Clumsy Intentions Another Webhole for Mandy

I think that the rate of sexually transmitted infections is highest among minority groups because of their economic status, and resulting lack of educational opportunities. I also know that alcoholism and drug use are high in the American Indian population, which often results in infection transmission because of impaired judgment leading to unsafe sex. In addition, American Indians are the minority with the most reported rape cases (or so I once read). I believe that unfair economic strain creates a world wherein survival takes precedent over health. Also, healthcare among all impoverished Americans is sometimes an impossible expense. I can see how if general health checkups fall to the wayside then sexual health checks would as well.

When first contemplating the STI rates in America being so much higher than in other industrialized nations I was instantly reminded of an experience I wanted to share:

A nurse once told me, in response to some educated questions I had during a visit to Planned Parenthood (for my personally mandated annual STD/STI check) wherein she stated that numerous people come to the clinic asking if they "can get tested for the STD?" or "Do I have the STD?" Not pluralized, but "sexually transmitted disease"; singular... Like there is only one. I could not help but laugh and simultaneously I felt an enormous amount of frustration and pity for both the questioner and the questioned.

It is only slightly surprising to me that the rate of STIs in the United States is anywhere from 50 to 100 times higher than in other developed nations. I can hypothesize several reasons for this extreme difference. As aforementioned in our book and other posts our sexual education within public schools remains biased, under-funded, and ill focused. I think the emphasis on abstinence only education only makes it easier to skimp over the dirty nitty-gritty details of sexual encounters, and their consequences. I feel that when education assumes children/teenagers will remain abstinent and pressures them in this direction, there is less time to be spent discussing the actuality of sex.

Although discussions of biological consequences of unsafe sex may be present in this setting, I feel as though any talk of STIs is bound to be laced with scare tactics in order to create a pressure to remain pure. This approach generates a sense of shame and I believe that this it inhibits further honest dialogue and does not support active inquiry, which could increase awareness. I feel that this bias didactic structure is unreasonably laced with expectation and that the consequences of this kind of approach to sex education are enormously detrimental. I think it causes in young, vulnerable minds a tendency towards irresponsibility and willful ignorance.

I think that our government has a lack of compassion for its own people and their basic human rights. The United States of America tends to be reticent to implement any communal or socialist type improvements to assist social welfare. Although the US has enacted the Family Medical Leave Act^[1], it does not guarantee paid leave time.

"FMLA only covers you if you work for a large enough company but it never guarantees paid leave. Only your company can offer paid leave."
from LovetoKnow.com^[2]

There are many concerns against socializing maternity leave^[3], such as the fiscal cost to private industry, increased taxes and the abuse other paid leave options. American values seem guided by the idea that people should fend for themselves, but with such unbalanced dispersion of wealth, it is nearly impossible for many people to afford the luxury of unpaid time off at all. I think the current US government fails to adequately care for its citizens or take into account the long-term benefits of such social programs. Most other nations are more accepting of these social programs such as mandated parental leave and see the social value of healthy parenting and family units.

I believe that instating a law requiring paid parental leave, similar to other countries such as France, Canada, or Sweden^[4], is an excellent idea, and will only improve the morale and productivity of families and the US workforce. Some of the benefits of paid leave are...

• an adequate amount of time for bonding between mother and child
• time for a mother to regain her stamina after labor
• good mental health of the family unit, fostering civic and social responsibility

While I understand certain concerns against it, I feel like it should be a basic right for parents to care for their family-especially considering the fact that poor home environments create socially irresponsible children, which become socially irresponsible adults-and that the benefits to the nation far outweigh the limited monetary costs needed to support the law.

