Sexual Intelligence
An Electronic Newsletter
Written and published by Marty Klein, Ph.D.
Issue #74 -- April 2006
Contents
1. Fox: More Sex in the "Liberal"
Media
2. States' Rights vs. People's Rights
3. Sue J Vibrates on Conan
4. Divesting Porn--and Integrity
5. U.S. News & World Report Doesn't
1. Fox: More Sex in the "Liberal" Media
This is funny, with a dark side. Or vice versa.
Morality groups and conservative religious leaders have done a brilliant job
creating a Liberal Media Conspiracy. You know, the leftwing-homosexual-jewish-aclu
entertainment industry that's forcing Americans to watch "smut burgers," "lewdness,"
and "indecency" on TV (see MoralityInMedia.org). Back in 1992 Republican Party
chair Rich Bond even acknowledged that their frequent denunciations of "liberal
bias" in the media were part of their strategy. Thousands of groups and churches
now raise hundreds of millions of dollars each year to fight this horrifying
liberal trash.
Except this liberal Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist. Fox TV, for example, has
the top four programs on the Parents Television Council's list of 2005's "worst
TV shows for family viewing on primetime broadcast TV." You know, the Fox network
of "liberals" Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan, and Trent Lott ("If it hadn't been
for Fox, I don't know what I'd have done for the news," Lott said in 2001).
Somehow, conservative viewers insist they're being fed immoral crap by a liberal
media conspiracy. Sorry, wrong conspiracy.
Now let's talk news.
Since Christmas, three women in Daytona Beach, FL have been killed in unsolved
murders. So on March 23, Fox News did what it often does: it talked about murder
for no reason, and used a news peg involving sex--in this case, Spring Break.
Several news personnel took turns talking in a corner of the screen, while salacious
cameras gave us generous heaps of girl-flesh: drinking, dancing, stripping,
cavorting young things. Listening to tut-tutting about murder was the admission
price for watching lovely coeds dressed in the full range of female garb, everything
from thongs to bikinis to one-pieces.
Fox committed dozens of media crimes in the three-minute segment. They flashed
gratuitous sex while trivializing murder. They paired the two. They told people
to worry, as if worrying would protect them. They discussed irrational violence
while filling the screen with irrational pleasure. And, of course, intoned their
concern with Really Serious voices and frowns.
Along with other mainstream news organizations, Fox rarely misses an opportunity
to titillate us, even resorting to the lame excuse of "didja hear about that
awful sexual thing over there?" They showed the Janet Jackson nipple moment
4.3 jillion times.
True liberals? Sure we want to see sex on TV. We just don't think you need the
excuse of murder.
Thanks to the Daily Show for bringing this to everyone's attention. To see the
clip, with Jon Stewart's hilarious commentary, go to www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=60827.
2. States' Rights vs. People's Rights
Mitt Romney is the Republican governor of Massachusetts, typically
a Democratic state. Romney has been positioning himself for a 2008 presidential
run by desperately counting the number of angels that can dance on the head
of a pin--if those angels have opinions about gay marriage or abortion. He has
been attempting to take positions about government intrusion into private life
while alienating no one, torturously splitting hairs when our society needs
the clarity of a crewcut.
His state's highest court recently upheld a 1913 law, ruling that same-gender
couples from states that prohibit gay marriage cannot marry in Massachusetts.
Governor Romney welcomed the decision, saying he did not want Massachusetts
to become "the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage.'' Maybe he could simply pass
an excise tax on Elvis impersonators and leave the American tradition of tasteless
heterosexual marriage intact.
Out-of-state gay activists had been strategizing about marrying in Massachusetts
and returning to their home states to fight for legal recognition of those marriages.
But, said the governor, "It's important that other states have the right to
make their own determination of marriage and not follow the wrong course that
our Supreme Judicial Court put us on.''
Does Romney mean that if Georgia again prohibits marriage between whites and
blacks, he won't let mixed-race Georgian couples marry in his state either?
Or that if Utah criminalizes marriage between Mormons and non-Mormons, he won't
let such Utah couples marry in Massachusetts?
"States' Rights" was once code for racism. Now it's becoming code for conservatism
that intends to evade constitutional protections.
3. Sue J Vibrates on Conan
Last week my friend Sue Johanson was on Conan O'Brien for the
second time. She's already been on Letterman, Leno, and other shows many, many
times.
