I like Sonya Sotomayor.
I don't know her (although we share some mutual friends), but at least so far, she's a rock star to me. I love that her mom is in the front row at the hearings, I like the outfit, I like that she got on the plane on crutches. More, I like what I know about how she rules and how she speaks her mind. (Of course, like everyone else who is a pro-choice advocate, I'd like to know more about her positions on Roe and other abortion decisions.)
Last week, the Women's Media Center ran a montage of clips showing the racist and sexist coverage of the nomination. You have to watch it yourself to believe that people are saying these things in 2009: http://bit.ly/15DsYJ I was especially infuriated by G. Gordon Liddy (he of Watergate infamy) speculating she might not make good decisions if she was menstruating or, heavens worse, about to menstruate. (Mr. Liddy obviously doesn't live with women...or know that if he is to worry it's probably more appropriate to be concerned about hot flashes or perimenopausal rage...but I digress.)
I've only caught a tiny bit of the opening hearing; it seems like a lot of posturing to me. But to the Senators involved, I'm praying that you remember that the fact that she is a Latina and a woman is unworthy of being remarked upon in this hearing on her suitability for the High Court. And I think I will leave it up to the WMC to monitor Fox tonight; I don't think I can pray enough to keep them from offering sexist and racist coverage.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Governor Sanford: The "Ultimate Line" Isn't
Forgive me, if this is "old news" to you. I was away without a television or Internet access most of last week, so I missed the latest AP interview with South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. I caught a piece of it last night on the rerun of the July 2nd Daily Show, and went online this morning to find out more.
In the interview, Sanford declared to the whole world that his was a real love story not an affair, that the Argentinian woman was his "soul mate," and that he was trying to work things out with his wife. You have to wonder how he doesn't understand that the first two are going to make the third much more difficult.
But I was also interested in this AP report about his admission of other relationships during his marriage:
Sanford also said that he "crossed the lines" with a handful of other women during 20 years of marriage, but not as far as he did with his mistress. "There were a handful of instances wherein I crossed the lines I shouldn't have crossed as a married man, but never crossed the ultimate line," he said.
Now perhaps he was talking about falling in love with other women, but I'm guessing what he meant was what I sometimes call PVI, penile-vaginal intercourse. It's reminiscent of Bill Clinton's saying "did not have sex with that woman," when he meant he didn't have PVI.
And I find it both disturbing and amusing to see a grown man claim that it isn't sex unless PVI occurs. It's an adolescent sexual ethic that says that sex doesn't count unless Part A goes into Part B. It's what allows young people who are having anal and oral sex to claim they are virgins, and it discounts that gay and lesbian people have sex at all. It's an ethic that makes men with prostate cancer and women with vaginismus give up sexual contact with their partners completely because they can't have "sex" anymore. It's a construct that keeps people from understanding that all sexual behaviors don't have to end in intercourse. It's a way for people like Governor Sanford to break their commitments to their wives because they maintain that intimate behaviors that don't include intercourse somehow don't "count."
It's an act-center morality that needs to be replaced with one based on relationships, not on particular sexual acts or the gender of the persons involved. To my mind, there isn't an "ultimate line" that determines the morality of a sexual experience, but it's whether it's consensual, non-exploitative, honest, mutually pleasurable and protected -- and consistent with one's personal values. I can't know for sure, but at least on values and honesty, it seems like the Governor crossed that line a long time ago.
In the interview, Sanford declared to the whole world that his was a real love story not an affair, that the Argentinian woman was his "soul mate," and that he was trying to work things out with his wife. You have to wonder how he doesn't understand that the first two are going to make the third much more difficult.
But I was also interested in this AP report about his admission of other relationships during his marriage:
Sanford also said that he "crossed the lines" with a handful of other women during 20 years of marriage, but not as far as he did with his mistress. "There were a handful of instances wherein I crossed the lines I shouldn't have crossed as a married man, but never crossed the ultimate line," he said.
Now perhaps he was talking about falling in love with other women, but I'm guessing what he meant was what I sometimes call PVI, penile-vaginal intercourse. It's reminiscent of Bill Clinton's saying "did not have sex with that woman," when he meant he didn't have PVI.
And I find it both disturbing and amusing to see a grown man claim that it isn't sex unless PVI occurs. It's an adolescent sexual ethic that says that sex doesn't count unless Part A goes into Part B. It's what allows young people who are having anal and oral sex to claim they are virgins, and it discounts that gay and lesbian people have sex at all. It's an ethic that makes men with prostate cancer and women with vaginismus give up sexual contact with their partners completely because they can't have "sex" anymore. It's a construct that keeps people from understanding that all sexual behaviors don't have to end in intercourse. It's a way for people like Governor Sanford to break their commitments to their wives because they maintain that intimate behaviors that don't include intercourse somehow don't "count."
