StacyCat’s World of Thought

This was originally posted in my livejournal. You are free to argue with me over any of these points, in fact, I welcome the arguments.

This is a very ethnocentric viewpoint, in that I am specifically speaking about American culture in the United States.

1) All white people are racist.
1a)Racism is not a dichotomous category, its not are you racist or are you not. Racism is a continuum, between more racist and less racist. By giving up the idea that someone can be “not racist,” everyone is able to examine why they might be racist, and where they fall on that spectrum. By continuing to use the “racist/not racist” dichotomy, one does not examine what things they are doing that might be a result of growing up in the institutional racism system.

2) Racism is institutional, and systemic.

3) White people are the racist ones in the American system, because white people have the current, and historical power.

4) Other races may have prejudices against other races, however, without the institutional power, they are not “racist.” Racism= prejudice + power.

5) Class has a lot to do with it. There are some things that I think are the result of socioeconomic. However, minorities are overrepresented in lower classes, and underrepresented in upper classes. This is because of institutional racism.
5a) This was rebutted by using “demographic inertia” as a cause of the educational/income gap among minorities. As such demographic inertia was caused by actual racist practices, I still count this among institutional racism.
5ai)In addition, there are several instances where black people are given worse interest rates in loans, specifically car and home loans, so that even with the same credit and income, they cannot afford as much as a white person with the same credit and income, due to higher interest rates.
5aii)There are also many instances of real estate agents showing black people and white people different homes, even with the same pre-approved mortgage amount. These are examples of how institutional racism perpetuates in society.

6) Insinuating that black people are poor (or, more specifically, poor black people are poor) because they are lazy is insulting. By saying that the reason why poor people are poor is because they do not work hard enough, you are saying that white people do work hard enough, which is not necessarily the same thing. Poor blacks have to work much harder to achieve the same levels of prosperity as whites.

There are barriers that many people have to overcome. Until the same amount of effort produces the same results for all races, there is institutional racism.

7) White privilege is an extension of the institutional racism in society. This might be mediated by other ways you are disadvantaged, and there are other ways in which you are privileged (say, cisgender privilege, educational privilege, shape privilege), it does not negate the fact that if you are white, you carry privilege on the basis of that race.

Girls should say no to sex. Why is this a common theme in sex education, and at the world at large?

Two studies came across my feed reader today, both about the same study. A researcher interviewed 68 girls aged between 14 and 19. Shocker of shocks, the girls said they regretted their first time! The researcher criticized sex educators for not telling girls to say no.

The article at Salon.com takes the viewpoint that girls are pressured into saying yes to sex, to keep their male partners, or because they are coerced, etc. The article says that it can be difficult to see the difference in actual regret vs the societal norms against girls having sex. It ends with a great statement: “Would a girl feel quite as disappointed by her early sexual experience if it was seen as a triumph instead of a moral failure?”

Australian Broadcasting Company also takes an interesting perspective. It says that the teens in the study knew all the risks of sex and how to use safer sex and pregnancy prevention. However, the study author (Dr Rachel Skinner from Sydney University), critisizes sex education for not teaching teenagers the actual skills one would need to say no (or to say yes). Teenagers should be educated on negotiation and communication skills.

Still, the patriarchy comes accross in a quote from the author. She states, “but it’s obvious that many of the teenagers, girls, were not able to make their own decision…They weren’t actively making… following what they wanted to do. They were being influenced from outside, and they regretted their decisions afterwards. ”

I think this is the overlooked part, and the first article hinted at it. Girls are taught to “just say no,” they are filled with scare tactics about having sex too early, they are taught that sex is scary and can kill you or ruin your life. however, girls are never really taught when it is okay to say “yes.” If we can empower girls to think about how and when and what scenario they could say “yes,’ then their ability to say no to the wrong situation (for them) would be greatly increased.

There is an interesting idea that goes along teaching about safer sex.

On one hand, we have the scare tactics. Always use condoms. condoms are the only way to prevent pregnancy, and they prevent STIs, because your partner could be cheating on you and giving you HIV so you should not ever trust them.

