That's a Wrap

I knew I'd blog today, for today is my last blogging day. I didn't know what exactly I'd blog about though. I knew before class that I wanted to do a reflection but considered foregoing it to put in my $0.02 (so much less than a paradigms) about philias or prostitution. I think I'll go with the reflection, and if I'm still wired after the film lab and a quarter of Tom Brady's handywork then I will think about tapping out one...last...blog.

Anyway, thank you for reading that. Here's the meat:

Here we are at the end of Family Studies 322, and how quickly it went by! I am sure, however, that if I were to list out everything that I learned in this class that I would be surprised at how bountiful it was. I flipped through my notes and found that there is a lot of trivial knowledge in them, but also a lot of ...other stuff (a better term evades me).

One of the biggest things that I learned in this class wasn't something that we specifically studied but rather an undertone to the entire course: people's views on human sexuality are like snowflakes - no two exactly the same. Sometimes it could be slightly surprising at how firmly rooted other people (or myself) could be in their views and opinions. I never found this frustrating, I found it quite enlightening. We can consider this to be just another course to get through en route to our degrees, but it was in fact a very unique opportunity - the opportunity to explore and discuss the world of human sexuality with 40 other people. It was a first hand reminder that we are all different products of different environments (because we construct our own, of course). This is just such an important concept to be in touch with as a teacher, and not just for human sexuality but for everything I might face as an educator. We always say "everyone is unique," but this course really brought that sentiment to life for me. 

If I had to pick a topic out of my notes which I found the most intriguing, then I would have to go with sexual education itself. I'm really excited to see the state of sexual education in the curriculum when I enter the workforce; that, or really scared. Talking about sex ed. in class (and blogging about it too) helped me to realize how influential sexuality is in a person's life, and how skewed the information distribution is within it (ie. from advertisements, programming etc. vs. parents, teachers, peers). I also see how all things love & sex is a very tender issue for some, and as such needs to be approached delicately and with efforts made to respect all. 

I can't positively say how all of this will affect me in my future civil discourse, but I'll sure take a stab at it. Habermas' paradigms and components of critical thinking will play a big part in this, as will my discovery of diversity amongst all. I imagine that I will be careful to listen carefully to others, and I will also choose my own words carefully. I will respect that we have all come from different directions, and I will know that agreeing to disagree is a valuable life skill and that battles must be chosen carefully, and I will continue to believe that if something comes to a battle that it is most often not worth fighting at all. (I realize that this may read somewhat vaguely, but I'm trying to say that I generally value the assertive over the passive and the aggressive). 

Bonus

I also saw a slight generation gap unfold before my eyes this term. In a couple of ways, if we consider the generation gaps between the twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings, and that between the thirty-somethings and forty-somethings (all numbers rough). I mention the first one because I think a lot of the young(er) ones in the class didn't know who Sue Johanson was, and she taught me an awful lot about sex! I feel bad for them that they didn't have sex talk radio to listen to! The second one is that which exists between you and I, as I seem to have illustrated many of my points with South Park, whereas you have shown preference to Woody Allen and Monty Python, both of whose genius is under-explored, but not lost, on me. Your contraception clip along with the final item in my astronomy class, The Galaxy Song, has piqued my curiosity to the comedic styling of eras prior to my own. Hooray! 

It all comes down to this: We've learned a lot, but we'll always have so much more to learn from each other*.

*everyone, not just you and I...

An Inside Scoop on Homosexuality.

When we started talking about homosexuality back in November I knew that I wanted to do this blog; I just didn't get around to it until now. I've mentioned before that my wife has some friends who are gay, and I certainly consider them friends to me too. These are people she's known since she was very young. She went to school with them through elementary, middle, high school, and even some university with all of them.


Her friends' being gay has had a tremendous impact on not just her life, but even her family's considering that they switched between churches of the same denomination as a result of one church's stance on gay marriage. I asked Amanda a few questions about all of this; here it is...


Tell me about the rally you went to in 2003. 
That was a rally at the legislature building in Edmonton of people who opposed gay marriage. We went to oppose that group, which was maybe 150-200 people strong. It was really emotionally overwhelming and intense; all I could really do was stand there and take it all in.

What made it so intense?
There was a lot of emotion and anger in the air, coming from both directions. I remember that I only spoke up once, but the details are foggy. A non-supporter of gay marriage, a lady, said something about the bible and I said something back about how I'd been taught in church to love other people. It's hard to remember; it was such an emotional experience.


All of your friends had come out before then? 
Yes. And it was not a big deal for me when they did. It was a surprise, but nothing major was made of it. I asked one of my friends how his love life was and he said "well, I've been dating men." It was news to me, but  it wasn't alarming or upsetting at all. Another friend's parents had been asking him since he was in 8th grade if he was gay; so I guess they always kind of knew - they were just waiting for him to recognize it. Jill was the last to come out, probably because her parents would have the hardest time swallowing that idea. Her father looked at it with a doom & gloom business outlook: it would be detrimental to her budding career, and also to his own if people were to find out she was gay. In the end it's all worked out, but everyone's had to deal with things differently.

Where does it all begin?  

At church where they announced that they had been at a senate meeting where it was decided that the church would not support same sex marriage, and I stood up and walked out. I always knew that this was the underlying stance of the pulpit, but when it was publicly announced it felt like it was thrown in my face. I couldn't be a part of an organization that wouldn't accept my friends, especially considering that this organization was a religion.

This was the start of your family leaving that church?
Yes. Our parents wanted us to go to church. They never forced us, but they wanted us to want to go. My taking issue with the church's stance on gay marriage sparked their decision to move from one (Lutheran) church to another, which was a huge shake-up. They left a lot of their friends behind at that church, and a lot of people saw our family as believing that particular church wasn't good enough for them, and yet another one was. The important friendships have prevailed in the end.

What about the new church? 
This church belongs to a different senate who takes a much more 'do whatever you want' stance on things. They're okay with female pastors, for instance, where the old church still is not. They don't necessarily promote gay rights, but they certainly aren't vocally opposed to them either.

Where is everyone at in all of this now? 
It's all about putting yourself in an environment where you're comfortable. I (we) don't attend church regularly, but I told my parents I was never going to go back to that first church; it was important to them that they are in a church where if we (myself and my siblings) choose to go with them, we're comfortable; and they are.
They guys have done well for themselves by putting themselves in communities such as Toronto and Seattle where gay culture is flourishing and a lot more accepted among the masses. Jill is in a situation at her firm where she is still figuring out if her higher-uppers are okay with her lifestyle or not, therefore she mostly keeps quiet about it. It goes to show that coming out isn't an event, but a process. It's different for everyone.

