowl ever played. I haven’t just been in de-closet,
I’ve been in de-nial.
The only thing I don’t understand is why all this
time, I’ve only EVER been interested in having sex
with women. Men do nothing for me. Not even Brad
Pitt. Oh, well. Nobody’s perfect.
The “Focus On Your Child’ website is managed by the
Focus On The Family organization. In case you didn’t
know, or knew but had simply forgotten, FOTF is one of
the most influential lobbying groups for the Christian
Right, whom I’ve dubbed the “Holy Terrors.” FOTF has
spearheaded movements to introduce Intelligent Design,
prayer, Abstinence Only education in schools, and, of
course, anything anti-gay. FOTF is a big-time
opponent of same-sex marriage, AIDS education, and
anti-gay discrimination laws, and anything looking,
sounding, smelling, or being even remotely homosexual
in nature. This group got pissed off because Ellen
Degeneris did the voice of “Dorrie” in the Disney
film, “Finding Nemo.” They seem to be afraid that any
contact whatsoever a homosexual person will spread an
epidemic of “Gay Cooties.”
Homosexuality is, in the eyes of the FOTF and of the
Holy Terrors in general, one of the worst of the worst
in terms of the degeneration of this Great Nation.
Homosexuality isn’t just a “lifestyle choice,” it’s a
mental illness. Seriously.
The article refers to homosexuality as a “disorder.”
Since it’s a disorder, it can therefore be treated and
cured. This is, sadly, not a new belief. The
American Psychiatric Association had homosexuality
listed as a disorder in their “Diagnostic And
Statistical Manual” until 1973. Back in the “good old
days,” homosexuality was “treated” with incarceration,
involuntary commitment to mental hospitals,
castration, genital mutilation, hysterectomies,
electroshock treatments, and even lobotomies.
Small wonder so many homosexual people have been “in
the closet” all these years. They’ve been afraid for
their sanity, their bodies, and their very lives.
Nowadays, in more “enlightened times,” a qualified
therapist can “treat” homosexuality with what’s called
“conversion” or “repairative” therapy. I’ll discuss
that in more detail next month. For now, I want to
say I haven’t decided whether to pursue therapy for
myself just yet.
To be honest, I have a few doubts about the legitimacy
of those “evidences” I discussed earlier as signs that
I’m gay. I find it interesting that the little test
I’ve taken exploits a lot of misconceptions about the
differences between “gay” and “straight” behavior.
“Normal” boys roughhouse and play sports.
“Effeminate” behavior (including crying) in boys is a
bad sign. So is being un-athletic, quiet, feeling
“different”, and wanting to associate with members of
the opposite sex. Cross-dressers tend to be
homosexuals, and vice versa. The urge to “be” a
member of the opposite sex is equivalent to being gay.
Having a kid who torments other kids and calls them
“faggot” and “queer,” (the elementary school version
of “gay-bashing”) isn’t nearly as alarming as having a
kid who’s on the receiving end of the punches and the
teasing, since that’s a sign that kid might turn gay
as a result. The Holy Terrors seem to be more alarmed
with children growing up gay than they are with
children growing up to be bullies.
Ultimately, I’m just a little skeptical that I caught
a case of the Gay Cooties as a result of my traumatic
childhood. I just don’t FEEL like I’m suffering from
a mental disorder.
Plus, I’m still baffled by that whole
“only-attracted-to-women” thing.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
More on the would-be Utah polygamists
From March 2004 (and revised)
ALL WORKED UP ABOUT THE SLIPPERY SLOPE
By J.T. Benjamin
Copr. 2004
The “slippery slope” is one of the most popular
arguments raised by the anti-freedom forces when it
comes to gay marriage. Once you start the ball
rolling by letting homosexuals wed, the argument goes
that the “marriage ball” will just gain more momentum
and speed as it tumbles down that hill and before you
know it, nothing else is safe when it comes to the
Sacred Institution.
Sen. Rick Santorum said as much a couple of years ago. (Don’t get
confused; when I say “santorum” I’m not referring to
most common definition of the term, namely the frothy
mixture of fecal matter and lube which is often a
by-product of anal sex. I’m talking about the
Republican Senator from Pennsylvania. I don’t want
anyone to get confused.) In the April 7, 2003 USA
Today interview that made his name a household word,
Sen. Santorum warned America of the slippery slope
that is gay marriage.
“(I)f the Supreme Court says that you have the right
to consensual sex within your home, then you have the
right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, …you
have the right to adultery. You have the right to
anything.” According to the Senator, even pedophilia
and bestiality will be legitimized if gay marriage
gets the green light.
I’m expressly leaving aside the argument about
non-consentual sex with kids and dogs, (both of which
are even more disgusting than having to clean santorum
from the sheets), but I do want to discuss the
Senator’s fears about gay marriage leading to the
legitimization of polygamy.
He’s right. It’s already happening.
In January 2003, G. Lee Cook and D. Cook, a married
couple, and J. Bronson, a single woman, (all adults)
asked for a marriage license to allow Ms. Bronson to
be Mr. Cook’s second wife, with Mrs. Cook’s consent.
The Salt Lake City clerk’s office refused, and the
would-be marital trio brought suit in the U.S.
District Court for Utah. The case is pending.
The trio’s lawyer, Brian Barnard, lists several
reasons why Ms. Bronson should be allowed to be the
second Mrs. Cook; one of them relies upon the U.S.
Supreme Court’s ruling last summer which outlawed
Texas’ anti-sodomy statute. If the government can’t
prohibit homosexual sex, the argument goes, it
shouldn’t be allowed to prohibit multiple-partner
marriages, either.
The Cook-Bronson case is one of several in Utah that
are challenging the state’s anti-polygamy laws.
They’re all relying heavily upon recent court cases
all over the country which are easing bans on same-sex
marriage.
