Okay, this is a clever ad to promote noodles that “won’t swell.” And just because I’d be lumped into the first bowl of noodles, doesn’t mean I can’t take a joke.

However, this ad is more than just another take on “fat=undesirable” and “skinny=desirable.” It also shows the overweight women as lifeless and just, well … blobs. The skinny women are coy and cooing and looking ever eager to please.

So here is another example of how we perpetuate the message that overweight women have nothing to offer and are unappealing, and that thin women are always sexy and interested in being consumed.

That mode of thinking is not helpful to anyone. Not to the women who want to believe they can be desirable no matter what their size, and not to the men who wonder why their girlfriends/wives won’t open up sexually.

I love this quote from an article about Debra Haffner,

“Our sexuality and our spirituality are intimately connected,” Haffner told a crowd at the First Unitarian Society in Madison earlier this month. At their best, after all, they share what Haffner called “a common moral vision” — how to love each other and how to treat each other with respect.

Debra is a Unitarian Universalist minister and the author of several books. She was the head of SIECUS (the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S) from 1988 to 2000. She is now the director of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing, the mission of which is to “change the way America understands the relationship of sexuality and religion” — no small undertaking.

Other great quotes:

“Sexuality is creative, good, our bodies are wonderful things, there are many forms of blessed relationships.”

“Our sexuality must be exercised wisely so it is not in service of pain and exploitation.”

“Our sexuality in all its stunning diversity is part of God’s creation.”

I had the chance to meet Debra at the 2007 AASECT (American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists) conference in Charlotte after her plenary session “Sexuality and Religion: What’s the Connection” (which also happens to be the name of her fabulous blog).

I’m sure she doesn’t remember me, but I will remember meeting her. As a young sexologist, she was one of the few “Sex-lebrities” that I wanted to meet (Ian Kerner was the other and I got him to sign a book for me!). Although I don’t know that I agree with her on every issue, I admire her dedication to talking about sexuality and spirituality in a way that is informative, inspiring and healing.

62211 PLENARY SESSION: SEXUALITY AND RELIGION: WHAT’S THE CONNECTION?

This is so disturbing, but I post it in an effort to bring awareness to this tragedy.

Thanks to The Tiny Voice of Reason for posting it here.

I get so irritated every time I hear or read someone listing all of the terrible things that are likely to happen to you if you have pre-marital sex. Federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs must teach that “sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.”

I interact with people with sexual problems on a daily basis. Here are just a few of the potential “harmful psychological and physical effects” of abstinence:

• Vaginismus – the body’s unconscious response to a perceived threat (read: a penis). The vaginal muscles constrict to prevent penetration. Vaginismus results in unconsumated marriages, painful sex, and relationship problems. (Interesting note: Most women with vaginismus were raised in religious/conservative homes.)

• Belief that “Men need sex” and “Women need emotions” - Do you see how this mindset creates a double-bind? Women feel that it would be odd or wrong for them to enjoy sex, but yet feel like they must do it in order to satisfy their husband. A lot of “wait for sex” texts reinforce this unhelpful (and wrong) way of understanding men, women, sex, and emotions.

• Rapid Ejaculation – a lot of men who delay sexual relationships become so used to their masturbatory habits that they find it difficult to transition to having intercourse. They carry the shame and guilt from their “lustful” abstinent years into their relationship.

Please note that I am not saying that pre-marital sex does not have the potential for negative consequences. It absolutely does … have the potential … to cause “harmful psychological and physical effects.” But so does abstinence.

Photo by Jacob Bøtter

I’ve enjoyed some lively dialogue created by my Choices in Sex Ed post a few days back, as well as some postings on Twitter.

Today I read “New U.K. Sex Ed Urges Parental Talks with No Values” as a headline on The Christian Post.

“Discussing your values with your teenagers will help them to form their own,” the pamphlet reads. “Remember, though, that trying to convince them of what’s right and wrong may discourage them from being open.”

Contrary to what the headline implies, and what people might assume, the pamphlet encourages parents to share their values, even acknowledging that discussing their values will help their kids form their own values. This is a point that I stress when I talk to parents about how to talk to kids about healthy sexuality. I remind them over and over that they are their child’s first source of sex information, and that sharing sexual values is incredibly important. Most kids say they truly want to know what their parents think about sexual issues, and why. When it comes to sex, parents have a lot of influence on their children, more than probably the parents or the kids realize.