On the other is comprehensive education, (which even comprehensive sex education programs miss a good part of the education.) condoms are effective X percent of the time for pregnancy, and some unknown effective rate for STIs. You should get tested because you take responsibility for your own health.

Salon posted a great article based on a new editorial in Contraception. The editorial posits that the withdrawal method has a similar effectiveness rate against Pregnancy as condoms do.

This will almost assuredly not be taught in comprehensive sex education classes. The Harm Reduction model typically only steps in once the harmful behaviors have begun. Just as the idea that condoms are Very highly effective against HIV transmission will not lead to the idea that it is okay to have sex with HIV positive people. Sex education, even among a lot of sex positive individuals, views these ideas in the harm reduction model, in the “You really should not do it, but here is how to do it more safely.”

Becky Knight at Living Sexuality posted a review of the AASECT presentation on how sex education is presented to teenagers. She states: “Even sex-positive sources often refer to sex with words like: “risk,” “threat,” “consequences,” “protect from,” “avoid,” “arm with information,” etc.”

Sex is presented to teenagers as inherently dangerous. That they must protect themselves against sex itself. Sex is risky, you can die, you can get pregnant, you can hurt yourself.

I would be interested to see a Relationships model of sex education. Sex is not just about penis in vagina intercourse, nor is it just about what you do with your genitals/mouths/hands etc. Sex is about the relationship that you have with the other person. Safer sex should be about joint decisions in which each person decides what is best for them, and then negotiates with their partner. Safer sex decisions should be about what is best for themselves, their partner, and the relationship.

If a couple decides that pregnancy would be the worst thing in the world, they can make their safer sex decisions based on that. If the couple thinks that STIs are the most damaging, they can make decisions based on that. If the relationship decides that being able to be open about their desires and sexual relationships with other people is important, they can discuss that.

The point is not just to simply educate accurately the statistics and the prevention strategies of the pregnancy and STI prevention topics. The point should be about the education and the discussions and negotiations and the relationships.

My whole reason for thinking that sex positivity will change the world is in this point: If we can communicate our sexual desires and negotiate with our sexual partners, our non sexual relationships and negotiations will be much easier.

While researching an unrelated shipping question, I came across this:

(Shipping to Ireland):
“Circulars or advertisements relating to the prevention or treatment of venereal disease must be addressed to physicians or pharmacists. ”

I have no idea what purpose this serves. Any clues?

This was written in response to Rona’s Post about STIs. It got far too long for just a comment, so I posted it here. As always, feel free to disagree and argue with me.

I think that everyone should set their own boundaries regarding safer sex. I also think that is important to discuss these boundaries with partners and potential partners. I think that people who think that “oral sex” is completely safe are deluding themselves and they should educate themselves.

However, I, personally, do not require barriers during oral sex for most people. Sometimes I do, and this is one of the reasons why I love queer play parties is because they are expected. But, the majority of the time, I do not use them. I use condoms for vaginal and anal intercourse, and everything else is up for negotiation. I also play at the highest rate of safer sex required by all of the people involved. I think that oral is a low enough risk that I am okay with getting an STI by not using barriers for oral.

(Which is my basic premise of safer sex, which is to know the risks, and choose what you and your partners are comfortable with.)

I also think that *everyone* is responsible for educating themselves about the risks of STIs, and to set their own levels of play that they are comfortable with (and that their partners are comfortable with.) These risks vary by person and couple and group. It is not that one is more or less “safe,” it is that the individuals involved have made a choice. Hopefully, it is an educated one.

Some are comfortable with having sex with someone with herpes (I am as well depending on circumstances), and I know several people who would think that is inherently unsafe. I know people that require tests from their new partners, but have a very extensive fluid bonded network. I know people like me who have unprotected oral sex. I even know people that think that *I* am an unsafe risk because I use condoms for intercourse, and that if I did not use condoms I would *choose better partners* and thus be at a lower risk. (BTW, the latter came out of the swinger community, which is one of the many reasons why I left that scene.)

In short, we all take sexual risks. Some of us are just comfortable with more and/or different risks.