That’s right. The state of Utah, where George W. Bush
is considered a leftist pinko, is becoming a hotbed of
support for gay marriage, not for its own ends, but
because the door is left open to legalize polygamy as
well.
Talk about politics making strange bedfellows.
And I don’t normally agree with a frothy mixture of
fecal matter and lubricant, but Senator Santorum is
right about one thing; once the door is opened for gay
marriage, polygamous unions will demand to be able to
walk through the door as well.
I say, “Let ‘em in.”
There is no logical reason to endorse gay marriage
without also endorsing polygamous unions, and vice
versa. I realize that logic and reason have no place
in American politics, but hey. Activists in both
camps need to band together and work toward a common
goal. It’d be like the Osmonds marching in New
York’s Gay Pride parade.
Here’s what it comes down to for me. I’ve said it
before, and I’ll say it again. Whatever consenting
adults do in their own bedroom is their own damn
business and nobody else’s. If Steve and Mark want to
get married, more power to them. If Frank and Julie
and Susan want to tie the knot, go for it. I’ll buy
them “His” and “Her” and “Her” bathtowels.
Ironically, one of the anti-freedom forces’ arguments
against gay marriage actually works in polygamists’
favor. While the Bible apparently frowns on men lying
with men, it’s full of endorsements of the polygamist
lifestyle. Lamech, Esau, Jacob, King David, and
Solomon, to name only a few.
Now, if you check out websites like www.polygamy.com
or www.polygamy.net, they tend to endorse the Biblical
concept of multiple marriages, namely one man with
multiple wives, all of whom must be subservient to the
husband. (Technically, this is ‘”polygyny” Having
multiple husbands is called “polyandry.” Just so you
know.) Being the sensitive new-age guy I am, I can’t
get enthusiastic about this idea. To be fair to
everyone, let grown-ups be grown-ups, and if somebody
wants two wives and three husbands and consummating
their marriage looks like something out of a Seymour
Butts video, let them knock themselves out.
“What about the sanctity of marriage,” somebody’s
screaming. “Gay marriage and polygamy will bring the
institution down!” Yeah, the virtues of heterosexual
one-man-one-woman relationships are well-documented,
thanks to people like Britney Spears, Kobe Bryant,
Frank and Kathy Lee Gifford, Elizabeth Taylor, Larry
King, Pamela Anderson, Bennifer, and all those idiots
on TV shows like “The Bachelor,” “The Bachelorette,”
“Average Joe,” “Joe Millionaire,” “Who Wants To Marry
A Millionaire,” and on and on and on.
The only drawback to this idea is the paperwork
involved, especially if somebody wants to get
divorced. Dividing marital property among five or six
people would probably only be slightly less
complicated than understanding the U.S. tax code. But
I figure all those lawyers’ billable hours would be
good for the economy. That sort of thing couldn’t be
outsourced to India.
So G.Lee Cook and D. Cook and J. Bronson ought to give
Rosie O’Donnell and her new bride a call so they can
all join forces. It’s time to get this ball rolling
down that ol’ Slippery Slope.
And for the record, while I endorse gay marriage and
polygamy as concepts, I’m not interested in getting
another spouse for myself, male or female. Multiple
wives mean multiple mothers-in-law.
Not that there’s anything wrong with mothers-in-law.
For the record, my own mother-in-law is great; she’s
so great, in fact, I can’t imagine being lucky enough
to get another one nearly as fantastic, so I won’t
even bother trying.
I love ya, Mom.
Remember I said that.
ALL WORKED UP ABOUT THE SLIPPERY SLOPE
By J.T. Benjamin
Copr. 2004
The “slippery slope” is one of the most popular
arguments raised by the anti-freedom forces when it
comes to gay marriage. Once you start the ball
rolling by letting homosexuals wed, the argument goes
that the “marriage ball” will just gain more momentum
and speed as it tumbles down that hill and before you
know it, nothing else is safe when it comes to the
Sacred Institution.
Sen. Rick Santorum said as much a couple of years ago. (Don’t get
confused; when I say “santorum” I’m not referring to
most common definition of the term, namely the frothy
mixture of fecal matter and lube which is often a
by-product of anal sex. I’m talking about the
Republican Senator from Pennsylvania. I don’t want
anyone to get confused.) In the April 7, 2003 USA
Today interview that made his name a household word,
Sen. Santorum warned America of the slippery slope
that is gay marriage.
“(I)f the Supreme Court says that you have the right
to consensual sex within your home, then you have the
right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, …you
have the right to adultery. You have the right to
anything.” According to the Senator, even pedophilia
and bestiality will be legitimized if gay marriage
gets the green light.
I’m expressly leaving aside the argument about
non-consentual sex with kids and dogs, (both of which
are even more disgusting than having to clean santorum
from the sheets), but I do want to discuss the
Senator’s fears about gay marriage leading to the
legitimization of polygamy.
He’s right. It’s already happening.
In January 2003, G. Lee Cook and D. Cook, a married
couple, and J. Bronson, a single woman, (all adults)
asked for a marriage license to allow Ms. Bronson to
be Mr. Cook’s second wife, with Mrs. Cook’s consent.
The Salt Lake City clerk’s office refused, and the
would-be marital trio brought suit in the U.S.
District Court for Utah. The case is pending.
The trio’s lawyer, Brian Barnard, lists several
reasons why Ms. Bronson should be allowed to be the
second Mrs. Cook; one of them relies upon the U.S.
Supreme Court’s ruling last summer which outlawed
Texas’ anti-sodomy statute. If the government can’t
prohibit homosexual sex, the argument goes, it
shouldn’t be allowed to prohibit multiple-partner
marriages, either.
The Cook-Bronson case is one of several in Utah that
are challenging the state’s anti-polygamy laws.