Thanks!!


I've heard most of this before from Amanda, but it was informative for me to sit down with her and put the whole puzzle together. I feel very fortunate to have Amanda as a sort of 'link' to gay society. Just through luck of the draw I don't have any direct friends who are gay, and while I don't see gay friends as a novelty in life, I do consider them a blessing. I'm thinking about how the course of one's life can be altered so drastically in terms of who we surround ourselves with and how those people influence our thoughts and opinions, and I'm simply thankful that one way or another I've not ended up being a part of the population of people who are intolerant toward homosexuality. Of course I recognize that it comes down to me in the end, but outside influences aren't a factor to be ignored.
Why would anyone prefer to be at legislature rallying against gay marriage than cluckin' it up at Buddy's downtown is 20 Astronomical Units (that's a long way) beyond me!

Sexual Education? Pt. 2

The curriculum may be slightly misleading in the depth of content with which it describes its courses. I actually don't even remember taking a sexual education unit in CALM. What I do remember from high school is physical education in grades 9 and 10 - we were already split up into males and females for that class, so taking us into a classroom for a few days to teach us some sexual anatomy and self-examination techniques was a cinch! I recall no question boxes or open discussions about all things sex; I just remember a couple of  sessions on anatomy.
If I reach further back I can remember that grades 5-8 were a simple anonymous question box approach (we were also split between the sexes, of course). We would write something on paper, put it in the box, and the teacher would pull them out one at a time and discuss.
Now that I think about it, my life of sexual education was backwards. Shouldn't I have learned anatomy earlier and been given the opportunity to ask any question I wanted when I was in high school? I don't need to know how to put a condom on when I'm 10 years old, and by the time I'm in grade 10 I've got the picture of what a penis is and what it's capable of doing.
What about the idea that CALM is a course which is most often taken in the 10th or 11th grade? These students get a quick overview of human sexuality and then they are ushered out the door to figure things out for themselves? Agh!! This is the age when teenagers would likely prosper most from a little guidance in the world of sexuality, and yet we do away with the topic so briskly. Teachers are left hoping that the parents will fill in the blanks, all the while the parents hope that the teachers have covered it all and their children won't make any sexual foibles in life. (I admit it, I oversimplified! But I think you know what I mean...)

All of this has me thinking about how I will handle things when I'm a teacher, and unfortunately the answer is that I will handle it as I am told to handle it. This, like abortion, is a tricky issue where lines need to be drawn in a case of 'agreeing to disagree.' 29 students in a classroom may all have parents at home who are hoping that their children will discuss many issues of human sexuality in deep range, but it takes only one student whose parents feel that human sexuality has no place in the schools to cause problems for a lot of people. I don't want to be the guy to spark that dynamite.

I personally believe that human sexuality should be more than a 1 week unit in a health course. Sex is a huge part of our lives, both as individuals and as a whole society. Considering this, it is pretty astounding that it is such a suppressed topic in our education system. The solution as I see it is to have a course not so unlike this one, this family studies course, which presents issues in a safe environment and puts them on the table for discussion. It does not emphasize the memorization of facts or claim any issue to be right or wrong, it just opens them up to interpretation. Just giving kids an opportunity to talk about sex would do two things (as I see it):
1. Provide awareness and education about human sexuality
2. Lift the taboo mindset from discussions involving anything 'sex'

I listened to Sue Johanson religiously when I was in middle school and high school, and I think that it had very Kinsey-esque implications for me in that it carried out the above two points. I don't think Z99 or any radio station in town runs Sue Johanson on Sunday nights anymore (in fact I don't even know if she does a radio show anymore), so I can only wonder where kids learn anything about their sexuality anymore.

I feel as though I've just typed my way through two blogs which seem to explore the ins and outs of teaching sexuality in schools, but I must not forget the role of the parents in all of this. Considering my stance that human sexuality should not be a unit, but a constant and ongoing discussion - human sexuality education can be expected of schools, but cannot be depended on! As early as a child learns to talk should they be properly educated about parts of their bodies (pee pees and wee wees just won't cut it anymore). A child may be only 4 or 5 years old, perhaps less or more, when they discover that their genitals serve them as pleasure devices aside from just performers of other bodily functions. Is it in fact reasonable for parents to brush this aside and wait for 10 years in hope that the school system will fill in the blanks for them? Of course not!! Parents are absolutely responsible for explaining and exploring these concepts with their children in their contribution to the sexual education of the world's next generation.

In the end I do believe that sex should not be a taboo subject, but unfortunately it will be a tedious process to make it otherwise. I would love to see human sexuality as a course in schools, in which open discussion and theoretical exploration is encouraged, but this will be a process, not an instant change, if it is to be at all. Until we reach a point such as this, we as parents are ultimately responsible for our children's scope of knowledge regarding sexuality. Of course, even if sexual education were a thoroughly covered topic in schools, the kids don't get to school until they're 6 years old. That seems like a pretty long time to go without knowing anything about sex.

It looks like this one ultimately falls into the hands of the parents; their childrens' sexual education will have to start with them. Everything starts with parents...

Sexual Education? Pt.1

How it Came to This (3:25-4:28)

I originally had this video (above)  linked in a different post, but it was just way too relevant not to put it here. I like it for what it is: a bunch of parents in an uproar about how their kids don't know anything about sex, and they need to be taught ... by the schools. The entire episode is brilliant. As a budding teacher, I just might have to include it on my top 5 list of South Park episodes (Up to your neck in blog marking? Take a break! Grab a coffee! Watch South Park!), especially now that we've spent a day or two talking about sexual education.

I needed to do a spot of research before I could write this blog; I pulled up Alberta's curriculum to see what I could find by the way of sexual education within it. Disregarding the K-9 curriculum, here is what I found in the 10-12:

For students who are not at the age of majority or living
independently, parents have the right to exempt their children from
school instruction in human sexuality education by submitting a
letter to the school indicating their intention to do so. Schools will
provide alternative learning experiences for those students who
have been exempted from human sexuality instruction at the
request of their parents. Students must complete the remainder of
the course in order to receive credits.

