After deciding not to run again because of being on the receiving end of some shady mortgage deals from Countrywide, Chris Dodd (D-CT) has a cushy new job as the CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). He will replace Bob Pisano who is the acting CEO. Pisano is a Hollywood insider who spent time at SAG, MGM and Paramount, whereas Dodd is certain that he’s seen movies but is outraged by the price of popcorn and the lack of wide parking spots.
The MPAA is the organization that determines what rating a film will receive based on how many instances of boobs, butts, peens, dirty words, violence, sex and Mel Gibson are in the film. They don’t tell you what you can’t have in your film, but if you want it to get a R or below you know what you have to do.
(Note: This is an article about some sexually explicit topics, so both this post and any sites to which I link may be considered textually NSFW.)
In the midst of the latest round of congressional attempts to criminalize abortion, the “right to choose” question has once again interjected itself into the national conversation. Does a woman have the right to choose what to do with her own pregnancy in her own body?
I’d wager that most of us here on Crosstalk would argue for a woman’s right to choose. As with the gay marriage debate, it would seem that many of us are uncomfortable with the idea of legislating morality, especially as it relates to sexuality (ironically, a classically Republican mindset ). But the “right to choose” question extends beyond the issue of abortion; for those in the poz (HIV-positive) community, a debate is raging over the ways they have sex and the necessity of “safe sex” measures.*
See, barebacking has made a comeback in the gay porn industry. Barebacking refers to sexual penetration–usually anal–without the use of a condom.” Barebacking was long a staple of gay sex, but when the AIDS crisis his America, the practice lost its glamor. Only recently has it come back into vogue, the latest thrill to seek for the most sexually adventurous (some would say careless) people. The gay community is split over whether this is a good or bad thing for the LGBT community at large. Many activists wish to require porn studios to include condom use in their feature films; after all, the best way to encourage safe sex and minimize the risk of STI transmission is by using a condom, and it’s irresponsible of some porn studios to continue to promote and profit off of bareback sex. On the other hand, proponents and producers of bareback pornography argue that porn is fantasy, not reality, and viewers understand the difference between the fantastical world that porn depicts and the realities of gay sex.
Along with the most recent rise in barebacking’s popularity has been the increasing prevalence of serosorting–sex between partners with the same STD status. A (relatively) high-profile example of this is Atlanta’s monthly Poz4Play parties, in which HIV-positive men congregate and have unregulated sex with each other. Condoms are offered, but not required; while patrons have to keep their clothes on in the space’s lobby and hallways, several private rooms are available for private, unmonitored sexual activity.
Serosorting isn’t just limited to those in the poz community, however; dating websites for people with specific STIs (such as herpes, HPV, and chlamydia) are growing increasingly popular with gay and straight singles looking to avoid the awkwardness and embarrassment that often comes with admitting one’s STD status to a disease-free partner. As you might imagine, some–but not all–of the couples matched up by these disease-specific sites eschew condom use. And for those who feel stigmatized by their STIs, it’s nice to meet people who share these problems and experiences; the burden of shame, at least between partners matched through these disease-specific websites, is lifted, and that fact alone makes the sex all the better. (A common acronym in poz personal ads is “UB2,” which stands for “you be too”–as in, “respondents must share my STI status.”)
The justification for bareback serosorting is that since both partners are already infected with a given disease, the supposed “risk” of infecting each other is rendered moot. And if people are going to bareback anyway–it’s common wisdom in the gay community that condom-free sex simply feels better, and it’s assumed that many sexually active members of the community actively search out opportunities for barebacking–then they might as well do it with those who share their disease status, so as to minimize risk to the broader (disease-free) gay community. Many “poz party” promoters emphasize this health-conscious aspect of their decision to promote serosorting:
For decades, the issue of HIV Status Disclosure was one of silence, confusion and doubt mainly created on the fear of hate, rejection and in some cases DEATH (murder or suicide) – that was in the 20th Century. Today, the 21st Century has opened the doors of opportunity, acceptance, communication, awareness and HOPE as HIV+ people (gay, straight, man, women, young or old) openly and willfully disclose their HIV Status to family, friends, loved ones, co workers and sex partners. Since the mid 1990’s, HIV Status Disclosure for both HIV+ and HIV-negative people continues to be an acceptable behavioral change that global society has understood to be vital in stopping the spread of HIV in it’s tracks. Without HIV testing and HIV Status Disclosure mankind can NOT physically break the cycle of new HIV transmissions – Serosort (HIV+ only) or Safe Sex Serosort ;(HIV+ 4 HIV+ or HIV- 4 HIV-).