They’re all relying heavily upon recent court cases
all over the country which are easing bans on same-sex
marriage.
That’s right. The state of Utah, where George W. Bush
is considered a leftist pinko, is becoming a hotbed of
support for gay marriage, not for its own ends, but
because the door is left open to legalize polygamy as
well.
Talk about politics making strange bedfellows.
And I don’t normally agree with a frothy mixture of
fecal matter and lubricant, but Senator Santorum is
right about one thing; once the door is opened for gay
marriage, polygamous unions will demand to be able to
walk through the door as well.
I say, “Let ‘em in.”
There is no logical reason to endorse gay marriage
without also endorsing polygamous unions, and vice
versa. I realize that logic and reason have no place
in American politics, but hey. Activists in both
camps need to band together and work toward a common
goal. It’d be like the Osmonds marching in New
York’s Gay Pride parade.
Here’s what it comes down to for me. I’ve said it
before, and I’ll say it again. Whatever consenting
adults do in their own bedroom is their own damn
business and nobody else’s. If Steve and Mark want to
get married, more power to them. If Frank and Julie
and Susan want to tie the knot, go for it. I’ll buy
them “His” and “Her” and “Her” bathtowels.
Ironically, one of the anti-freedom forces’ arguments
against gay marriage actually works in polygamists’
favor. While the Bible apparently frowns on men lying
with men, it’s full of endorsements of the polygamist
lifestyle. Lamech, Esau, Jacob, King David, and
Solomon, to name only a few.
Now, if you check out websites like www.polygamy.com
or www.polygamy.net, they tend to endorse the Biblical
concept of multiple marriages, namely one man with
multiple wives, all of whom must be subservient to the
husband. (Technically, this is ‘”polygyny” Having
multiple husbands is called “polyandry.” Just so you
know.) Being the sensitive new-age guy I am, I can’t
get enthusiastic about this idea. To be fair to
everyone, let grown-ups be grown-ups, and if somebody
wants two wives and three husbands and consummating
their marriage looks like something out of a Seymour
Butts video, let them knock themselves out.
“What about the sanctity of marriage,” somebody’s
screaming. “Gay marriage and polygamy will bring the
institution down!” Yeah, the virtues of heterosexual
one-man-one-woman relationships are well-documented,
thanks to people like Britney Spears, Kobe Bryant,
Frank and Kathy Lee Gifford, Elizabeth Taylor, Larry
King, Pamela Anderson, Bennifer, and all those idiots
on TV shows like “The Bachelor,” “The Bachelorette,”
“Average Joe,” “Joe Millionaire,” “Who Wants To Marry
A Millionaire,” and on and on and on.
The only drawback to this idea is the paperwork
involved, especially if somebody wants to get
divorced. Dividing marital property among five or six
people would probably only be slightly less
complicated than understanding the U.S. tax code. But
I figure all those lawyers’ billable hours would be
good for the economy. That sort of thing couldn’t be
outsourced to India.
So G.Lee Cook and D. Cook and J. Bronson ought to give
Rosie O’Donnell and her new bride a call so they can
all join forces. It’s time to get this ball rolling
down that ol’ Slippery Slope.
And for the record, while I endorse gay marriage and
polygamy as concepts, I’m not interested in getting
another spouse for myself, male or female. Multiple
wives mean multiple mothers-in-law.
Not that there’s anything wrong with mothers-in-law.
For the record, my own mother-in-law is great; she’s
so great, in fact, I can’t imagine being lucky enough
to get another one nearly as fantastic, so I won’t
even bother trying.
I love ya, Mom.
Remember I said that.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
"If We Let Gays Marry....
this is the next step on the slippery slope..."
As well it should be.
From the article:
"The fact [that] much of American legal culture is based on monogamy does not justify a ban on polygamy," their attorney, Brian Barnard, of Salt Lake City, wrote in a brief filed this month with the Denver-based appeals court.
Barnard argued that a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a Texas law that prohibited sexual conduct between same-sex couples "provides individuals with protection from state intrusion as to intimate relationships."
The referred-to decision is Lawrence v. Texas. When the decision came down, the Holy Terrors shit enough bricks to build a pyramid. "This'll start a slippery slope," they said. "The next thing you know, consenting adults will start trying to do whatever they want!"
And they were right. Which is as it should be.
As for me, I have no interest in a second wife. (Two wives, two mothers-in-law. Thank you, but no.) But if consenting adults want to shack up in a "His and Hers and Hers" arrangement, it's none of my damn business.
For that matter, I don't think there's a problem with a "Hers and His and His" arrangement, either. Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.
IMHO, I'm afraid G. Lee Cook, D. Cook and J. Bronson won't get very far in their case. At least, not in this go-round. But there is hope.
I just find it funny and ironic that three people in Utah, (on of only three or four states still conservative enough to give Dubya positive approval ratings) are relying on a precedent that was favorable to homosexual conduct.
Talk about politics and strange bedfellows...
As well it should be.
From the article:
"The fact [that] much of American legal culture is based on monogamy does not justify a ban on polygamy," their attorney, Brian Barnard, of Salt Lake City, wrote in a brief filed this month with the Denver-based appeals court.
Barnard argued that a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a Texas law that prohibited sexual conduct between same-sex couples "provides individuals with protection from state intrusion as to intimate relationships."
The referred-to decision is Lawrence v. Texas. When the decision came down, the Holy Terrors shit enough bricks to build a pyramid. "This'll start a slippery slope," they said. "The next thing you know, consenting adults will start trying to do whatever they want!"
And they were right. Which is as it should be.
As for me, I have no interest in a second wife. (Two wives, two mothers-in-law. Thank you, but no.) But if consenting adults want to shack up in a "His and Hers and Hers" arrangement, it's none of my damn business.