That's it!

This was a highlighted portion of text under the Career and Life Management (CALM) course which offered no particulars whatsoever about the extent of human sexuality taught in the class. Just to sum up this point, the description of CALM focuses on life choices. Below the description is a notice that a parent may exempt their child from the human sexuality unit in CALM if they choose. This is the only evidence of any human sexuality taught in Alberta's high school, at least in the parent's version of the curriculum it is.

So for those of us who wish to say "I might be ok with human sexuality being taught in school; what exactly will be taught?", we will have to dig a little deeper.

This concludes Part 1.

More Critical Thinking

On the weekend, my wife and I were talking about whether or not certain forms of contraception, one of them being abortion, were unethical. When speaking specifically about abortion, it occurred to us that we cannot even really call abortion a contraceptive!
Contraceptive is defined (by dictionary.com) as tending or serving to prevent conception or impregnation.
Abortion can do a lot of things to people but it sure can't do that! No wonder abortion appears as a jumbo jet in bay #1 of the bus depot that is contraceptive ethics - it has no business being there!

Upon noticing this discrepancy I realized that I had overlooked a cardinal principle of critical thinking: examine definitions of terms. This made me think that I should review my principles of critical thinking, as they're rather essential in so many of these discussions you see before you on your screen. Alas! Monday's class yielded a most pointed review of the principles of critical thinking! Isn't that something?!

Still yet did the cogs in my brain rotate as I tied critical thinking to my writer's block concerning our most fruitful topic of masturbation. Why, I would constantly ask myself, can I not think of a decent approach to a blog about masturbation? Such a massive, hard, throbbing, myotonic, vasocongested bombshell of a topic! And I've got nothing! Where do I start? Where do I end?
But when I considered how heartily masturbation fits into all of the principles of critical thinking, such as how so many points of view are assumed, fuzzily defined, oversimplified, overgeneralized or not-so-carefully considered, it became clear to me what a critical issue I was dealing with!
Perhaps masturbation was one of those ideas ... one of those ideas which is not so unlike a roommate: sometimes you need to move away from it before it drives you crazy.

So remember: always examine the definition of terms, or you'll end up debating the wrong topic altogether.

A Contraceptive Can of Worms

The question asked is: Are there some methods of contraception which are morally and ethically unacceptable to me? Which ones? Why?
My answer in its most boiled-down form is that there are not. As I understand it (in my own unique way) all contraceptive devices strive to fend off pregnancy. In a fair lot of cases this is the result of responsible decision making by consenting adults who want to engage in intercourse which is their business alone and nobody else's.

I won't engage in a painfully hair-splitting argument about if 'contraceptive method A' is more or less ethical than 'contraceptive method B.' Until we, the inhabitants of earth, are having sex only for reproductive purposes (don't hold your breath), contraception of any sort has my approval. Let me tell you why...
We often have a tendency to wear blinders when tackling an issue such as this one. We look at things from our own perspectives and base our beliefs in our own experiences. When we do this we forget that other people are subject to different circumstances. We may for one reason or another believe that condoms and 'the pill' are the most obvious and acceptable forms of birth control, and that someone who would use an intrusive IUD device is off her rocker. But that person uses her IUD for her own reasons: perhaps her sister gave it to her and it's all she's ever known; or she is allergic to most condoms; or she gained 40 pounds during those 3 months she was on the pill.
My bottom line here: different strokes for different people - often for reasons we may never have guessed! I exclaim that it is ludicrous to find some contraceptive methods ok and others not.

But what about abortion as a birth control method, as we discussed in class? Well, here's the thing about that. I believe if someone is using abortion as contraception that the problem of  her choice of contraception is the least of her (and our) concerns. Considering the physical and emotional trauma that is endured with each procedure, not to mention the hassle and logistics of moving from the beginning to the end of the process, the woman who chooses to frequent the abortion needs far more help from functional society than simply being handed a condom.

I'd like to weigh in on abortion as abortion, as opposed to abortion as contraception. Abortion is obviously a very controversial topic and it is often debated as to whether or not it is right or wrong. I understand this, as these finite labels (right and wrong) each come from strong camps:
"life is life, to end it is murder"
"a woman ultimately has the right to do what she wants with her body"
...but so many cases fall in between these two extremes; the decision to abort a pregnancy just isn't as simple as 'right or wrong.' I won't even cite examples. What I will say is that I personally could approve of 'abortion A' and disapprove of 'abortion B,' and I'm very comfortable in that standpoint. Each abortion is unique and encompasses its own set of circumstances, often circumstances with which we are utterly unfamiliar with, and we as a whole group of people have no right to label the procedure of abortion 'right' or 'wrong.'

The final question on Friday was 'do I believe that my views on contraception are consistent with those from my socio-cultural background?'
I must say that they are, because I am a product of my environment after all. I did not grow up going to church, and I did not have a lot of rigid beliefs pressed into me from my parents - not on the contraceptive front, anyway.
My parents actually ran a business whose bread and butter was sex toy parties, for lack of a better one-off description. They supplied consultants, women all over B.C, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, with products which were meant to enhance sexual relationships and individuals' sexual pleasure. These products were sold in a most trendy and comfortable setting: someone's house. It's like a tupperware party; you know what I'm talking about...
This fact alone tells me a lot about where my liberal views on sexuality come from. My parents never sat me down and explicitly told me so, but they believed that sexuality is a wonderful thing which should be explored and embraced, and I'm thankful for that.

If you'd asked me before class on November 12 if contraceptives were controversial, I'd have quickly said no. This conversation came up because indeed it is a debatable issue, and a prime catalyst of this is the Roman Catholic Church. How could I have forgotten about the Catholics!? They were the butt of the joke in the Monty Python clip we watched to lead into our discussion of contraceptives, and for reasons I've already listed, I think that their stance on contraception is absurd.This is a long blog though, so I will leave you with the clip below, which nicely summarizes my thoughts regarding the stance of the Catholic church on contraception and, well, everything else.

The New Pope  (Cue at 5:30)

(I actually feel that I owe you some context for this clip. Basically, it was through a series of events not so unlike that of 'The Da Vinci Code' that the discovery was made that Jesus had actually assigned the original position of 'Pope' to a rabbit. After this slight mishap in the Catholic tradition was rectified is when this clip begins.)