So we can see how the issues of serosorting and barebacking are fraught with tension and disagreement over the limits of sexual freedom; should barebacking and HIV-positive pornography be legal? Who would be responsible for policing, say, mandatory condom use on gay porn sets? How could such requirements even be enforced in the first place? Would the policing of these kinds of sexual activities only push them underground, into dangerously unregulated situations? And is it right that, say, “bareback porn is given away as prizes at benefits for AIDS and other organizations”?
Add one more question to that unnerving list: what to do about “bug chasers“?
Bugchasing is a slang term for the practice of pursuing sex with HIV infected individuals in order to contract HIV. Bugchasers may seek HIV infection for a variety of reasons Bugchasers seek sexual partners who are HIV positive for the purpose of having unprotected sex and becoming HIV positive; giftgivers are HIV positive individuals who comply with the bugchaser’s efforts to become infected with HIV.
It’s difficult to avoid condemning the practice of bugchasing as reckless, dangerous, and just plain stupid. But should it be banned? Defenders of the practice argue that sexual activity between consenting adults should not and cannot be legislated. Moreover, some argue, it’s hypocritical to on the one hand protect gay men’s right to engage in sodomy and a woman’s right to choose whether or not she undergoes an abortion, and on the other hand seek to criminalize other consensual sexual behavior–namely, bugchasing and barebacking.
It’s a tricky question, and I’m not going to editorialize; in truth, I myself am still trying to figure out where I stand on the issue. But even though practices like serosorting and bugchasing may only affect a small percentage of the population, the questions they raise about sexual freedom and the legislation of sexual health seem more pertinent to the national conversation than ever.
*Okay, so it seems as though some readers have taken issue with my comparing the decision to terminate an unwanted pregnancy with the choice to bareback or “bug chase.” I’m not attempting to equate the two at all. For one thing, I don’t think anyone ever “wants” to get an abortion; it’s an incredibly difficult and painful decision that many people (myself included) believe is up to the pregnant woman, as opposed to a bunch of politicians in Congress. But while some young gay men feel the need to “bug chase” in order to find shelter and/or community, many testimonies from “bug chasers” I’ve found online imply that the decision to do so is voluntary and in the pursuit of what they view as erotic pleasure.
Rather, I think both abortions and activities like “bug chasing”–and the legal debates that surround them–center around the same question: “Who is in charge of <i>my</i> body?” In other words, the question as to whether it’s justified for the government to intervene in people’s personal and/or sexual decisions is common to both of these “issues.” Now, you might make the argument that whereas an abortion is a solely personal decision, activities like “bug chasing” pose a potential social health hazard. I don’t think this viewpoint is invalid. Just because I think these two things both center around the same question doesn’t mean they must have the same answer.
In any rate, if you disagree with the analogy, then you can ignore it. It’s not central to my post; I suppose I simply felt the need to “justify” the inclusion of this topic on Crasstalk, as ridiculous as that might sound, and was therefore attempting to tie serosorting and “bug chasing” to other things that have been discussed on this blog. The rather “anything-goes” nature of Crasstalk where most any topic is welcome without attempting to justify its relevancy to the blog’s audience is still a bit new to me.
You thought I was done yammering about abortion laws? HA. You are so naïve.
Welcome to Part Two of Chipping Away At Roe, or I Can’t Believe We Still Have To Protest This Crap. Today we’re going to look at a (very) small sampling of state laws and bills relating to abortion and reproductive rights.
We’ll start with my home state, Iowa. According to theGuttmacher Institute, Iowa had 11 abortion providers in 2008 in 9% of Iowa counties. They also have like a million crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). NOTE: Crisis pregnancy centers do not offer abortion, and in general will try their damnedest to keep you from getting one. A lot of them will also try to give you information that is either debatable or that they’ve just plain made up, like that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer (yes!no!yes!no!), or that Post-Abortion Syndrome exists and is common (Nope. It’s not recognized by the APA or American Psychiatric Association, though emotions after abortion vary widely), or that abortion providers will lie to you to get your money (highly illogical, Captain; they’d make more money off prenatal care). So don’t visit them unless you’re just looking to score some free baby clothes and cookies. If you want information, go to your doctor or Planned Parenthood. You can get free condoms for more baby-free sex, too!