For that matter, I don't think there's a problem with a "Hers and His and His" arrangement, either. Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.
IMHO, I'm afraid G. Lee Cook, D. Cook and J. Bronson won't get very far in their case. At least, not in this go-round. But there is hope.
I just find it funny and ironic that three people in Utah, (on of only three or four states still conservative enough to give Dubya positive approval ratings) are relying on a precedent that was favorable to homosexual conduct.
Talk about politics and strange bedfellows...
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Getting back to the doomed war on porn...
This is a reprint of a column from March, 2005
ALL WORKED UP ABOUT THE WAR ON PORN
That damned First Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, nor of freedom of speech, nor of the
press, nor of the peoples’ right to peaceably
assemble, nor of the peoples’ right to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.”
Who knew that single paragraph would cause so much
trouble for the Morality Brigade?
If you’ve ever watched a porn movie by the company
called “Extreme Associates,” you’ve probably come away
with a wave of nausea in your gut and a desperate urge
to scrub the icky feeling off your skin with a wire
brush. Extreme Associates, run by the husband and
wife team of Robert “Rob Black” Zicari and Janet
“Lizzie Borden” Romano, specialize in the kind of porn
that gives porn a bad name. Their films feature
simulated rape and murder, verbal and physical abuse,
and the simulated forcing of women to drink
“cocktails” of semen, blood, and vomit. And did I
mention rape? Lots and lots of simulated rape. (The
key word here is “simulated.” Zicari and Romano have
gone to great pains to provide verification that every
single person in every single sick, twisted moment of
film is a consenting adult engaging in a paid acting
performance). No doubt about it; as pornographers go,
Extreme Associates the stuff at the bottom of an
abandoned Port-a-potty, only with a much less pleasant
odor.
So when the U.S. Justice Department decided to launch
an offensive in its War on Pornography, Extreme
Associates made the perfect target. The company
produced the worst of the worst, with no redeeming
literary, artistic, political, or social value
whatsoever, and it wouldn’t be missed when it was
gone. In August, 2003, the Justice Department brought
criminal charges against Extreme Associates for
violating Federal obscenity laws.
And the result? A slam-dunk. For the defense. On
January 21, 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Gary L.
Lancaster dismissed the case against Extreme
Associates, on the grounds that the First Amendment
protects their line of work. In his ruling, Judge
Lancaster pointed out that as long as people have the
right to view such materials in the privacy of their
own homes, Extreme Associates has a right to market
it, and that the State of Pennsylvania couldn’t ban
such material simply because government officials
found it objectionable.
The Justice Department has vowed to appeal the
decision, and newly-appointed Attorney General Alberto
Gonzalez swore in his confirmation hearings that he
would vigorously continue the Department’s policy of
vigorously prosecuting distributors of pornographic
materials.
Who’s he trying to kid? If the Powers That Be
couldn’t nail a couple of sleaze artists like Zicari
and Romano, what makes them think they stand a chance
against more conventional distributors of porn like
Vivid Studios and Seymour Butts Productions?
Especially since, as I myself have mentioned in
previous columns, porn has irrevocably entered the
American cultural mainstream.
We’re awash in porn-themed coffee table books,
biographies, documentaries, and reality TV shows. Not
to mention cable and the internet. On the one hand,
the Morality Brigade can scream that the inundation of
porn into the mainstream is proof positive that it’s
got to be eradicated. On the other hand, logic,
common sense, and the law itself make it clear that
the War on Porn was doomed before it even began.
For a book or movie to be considered “obscene” under
Federal statutes and case law, it has to be a
violation of the standards of morality of the
community in which charges are brought. Las Vegas,
Nevada would probably have a different opinion of what
constitutes obscenity than would, say, Salt Lake City,
Utah. So when the Powers That Be tried to prosecute
Zicari and Romano and Extreme Associates, they didn’t
bring the case in Northridge, California, where the
couple lives and works, but in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, which presumably would be more likely to
find their videos offensive.
Obviously, this plan didn’t work. I don’t know how
hard it might be to buy a dirty magazine or rent a
video in Pittsburgh, but I doubt it’s any harder to
download that stuff off the internet there as it is
anywhere else in the U.S. And since Pittsburgh has
bookstores and premium cable the same as the rest of
the U.S., I’m sure I’d have no problem buying a copy
of Timothy Greenfield-Sanders’ coffee table book,
“XXX: 30 Porn Stars” or watching Seymour Butts’
“Family Business” reality show on the Showtime
Network. If the Justice Department still wants to
bring an obscenity prosecution in a community that’s
easily shocked by porn, they’d maybe better find a
nunnery in The Middle Of Nowhere, Alaska.
So, where stands the War on Porn? The First Amendment
still stands as a bedrock for protection of all forms
of expression, offensive or otherwise. However, a
recent study by the John S. and James L. Knight
Foundation found troubling signs that the next
generation of voters sees the First Amendment as doing
more harm than good. One half of surveyed high school
students believed that the government should approve
of news stories before they are published. More than
one in three students surveyed said that the First
Amendment “goes too far” in protecting speech.
Small wonder. The Powers That Be have successfully
made dissent a four-letter word in the post-9/11 era.
For a generation of kids growing up in the past three
and a half years, it’s no surprise that they’ve
acquired a mentality that opposes the dissemination of
ideas they find objectionable.
For that matter, the First Amendment itself has been a
sort of “black sheep” when it comes to protecting
liberties and freedoms. Under the First Amendment, we
can’t pray in school, but we can burn flags in public
and crosses on peoples’ lawns. We can’t say, “under
God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, but we can have a
bumper-stickers that say, “Fuck Bush” on our cars.
The First Amendment has even turned people like Robert
Zicari and Janet Romero into folk heroes.