Homo This & Homo That

It would seem that homosexuality and homophobia are quite the hot-button topics; we barely got through half of the material which we set out to cover in this afternoon's class. Monty Python's miraculous child-birth will just have to wait until Wednesday.

We talked a lot today about why it is that men are more homophobic than women, and the main point that I take away is that men are just more insecure about their gender. Somewhere along the line it has been programmed into us that it is quite compromising to our manliness to acquaint ourselves with homosexuality in any way.

An idea came up today that suggested that there is correlation between a man's circumstances in life and his securities (or insecurities of course) with homosexuality. That's obvious enough, so let's break it down a little further. I'll just use myself as an example.

A couple of years ago my wife and I went to a party in Edmonton; however, this was no ordinary party. It was a Madonna party! The idea was that all attendants would dress up as Madonna in one form or another (there is no shortage of opportunities here; I went with the cone-bra motif myself).

Important Contextual Paragraph: 
Amanda, my wife, brought with her a social circle wherein the majority of its members are homosexual. These are the people who throw Madonna parties. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they worship Madonna. Anyway, these are great people who we both went to high school with, and Amanda went to school with them from elementary through university. Moving on...

As I'm sure many Madonna themed parties do, this party ended up at a gay bar. Tres fun! What a pleasant, non-threatening environment to down some cocktails and dance on some speakers (and in cages at this particular venue)! The highlights of my evening were twofold: when that guy pinched my ass, and when we were politely asked by that nice man in the shiny red dress to vacate the photo booth (so that he could use it for photos). I was very proud to have been an object of interest to the member of the gay community, and I'm pretty sure Amanda was proud of me too.

What this all funnels down to is that a lot of men might not feel comfortable:
a) attending a Madonna party with a gay crowd
b) taking the party to a gay oriented nightclub
c) being the passing object of interest to some other guy
d) exchanging dialogue in any capacity with a transvestite

...and yet I come out of this with the simple conclusion that some men like men, and some men like women, and some women like women, and some men dress like women (and so on and so forth), and we can all be friends!

So back to the idea that our comfort with ourselves has anything to do with our homophobia levels - Yeah, they have everything to do with one another! By feeling comfortable with myself, who I am, who I'm with, what my relationship is and so on, I do not feel threatened by people who have a different sexual orientation than myself. The bottom line is that I can be around gay people and still maintain my sense of self, and it seems that the problem of homophobia is rooted in some far-off belief that by allowing homosexuals to exist, let alone be in close proximity to a heterosexual, that heterosexuality is in some way threatened.

It would prove very interesting to hear the reasons of different people who are outwardly homophobic as to why they are that way. It is my opinion that there are some brick walls within their logic that they are not able to move past, and that they cannot fully justify what their issue with other people being homosexual is.

Ultimately, I find it very peculiar that so many of us believe that acceptance and equality of other people would solve a lot of the world's problems, but at the same time we have differing parameters regarding who should be accepted and treated equally.

Unsentimental Relationship Models

I've been thinking for a week now - trying to find the right inspiration as to the pros and cons of the unsentimental relationship models ABCDE and Social Exchange Theory.
To start with the ABCDE model, I take issue with the fact that it is taking a critical-theoretical stance on a subject which is so blatantly situational-interpretive. On a macro level I don't believe that this model is really that helpful. It's not news to anyone that relationships build, continue, and end. It does give us a foot to start on as we ask the 'why and how' questions about any of the 5 steps.
How do relationships start?
Why do relationships end?
What spurs the deterioration of a relationship?

Why does one let an abusive relationship continue?


Any information that can come from this model will all be a product of individual circumstances. I suppose that if one were to learn that 'financial disagreements' were a proprietary source of relationship doom, then that person might take steps in their own life to maintain a healthy flow of economic dialogue between himself and his partner in an effort to not be a part of that statistic, but this just takes us full circle back to the idea that each relationship is individual and cannot be summed up by a model that's as simple as ABC (DE).

I'm more accepting of Social Exchange Theory because it's life in a nutshell. I might argue that everything we do can be summarized by a cost/benefit model. From crying for another serving of breast milk to ultimately deciding to leave my wife for that perky little waitress who served me last night (I would never do that!).
Ah yes, Social Exchange Theory may look cold on the surface, but it's just another day in the life. Some people have different ideas about how costly a cost is and how beneficial a benefit is. This is why we so often hear the phrase "I can't believe those two are still together" or "I would never date you but I have a friend who I really think you'd like."
Even the healthiest relationships fit into the SET, it's just that the costs don't seem like costs. You might even say that you have a flourishing bank account of love. Aww!

Here are some situational interpretive outlooks on relationships:

The Perfect Breakup

Cost/Benefit Analysis

I chose these videos to illustrate how every single relationship has its own unique story behind its successes and failures alike. Where the models discussed do not provide any insight as to why a relationship is at a given stage, the characters featured here could hardly be more clear about how ending a relationship is not always such a negative thing, and also provides good specific insights as to why the benefits are sometimes not worth the cost.

Talking About Sex!

This week we had a discussion about communication skills within a sexual relationship. It was interesting in and of itself. What better way to illustrate the existence of infinite levels of communication skills than asking 30 students their thoughts about communicating sexual needs and concerns with their partners?

The book touches on a couple of main reasons that it is difficult to talk about sex: the vulgarity that may be associated with sex, and the irrational beliefs that as long as the relationship exists, the sex is what it is. When we brainstormed and listed methods to enhance sexual communication in the face of these (and other) adversities, the results, along with their logic, were interesting to say the least.

An insightful item on the list of things couples can do to open up their communication was indirect communication, namely instant messaging or text messaging. I thought that this was a very valid suggestion. A lot of us have in one instant or another said something via typed media that we'd not be nearly as comfortable stating vocally. In my head, I can see two people having a discussion in the same room using two laptops. It wouldn't even have to be planned. It could begin as playful banter which could ultimately be steered in any given direction.
What made this more interesting for me is the firm opposition that one person in our small group took. She was absolutely closed to the idea of having a discussion about sex in any medium but the flesh. She couldn't necessarily justify this stance; she had her platform and she was sticking to it. It struck me as a very black and white stance on communication in any degree and I found that surprising. One of the primary lessons to be learned in communication is that the skills and methods are likely to vary greatly from person to person.