The second part of the quote is probably what is setting off the controversy, but isn’t it plainly obvious? I think we all know, because of our own human nature, that the more someone tries to convince us of something, the more compelled we often feel to do the exact opposite — if only to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. And who likes to argue for the sake of arguing more than teens?

As parents, we can (and must) share our values about sex (and money, and health, and education, and personal responsibility, and… and..) but we also must be mindful that we cannot guarantee that our kids will have those same values. And if we err on the side of arguing our point to death, we may sacrifice our significance as our kid’s “safe place” to come with their vulnerabilities and questions.

I’m not saying it’s wrong to want to pass on our values to our kids, and I’m not saying that we shouldn’t argue our points (to some extent). What I am saying, is that the best way to pass on those values is by first living them out ourselves, and then creating a home environment that offers the opportunity to talk openly, ask important questions, and develop self-control, communication skills, and relationship wisdom.

Rep. Alma Adams, a Greensboro Democrat, is one of four primary sponsors of the House Bill 88: Healthy Youth Act.

The bill would allow parents to choose between the standard sex ed course which emphasizes abstinence until marriage, and a comprehensive approach that provides more information about disease and pregnancy prevention.

“There’s just so much evidence that our kids do need to be informed,” Adams said last week. “It’s an issue I don’t think we’ve addressed adequately.” Source

The bill seems like a practical solution to the sex ed debate. Parents, like myself, who want their kids to receive comprehensive sexuality education can have that choice. The problem is that a lot of kids are still going to get limited information. While many parents argue that they want the responsibility of talking to their kids about sex, the reality is that few of them do. In my many discussions with people about their sexual development, only a few have told me that they feel their parents truly talked to them about sex, beyond the perfunctory “Don’t get pregnant” speech.

Last week, I talked with a young woman serving with AmeriCorps. She is passionate about sexual health and is hoping to teach more comprehensive sex ed in Charlotte-area schools. She knows how important it is. She was speaking at a local high school recently and a teenage boy asked her, “What is semen?” This is a boy who was quite possibly having sex, and yet he didn’t know what semen was!

I disagree with the argument that teaching young people about condoms is like teaching them how to use a bong. I think of it like this: We don’t want our kids drunk driving, so we tell them that if they drink, they shouldn’t drive and they either need to stay where they are or call someone to pick them up. Without condoning the underage drinking, we put the emphasis on their safety. In the same manner, we can tell our kids that while we don’t want them engaging in casual sex, if they do, we want them to be safe.

What do you think? Should parents get to choose, or do we need to have one standard curriculum for every student in the state? And if we can only have one option, which should it be?

Abstinence-Only or Abstinence-Until-Marriage. This type of sex ed program generally teaches students that premarital sex can be dangerous to their physical and psychological health. Most people who support abstinence-only education believe that if you teach teens about birth control and safer sex, it will confuse them and send them the message that “sex is OK.” Instead, abstinence-only programs provide students with inaccurate and misleading information about contraception; in short, that condoms don’t work. These programs also treat topics like homosexuality and masturbation as unacceptable behaviors.

Abstinence-First. This type of sex ed program can be a mixture of things. In general, it stresses abstinence as the best way to protect oneself from pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), but also accepts that many students are already having sex or will have sex. In this case, abstinence-first programs tell students about how to use condoms, birth control, and other safer sex practices, and how to get these methods, too. Homosexuality and masturbation may be mentioned in classes, but their treatment can vary widely.

Comprehensive. This type of sex ed program provides a positive view of sexuality as a natural part of human development. It teaches about sexual abstinence as well as pregnancy and disease protection, and provides teens with skills to ensure they are able to take care of their sexual health and make healthy, responsible decisions. It gives teens accurate information about condoms and birth control, STDs, including HIV/AIDS, and also includes gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual issues. Comprehensive sex ed considers homosexuality and masturbation to be normal aspects of human sexuality.

Source: Sex, Etc

The most important strength of comprehensive sex ed is that it “provides teens with skills to ensure they are able to take care of their sexual health and make healthy, responsible decisions.” Knowledge is Power!

Another important point to be made is that whatever is taught in schools, it doesn’t negate the need for parents to develop an open, honest and ongoing dialogue with their child about all aspects of healthy sexuality. Talking about sex is a parent’s responsibility – and a school’s, and a church’s, and a community’s.

As I was writing my previous post about Ted Haggard, I was wondering what Joe Kort was going to say on the matter. Joe is the author of Straight Guise, a blog about men who have sex with men (MSM) and who question their sexual orientation. Joe has written a fascinating list of sixteen reasons why men have sex with men, “only some of which have anything to do with homosexuality or bisexuality.”