It's an act-center morality that needs to be replaced with one based on relationships, not on particular sexual acts or the gender of the persons involved. To my mind, there isn't an "ultimate line" that determines the morality of a sexual experience, but it's whether it's consensual, non-exploitative, honest, mutually pleasurable and protected -- and consistent with one's personal values. I can't know for sure, but at least on values and honesty, it seems like the Governor crossed that line a long time ago.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
My immodest proposal: Sex education for politicians
I am just back from a wonderful, stimulating Renaissance Weekend in the awe-ing Grand Teton National Park.
Renaissance Weekends are off record and journalists and bloggers are asked not to report on others comments -- but we are permitted to talk about our own.
I was on a lunch panel called "My immodest proposal", and I proposed to the 250 or so government leaders, scientists, astronauts, writers, professors, religious leaders, and other distinguished guests that every newly elected politician be required to come to the Religious Institute for a two day sexuality education program.
On the first day, we'd cover the science that they need to know as policy makers: maternal and child health, contraception, HIV/AIDS, sexuality education, sexual orientation, gender identity, stem cells, and ARTs. There's a lot of sexual science for policymakers to know so they can make informed decisions in these areas.
And on the second day, I'd adapt my course for seminarians and clergy, "Sexual Attraction and Boundaries." I'd give them the opportunity to examine their own values and commitments, and talk about the characteristics of a sexually healthy adult. I'd be sure to tell them that a sexually healthy adult distinguishes between sexual behaviors that are life enhancing and those that might be destructive to self and others. And I'd tell them that although great sex is one of the most wonderful blessings, it is NEVER, REPEAT NEVER, worth losing your family, career, reputation, or elected office over.
Yes, it's an immodest proposal, and I'm guessing most of the audience thought I was kidding. But, I'm not. I'd love to teach this course, and as recent and long ago events would witness, a lot of our elected officials would benefit.
Renaissance Weekends are off record and journalists and bloggers are asked not to report on others comments -- but we are permitted to talk about our own.
I was on a lunch panel called "My immodest proposal", and I proposed to the 250 or so government leaders, scientists, astronauts, writers, professors, religious leaders, and other distinguished guests that every newly elected politician be required to come to the Religious Institute for a two day sexuality education program.
On the first day, we'd cover the science that they need to know as policy makers: maternal and child health, contraception, HIV/AIDS, sexuality education, sexual orientation, gender identity, stem cells, and ARTs. There's a lot of sexual science for policymakers to know so they can make informed decisions in these areas.
And on the second day, I'd adapt my course for seminarians and clergy, "Sexual Attraction and Boundaries." I'd give them the opportunity to examine their own values and commitments, and talk about the characteristics of a sexually healthy adult. I'd be sure to tell them that a sexually healthy adult distinguishes between sexual behaviors that are life enhancing and those that might be destructive to self and others. And I'd tell them that although great sex is one of the most wonderful blessings, it is NEVER, REPEAT NEVER, worth losing your family, career, reputation, or elected office over.
Yes, it's an immodest proposal, and I'm guessing most of the audience thought I was kidding. But, I'm not. I'd love to teach this course, and as recent and long ago events would witness, a lot of our elected officials would benefit.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Standing on the Side of Love
Last week, at the Unitarian Universalist General Assembly, the UUA unveiled its new slogan, "Standing on the Side of Love" with a huge banner on the front of the Salt Lake City Convention Center.
The slogan began as a slogan for marriage equality, but has been adopted as the UUA's theme for the coming years. At first, some folks were upset that it had been co-opted for larger issues, but the more I think about it, the more I like it.
What a perfect personal and political ethic. If LOVE is the prevailing theology, then answers on immigration, the death penalty, war, the environment and yes, sexuality, all become very clear. Choose love. Treat each other with love. Treat yourself with love. Enter each day committed to stand on the side of love.
What do you think?
P.S. I'm at a conference this weekend, and have already been asked at least half a dozen times what UU's believe. Here's my 30 second answer:: One God. No Hell. Build Your Own Theology. Stand on the side of love.
Works for me.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Follow Me On Twitter!
The General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association has just ended - five full days of study, exhibits, meetings, workshops, plenary meetings, and worship services. It was great to meet so many of my regular blog readers at the Religious Institute's exhibit and at my workshop. To those of you who are reading my blog for the first time since we met at GA, welcome! And a thank you to James who told me that this blog is his homepage!
I'm actually off now for a four day vacation in Idaho and Wyoming. If something interesting happens in the world, I'll probably Twitter rather than blog. So, consider following me on Twitter at RevDebra! I'm building a Tweet Congregation, and I'd love you to join us!
I'm actually off now for a four day vacation in Idaho and Wyoming. If something interesting happens in the world, I'll probably Twitter rather than blog. So, consider following me on Twitter at RevDebra! I'm building a Tweet Congregation, and I'd love you to join us!