We made a list of 10 things that couples can do if they are having trouble communicating about sex, and the second (THE SECOND!?!) item on the list was to get professional help. Perhaps that's just the easy answer in this case, but if every couple who felt any degree of discomfort discussing their sex life with one another went running to a third party for help, I can assure you I would be pursuing a most fruitful career in marriage counseling.

The next most interesting entry came in the suggestion that when lips are zipped on the sex front, patience is a virtue! If we can't talk about it now, we'll just talk about it later. sigh.....
Having patience through a growing process is one thing, but having patience in the 'we'll talk about it a few years from now, when we're more ready to do so' screams imminent disaster in my hardly humble opinion.

The other listed items were to get talking, don't be pushy, listen, take baby-steps, trust activities, play a game, and my personal contribution as well as favourite: drink 2 bottles of wine.

Hardly anyone would argue that both communication and sex are prevalent foundations of a successful relationship. The stronger the two, the stronger the relationship. Keeping this in mind, it becomes pretty clear that the two of them (sex and communication, that is!) will need to find a way to work together in order to prosper. Kind of like a good relationship, you know?

How Facebook Exponentiates Propinquity

Last Wednesday we discussed attraction with regards to beauty, non-physical and long term, the latter led to a discussion of propinquity, a term denoting nearness. In our context, we talked about how propinquity can be a factor in one's selection of a long-term partner.

Frankly I believe that we could spin a wheel on any given relationship as we try to determine the roots of it, but propinquity would certainly be one piece of the pie. For instance: how did you two end up together?

"We went to the same church."
"She sat next to me in elementary school."
"Our parents were friends."

We've heard it all before! Ah yes, propinquity certainly has its place on the wheel of relationship fortune, but here's the interesting bit: Facebook geometrically increases the factor of propinquity in our lives.

Congratulations Robert Nellis, you are my example! You see for one such as yourself who moved around from town to town in that military lifestyle that propinquity (at the time) was not on your side. You had not a constant social padding of fellow students, churchies, neighbours and the likes. No opportunity to select a long term partner delivered by propinquity, for you were stripped of this propinquity.

Robert Jr, however, might move to a different location every year or two, but using his social networking prowess he is able to take his relationships with him everywhere he goes. He can choose as time goes on which relationships deserve more of his time and attention, and perhaps one of them might even be his partner despite the fact that they only spent their year of 3rd grade in any reasonable proximity to her! Anyone who spent some time traveling and meeting new people everyday knows what I'm talking about!

My wife and I attended high school together, although we don't believe we ever took a single class together. When we graduated, we went in completely different directions. 6 years later, we became 'friends' and started e-mailing... phoning... visiting... and the rest is history. Social networking, it would appear, does not only maintain propinquity; it creates it as well.

And so we see how social networking has enhanced propinquity: by giving people the option to stay close to one another without physically being so. But good, old-fashioned, down-home propinquity deserves a toast as it is responsible for many treasured relationships; it just has a tendency to be forgotten in our electronic day and age. There is no need to mourn classic propinquity - just think of love as a book: you can visit your neighbourhood book den or shop it out on amazon. Sometimes it's amazing where the most seemingly negligible details will lead us...

Sexy Inc.

It is the eve of a new week in Family Studies 322, so I thought I'd better chime in on this lovely Sunday afternoon while the Sexy Inc. film is still relatively fresh in the tupperware container that is my mind.

Sexy Inc. stated the obvious to say the least - too bad it wasn't ripe with solutions. I'm not scolding this video; it is important to isolate these problems so that we (namely us budding apprentices of the teaching profession) are assuredly aware of what is happening in this great big world of ours.

The point is clear: our society has become ludicrously over-sexualized. Sexuality in the media has not so much oozed but cascaded into a shockingly young demographic. The film showcases this point and offers only the most subtle solution: don't buy in.

A simple formula in the creation of this problem is evident. This entire issue is money driven. (Insert company here) is not invested in the socio-political implications of their methods. (Company) wants to make money, and they are simply doing what they need to do to make money. It's just simple business. We are a sexually driven society who responds to sexualized ads, tv shows, music, everything!  As we continue to flock into The Gap (pardon my singling out of The Gap) to buy the t-shirt that the model on the poster wasn't even wearing, The Gap will continue to advertise with topless models.

In Sexy Inc. we see a group of (very) young children responding to a topless model in a newspaper advertisement by American Apparel. As an arts & craft project that most of us did NOT get to do in school, the kids color some clothes onto the model, and each of them mails their masterpiece back to American Apparel. I thought that was a very pro-active approach. A LOT of people would need to ignore a large business in order for that business to notice, and even then they may be at ends as to why this is happening. The colored model approach could hardly be more clear to he or she who opens that envelope at the headquarters of AA; how much more clear would it be if a few dozen of us did that? A few hundred? Thousand?

Corporations will continue to do whatever they deem necessary in the business of money-making. That leaves it up to we, the consumers, to decide just what that consists of. We must:
1. Think critically for ourselves.
2. Teach our children and students to do so as well.

Easy, right?

Gender Marketing (Cue at 5:45 through 7:45) 

This little clip is a good picture of how big of a difference there is between recognizing that this is a problem and actually doing anything about it. The parents aren't in much of a position to solve the problem, but they certainly understand how big of a problem it is when their daughter wants to conform. Digging a little deeper, we see that this isn't as simple as allowing or disallowing your children to do something. It is about raising them to be comfortable with who they are regardless of what everyone else is doing, wearing, saying, etc.


A friend of mine posted this video (below) on Facebook at about the same time that we had watched Sexy Inc. in class. I can picture myself being tortured or brainwashed by being forced to watch this video over and over. I watched a short 'making of' feature about it and it's far more constructed than I thought it was; however, this makes it more powerful for me because everything looks and sounds like what we experience in public and on TV every day!
Wonderfully enough, this is one ad in a series of a few by Dove products. I commend Dove for addressing this whole youth/beauty issue and literally, in a big way, putting their money where their mouth is.

Beauty Pressure

Sexism and Gender: I get it now!

I was writing a blog just moments ago to give permanence to my gripe with the definition of sexism which was: the prejudgment that because of gender, a person will possess certain negative traits. I immediately took issue with this definition because it seemed to be placing the word 'gender' where we were led to believe the word 'sex' ought be. As I frustratedly collected thoughts to convey my argument I realized that 'sex' and 'gender' are more interchangeable.

