Figleaf's Real Adult Sex

The headline for Jessica Pieklo's post says it all: "Ron Paul, What Exactly Is An “Honest Rape?”

Just in case there was any question, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is no friend to women. The latest evidence came during an interview on CNN where he told Piers Morgan that only in cases of “honest rape” would he consider abortion acceptable, and even then in he would just advise the woman to go to the emergency room for “a shot of estrogen.”

Source: Care2 Causes

All I can say is there are just way to many people making assumptions about what is or isn't rape. As far as they're concerned, of course. I think it's a really bad idea to make any assumptions at all. I'd have been tempted to add "if you're a guy" but really, what's the difference between Ron Paul's "honest rape," or Whoopie Goldberg's "rape-rape," or so many other people's similar variations on "real rape."

I guess there are plenty of reasons for trying to construct a distinction.

For people like Ron Paul (who despite some nominally libertarian window-dressing, behaves indistinguishably from the average old, white, southern "states rights" conservative Republicans) terms like "honest rape" refer to the conventional belief among anti-abortion activists that exemptions in their anti-abortion laws are a bad idea because it just "encourages" women to "circumvent" those "safeguards" by pretending they were victims.

For people like Whoopie Goldberg (who despite the serious lapse is generally pretty savvy about the issues) I'm afraid words like "rape-rape" tend to mean mostly "something my accused friend wouldn't have done." For others it means "it couldn't have been what I did."  And for still others, maybe a lot of others, words like that mean "that couldn't have been what happened to me."

For others it can mean "but ABCs can't be raped by XYZs."

For others it can mean "but she/he didn't say 'no.'"

Sometimes, I guess, you can say the distinction arises out of a paradigm-driven urge to blame victims -- in those cases they're not so much interested in absolving perpetrators (for whom lurid punishments are often proposed), just hammering the (generally perceived as female) victims for any perceived or perhaps even imaginable "lapse in virtue."

And of course a heck of a lot of the time it just arises out of a desire for... what?... "dishonest" rapists? ... "non-rape-rape" rapists? ... "unreal" rapists? ... to absolve themselves by saying "well, that's not how I do it."  Or "but if men (it's usually men they have in mind) can't do X, Y, or Z then they can't have sex at all."

But here's the point: what all the above have in common is that they're sure they know what the difference is.  I'm... pretty sure that anyone who assumes they know they can is unlikely to have the faintest clue.

I gotta be really clear here (it's central to the post, actually) that there's a large difference between sex and rape.  And I think it's relatively easy to tell the two apart.  But not if you believe there's a difference between "honest" rape and some other kind.

That's a perilous state for sexually active humans to be in: if you're sure you know the difference then, like Ron Paul, or Whoopie Goldberg, or Roman Polanski and his victim's parents, or like me and a heck of a lot of people who came of age in the 1960s, or 1970s, or 1980s, or sometimes even the 1990s and beyond, you are, or have been, or in the future might be a potential danger both to others and to yourself.

Update: As I predicted last night (as did most spectators), the recent uproar has caused Komen to back down. And since they've a) backed down in a particularly smarmy way and b) they haven't asked the acidly anti-choice vice president who brought this fiasco down on their heads to resign, I would argue that they still haven't even begun to restore the placid apolitical credibility expected by corporate sponsors whether they're very large and well-heeled or small and serving progressive markets. Furthermore, the Foundation has only retracted one reason they gave as the "main reason" for defunding Planned Parenthood -- the "under investigation by Congressional witch-hunters" one. They remain silent on the other "really, this is the main reason" reason -- that beginning yesterday they're only funding organizations that provide on-site mammograms (if their initials also contain the letter P.) In other words, I'm not really seeing any change.

Image via Barbara Kelley at Undecided.

Well, this line from the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Corporate Partners Page sounds a little creepier than the flacks who wrote it originally intended

Our corporate partners provide us with the opportunity to reach people where they live, work, and play.

Um, yeah. To reach people where they live, work, and play and... jam crappy hate-filled and, frankly, spiteful messages down their throats.

Right-wing hysteria notwithstanding, Planned Parenthood has long enjoyed thoroughly bipartisan support. Prestigious support at that! For instance the late Prescott Bush, former senator, former board member of Fortune 500 banks and manufacturers, father of one President and grandfather of another, was also Planned Parenthood's founding treasurer. And today it still enjoys considerable personal and corporate support from companies large and small across America. And why not? After all, until about a day ago the Komen Foundation supported Planned Parenthood as well.

If you visit their page and look down the list you'll find many, many companies that have supported Komen -- some having gone so far as to re-brand their products in Komen's signature pink!