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Governor Sanford Should Have Just Said NO: Sex Education for Politicians
I generally don't blog twice in one day, but Governor Sanford's admission that he was in Argentina having an affair instead of governing this week brought to mind a post that I wrote last year for Huffington Post called "Sex Education for Politicians." With a few minor updates, here's what it said.
Governor Sanford joins the long line of exposes of public figures' sex lives. Many have been heterosexual men who have potentially risked everything for a sexual encounter or thrill. Think Eliot Spitzer, Gary Hart, Marv Alpert, Bill Clinton, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Bill Cosby, and Bill O'Reilly. Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Cosby continue with their work; others have not been so lucky. It remains to be seen what will happen to South Carolina's governor.
But these men have either forgotten, or never learned, some basic rules for sexually healthy adults. So here they are:
Honor your commitments to your partner. A sexually healthy marriage is based on honesty and trust; only you and your spouse know what you have agreed to, but don't put her in the position of having to stand by you at a microphone while you confess to the entire world. Keep that picture in your head as you are considering your behaviors.
Understand that you can have a sexual feeling without acting on it -- without even telling anyone about it. Think about it -- if Bill Clinton had thought to himself, "Cute intern. Too young, too risky" and moved on, he would not have been impeached.
If your partner isn't interested in exploring a particular part of your eroticism with you, the safest thing is to explore it only in the confines of your mind. Nothing, really nothing, is ever private between two people. Someone always tells someone. And the less the other person has to lose, the more likely they are to tell more people. In fact, unless it's your life partner, only have sex with someone who has as much to lose as you do.
Sexually healthy adults discriminate between sexual behaviors that are life-enhancing -- for themselves and their partners -- and those that could be destructive, of themselves or their partner(s). If there's a chance that the behavior could cost you your partner, career, reputation, just say no. Visiting a sex club, a sex worker, having sex with an employee, taking time off from your job to go to a foreign country without telling your staff how to find you, soliciting someone in a public bathroom or park: chances are it's going to land you on the front page, and you'll lose your job. It's even worse if you've campaigned or worked against other people doing the same things.
Remember that a moral sexual relationship is consensual, nonexploitive, honest, mutually pleasurable and protected. Does the relationship meet those criteria? We don't know much about Governor Sanford, but it sure sounds like he hasn't been honest with his wife. If you can't answer yes to all five criteria, say no.
Always ask if the behavior is consistent with your values, expressed and internal. Let's start with South Carolina's more than $3 million dollar a year commitment to abstinence-only education, Governor, and your party's comments on marriage. Do those lessons only apply to others?
Of course, this ethic applies to all of us, not just people in political power. It's just that other people don't end up on the front page. Bottom line: don't have sexual relationships or engage in sexual behaviors that put your family, your career, and your future at risk. It's basic sex education that everyone needs.
Governor Sanford joins the long line of exposes of public figures' sex lives. Many have been heterosexual men who have potentially risked everything for a sexual encounter or thrill. Think Eliot Spitzer, Gary Hart, Marv Alpert, Bill Clinton, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Bill Cosby, and Bill O'Reilly. Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Cosby continue with their work; others have not been so lucky. It remains to be seen what will happen to South Carolina's governor.
But these men have either forgotten, or never learned, some basic rules for sexually healthy adults. So here they are:
Honor your commitments to your partner. A sexually healthy marriage is based on honesty and trust; only you and your spouse know what you have agreed to, but don't put her in the position of having to stand by you at a microphone while you confess to the entire world. Keep that picture in your head as you are considering your behaviors.
Understand that you can have a sexual feeling without acting on it -- without even telling anyone about it. Think about it -- if Bill Clinton had thought to himself, "Cute intern. Too young, too risky" and moved on, he would not have been impeached.
If your partner isn't interested in exploring a particular part of your eroticism with you, the safest thing is to explore it only in the confines of your mind. Nothing, really nothing, is ever private between two people. Someone always tells someone. And the less the other person has to lose, the more likely they are to tell more people. In fact, unless it's your life partner, only have sex with someone who has as much to lose as you do.
Sexually healthy adults discriminate between sexual behaviors that are life-enhancing -- for themselves and their partners -- and those that could be destructive, of themselves or their partner(s). If there's a chance that the behavior could cost you your partner, career, reputation, just say no. Visiting a sex club, a sex worker, having sex with an employee, taking time off from your job to go to a foreign country without telling your staff how to find you, soliciting someone in a public bathroom or park: chances are it's going to land you on the front page, and you'll lose your job. It's even worse if you've campaigned or worked against other people doing the same things.
Remember that a moral sexual relationship is consensual, nonexploitive, honest, mutually pleasurable and protected. Does the relationship meet those criteria? We don't know much about Governor Sanford, but it sure sounds like he hasn't been honest with his wife. If you can't answer yes to all five criteria, say no.