Despite high schoolers’ views of the First Amendment
and the Department of Justice’s War, I still have
faith porn is here to stay. In February, Adelphia
Communications, the country’s fifth largest cable TV
provider, announced that it would soon be offering
hard-core adult films to subscribers via pay-per-view.
The company, (which contributes heavily to Republican
Party operatives and campaigns), simply sees this as a
terrific opportunity to cash in on the multi-billion
dollar porn industry.
Phooey on the First Amendment. The Department of
Justice doesn’t stand a chance against the Almighty
Dollar.
ALL WORKED UP ABOUT THE WAR ON PORN
That damned First Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, nor of freedom of speech, nor of the
press, nor of the peoples’ right to peaceably
assemble, nor of the peoples’ right to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.”
Who knew that single paragraph would cause so much
trouble for the Morality Brigade?
If you’ve ever watched a porn movie by the company
called “Extreme Associates,” you’ve probably come away
with a wave of nausea in your gut and a desperate urge
to scrub the icky feeling off your skin with a wire
brush. Extreme Associates, run by the husband and
wife team of Robert “Rob Black” Zicari and Janet
“Lizzie Borden” Romano, specialize in the kind of porn
that gives porn a bad name. Their films feature
simulated rape and murder, verbal and physical abuse,
and the simulated forcing of women to drink
“cocktails” of semen, blood, and vomit. And did I
mention rape? Lots and lots of simulated rape. (The
key word here is “simulated.” Zicari and Romano have
gone to great pains to provide verification that every
single person in every single sick, twisted moment of
film is a consenting adult engaging in a paid acting
performance). No doubt about it; as pornographers go,
Extreme Associates the stuff at the bottom of an
abandoned Port-a-potty, only with a much less pleasant
odor.
So when the U.S. Justice Department decided to launch
an offensive in its War on Pornography, Extreme
Associates made the perfect target. The company
produced the worst of the worst, with no redeeming
literary, artistic, political, or social value
whatsoever, and it wouldn’t be missed when it was
gone. In August, 2003, the Justice Department brought
criminal charges against Extreme Associates for
violating Federal obscenity laws.
And the result? A slam-dunk. For the defense. On
January 21, 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Gary L.
Lancaster dismissed the case against Extreme
Associates, on the grounds that the First Amendment
protects their line of work. In his ruling, Judge
Lancaster pointed out that as long as people have the
right to view such materials in the privacy of their
own homes, Extreme Associates has a right to market
it, and that the State of Pennsylvania couldn’t ban
such material simply because government officials
found it objectionable.
The Justice Department has vowed to appeal the
decision, and newly-appointed Attorney General Alberto
Gonzalez swore in his confirmation hearings that he
would vigorously continue the Department’s policy of
vigorously prosecuting distributors of pornographic
materials.
Who’s he trying to kid? If the Powers That Be
couldn’t nail a couple of sleaze artists like Zicari
and Romano, what makes them think they stand a chance
against more conventional distributors of porn like
Vivid Studios and Seymour Butts Productions?
Especially since, as I myself have mentioned in
previous columns, porn has irrevocably entered the
American cultural mainstream.
We’re awash in porn-themed coffee table books,
biographies, documentaries, and reality TV shows. Not
to mention cable and the internet. On the one hand,
the Morality Brigade can scream that the inundation of
porn into the mainstream is proof positive that it’s
got to be eradicated. On the other hand, logic,
common sense, and the law itself make it clear that
the War on Porn was doomed before it even began.
For a book or movie to be considered “obscene” under
Federal statutes and case law, it has to be a
violation of the standards of morality of the
community in which charges are brought. Las Vegas,
Nevada would probably have a different opinion of what
constitutes obscenity than would, say, Salt Lake City,
Utah. So when the Powers That Be tried to prosecute
Zicari and Romano and Extreme Associates, they didn’t
bring the case in Northridge, California, where the
couple lives and works, but in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, which presumably would be more likely to
find their videos offensive.
Obviously, this plan didn’t work. I don’t know how
hard it might be to buy a dirty magazine or rent a
video in Pittsburgh, but I doubt it’s any harder to
download that stuff off the internet there as it is
anywhere else in the U.S. And since Pittsburgh has
bookstores and premium cable the same as the rest of
the U.S., I’m sure I’d have no problem buying a copy
of Timothy Greenfield-Sanders’ coffee table book,
“XXX: 30 Porn Stars” or watching Seymour Butts’
“Family Business” reality show on the Showtime
Network. If the Justice Department still wants to
bring an obscenity prosecution in a community that’s
easily shocked by porn, they’d maybe better find a
nunnery in The Middle Of Nowhere, Alaska.
So, where stands the War on Porn? The First Amendment
still stands as a bedrock for protection of all forms
of expression, offensive or otherwise. However, a
recent study by the John S. and James L. Knight
Foundation found troubling signs that the next
generation of voters sees the First Amendment as doing
more harm than good. One half of surveyed high school
students believed that the government should approve
of news stories before they are published. More than
one in three students surveyed said that the First
Amendment “goes too far” in protecting speech.
Small wonder. The Powers That Be have successfully
made dissent a four-letter word in the post-9/11 era.
For a generation of kids growing up in the past three
and a half years, it’s no surprise that they’ve
acquired a mentality that opposes the dissemination of
ideas they find objectionable.
For that matter, the First Amendment itself has been a
sort of “black sheep” when it comes to protecting
liberties and freedoms. Under the First Amendment, we
can’t pray in school, but we can burn flags in public
and crosses on peoples’ lawns. We can’t say, “under
God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, but we can have a
bumper-stickers that say, “Fuck Bush” on our cars.
The First Amendment has even turned people like Robert
Zicari and Janet Romero into folk heroes.