But if you look down the list you'll also find that many of those same companies also support Planned Parenthood -- both through corporate direct giving, through executive board members, through charitable funds-matching, and other sources.

I'd never, ever consider boycotting a company who'd just been blindsided by the underhanded scheming of a previously singularly uncontroversially benign organization.

But if, say, I worked for one of those sponsors, particularly one that's also supported Planned Parenthood in the past, or if I served on one of their boards or advisory committees, or if I was a shareholder, or if I was a client, I might quietly inquire higher up whether it was still in my company's interest to continue sponsoring Komen.

It doesn't even have to be a matter of whether one is pro-choice or anti-choice, by the way. What really matters, to a lot of those large firms, is perception, stability, predictability, and lack of controversy. Not to put too fine a point on it, here, but if Komen fishtails back the other way tomorrow (I'm guessing the odds are better than 50/50) that just further indicates they no longer can be counted on to be consistent, non-politically-charged, or able to stay on message.

It only takes a little bit of Googling to find... quite a few companies that may have found themselves involuntarily embroiled in Komen's new entirely political agenda. Check them out.

3M, ACH Food Companies, AT&T, Alternative Apparel
American Airlines, Anchor Bay, Ansell Healthcare, Ask.com
Avcor, Avon, BIC, Bank of America
Battelle, Beemster Cheese, Belk, Berkley Packaging
Black & Decker, BoConcept, Boar’s Head, Bob Evans
Boots, Boston Proper, Boston Warehouse, Brinker
Brown Shoe, Caché, Caltrate, Canari Cyclewear
Caribou Coffee, Carlisle Collection, Caterpillar, Century Payments
CenturyLink, Chasing Fireflies, Chesapeake Bay Candle Co, Citizen Watch
Clean Ones, Clear Channel, ClearVision Optical, Coach
Coldwater Creek, Collegiate Shipping, Corning, Crayola
Dallas Cowboys, Dell, Deluxe Checks, Designs by Lolita
Deuce Brand, Discover Financial Services, Disney on Ice, Donna Karan
Dots, Eggland's Best, Emdeon, Energizer
Este Lauder, EuroBlooms, Evian, Evite
Exercise TV, Exhale Enterprises, FUZE, Fable Designs
Foot Solutions, Ford Gum, Ford, Forever 21
Freed’s Bakery, Frito-Lay, GUESS, Garden State Growers
General Mills, Georgia-Pacific, Global Filtration, Globe Electric
Goldtouch, Graphique de France, HUE, Hallmark
Hampshire Designers, Hand & Nail Harmony, Hanes, Helzberg Diamonds
Hewlett-Packard, Holland America Line, Honest Tea, HonorBib
Hunter Boot, Igloo, Imperial Headwear, Inliten
Interfresh, Jason Aldean, Jersey Mike's Subs, Kent International
Kentucky Fried Chicken, Kentucky Oaks Ladies First, Key Brands, KeyBank
King’s Hawaiian Bakery, KitchenAid, Kobian, Kodak
Koi Design, Kraft, Kyocera, LPGA
La Madeleine, LaCroix, Liberty Mutual, Lifetime Brands
Louisville Stoneware, Lowe’s, Macy's, Major League Baseball
MegaGoods, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Merck, Meredith Corporation
Microsoft, Mobile Edge, Mohawk Flooring, Mottega
Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, NBC Today Show, Napa Valley Naturals, Nature's Flowers
Nestle , New Balance, New Global Charities, NewBalance
Nordstrom, Not Your Daughter's Jeans, Nuun, Oil Can Henry's
Old Navy, On The Border, Oracle, Oreck
Oregon Cherry Growers, Inc., Oriental Trading Company, Otis Spunkmeyer, Palmer's
Pandora Jewelry, Paris Accessories, Payless, Pepperidge Farm
Pepsico, Philips, Pier 1 Imports, Pinnacle
Planet Smooties, Postmark, Pottery Barn Kids, Premium Outlets
Pretzel Crisps, Princess Cruises, Progresso Soup, Prolacta Bioscience
Provide Commerce, Purina, REMAX, Rally for the Cure®
Ralph Lauren, Redken, RiceSelect, Rich Products
SELF, Saks Fifth Avenue Samsung, Santa Barbara Design Studio
Sarah Fisher Racing, Savvi, ShoeDazzle, Shoutback Concepts
Shuman Produce, Simon Malls, Skinny Cow, SodaStream
Specialized Bicycle Components, Springs Global, Stanley , Stanley Steemer
Stein Mart, Stylemark, Sy Kessler Sales, T-Mobile
Teasdale Quality Foods, TeleTech Holdings, The Columbus Dispatch, The Hillman Group
The Maryland Jockey Club, The Mohawk Group, The Republic of Tea, Tiger Balm
Tim Hortons, Titleist, Trident Seafoods, True Religion Brand Jeans
Tubbs Snowshoes, U.S. Bobsled and Skeleton Federation, Verbatim, Wacoal America
Walgreens, Wells Lamont, Woman Within, Yoplait
Young Dental, Zumba Fitness