Always ask if the behavior is consistent with your values, expressed and internal. Let's start with South Carolina's more than $3 million dollar a year commitment to abstinence-only education, Governor, and your party's comments on marriage. Do those lessons only apply to others?
Of course, this ethic applies to all of us, not just people in political power. It's just that other people don't end up on the front page. Bottom line: don't have sexual relationships or engage in sexual behaviors that put your family, your career, and your future at risk. It's basic sex education that everyone needs.
Religious Right: Old Wine, New Wineskin
Dear Ralph Reed:
I read yesterday that you are starting a new organization, the Faith and Freedom Coalition.
I read that you told US News, "This is not your daddy's Christian Coalition. ..It's got to be more brown, more black, more female, and younger. It's critical that we open the door wide and let them know if they share our values and believe in the principles of faith and marriage and family, they're welcome."
Now, Mr. Reed, I believe in faith and marriage and family; in fact, I have faith, a marriage, and a family. I also believe as your web site says in the "dignity of life and marriage."
So, why do I think that you weren't thinking of people like me when you created this new version of your previous organization? Our faith teaches that God created all of us and that sexual and gender diversity is part of God's blessing. We believe that marriage should be available to all committed loving adult couples. We believe in women's moral agency. We believe that all families have value and deserve respect and support.
We think those ARE "time honored values." And we're not going to let you claim that you speak for all people of faith or that you get to narrowly define faith, marriage, or family.
Because they belong to all of us.
And just because you say that this is new some of us remember only too well your earlier work. It may be a new wineskin, but it's not new wine.
In Faith,
The Reverend Debra W. Haffner
I read yesterday that you are starting a new organization, the Faith and Freedom Coalition.
I read that you told US News, "This is not your daddy's Christian Coalition. ..It's got to be more brown, more black, more female, and younger. It's critical that we open the door wide and let them know if they share our values and believe in the principles of faith and marriage and family, they're welcome."
Now, Mr. Reed, I believe in faith and marriage and family; in fact, I have faith, a marriage, and a family. I also believe as your web site says in the "dignity of life and marriage."
So, why do I think that you weren't thinking of people like me when you created this new version of your previous organization? Our faith teaches that God created all of us and that sexual and gender diversity is part of God's blessing. We believe that marriage should be available to all committed loving adult couples. We believe in women's moral agency. We believe that all families have value and deserve respect and support.
We think those ARE "time honored values." And we're not going to let you claim that you speak for all people of faith or that you get to narrowly define faith, marriage, or family.
Because they belong to all of us.
And just because you say that this is new some of us remember only too well your earlier work. It may be a new wineskin, but it's not new wine.
In Faith,
The Reverend Debra W. Haffner
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Celebrating Title IX
I was not an athletic child.
It probably wouldn't have matter much if I was. The only sports available to girls in my high school were field hockey and cheer leading. Athletic girls had to fit themselves into one of these two narrowly defined categories. There were no intramural sports for women when I first got to Wesleyan.
That all changed thirty seven years ago today when Title IX was enacted, requiring schools and colleges to offer equal athletic opportunities to girls and young women. I was actually interning that summer for Congressman Stewart McKinney, and I wrote his testimony on why his daughters deserved the same opportunities to participate in high quality sports as his son. I remember how thrilled we were when the bill passed.
Title IX changed the world for young girls and young women, who have the whole world of sports opened to them. My daughter and my nieces were soccer players, basketball players, and karate students in elementary schools. Many of the women reading this probably can't imagine a time when young women didn't participate in athletics.
The White House is featuring photos of women athletes today.
Oh, and me? I still don't participate in team sports, but I love yoga, working out, hiking, cross country skiing, and dancing. And today, there are probably classes or clubs in most high schools for those.
It probably wouldn't have matter much if I was. The only sports available to girls in my high school were field hockey and cheer leading. Athletic girls had to fit themselves into one of these two narrowly defined categories. There were no intramural sports for women when I first got to Wesleyan.
That all changed thirty seven years ago today when Title IX was enacted, requiring schools and colleges to offer equal athletic opportunities to girls and young women. I was actually interning that summer for Congressman Stewart McKinney, and I wrote his testimony on why his daughters deserved the same opportunities to participate in high quality sports as his son. I remember how thrilled we were when the bill passed.
Title IX changed the world for young girls and young women, who have the whole world of sports opened to them. My daughter and my nieces were soccer players, basketball players, and karate students in elementary schools. Many of the women reading this probably can't imagine a time when young women didn't participate in athletics.
The White House is featuring photos of women athletes today.
Oh, and me? I still don't participate in team sports, but I love yoga, working out, hiking, cross country skiing, and dancing. And today, there are probably classes or clubs in most high schools for those.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