Despite high schoolers’ views of the First Amendment
and the Department of Justice’s War, I still have
faith porn is here to stay. In February, Adelphia
Communications, the country’s fifth largest cable TV
provider, announced that it would soon be offering
hard-core adult films to subscribers via pay-per-view.
The company, (which contributes heavily to Republican
Party operatives and campaigns), simply sees this as a
terrific opportunity to cash in on the multi-billion
dollar porn industry.
Phooey on the First Amendment. The Department of
Justice doesn’t stand a chance against the Almighty
Dollar.
Friday, November 04, 2005
To clarify...
In case you didn't know, or knew but had simply forgotten, "Griswold" is Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the majority of the court held that the state of Connecticut couldn't prevent a medical doctor from providing contraception to a married couple. Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the majority, explained that within the framework of the Bill of Rights exists a Constitutional right to privacy for individuals, justifying the Court's decision.
Griswold was the primary precedent for, among other decisions, Roe v. Wade.
Just thought you'd like to know.
Griswold was the primary precedent for, among other decisions, Roe v. Wade.
Just thought you'd like to know.
An excellent idea
I think all right-thinking people need to get behind this
to quote Dan Savage:
"Here we are, decades after Griswold, and social conservatives and liberals are constantly arguing about whether or not the right to privacy, which is a popular right (naturally enough), and one to which most Americans believe they're entitled, is actually a right to which Americans are entitled, constitutionally-speaking. Liberals love it because the RTP underpins our constitutional right to have access to birth control, abortion services, gay sex, porn. Social conservatives hate it for that very reason.
***
I find myself wondering why we don’t just put it in there? If the Republicans can propose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, can’t the Dems propose a “Right to Privacy” amendment? Since the RTP is popular (unlike the anti-gay marriage amendment), the Dems should put it out there and let the Republicans run around the country explainging why they're against a right to privacy—not a winning position. Then, once it passes, we’ll be spared the debate over whether or not the RTP is in there every time a conservative is nominated to the Supreme Court.
The Right to Privacy Amendment—c’mon, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Patty Murray, Barak Obama! Propose it!
***
to quote Dan Savage:
"Here we are, decades after Griswold, and social conservatives and liberals are constantly arguing about whether or not the right to privacy, which is a popular right (naturally enough), and one to which most Americans believe they're entitled, is actually a right to which Americans are entitled, constitutionally-speaking. Liberals love it because the RTP underpins our constitutional right to have access to birth control, abortion services, gay sex, porn. Social conservatives hate it for that very reason.
***
I find myself wondering why we don’t just put it in there? If the Republicans can propose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, can’t the Dems propose a “Right to Privacy” amendment? Since the RTP is popular (unlike the anti-gay marriage amendment), the Dems should put it out there and let the Republicans run around the country explainging why they're against a right to privacy—not a winning position. Then, once it passes, we’ll be spared the debate over whether or not the RTP is in there every time a conservative is nominated to the Supreme Court.
The Right to Privacy Amendment—c’mon, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Patty Murray, Barak Obama! Propose it!
***
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
At War Against The Scourge
Your tax dollars at work.
"When FBI supervisors in Miami met with new interim U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta last month, they wondered what the top enforcement priority for Acosta and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would be.
Would it be terrorism? Organized crime? Narcotics trafficking? Immigration? Or maybe public corruption?
The agents were stunned to learn that a top prosecutorial priority of Acosta and the Department of Justice was none of the above. Instead, Acosta told them, it's obscenity. Not pornography involving children, but pornographic material featuring consenting adults.
Acosta's stated goal of prosecuting distributors of adult porn has angered federal and local law enforcement officials, as well as prosecutors in his own office. They say there are far more important issues in a high-crime area like South Florida, which is an international hub at risk for terrorism, money laundering and other dangerous activities.
His own prosecutors have warned Acosta that prioritizing adult porn would reduce resources for prosecuting other crimes, including porn involving children. According to high-level sources who did not want to be identified, Acosta has assigned prosecutors porn cases over their objections."
Not only is this a matter of letting consenting adults do whatever they damn well please (thought that was a conservative value), but it's a complete waste of time.
More on the miserable failure (for the Holy Terrors, that is, triumphant victory for lovers of the First Amendment) that was the Extreme Associates obscenity prosecution later.
"When FBI supervisors in Miami met with new interim U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta last month, they wondered what the top enforcement priority for Acosta and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would be.
Would it be terrorism? Organized crime? Narcotics trafficking? Immigration? Or maybe public corruption?
The agents were stunned to learn that a top prosecutorial priority of Acosta and the Department of Justice was none of the above. Instead, Acosta told them, it's obscenity. Not pornography involving children, but pornographic material featuring consenting adults.
Acosta's stated goal of prosecuting distributors of adult porn has angered federal and local law enforcement officials, as well as prosecutors in his own office. They say there are far more important issues in a high-crime area like South Florida, which is an international hub at risk for terrorism, money laundering and other dangerous activities.
His own prosecutors have warned Acosta that prioritizing adult porn would reduce resources for prosecuting other crimes, including porn involving children. According to high-level sources who did not want to be identified, Acosta has assigned prosecutors porn cases over their objections."
Not only is this a matter of letting consenting adults do whatever they damn well please (thought that was a conservative value), but it's a complete waste of time.
More on the miserable failure (for the Holy Terrors, that is, triumphant victory for lovers of the First Amendment) that was the Extreme Associates obscenity prosecution later.
A Very Important Link
In case you didn't know, or knew but had simply forgotten, the EROTICA READERS AND WRITERS ASSOCIATION is the rockin'est website for lovers of erotica, smut, dirty stories, and good ol' fashioned porn on the web. You gotta check it out if you haven't done so already.
And not just because my column's there every month.
(Bear with me. Testing my ability to link, here.)
And not just because my column's there every month.
(Bear with me. Testing my ability to link, here.)