In his post on Ted Haggard, he says “Nobody knows the truth about Haggard but Haggard himself!” (The exact point that I was trying to make in writing my post!)

“This needs to be about understanding and being curious about how complicated sexual behavior and identity can be!”

Read Joe’s four reasons why people have such a hard time with Ted Haggard.

What are my Five Ways to Improve Your Sex Life?

• Touch
• Get Some Sleep
• Speak Up
• Laugh More
• Make Eye Contact

Pick up a copy of Natural Awakenings to find out what makes these five things so important to intimacy.

If you live outside the Charlotte NC metro, you can find the article online.

In order to be certified by the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors, and Therapists (AASECT) as a sexuality educator, one of the many requirements that I must meet is to participate in a Sexual Attitude Reassessment (SAR). The SAR originated in the early 1970s as a tool for understanding how a person’s attitudes and values affect him/her professionally and personally.

“In order to function competently, the health professional needs to be keenly aware of his or her own attitudes, feelings, and judgments about all areas of sexuality, and should have a basic body of knowledge and the skills to address the sexual concerns of the patient, client, or student.” (William Stayton, 1998)

The SAR can take many forms, depending on the instructor(s) and the facility. The SAR that I chose to attend was a one-day, 10-hour intensive led by Joan Sughrue. Joan, a nurse, and her late husband John, an OB/GYN, were trained by sexology pioneers William Masters and Virginia E. Johnson (Masters & Johnson) and began doing sex therapy in the Southeast in the early 1970s. I chose to take my SAR with Joan because I value her combination of medical and counseling expertise.

We began the day with an ice-breaker that definitely cut the tension and got us talking about sex right away. There were about fifteen men and women in attendance, including a doctor, a midwife, a minister, several counselors, and a handful of graduate students. The day consisted of large group exercises, small group discussions, and viewing short sexually-explicit films including:

The Internal Clitoris, by Betty Dodson

Betty Dodson: Her Life and Art, a film by Mark Schoen

20/20 Special on Transgender Children

and a number of clips and films found on Sex Smart Films

The true benefit of the SAR is not found in the media, which is obviously readily available online. The real value (and the real point) is the opportunity to reflect on how your own views of sexuality have been formed and discuss them with others, who may or may not share your opinions. I didn’t necessarily change my personal views on sexuality, but in hearing other people’s stories, I have a deeper appreciation for diverse perspectives.

I appreciated meeting other sexual health professionals and learning from their varied experiences. This particular SAR’s participants were aged 25 to 65. One counselor had extensive knowledge in working with transgender clients, another worked with girls who had experienced sexual trauma, and another specialized in working with minority LGBT clients and inter-racial couples.

If you are interested in attending a SAR, you can find a number of opportunities listed on the AASECT website. The DIY approach would be to gather some friends, watch some sexual-themed clips or a thought-provoking documentary, and then discuss your sexual beliefs and attitudes and how you arrived at them. I would love to organize an informal SAR, so if anyone’s interested, please let me know. I think we can learn so much from each other!

*If you want a funny, fictional account of the SAR experience, there is a book called Sex Camp based on the Annual Workshop on Sexuality, the nationally renowned training that has been held for nearly 30 years at an Episcopal Church-owned retreat facility in upstate New York. Note: I have not read the book, so this is not a personal recommendation.

Someone forwarded me the blog post Lessons from the Ted Haggard Story, and for the first time I heard about Ted’s Nightline comment:

“Just as the church made a horrible mistake several centuries ago, insisting that the Earth was flat when, in fact, the Earth was round, I think the church may make a major mistake in our generation saying that sexuality should be this and nothing else when, in fact, there’s a lot more diversity.”

It appears that Ted and I have a mutual concern.

However, I predict that the church’s stance on homosexuality will change, just as its stance on divorce has. Fifty years ago, a woman would suffer terribly in her marriage because she was told that divorce was not an option. I know this, because it’s part of my family history. Her fear of going to hell was greater than her fear of her husband.

Likewise, there are people who do not feel that they have an option to be anything other than heterosexual. Their fear of hell (often in the form of disappointed parents, an unkind society, or outright damnation) is greater than their fear of stifled sexuality.

And if there’s one thing that I have learned in working with people on their sexual issues, it is that although we think we can tuck our sexuality neatly away into a corner of our lives, the truth is that it permeates every moment. If we aren’t honest with who we are sexually, then we aren’t being honest with who we are.