* I will ignore the phenomena of intersexuality and hermaphrodites in this post, as that is an entirely different can of worms. For the duration of this blog, people are either male or female.

Sexism is prejudgment based on gender?? That can't make any sense! Sex is male or female; gender is how that sex behaves on the basis of his or her sex, so shouldn't sexism be a prejudice based on whether a person is male or female? Generally this is what happens in sexism, but this is where I see the light: sex feeds gender.

Example: 
Sam needs a heavy box lifted onto the top shelf, but Sam has a broken arm. Sam looks to the curb and sees his friends, Bob and Eileen, eager to help. Bob and Eileen are married, weigh the same, share the same height, and they spot each other at the gym 3 times a week - who will Sam ask to lift his box onto the shelf? Is he immediately a sexist because he asks Bob? Is he overcompensating for sexism in society by asking Eileen to do it?

If Sam asks Bob then we'd better be prepared to discuss the sexist implications of his choice. He probably meant no harm, he simply needed to make a choice between the man and the woman, and something was programmed in his head that this was a job for a man. If we asked Sam if Eileen was capable of lifting the box he'd surely say she was; they are good friends and he knows that she keeps herself in good shape.But alas, the gender roles have already been determined: anything categorized as rugged or strenuous is associated with men, and anything dainty or tender falls into the female category.

We will always make decisions based on sex, and this is entirely due to gender roles that have been in establishment since the dawn of (humans). The trick, I suppose, is to not look at these gender roles as boundaries, and our society has come a long way in encouraging people to step outside of their gender roles and determine for themselves how they would like to be defined by being the person whom they wish to be defined as.

To clarify: sexism is indeed a prejudice based on gender, in that if we see a male, we assume certain qualities and traits about him to be true, based on the gender roles which have defined what a man is. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't know how to sew a button to a shirt or make the meanest bowl of broccoli soup that you ever did taste.

Furthermore, let us look at gender roles in a similar light to certain romance languages which prescribe any object as masculine or feminine. A lamp for instance is a feminine word, but a man need not feel emasculated when he uses one. And this is what we strive for: a world where any man or woman can fulfill any gender role they wish (granted they are able to do so...). Outwardly sexist individuals will continue to exist, but tolerance for them is decreasing by the day. When we look back in time, even only decades or years ago, we can see that we have made positive progress on this front - good for us!

Sexism is prejudice based on gender? Darn rights it is!

Kloosterblog

Hats off to the young and aging Matt Kloosterman, who verbalized the idea of tapping out some study notes into the blog, if not for nothing then to cement the information furthermore.

What did I learn in Family Studies 322 to this point? Well, amongst other things I learned the following:

Habermas' paradigms are threefold:

1. Empirical Analytic - scientific, logical, prediction & control
2. Critical Theoretic - political, sociological
3. Situational Interpretive - case by case basis, not theoretical or abstract, as per lived experience

Don't forget to think critically; just remember how:

1. Be skeptical - accept no opinion as fact
2. Be cautious in drawing conclusions from evidence - (teens/hip-hop/sexually active scenario)
3. Consider alternative interpretations of research evidence - correlation is not always causation
4. Consider evidence upon which conclusions are based - scientific or anecdote?
5. Examine definition of terms - what exactly do we mean by ______?
6. Examine assumptions or premises of arguments - similar to #5
7. Do not oversimplify - things are not often quite so simple
8. Do not overgeneralize - ie. do not stereotype

Tried, Tested, and Controversial - The Scientific Method:

1. Formulate a research question
2. Reword research question into a hypothesis (a precise prediction of the outcome)
3. Test the hypothesis
4. Draw conclusions

Kinsey was a pretty scientific type guy, although he was criticized for perhaps having systematic biases in his research. No one can really blame him; it's tough to ask everyone for an in depth description of their sexual pasts.

Have we all noticed that we don't so much talk about the body itself, but rather how it is mediated through the social, cultural and political worlds? I sure have.

Like a sound, feminism comes in waves:

1st wave - early 1900's, known as the suffrage movement, spurred by want of the right to vote (for women!)
2nd wave - swingin' 60's, liberation movement, wants less media objectification of women
3rd wave - post feminism, Madonna is queen, shifts degradation into empowerment
4th wave - in the now, more spiritual, aiming to unite, interfaith dialogue, peace

In class, we watched a few clips from a few movies (or a play):

1. Vagina Monologues - My Vagina is Angry! Revisiting the many injustices afforded to so many vaginas
2. Private Dicks - A documentary about men, penises, and their shared experiences with eachother
3. Kinsey - a portrait of the interview tactics and groundbreaking cultural implications within Kinsey's work
4. Everything ...Sex - An entirely different look at the inner workings of a male moving from arousal through orgasm. Kudos, Woody Allen, kudos.

Sexual Response and Orgasms - so much to talk about!

Masters and Johnson's 4 phases:

1. Excitement - erection, lubrication, vasocongestion, myotonia
2. Plateau - a little more vasocongestion and myotonia, leading up to...
3. Orgasm - contractions, ejaculation
4. Resolution - back to the pre-aroused state. Male will need some time before he's ready again.

Masters and Johnson see orgasms as one in the same as they look at things from a clinical standpoint, which is to say that the body always follows these 4 phases whether the orgasm be male, vaginal or clitoral.

Helen Singer Kaplan was (is?) a sex therapist who attacked the sexual response cycle from a 'where are things going wrong?' standpoint:

1. Desire - problems due to low or absent desire for partner?
2. Excitement - physical problems with erection or lubrication?
3. Orgasm - premature ejaculation or orgasmic dysfunction?

Rosemary Basson felt the above models lacked the factor of intimacy in the sexual response cycle. She believed that a woman might begin an encounter for reasons of intimacy, and pending positive results would continue the encounter for sexual reasons. She recognized that intimacy was not a must for a successful jaunt through the cycle.

Basson leads us to talk about relationships and how they affect the sexual response cycle. Factors include love, intimacy and emotional connection.

Masturbation is a bomb of a topic. As much as it is stressed to be a normal and acceptable part of sexual development in any individual, it still carries social proscriptions and prohibitions. Some argue that it is empowering, perhaps because one is taking control of his own sexuality. Learning to love one's self!

Piaget, Piaget, Piaget... with his schemas (our world of knowledge), his assimilation of new information (the same old stuff in a different pile) and his accomodation (rethinking what we know to incorporate new information into our schema)...what a guy!