Friday, August 19, 2005
First Post
This column ran on July's ERWA website.
ALL WORKED UP ABOUT THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL
By J.T. Benjamin
Copr. 2005
Bad news: Human Papillomavirus, or HPV, is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the world. In the United States alone, one half of all sexually active women between the ages of 18 and 22 have the virus. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that by the time they reach the age of fifty, 80% of all women in the U.S. will have acquired the disease at some point in their lives. HPV is highly contagious, and can be spread by skin contact, so not even condoms are effective in prevention.
Good news: The vast majority of people with HPV don’t know they have it, and having the disease doesn’t affect their daily lives. HPV has no obvious symptoms in most people, and the virus most often simply clears up on its own.
Bad news: When HPV does display symptoms, it’s most often in the form of what are called “genital warts.” Some 20 million Americans are unfortunate enough to suffer from this ailment.
Good news: Genital warts can be treated with a variety of ointments and procedures, they tend to merely be an inconvenience, and often, like the more common forms of HPV, they simply go away when they feel like it, with no lasting after-effects.
Bad news: HPV can in some cases lead to cervical, anal, vulvular, and penis cancer. The CDC estimates that every year in the U.S., 10,000 women will develop cervical cancer from HPV exposure, and four thousand women will die. In the rest of the world, where early treatments and diagnoses are more rare than in the U.S., the mortality rate is much higher; around 250,000 women per year world-wide. The International Agency for Research On Cancer, based in Lyon, France, estimates that by 2050, cervical cancer will kill one million women every year.
Good news: The pharmaceutical company Glaxo-Smith Kline reports having developed a vaccine against HPV infection. Studies so far indicate the vaccine is effective against the HPV strains which constitute 90% of new infections. The story can be found at http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18624954.500. If this success rate holds up, a worldwide comprehensive vaccination program could drastically reduce the spread of HPV and potentially save the lives of hundreds of thousands of women.
Bad news: In the same article, Bridget Maher, spokesperson for the Family Research Council, believes that last bit of good news may not be such good news after all. “Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex.”
Wow.
That’s impressive.
I’m serious.
To think that this cruel, stupid, amoral, self-righteous, sanctimonious, arrogant, heartless, soulless, worthless shit-for-brains, this fucking asshole, this harpy, this monster, this waste of oxygen can successfully pass herself off as a human being is nothing less than an Oscar-caliber performance.
Read what she said again. “Giving the vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex.”
In other words, in the eyes of Ms. Maher and the Family Research Council, an unmarried woman is better off dead than sexually active.
It’s only one of the more recent salvos in what I’ve dubbed “The War On Whoopie.”
In case you didn’t know, or knew but had simply forgotten, there’s a war on in the U.S. between us normal people and a fanatical cult of sexual fascists. Hiding behind the Bible and an endless sea of perfect teeth and well-scrubbed faces, these Holy Terrors are bound and determined to bash down our bedroom doors and eradicate any form of sexual experience that 1) is or may be outside the bonds of holy matrimony and/or 2) is not expressly for the purpose of procreation. And there’s lots of stuff within the bonds of marriage the Holy Terrors aren’t too keen on, either. Fun is simply not allowed.
Holy Terrors have come out in opposition to premarital sex, birth control, (before OR after marriage), condoms, women’s choice, pornography, profanity, sex toys, homosexuality, gay marriage, AIDS awareness, public broadcasting, premium cable TV, and any form of sex education that goes beyond, “Don’t do it!”
Holy Terror positions range from the silly (condemning Spongebob Squarepants and Baxter Bunny cartoons for allegedly advocating tolerance of homosexuality), to the merely obnoxious (pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions), to the stupid (the ineffective abstinence only education programs) and the downright cruel (opposition to anti-gay discrimination laws and same-sex marriages and civil unions).
And the Family Research Council is at the vanguard of the War on Whoopie. The FRC brags that it’s got half a million members, and the ears of some of the most powerful players in the U.S. government, including the White House itself.
Now, thanks to Ms. Maher, it’s clear that the Holy Terrors’ agenda includes control not only over our sexual choices and preferences, but over life or death, as well. The implications are astounding and frightening.
Imagine watching the Fox News Channel. The commentator on one of the talking head shows announces, “The Food and Drug Administration has given final approval for an AIDS vaccine that has been demonstrated to be 100% effective. With me now is a spokesman for the Family Research Council. Your thoughts?”
“It’s a dark day for humanity, Bill. Now, homosexuals will be free to fornicate without fear of consequences or God’s holy wrath. This vaccine is a tool of Satan and must be eradicated at all costs.”
Think I’m exaggerating? Last month, the Washington Times carried a story about Anglican churches in Africa combating famine, and how difficult it’s been for them to raise funds.
Part of the problem has been these churches have been REJECTING donations from Episcopalian churches and charities in the U.S. that have supported gay bishop V. Gene Robinson. Rwandan Bishop John Rucyahana said, “To be honest, there is not enough money for the needs we have in Rwanda after the (1994) genocide, but if money is being used to disgrace the Gospel, then we don’t need it.”
Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, (whom I doubt has ever suffered the effects of starvation), was quoted as saying, “I applaud the actions of the African Anglican churches. No amount of silver is worth sacrificing your duty to your congregation and to God.”
Now, my Bible talks about an obligation to “do justice, love goodness, and to walk humbly” with my God. (Micah 6:8). According to my Bible, Jesus preached compassion, forgiveness, generosity, feeding the poor, not judging others, mercy, and above all, love. I wonder what Bible Mr. Perkins reads.
Anyway, in the eyes of the FRC, accepting a gift from a church that supports a gay bishop is a fate worse than death. Literally. Coming from an institution that thinks a cancer vaccine is a bad idea, this is no surprise.