Iowa requires parental/relative consent if a minor wants an abortion, except in a medical emergency or cases of abuse, incest and neglect. Some people may think that it’s only fair to let parents know what their child is up to, especially when it concerns something as serious as abortion. However, forcing children to notify their parents is harmful. It’s my firm belief that parents need to foster an environment where their kids will feel comfortable telling them they are pregnant and what they plan to do about it. If your daughter isn’t coming to you about this, she probably feels she has a good reason, whether she’s afraid you’ll be angry or disappointed or knows she might be kicked out of the house or even killed. Luckily, some states’ Planned Parenthoods offer volunteer attorneys to help with judicial bypass, which allows minors to get an abortion without telling their parents.
Here’s something cool about Iowa, though: we have the first telemedicine program for abortion. That’s right: abortion on demand (in a clinic with a nurse who does all the usual examinations, tests, counseling and ultrasound). This makes it much easier for those harlots to frivolously abort their precious pre-borns whenever they want, as they are wont to do. No, wait, sorry. It makes it easier for women hours away from the nearest abortion provider (quite common in Iowa; shocking, for a state that’s 86% farmland!) to get abortion pills, which induce abortions within the first nine weeks of pregnancy. This means they don’t have to take time off work, arrange transportation, find someone to take care of their kids, explain their absence, and deal with protestors outside the clinic. It’s also much less invasive than surgical abortion and allows women to exert more control over the prodecure. Go Hawks!
Oh, by the way: if you insist on calling fetuses pre-borns so they can have all the rights that born babies have, I’m going to go ahead and call myself a “pre-senior” so I can start getting all those sweet discounts.
I'm looking forward to it
Some current legislation that sucks:
HJR 3, or House Joint Resolution 3: Man, this right-to-life thing is a pain in the ass. Thanks a lot, Thomas Jefferson! This bill states that personhood begins from the moment of conception. They can’t even wait until the damn thing attaches to the uterine wall. Defining an embryo/fetus as a person is the beginning of giving them rights accorded to people, including the right to life.
But you know, I don’t really care about the whole is-a-fetus-a-human-life or is-a-fetus-a-person argument. Totally played out. Besides, two sets of rights can’t logically exist in one body. Eventually one set of rights will have to trump the other, as in the case of the previously mentioned Angela Carder. Even then, the woman’s rights will need to be prioritized over the fetus’. After all, she’s carrying the damn thing, and has all those pesky responsibilities to her family and career and school and whatnot. The fetus isn’t even autonomous, the lazy bastard. Look at it, just twiddling its little webby thumbs in the amniotic sac, mooching off Mom’s blood.
GET A JOB
HF 153: Here’s where the trouble starts with that whole “personhood” thing. This would propose that life and personhood begin at conception, which means NO ABORTIONS, EVER. Well, it doesn’t really say that, in so many words. It says “life is valued and protected from the moment of conception and each life is accorded the same rights and protections guaranteed to all persons.” This is a bit sticky. Obviously, it would ban all abortions, something the state can’t legally do because of Roe v. Wade (though the purpose of the bill is probably to challenge Roe v. Wade anyways).
If someone takes my birth control pill from me, I will cut a bitch
However, some are concerned that it would also ban certain forms of birth control that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. This means contraception that contains progesterone, which prevents the endometrium from thickening enough to support an embryo, could be banned. This includes birth control pills, some IUDs, Implanon (implanted birth control), the patch, Depo-Provera….you get the picture. No hormonal birth control.
Moving on!
I know a lot of you are from New York, so next stop: Big Apple.
New York’s basically the best place to live if you need an abortion. The Guttmacher Institute says there were 249 abortion providers in 61% of counties in 2008. Remember kids: don’t go to crisis pregnancy centers! New York also doesn’t have any of the usual abortion restrictions like waiting periods, parental notification and required ultrasounds (the clinics do ultrasounds in the first place to discover how far along a pregnancy is, so this would be yet another cost added to the bill), and allows Medicaid to pay for abortions.
They have a few bills chilling out in the state assembly (largely pro-choice) right now. They don’t seem to be going anywhere, but here they are. I’m going to go ahead and apologize now for not having many details on the bills I mention here. It’s really f’ing hard to get information unless someone’s kicking up a fuss about them. A couple I found were A02128, which would require parental notice, and we’ve got A02244, or a right to know bill, which looks like it might require clinics to provide women with “full information and reflection time.” (24 hours)
Giving women alternatives to abortion, as well as full information on how the procedure works, what to expect, and how to take care of themselves afterward is important, and most clinics, especially Planned Parenthood, do a pretty good job with it on their own. Regulating abortion, making sure it’s safe, is also crucial. You’ll just have to understand that I’m a bit wary of bills like these when they come from anti-abortion legislators. The issue, then, is that they’re often biasedagainst abortion, which increases the risk of false information being given and puts more pressure on women not to get abortions. Dudes. That decision is hard enough without making her feel like shit about it. And adoption is an alternative to parenthood, not pregnancy, and is therefore not always a valid argument.