Again, it's really, really important to remember this is an easily but hastily compiled list, based on nothing more than Google results. Not all the named companies have been closely associated with Komen. Not all the named companies are still associated with Komen. Many of the companies were partners and/or sponsors with state or local chapters of Komen what have (or I'm sure soon will) dissociate themselves with the extremist turn the national organization has taken. And absolutely, definitely, certainly not all the companies named (or possibly any of them!) can be assumed to actually approve of the new, anti-choice direction coming out of Komen HQ.

I'm... pretty sure, even assuming they take an official position at all, that many and possibly most of these companies would prefer not to have been dragged into this mess.  And if you're associated in a positive way with any of those companies and organizations (or others not on the list) then keep your association positive -- just quietly and calmly express your preference, suggest that there remain other perfectly respectable organizations that could still use corportate sponsorship, and let them know that you're sure that just as in the old days nobody ever got fired for buying IBM, these days nobody's likely to get fired for sponsoring, say, The American Cancer Society instead of Komen.  Meanwhile, if your association with one of these companies or organizations is not positive... eh, please remember you can catch more flies with honey than with bile... and that when someone has perhaps learned to prepare to be antagonized they're even more susceptible to calm words and sound advice.

An interesting exchange posted at Sex Worker Problems raises what seems like an imminently testable research question into whether or not sex-work legalization increases or decreases worker safety. First, here's the post

Anonymous asked

I am a dancer. Yes, though I may face social stigma as well, my cash flow is at least legal, so I couldn't even imagine the terror of possibly facing legal issues to earn my income. Out of curiosity... is the issue of illegality daunting/frustrating/scary? --- Much love and respect. This blog is amazing.

Thank you so much! The issue of illegality IS really daunting and scary. There are of course all kinds of resources for sex workers to do their best to screen clients, but yeah, the likelihood that a cop or a serial killer might be the next person you meet is… well it’s not high, really, but it’s much higher than it is in a lot of other occupations.

Source: Sex Worker Problems

And now here's the research question. Two questions, really.  Ok, actually maybe a whole series.

First, what are the assault, robbery, on the job harassment, and law-enforcement-action rates against dancers vs. otherwise comparable non-dance customer-contact employees (wait staff, bartenders, greeters, etc.) in "strip clubs?"

Next, what are the assault, robbery, harassment, and law-enforcement-action rates against dancers vs. otherwise comparable non-dance customer-contact employees in non-"stripper" bars and nightclubs?

In both these cases, above, both indicated professions are legal.  (The comparisons would be even more informative if data could also be gathered in areas where dancing is not legal.)

Next question, slightly further afield:

What are the assault, robbery, harassment, and law-enforcement-action rates against "escort" sex workers vs. otherwise comparable non-dance customer-contact workers who work in similar circumstances (e.g. massage therapists, housecleaners, or even legal "strip-o-gram" delivery persons.)

Offhand my guess would be that in all cases where both sets of professions are legal rates will be fairly similar.  My further guess would be that in all cases where one set of professions is legal but the other is not, workers in the non-legal arena are subject to considerably greater jeopardy.

I'm... pretty sure the results would not be prediction-defying.  It's also entirely possible that the research has already been done.

Still, considering the rather incessant drumbeat about the relative perils of legalized vs. non-legal sex work it would be nice to have some solid data to base actual policy on.

Via Daily Kos, and the Huffington Post the Guttmacher Institute noted that in 2011 the state of North Dakota, restless with the prospect of abstinence only before marriage, decided to take things a little further (emphasis mine.)

A new requirement enacted in North Dakota mandates that the health education provided in the state include information on the benefits of abstinence “until and within marriage.”

Source: Guttmacher Institute

Wowzie, huh?  Sounds almost too good to be true, eh?

Well, to be fair it's only mostly true, as a little bit privacy sacrifice to Google reveals.

According to the Minot (North Dakota) Daily News last April

Rep. RaeAnn Kelsch, R-Mandan, the chairwoman of the conference committee, said the phrase "before marriage" could lead students to think they're sexually unrestricted after getting married.

"This sends a much stronger, louder message, and probably more true to the facts," Kelsch said. "Once you're married, it doesn't mean that abstaining from outside issues goes away, and children should be taught that."