Sources

1. Dept. of Labor, Family Medical Leave Act: http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla/
2. Love to Know dot Com, Pregnancy subdomain: http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Maternity_Leave,_Disability,_and_Unemployment
3. US Office of Personnel Management, Parental Leave Report: http://www.opm.gov/oca/Leave/HTML/ParentalReport.htm
4. The Incredible Wikipedia, Parental Leave: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

Additional Reading

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_bond
• http://www.law.uiuc.edu/publications/cll&pj/archive/vol_22/issue_2/PullArticle22-2-3.pdf
• http://chnm.gmu.edu/wwh/p/148.html
• http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki/European_Maternity_Leave_for_Men
• http://www.babycenter.com/0_maternity-leave-the-basics_449.bc
• http://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/337/76/doc/N0533776.DOC?OpenElement
• http://www.momsrising.org/taxonomy/term/1

I do not have much experience within bigoted environments and have chosen to keep myself separate from such intolerance. I never adopted this aversion to same sex coupling so it is hard for me to understand this type of bigotry, in the same way that it is hard for me to understand racism. I am having a hard time finding any hard-lined reasons why homophobia would be expressed by, and primarily associated with, men rather than women.

A few reasons could include a higher propensity towards physical violence due to hormones such as testosterone being higher in males makes them likely to express homophobic tendencies, but I think there is a lot more to it than that. I also believe that males are more evolutionarily wired to be competitive, and to achieve some rung on the ladder of social dominance. Although these forces do play a part, I do not think that they are the core motivators for such behavior and cognition -- neither of these explains it fully enough.

I see homophobia as being directly associated with Puritanical ideas that are still prevalent in our countries' groupthink. Ideas about sex such as "there is no holy expression of sex other than of a man for a woman for the purpose of procreation," are engrained within our society as normal and homosexuality would therefore be, "unholy." Whether aware of it or not, I do believe that a person's psyche is subjected to such compartmentalization of right and wrong, and homosexuality is likely to be seen as abnormal or sinful. I suppose one reaction would be that a person might want to harm or experience irrational fear of someone who appears to represent homosexual characteristics. If one were to believe that homosexuality was wrong as stated by "the word of God," then alternative sexual choices might represent the malady and evil of humankind.

I also believe that the same Puritanical ideas about the roles of men and women reinforce male fear and insecurity in relation to their own self-expression. If men are no longer head of household, no longer expected to see women as baby-makers (sexual devices), and are allowed to be gay, where does that leave them? With no acceptable role to fall into, fear and xenophobia are likely responses and are acted out in an aggressive fashion in an attempt to achieve some sort of balance in their worldview.

"What is Love?"

Ah, the long deliberated over essential human question. Love is not a battlefield—no but seriously. As the tenets of ancient philosophy were once written within the school of Massive Attack, "Love is a Verb, Love is a Doing Word."

There are many different types of Love: Romantic; Sexual; Platonic; Familial. I am choosing in this post to discuss primarily Romantic Love (Eros). Romantic Love can involve sexual and platonic Love – neither is mutually exclusive. All of these contain the same essential underlying thread of Love and connect to one another. Thoughts and intentions are what make them separate.

The ways in which we express these different types of Love is the process of enacting Love. Whether expression be through actions, communication, chemical reactions, thoughts that come about in expectation of (or because of) Love, the process of enacting these intentions is the thing that makes them different. Expressions of Love manifest themselves in physical actions, different forms of verbal or written communication, neurochemical reactions, and even the internal reality of an individual (intentions, imagination, forethought, etc.).

The initial neurochemical reaction of Love (infatuation) is due to an event or a thought that—as far as neurobiologists and psychologists have seen through their research—activates regions in the brain with the release of dopamine and serotonin. Eventually these chemical reactions lessen (but don't dissipate completely) and are followed by the release of oxytocin (fueling the bonding response).

