The Green Light District

I find this article excellent. Charlie points out in a lucid, calm, sensitive way why talking about sex to, for example, children, is not the same (or even close to it) as “sexualizing” them. As has often seemed the case to me with Charlie’s writing, he presents something with which I wholeheartedly agree but had not quite noticed or articulated myself. Much appreciation to him!

I find this relatively short speech high on complexity (not surprising, coming from Audacia), and basically I feel she says quite a lot with rather few words. The observations she offers about intersecting identities and different forms of privilege and oppression strike me as starkly relevant and reminiscent of the complexity of human rights/social justice advocacy and of everyone’s experience. I especially appreciate the perceptoin, as I have seen stated before, that solidarity and respect for human rights includes allhuman rights—and that advocacy for any requires this awareness of the desirability of all.

10/21/11
I don’t claim to know much about economics myself, but I frankly certainly find (what seem to me) blasé arguments about how easy or at least doable it is to support oneself in the current overall systemic economical and cultural environment of the United States without a whole lot of factors already seeming to be in one’s favor frustratingly, sometimes maddeningly, dubious. I appreciate the time and breakdown the author offered here in response to such a presentation. (Note: The few comments I chose to peruse on this post included some that seemed to offer considerable disagreement. There may be merit in those too; again, I don’t claim to be an expert in economics. A lot of what I interpreted from this post, though, rang true to me and seems important to me to be pointed out.) [Thanks to Graydancer for the link.]

I simply find this infuriating. While that does not make this piece seem particularly inspiring to me, it seems desirable for citizens of the United States to be aware that this insanity (yes, that really is what I consider it) is taking place and the astoundingly inappropriate degree to which representatives of the Catholic religion are intruding on the workings of the United States government and, by extension, the lives of the country’s population.

I feel quite the same way I interpret the author as stating she feels in this article—I also said as soon as Plan B was allowed over-the-counter status but only for people 17 and over that I would unhesitatingly procure and provide it to anyone who needed it without a prescription and wasn’t old enough to get it. I also very much appreciate her point about why she finds it important to speak about the availability of Plan B, and I relate to her own story—I once found myself at a regular gynecological checkup staring at my longtime respective health care provider as she told me she would not write me a prescription for Plan B because she “didn’t believe in it.” (She was not a health care provider of mine after that.) I was a reproductive rights activist, and even I sat there feeling stunned and even a little bit shamed, or at least embarrassed, as the person with a certain authority in that exchange denied me a perfectly legal prescription I, as a patient, was asking for. (I also, a different time, encountered a worker at a pharmacy who refused to fill a prescription for Plan B for me.) It makes me appreciate the author’s assertion that she “[has] the wherewithal to fight [those who would deny women Plan B], but many, many women—those who feel shame about having sex in this culture don’t have the resources to fight you. And so I’m fighting this on their behalf.” I feel exactly the same way.

I agree with and find astute the perception delineated in the first part of this article. The last paragraph offers a stark and ominous framing of the implications of the proposed Initiative 26 in Mississippi that was voted on yesterday, and, I feel profound relief to say, did not pass. Why the movement would suddenly make such a move and include all women rather than just those they perceive as “sluts” in the agenda of controlling their bodies and autonomy is not covered here as far as I see, but whatever is going on, it certainly seems to me something to watch.

I love this delineation of teaching about consent at almost any age–especially since it doesn’t even involve any discomfort for those who feel such at the idea of speaking to their children about sex. As the author points out, the message itself is not about sex at all but has obvious implications for consent, bodily integrity, autonomy, and respectful partnership, which seems to me of obvious import for everybody.

The topic of consent (“enthusiastic consent,” as the author puts it) seems of utmost and obvious importance to me in discussions and interactions around sexuality. As the author points out, it has seemed pretty infrequently mentioned or expounded upon in many (if not most) sex education contexts for youth I know of. I appreciate the author’s consideration of the subject as a parent and her exploration of how to approach the topic with her (eventually) adolescent children. Recognizing that young people are sexual beings and will eventually be responsible for their sexual perspectives and behavior seems a place to start—and one of which this culture seems to me woefully avoidant. Which, it seems to me, makes consideration like this on the part of parents and sex educators seem all the more welcome and essential.

I adore the framing I see in this piece. While I agree entirely, I don’t know that it had occurred to me so succinctly and straightforwardly to frame sexual education and understanding this way for youth. But the point Hugo makes about the body’s response and knowing when to do what makes so much sense to me. His offering seems well placed for parents and other educators in conversation with youth about sexuality.

I personally find it so important to recognize that adults who appear so fearful of and/or opposed to minors’ exposure to information about sex tend to feel (directly proportionately, I would presume) fearful of/uncomfortable with sexuality themselves. In this way, the further deprivation of youth from information about sexuality is perpetrating a cycle, in this case of fear, ignorance, and inauthenticity. I appreciate voices like Dr. Klein’s continuously pointing this out and support us all in recognizing this and addressing and being with our own discomforts for the service of higher consciousness for all humanity.

I have admittedly been known to feel amazement when I have encountered individuals whom I have experienced as not appearing aware of or finding important the realm of social issues related to or centered around sexuality to which I have devoted so much time and attention. However, I have indeed encountered such perspectives, and after the initial surprise I’ve felt (resultant of the relative normativeness of discussing and considering sexuality I have experienced for years), the prevalence thereof does make sense to me given the lack of openness I experience this culture as showing around sexuality. I appreciate this column from Lana expressing her view of the importance of what she refers to as sexual politics.

I have often appreciated Mr. Krugman’s commentary in the New York Times, where he is a columnist. This piece strikes me as intensely exquisite, outlining clearly, straightforwardly, and eloquently something that has seemed vaguely obvious to me but that I would not have known how to express quite so beautifully. I have often found Mr. Krugman’s commentary to do exactly that, and I find solace in knowing he has such a platform via which to offer such things.

I adore this piece. She says so much that resonates with me, both about non-monogamy itself and also about why she feels called to speaking about and advocating for it. I deeply appreciate this offering of the author’s perspective.

I find this such an even-keel, down-to-earth account of one’s personal experience with polyamory that offers extrapolated guidance without ever veering into any kind of self-righteous or overly generalizing territory (indeed the emphasis on the uniqueness of individuals and relationships is something with which I wholeheartedly agree and appreciate her allusion to). I not only find this impressive but appreciate it as well, as I agree with the author that resources and models of polyamory/non-monogamy can be quite helpful and seem in short supply. I also love that she points out acculturated ideas like the “scarcity” model and encouragement of competitiveness in relation to cultural/collective perceptions of intimate (and sometimes other) relationship.

I deeply adore this post. I especially appreciate her mention of the messages about what she terms “love” (in quotes) that are prominent in our culture, as well as her overall distinction between a cultural perception of “love” (again, in quotes) and love. I agree, and I still sometimes wince at the songs, movies, popular culture messages, etc., that seem to glorify what I find questionable if not downright misguided versions of interactive and relationship dynamics. And of course I adore the line that, to me, speaks one of the greatest truths of existence: “You have the love you need already deep down inside you.”