The rest of the bills I found were all good stuff, like requiring CPCs to disclose they don’t perform abortions, aren’t medically licensed or a medical facility, and that pregnancy tests can be purchased over the counter and self-administered. Four for you, New York.
Let’s stop briefly in California, home of the courageous Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), who spoke of her own 2nd-trimester abortion during the debate on HR 217 to strip Planned Parenthood of funding. The Guttmacher Institute puts the number of abortion providers at 522 in 78% of counties in 2008. They, like New York, don’t have any of the usual restrictions, and 2nd-trimester abortions are legal. I couldn’t find any current bills pertaining to abortion, so we’ll move on.
I imagine it's something like Mexico's Island of the Dolls, but less creepy
I hear a few of you are from Illinois, mostly hailing from The Only Part of Illinois That Matters. Illinois is also known as “an island of abortion in the Midwest.” Abortion Island has 37 abortion providers that practice in only 8% of Abortion Island counties, which seems a bit sparse, considering its nickname. It’s also got some anti-choice language in the state code that declares Illinois’ commitment to protecting the unborn and that, should Roe v. Wade be reversed, they will reinstate the abortion ban, with exceptions for the health of the woman. Illinois also doesn’t have most of the common restrictions, though the fight for parental notice has been going on since the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 was enacted, then put under permanent injunction, which is now being appealed. Whoof.
So, you’ve made it this far, have you? Good on you. The last state I’ll go into detail about is Arizona. Arizona legislature is pretty much completely anti-choice; the House, Senate and Governor Jan Brewer all support anti-abortion laws. In 2008, there were 19 abortion providers in 13% of Arizona counties. Restrictions include parental consent, not just notification, as well as counseling designed to discourage her from having an abortion, and a 24-hour wait. There are a couple of bills getting some press right now. HB 2443 (sorry about the blinding text color) would charge those who perform abortions knowing they are based on sex- or race-selection with a Class 3 felony. Oh, Arizona! It’s a little late to convince people you care about racism. There hasn’t really been any evidence that race-selection is the cause of some abortions, and most abortions happen before the sex is able to be most accurately determined, which is around the end of the first trimester. These bills aren’t about protecting disenfranchised fetuses, but creating more obstacles to abortion.
The other bill (it really needs to be easier to find bill names)would require that clinics that provide medication abortions be under the same state regulations regarding staffing and facilities of clinics that provide surgical abortions. This would also apply to satellite clinics that provide telemed abortions, which would be banned. Since only 13% of Arizona counties have abortion providers, this makes it much harder for women outside of those counties to get an abortion.
To wrap up, a quick word on trigger laws. Trigger laws are laws that, while currently unenforceable, would be automatically enforceable should other legislation change. Many states have trigger laws pertaining to abortion in case Roe v. Wade was someday overturned. Louisiana’s former governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco signed a trigger law in 2006 permitting abortion only when a woman’s life was threatened by pregnancy, and Mississippi’s governor Haley Barbour signed a similar one in 2007.
I wish I could go into greater detail, but we’d be here all week. I’m linking to some helpful sites at the end of this post. The Guttmacher Institute is a great resource for information on state laws and abortion in general. I got a lot of my information from the Media Center and State Center on their website.
Back to the federal level: Here are the ten Democrats who sponsored HR 3, which codifies the Hyde Amendment. They are, uh, not favorable reviews.
I didn’t add this at the end of my last post, but I should have. Guys, the reason I’m writing about this stuff isn’t just to work up some righteous outrage on your end. There’s enough of that out there already. I’m writing about this as a call to action. Look up your state’s legislation. They should have bills listed on their website, as well as your representatives’ information. Find out what’s going on in your state, and start calling people. Email, if you can’t call. Organize protests. Do something to remind your representatives who they work for.
If you do, there's a sugar glider bee in it for ya.
As we all should know by now, after my minor freak-outs in various open threads, our government is currently doing some pretty shitty things regarding our reproductive health! And if you didn’t know that, well, let me tell you, in listicle form! Everybody loves listicles.