Further, Love is an action, a creation and an emotion caused biologically for pair bonding purposes and the survival of the human race. And now I can't think where to put all these thoughts, so, a list…

• Love is honest communication
• Love is being honest with oneself
• Love is improvement, positive personal growth
• Love is accepting people, however they are
• Love is nurturing growth, even if it is away from you
• Love is self-affirming
• Love is acceptance
• Love is a strange loop

I believe that Love is present and the driving force of so many actions/experiences undertaken by individual people as well as the human race as a whole. Love is a thread that connects many events throughout human existence, and is primarily a creative gesture, expressed through communications of varying degrees of impact and methods. Some believe in the dichotomy that life is made of two forces: Love; or fear of the loss of Love. This seems too simple to me. In his book "The Politics of Experience", R.D. Laing explains a different dichotomy in the following quote:

"Personal action can either open out possibilities of enriched experience, or it can shut off possibilities. Personal action is either predominantly validating, confirming, encouraging, supportive, enhancing, or it is invalidating, denying, discouraging, undermining and constricting. It can be creative or destructive."

I think Love is a force, an act or an impression that creates a larger scope of perception and experience, and is an aid to widen the possibilities in life. It consists of small and large gestures, and is without deception. The quote "if you Love something set it free" applies here. But freedom can be experienced within a loving relationship, which doesn't mean Love goes away. The mind needs to be free in order to experience Love fully.

"Does Love hurt?"

I don't believe that Love in and of itself is something that can cause pain. I believe that attachment to Love or an object associated with Love can cause pain. The people involved need not thrust expectations on another that are limiting and/or destructive. The loss or lack of Love can hurt, cause pain, in the way that Buddhists explain attachment as the cause suffering, but Love in itself is not causing that pain. "You can't take the Effect and make it the Cause" (philosopher Jack White).

"Is it possible to Love more than one person at a time?"

I whole-heartedly believe that it is possible to Love more than one person at a time. Love is not finite; it is an always-full reservoir. I do believe that some people are more capable with accepting the responsibility of loving more than one person at a time. It takes a lot of time and effort to be communicative with yourself in a way that can help you tap this reservoir and to realize what actions are preformed out of Love or fear of loss of Love and so on.

"Is jealousy a natural and healthy part of a Love relationship?"

Jealousy is natural, but is not healthy. Anything people experience or feel is natural. It is a naturalistic fallacy to assume that anything that happens in this world, which is a natural entity, is in anyway unnatural. I absolutely do not believe that jealousy is healthy. It is rooted in insecurity and fear (which is so not love).

... and that's all I have to say about that.

The main reasons why college-aged couples are more at ease engaging in sexual acts rather than talking about them are generally due to socio-cultural taboos and expectations, and an incomplete education in communicating about the subject.

I believe society has instilled within us a block when it comes to talking about the subject, especially when we are young. We know it is a part of normal human experience, yet we still feel there is a taboo attached to talking about sex. By observation of our peers and society, we learn that – while sex is a natural part of the human experience – it is inappropriate or bad manners to discuss such topics, especially in more formal communication settings (forbidden at the workplace, church potlucks, and so on).

If as children and young adults sexual-talk remains secret, if communication about sex is not taught to us by example, when are we expected to learn how and when to talk about it? The media is becoming more open about such topics, but sexuality is displayed most often as an act and expressed less often during conversation. (Thank you Dr. Ruth!) I believe that because of this lack of example the vocabulary of these “lovebirds” when talking about sex with one another is stunted and immature.

Sex was a very open topic for my classmates, but as far as partners, my inability to discuss sexual matters specific to our relationship was largely due to insecurities on both sides. In addition, it did not seem like there was a lot of time for discussion when finals were just around the corner – the deed itself seemed far quicker and more satisfying. There definitely seemed to be an interest in keeping most relationships casual.

In one of my college relationships, for example, our sexual discussion was kept very minimal and vague. I believe this was because of my hesitancy to generate feelings of insecurity. He was a virgin before me and I did not want to appear as though I was criticizing his performance by bringing attention to his “shortcomings.”

I would like to believe that I interact with people essentially the same regardless of their gender, but I recognize that there are some situations where this is not the case. In general, I tend to accommodate peoples' personalities in order to find a balance where we are both at the same comfort level.