Sue discussed sex toys with Conan and guest Ray Romano. As usual, the host's
faux horror, audience's giggling, and Sue's complete disregard for propriety
and euphemisms made it a complete howl. Millions of viewers did get some education,
mostly about who uses toys (almost everyone), why (typically clitoral stimulation),
and how (make it up, folks). Most importantly, they saw a normal-looking woman
being comfortable about sex, heard words like orgasm, and saw men being uncomfortable
about sex--and staying in the conversation anyway.
Like other late night talk shows, Conan does comedy, and so neither he nor Sue
mentioned the six states where it's illegal to purchase the products they all
played with. Of course, had they done so, the audience might have thought it
was just more joking. That's part of the problem--America's increasing legal
restrictions on sexual expression are so extreme they're hard to actually believe.
They sound more like something from Uzbekistan.
4. Divesting Porn--and
Integrity
This one's so hypocritical it's difficult to find a sufficiently
nasty analogy.
The Texas Teacher Retirement System is going to divest its $100 billion investment
portfolio of any companies receiving 10% or more of their income from topless
bars, porn films, and other sexually-oriented businesses.
Board member Greg Poole told the American Family Association that the Retirement
System has a professional interest in the welfare of women and youth, and therefore
can't, in good conscience, invest in pornography: "To think that we are in some
way, by the use of our money, promoting something that is so degrading to women
and children--it just seems irresponsible," he says.
Yes, if you're going to demonize sex, trot out those women and children. Since
Poole asserts that part of responsible fund management includes verifying that
investments do not exploit women and children, we can assume the system will
also disinvest in companies that:
* Make or advertise high-fat junk food aimed at kids
* Publish magazines that make women feel bad about themselves
* Create fashions that make women resent their bodies
* Make or promote violent movies
* Operate hospitals that withhold reproductive health care services
* Operate pharmacies that withhold reproductive health care products
* Sell handguns (a major source of death & injury in domestic violence and
childhood accidents)
If the Board is serious, it must also divest from any company that depends on
Visa or MasterCard, because these credit card giants are essential for the porn
industry's operation. Or is that taking Poole's phony idealism too far?
By the way, why the 10% cutoff? Why not divest from all companies with any
relationship to sexuality? Two simple reasons:
* Sexuality-related commerce is so common, that would be virtually impossible;
* The Texas System and its members are in it for the money. Offer all these
shareholders 100% no-porn investments--at half of last year's return. You wouldn't
be able to field a football team with those who agree.
5. U.S. News & World Report Doesn't
The April 3, 2006 issue of the venerable magazine ran a cover
story on breakthroughs in cancer vaccines. Unfortunately, it misled readers
with wrong information about the vaccine against HPV, the virus that causes
cervical cancer. The vaccine needs to be taken by girls years before
they become sexually active.
A sidebar asked what happened to the projected political battle over the vaccine
which morality groups had already demonized as "encouraging promiscuity." The
conclusion is that conservatives are not challenging the HPV vaccine, which
is simply wrong. Here are just two mainstream examples:
"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be harmful because they may see
it as a license to engage in premarital sex." --Bridget Maher, Family Research
Council.
"I personally object to vaccinating children against a disease that is 100%
preventable with proper sexual behavior."--Leslie Unruh, Director, National
Abstinence Clearinghouse
"We support the vaccine," says Focus on the Family health analyst Linda Klepacki--but
the story reports her also warning that once kids feel safe from the sexually
transmitted infection HPV, they will indeed have more sex. Exactly what kind
of support is this?
Morality groups like these say they oppose the vaccine's availability because
they believe it will encourage "promiscuity" by making sex safer. But
the data (including the National Survey of Family Growth the article itself
cites) are clear: teens do not refuse sex just because they think it's dangerous.
They're teens.
In 2005, Susan Wood resigned as head of the FDA's Office of Women's Health when
conservatives succeeded in blocking over-the-counter availability of Emergency
Contraception (issues #23,
52,
67).
Weeks later, she said she was "very worried" that political pressure from the
same conservative groups would also delay availability of a new vaccine that
protects against HPV, and for the same reason--that reducing one of the risks
involved in sexual contact could lead to promiscuity among young women. She
turned out to be absolutely right.
The American public deserves to know about the powerful lobbying against a medicine
that will save their daughters' lives. U.S. News & World Report let
everyone down by not reporting this crucial story accurately.
You may quote anything herein, with the
following attribution:
"Reprinted from Sexual Intelligence, copyright
© Marty Klein, Ph.D. (www.SexEd.org)."