Sex assignment is the labelling of a newborn as either a male or female, aka gender assignment. This gets tricky when hermaphrodites and intersexuals (pseudohermaphrodites) enter the picture, as there can be some ambiguity there.

Plato's 'The Symposium' was a dialogue on the nature of love.

The origin of the typical male/female relationship comes from mythical Greece's primordial hermaphrodite which was separated by the gods - the male half and the female half naturally strive to re-unite.

Thanks for reading, but you really didn't have to!

On Orgasms

Our discussions of theorists and reasearchers all seem to share a common tie with the pedastaled orgasm.
Maybe this is the best time for me to mention that even though we speak of Masters and Johnson's 4 phases of sexual response as interchangeable between male and female, the resolution phase can often be forgoed by the recently climaxed female. I say this to disclaim any perceived ignorance (on my part) in the words to follow.
Everything to do with sex is leading up to the orgasm, and according to Freud it would preferably be a vaginal one. Freud hasn't yet been presented (in our class) in a manner in which we'd be led to take him seriously. Perhaps there is more to Freud (and his Penis Envy theories) than meets the eye?

Anyway, about the orgasm. I see that we have explored the views of Masters and Johnson which are fairly clinical, Kaplan who employs a more psychological approach, Basson who calls in the gray area of intimacy by way of recognizing that sex/achieving orgasm is not entirely black and white, and, well, ...Freud.

I can appreciate where Masters and Johnson are coming from. The biology of it is all well and good to know. Informative, we might say! If I had to choose, however, I would say I'm a fan of Basson's work. The nature of the relationship in which an orgasm is taking place has a huge effect on everything to do with the sexual response cycle; whether it be a lengthy union or even a swingin' cat one met at the martini lounge that very evening, the relationship between participants is simply too vast to be cast aside amongst considerations.

And so, if someone is having an orgasm twice a day they may be quite interested to hear of all the vasocongestion and myotonia that is taking place in his body. Subsequently it is she who has run the gauntlet with her long term partner in search of the elusive orgasm who shall brush aside the work of Masters and Johnson and turn to Kaplan or Basson to see where things might be going awry.

Not an avid church-goer am I, but I do remember an evening youth service I went to in Calgary a number of years ago. The pastor even spoke ebonically; way cool. He was in the context of pre-marital sex (as memory serves...) and he assured us "God wants you to have orgasms." What a novel perspective - of course he does!!! But I'd never thought of it that way before. Why would our bodies be blessed with the ability to experience them if otherwise? So the orgasm tree is ripe for the picking - and ladies: don't worry about that Freud guy.

On Penises

In my last post I spoke of feminism and the Vagina Monologues; now that we've had some time in class to talk about penises I'll try to tie this up into a neat little package (that's funny!). 

I'm attacking this with the consideration that we came into this anatomical discussion with the mindset that men were far more comfortable talking about their bits than their lady-counterparts were. For the purpose of there being no misunderstanding my stance on this: I disagree!

The "Private Dicks" video we watched clarified something for me: people will talk if they're asked. Shoot, Kinsey clarified that! It's really just a comfort thing. No, if you are out for lunch on the patio of a busy bistro you are not likely to hear men or women heartily discussing their genitals (but that doesn't mean you won't), this is true. Again we are at the mercy of the individual and their comfort levels regarding any disclosure of their sexuality. We might be surprised at how much how many people would tell us if we started a discussion of sexuality in a comfortable situation (as they perceive it).

I personally bring a voice to the table which proclaims this generality: forget about the large scale numbers, stats, and the direction that society seems to point; every individual represents an individual viewpoint.

And so with that I do away with the notion that either men or women speak more or less freely about genitals, sex, or anything in the vast arena of topics containing them. It's up to each man and each woman, and a whole slew of factors which brought them to where they are today. Perhaps any reservations about publicly speaking of these issues is primarily rooted in an effort to respect the values of the less liberal people around he who is speaking, similar in regard to he who does not swear not because he is uncomfortable with it but because he recognizes that others around him are?

Eureka.

4 Waves of Feminism and We Have...

The Vagina Monologues!

I (like to think that I) understand where feminism comes from: the want of an existence of gender equality between men and women. This is completely reasonable to me. In fact, it's always been completely reasonable to me. You must understand that I have one brother and two sisters that gender inequality was never very apparent in my house. My mom cooked. My dad cooked. I baked. My sister played lacrosse, and her and I each played hockey as well. I could go on. The point is that whenever we had interests in anything, those interests were nurtured and we were given opportunities to pursue them regardless of our sex.

Let's jump around a little bit. Maybe I'll organize all of this in editing, or maybe I'll leave my thoughts raw. I'll coin the term 'Sushi Blogging.' After all, doesn't this blog exist so that it's NOT an essay??

So as I am told repeatedly, there exists a great gender inequality in our society and furthermore the world. In comes the feminist movement which stems from many different desires of women I am sure, such as the right to vote, the right to work, etc. Very reasonable!

This brings us to the 60's where the ladies are wishing not to be objectified quite so blatantly in the media. Also very reasonable! AH, but perhaps being objectified in the media is in fact the beginning of 3rd wave feminism where women begin to feel more comfortable with using their sexuality for whatever their purpose may be. Any woman who is objectified in the media made the choice to be seen in that light, and so does any man for that matter.

Where am I going with all of this? (In circles, I digress). Feminism, as I see it, always seems to maintain a similar purpose: gender equality in society. Yet it is overlooked that the world's population is made up of nearly 7 billion different males and females, and never will we see the day that every single one of them is happy about the way things are.

My world, as I see it, is one where men and women are equal in the sense that we are each free to make our own decisions. We choose where we go, what we do, how we do it, how much or how little we are willing to be paid for our efforts of labour, who we emulate, our degree of regard for popular culture, and the extent of which we are agitated by political riff raff.

The Vagina Monologues


Now we can have a quick thought about the aforementioned 'Vagina Monologues' which was written on the basis of testimonials from 200 women (and Kinsey was criticized for misrepresenting the population...?) regarding sex, gender and genitals.