At work, I cannot escape the well-engrained Southern, Good Ol' Boy gender roles. Women are primarily hired into support roles for men. This isn't to say that they are blatantly sexist; people are respectful of one another. Most likely this is just due to social tradition.

I would say that I am more likely to communicate with men and women in a similar (if not equal) manner once my exchanges with a person progress past the first superficial stages. I take the opportunity when first meeting people to test reactions, feel out, and judge the comfort level of the situation. In these initial, sometimes wary meetings with others, I am often unsure whether the other person is engaged or receptive to my cues.

I like to be aware of the other person's intentions when engaging in conversation. Since I am more likely to assume that a man might be attracted to me sexually, I look for cues to indicate whether this is the case. If the conversation is a meaningful one, I prefer there to be no ulterior motive. In my personal experience, men seem to be a little more upfront with their motives. Sometimes motives are expressed verbally and, most times, the more fundamental, innate styles of communication are being utilized. I think that we all give off subtle cues that indicate whether we see a person as a potential mate (perhaps through pheromones, or a tiny smirk, or flip of the hair). I would say that I am more likely to perceive and send these signals with men, rendering my interactions with men very different.

I do not assume women are looking at me in a sexual way (unless obvious). My experience with women is that they tend to be less open with their judgments or observations of people they're interacting with, and I usually reciprocate. Again, this is accommodating their persona, but this does not always apply. Women seem to interact with me differently overall, but once I am comfortable with them, these gender-based interactions tend to dissipate.

While reflecting on the sexual and romantic relations I have had throughout my life I noticed some distinct trends - both conscious and subconscious - that have affected my choice of partners. Some of these are as follows:

1. Proximity/familiarity
2. Intelligent, creative personalities
3. Similarity in values and interests
4. Physical attractiveness
5. Reciprocal attraction

I tend to be most attracted to people who are intelligent, can carry on an intelligent passionate conversation and can stimulate me mentally. Evolutionary theory would explain this preference as an innate urge to find a mate whose genetic traits were worthy of procreation but it is probably best explained from the sociological perspective; I grew up in a home that valued intelligence and stressed the importance of higher intellectual pursuits.

I am a firm believer that the brain is the largest erogenous zone and desire those who can teach me things or facilitate my learning process. I need to be fascinated with the way my partner's brain works, and this cognition process has to somewhat correlate with the way I process the world around me. I need a mate that is aware of the effect his thoughts have on his perception of the world. Cognitive Theory helps enlighten me to why this might be so important to me. I desire someone who has an awareness of their own internal rapport.

I am also very attracted to people who are open sexually. My household had a frank attitude about sexuality, and the other biological functions. Medical books on anatomy and sexual functions and dysfunctions lined our bookshelves. In addition to these social factors, I also discovered my father's stash of pornography when I was in first grade.

I seek mates who are creative, unique, and self-confident, possessing similar values to myself (non-bigoted, idealistic, progressive, and open-minded). I yearn to be close to someone who is aware of his or her motivations, and possesses a maturity in order to be aware of the potentials of life. I believe that I am most attracted to someone who is seeking to achieve what Humanistic Theory describes as self-actualization.

My preference is not limited to either gender, but I have had far more relationships with men than women. My experience has contributed to a greater comfort level when engaging in and pursuing heterosexual relationships. I also feel more assuredness and confidence in my ability to satisfy and perform sexually and emotionally in relationships with the opposite sex.

When I found my father's pornography stash and after my initial discovery, I became hooked. My father's porn was the usual straight male kind; mostly heterosexual themes, but a lot of lesbian material as well. Most pornography produced for men tends to include not only heterosexual encounters but lesbian sex as well. This was my first interaction with the adult sex world, which I think taught me to see women alone, women with men, women with other women - women in any form - as sexy. This and other influences probably conditioned me to explore love for women that transcends the Platonic and tiptoes below the belt buckle.