You almost have to admire that kind of cruel stupidity.
Almost.
ALL WORKED UP ABOUT THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL
By J.T. Benjamin
Copr. 2005
Bad news: Human Papillomavirus, or HPV, is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the world. In the United States alone, one half of all sexually active women between the ages of 18 and 22 have the virus. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that by the time they reach the age of fifty, 80% of all women in the U.S. will have acquired the disease at some point in their lives. HPV is highly contagious, and can be spread by skin contact, so not even condoms are effective in prevention.
Good news: The vast majority of people with HPV don’t know they have it, and having the disease doesn’t affect their daily lives. HPV has no obvious symptoms in most people, and the virus most often simply clears up on its own.
Bad news: When HPV does display symptoms, it’s most often in the form of what are called “genital warts.” Some 20 million Americans are unfortunate enough to suffer from this ailment.
Good news: Genital warts can be treated with a variety of ointments and procedures, they tend to merely be an inconvenience, and often, like the more common forms of HPV, they simply go away when they feel like it, with no lasting after-effects.
Bad news: HPV can in some cases lead to cervical, anal, vulvular, and penis cancer. The CDC estimates that every year in the U.S., 10,000 women will develop cervical cancer from HPV exposure, and four thousand women will die. In the rest of the world, where early treatments and diagnoses are more rare than in the U.S., the mortality rate is much higher; around 250,000 women per year world-wide. The International Agency for Research On Cancer, based in Lyon, France, estimates that by 2050, cervical cancer will kill one million women every year.
Good news: The pharmaceutical company Glaxo-Smith Kline reports having developed a vaccine against HPV infection. Studies so far indicate the vaccine is effective against the HPV strains which constitute 90% of new infections. The story can be found at http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18624954.500. If this success rate holds up, a worldwide comprehensive vaccination program could drastically reduce the spread of HPV and potentially save the lives of hundreds of thousands of women.
Bad news: In the same article, Bridget Maher, spokesperson for the Family Research Council, believes that last bit of good news may not be such good news after all. “Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex.”
Wow.
That’s impressive.
I’m serious.
To think that this cruel, stupid, amoral, self-righteous, sanctimonious, arrogant, heartless, soulless, worthless shit-for-brains, this fucking asshole, this harpy, this monster, this waste of oxygen can successfully pass herself off as a human being is nothing less than an Oscar-caliber performance.
Read what she said again. “Giving the vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex.”
In other words, in the eyes of Ms. Maher and the Family Research Council, an unmarried woman is better off dead than sexually active.
It’s only one of the more recent salvos in what I’ve dubbed “The War On Whoopie.”
In case you didn’t know, or knew but had simply forgotten, there’s a war on in the U.S. between us normal people and a fanatical cult of sexual fascists. Hiding behind the Bible and an endless sea of perfect teeth and well-scrubbed faces, these Holy Terrors are bound and determined to bash down our bedroom doors and eradicate any form of sexual experience that 1) is or may be outside the bonds of holy matrimony and/or 2) is not expressly for the purpose of procreation. And there’s lots of stuff within the bonds of marriage the Holy Terrors aren’t too keen on, either. Fun is simply not allowed.
Holy Terrors have come out in opposition to premarital sex, birth control, (before OR after marriage), condoms, women’s choice, pornography, profanity, sex toys, homosexuality, gay marriage, AIDS awareness, public broadcasting, premium cable TV, and any form of sex education that goes beyond, “Don’t do it!”
Holy Terror positions range from the silly (condemning Spongebob Squarepants and Baxter Bunny cartoons for allegedly advocating tolerance of homosexuality), to the merely obnoxious (pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions), to the stupid (the ineffective abstinence only education programs) and the downright cruel (opposition to anti-gay discrimination laws and same-sex marriages and civil unions).
And the Family Research Council is at the vanguard of the War on Whoopie. The FRC brags that it’s got half a million members, and the ears of some of the most powerful players in the U.S. government, including the White House itself.
Now, thanks to Ms. Maher, it’s clear that the Holy Terrors’ agenda includes control not only over our sexual choices and preferences, but over life or death, as well. The implications are astounding and frightening.
Imagine watching the Fox News Channel. The commentator on one of the talking head shows announces, “The Food and Drug Administration has given final approval for an AIDS vaccine that has been demonstrated to be 100% effective. With me now is a spokesman for the Family Research Council. Your thoughts?”
“It’s a dark day for humanity, Bill. Now, homosexuals will be free to fornicate without fear of consequences or God’s holy wrath. This vaccine is a tool of Satan and must be eradicated at all costs.”
Think I’m exaggerating? Last month, the Washington Times carried a story about Anglican churches in Africa combating famine, and how difficult it’s been for them to raise funds.
Part of the problem has been these churches have been REJECTING donations from Episcopalian churches and charities in the U.S. that have supported gay bishop V. Gene Robinson. Rwandan Bishop John Rucyahana said, “To be honest, there is not enough money for the needs we have in Rwanda after the (1994) genocide, but if money is being used to disgrace the Gospel, then we don’t need it.”
Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, (whom I doubt has ever suffered the effects of starvation), was quoted as saying, “I applaud the actions of the African Anglican churches. No amount of silver is worth sacrificing your duty to your congregation and to God.”
Now, my Bible talks about an obligation to “do justice, love goodness, and to walk humbly” with my God. (Micah 6:8). According to my Bible, Jesus preached compassion, forgiveness, generosity, feeding the poor, not judging others, mercy, and above all, love. I wonder what Bible Mr. Perkins reads.
Anyway, in the eyes of the FRC, accepting a gift from a church that supports a gay bishop is a fate worse than death. Literally. Coming from an institution that thinks a cancer vaccine is a bad idea, this is no surprise.
You almost have to admire that kind of cruel stupidity.
Almost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