I saw this play a few years ago, and I felt a little ruffled afterward. I felt like I had been completely ambushed by complaints about wrongdoings against women; I felt like the problems were all completely out of my hands, and I felt that it had been suggested that men (me!) were responsible. I don't think that was the purpose of that play though. The play itself is such a huge cultural phenomenon that I cannot believe it would actually have been created to slap the male species in the face. Perhaps it was written to clarify that it's ok for women to talk openly about their sexuality, and that's great because I'm sure there were (and surely still are) many females who needed to hear that.

Prior to the play, I was aware that it was quite alright for anyone to talk about their sexuality in whatever manner they wished, be it privately with whomever they choose or from a soapbox on a busy street corner - it comes down to individual choice. This made me look at the play differently and still I feel that I do not understand. Sometimes, when dealing with such hot-button topics, especially something so incredibly broad as gender (in)equality, its ok to not understand. Thank goodness!

A Critical Issue

Hot on the tail of Habermas' Paradigms are the principles of critical thinking; 8 of them to be exact. When broken down into 8 distinct considerations the task is clear enough:  I am to dig a little deeper than (the information) which has been brought to my attention.

Let's cruise through the 8 principles of critical thinking (as described by the textbook) with the aid of "15 Fun Facts About Women" ( http://www.tastyhuman.com/15-fun-facts-about-women/ ).

Fact: Women can have partners that are years younger without being called dirty old perverts.
Principle: Be skeptical; accept no opinion as fact. 
This is already like shooting fish in a barrel, because there is simply no way that anyone can make a claim as broad as this one with any certainty that it is true. 


Fact:  According to Playboy, more women talk dirty during sex than men.
Principle: Examine definition of terms.
For what is it to 'talk dirty,' anyway? How can this be a fact when no context is given to the very topic we are discussing?


Fact: Sex is more physical for men and more emotional for women.
Principle: Examine the assumptions or premises of arguments. 
Here we are not considering that there may exist an emotional element of sex which appeals to men and likewise a physical element which exists for women. Someone was not thinking critically when they wrote this fluffy article!




Fact: The two highest IQ’s ever recorded (on a standard test) both belong to women
Principle: Be cautious in drawing conclusions from evidence. 
In our age of information we could easily check to see if this is true. When we look at the list of which this fact is a part of, we can see that it would be wisest to do so. To have evidence is not enough anymore; we need to look at where the evidence is coming from. 


Fact: The first naked man women see is ‘Ken’
Principle: Consider alternative interpretations of research evidence. 
This reads like a made up fact. I must doubt that this is based on the polling of 1287 women on cosmopolitan.com. In fact, if we re-visit our principle regarding definition of terms we will realize that 'Ken' is not even a man. He is a plastic figure. With no penis. Does that really stand up in the world of 'seeing a naked man?'


Fact: A Saudi Arabian woman can get a divorce if her husband doesn’t give her coffee
Principle: Consider the kinds of evidence upon which conclusions are based
Oddly enough, this fact seems to check out. We now see that critical thinking is not used exclusively to falsify claims (not that I ever suggested such was the case) but that by looking more thoroughly at a (fact) by principles of critical thinking we can clarify truth.


Fact: When a woman answers, “I’m fine, ” after a few seconds, she is not fine.
Principle: Do not oversimplify.
This is a swimming example of oversimplification. Surely there have been instances in which a woman spoke of being fine when she indeed was (fine)!? In any case such as this one I would suggest reading more deeply into the tone in which the words "I'm fine" was spoken. To regard the above fact as true in every instance is an error of miscommunication waiting to happen.


Fact: It’s cool to be a daddy’s girl. It’s sad to be a mommy’s boy. 
Principle: Do not overgeneralize. 
But aren't there daddy's girls who cannot look after themselves by virtue of having been overprotected by their fathers? That's not cool! And aren't there mommy's boys who are quite successful by the standards of both themselves and others? Overgeneralizing is synonymous with stereotyping, an act most detrimental to one who is learning to develop and employ his or her own critical thinking skills. 




And so we see any point can be more closely examined by using our newly learned principles of critical thinking. These principles give us very pointed guidance when looking at issues of human sexuality. The underlying idea here is to be willing to listen to many different viewpoints and to think carefully about (anything under discussion) . These principles provide a framework for how we can do that, and if we know that we are confidently using these methods of critical thinking while examining issues, we will know that we have explored material in this course in a thoughtful, mature and thorough manner. 

Exploring Habermas' Paradigms

So much more than $0.20, har dee har har!

The learning takes an intensive swing on Monday, 13 September as we delve into some different perspectives through which we may explore human sexuality: Habermas' Paradigms. This begs the question: what is a paradigm? I will treat a paradigm as an encompassment of factors influencing a viewpoint on the given subject in question. That is to say: there are different ways of considering any given issue; a paradigm, as I understand it, categorizes these sentiments. Please do not worry if you are confused, for I may be as well. Time will tell...

Habermas' Paradigms consist of 3 (paradigms): Empirical-Analytic, Critical Theoretic and Situational Interpretive.

Since we talked about them in such detail in class, I think I'll focus on what direction we're going in now that we have them. These 3 distinctive approaches can be considered when discussing matters of human sexuality  not in recognition that there is or is not a correct paradigm to be used, but rather as an acknowledgement that there are other factors and standpoints to be considered. This is best cemented with an example; let's talk about pornography!

Pornography a la Empirical - Analytic

Whilst exploring a topic such as pornography, the empirical-analytic approach will likely dive into numbers and statistics. How many people out of 50 have watched some porn? When was the last time? How old were you the first time? How many people are employed in the United States as a result of the pornography industry? How does pornography contribute to the economy? If the issue at hand were "is pornography right or wrong?" the empirical-analytic approach might quickly justify that indeed it is as we turn out some numbers that might shock a fair lot of us.

Pornography a la Critical Theoretic


This paradigm more thoroughly explores political and societal factors surrounding pornography, such as the objectification of women (and men as well), socio-economic conditions of those sharing any involvement in the industry, and generally how pornography affects and influences a given society.

Pornography a la Situational - Interpretive


This one is my favorite paradigm because it focuses on individual experience. A fellow could be knee deep in his pornography collection and be responsible himself for skewing the numbers in the empirical paradigm and objectifying women in the critical theoretic, but here, in the situational, he is afforded the opportunity to tell us why. Sometimes instead of presenting numbers or macro-social ramifications, a phenomenon is best understood when told from the viewpoint of someone who has actually lived it. We're talking case-study here.

Something we are taught in our earliest human sexuality classes in school is to wrap it up.

Heh heh.