Source: Minot Daily News

I'm not positive this is better.  It would indeed be ludicrous for anyone to seriously advocate abstinence within marriage.  And it doesn't look like that's what Kelsch was advocating in her wording change.  (Another story reports that her committee met 12 times to hash out the wording of that one sentence.  So it's not surprising that it might sound a little muddled.)

Instead it sounds like maybe Kelsch thinks North Dakota's children are too stupid to realize that "abstinence in marriage" implies "and monogamous within marriage."  And so she felt it was important to spell it out.

I dunno.  I assume she knows North Dakotans better than I do.  And so perhaps she's responding to some spate of post-marital swinger orgies.  My guess would be that instead she's instead just signaling conservative "credentials" in a state that's already so right-wing conservative there's just not many other directions left in which to express "concern."

So again, probably not as ridiculous as it can be made out to be... but still pretty seriously ridiculous.

Jill Filopovic on the way one Virginia State senator is tackling 'wingers tendencies to use even healthcare to encourage men's sexuality and discourage women's.

To protest a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion, Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) on Monday attached an amendment that would require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication.

“We need some gender equity here,” she told HuffPost. “The Virginia senate is about to pass a bill that will require a woman to have totally unnecessary medical procedure at their cost and inconvenience. If we’re going to do that to women, why not do that to men?”

Her amendment didn’t pass, but good on her.

Now don’t get me wrong: I don’t think that men should have to undergo rectal exams and cardiac stress tests before getting Viagra. I think that’s silly and wasteful and unnecessary and invasive. But I also think that women’s health is so routinely politicized, and is so widely accepted as something that it’s ok to politicize, that turning the tables might make men think a little bit harder about these issues. Right-wing politicians have positioned reproductive rights as about abortion and babies, not as what they really are: Fundamentally tied to the body. Laws like this force that conversation; they force politicians to explain why a procedure tied to female reproduction should included legally-mandated penetration and shame, while male reproduction gets a smile and a prescription.

Source: Feministe

And of course both Jill and Sen. Howell have been clear that they don't think either men or women should have burdensome, intrusive, and unnecessary procedures imposed on them when all they really need is routine medical care. They were joking -- the seem to believe that both men and women are entitled to ordinary sexual health and healthcare. The 'wingers, unfortunately, are dead serious about increasing the imbalance between what men and women receive.

Kind of weird what you get when you run that L.A. Times article about Tim Gunn's 29 years of celibacy" through Regender.com.

The original article is kind of a piece of work. The reporter (and, evidently tens of thousands of people querying Google) are somewhere between shock, fascination, and denial that the Project Runway co-host hasn't had sex since the early 1980s. All the more so because Gunn says it hasn't been a very big deal for him.

The real hoot is that people who (correctly) don't bat an eye that Gunn's last relationship was with a man nevertheless disapprove of his failure to be sexual at all for three decades.

Another weird thing about the original article is that the reporter asked, of all people, a surgeon who specializes almost exclusively in women's health and sexuality to opine on Gunn's "condition." (You'd think they could find at least one psychologist or urologist in LA who regularly sees gay men. Or men period.)

Even weirder, or more like unpleasant, is what the surgeon, Dr. Jennifer R. Berman, has to say.

...Gunn's 29-year, self-imposed dry spell was "not a natural state."

[and]

Berman said that, if she were treating Gunn, she'd like to know: Does he continue to be celibate by choice -- or out of fear? For example, she said, if we lived in a magical world where sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS were not an issue ... would Gunn still abstain from sexual intimacy?

"It's not a natural sort of decision, nor is it biological or physiological -- we are not wired that way," she said. "It sounds like there are issues relating to trust," she added.

Source: The Los Angeles Times

Or, as Jill of I Blame the Patriarchy put it

"If she were treating him for this “illness,” she says, she would get to the bottom of his debilitating trust issues, for Man Must Boink!"

She said it here.

Look, I don't want to single out Berman, or even the reporter, and certainly not all the people who think this is just earth-shattering news. Imagine, a man! Who doesn't have sex! Inconceivable! Almost intolerable!* But that whole "man must boink" business is as clearly socially constructed as a Windsor tie. What's really chilling is that a man who doesn't "boink" isn't just weird, he's broken and wrong and by gum we'd better fix him or else really break him!

Call it the opposite of the other obligatory gender construction, "slut shaming." A man who, when given a choice to take it or leave it picks "leave it" ought to be ashamed of himself. And the only reason people don't shame the crap out of them is there are just a whole lot more places to hide, and a whole lot fewer witnesses (how does one witness not doing it anyway?)

There are a lot of really bad consequences to this assumption that "man must boink." Really bad. And given that, going back as far as the late 1970s researchers have notice that as many as 15% of adult men really would rather not, that's a lot of potential bad stuff. For instance you know that eternal "joke" about how 90% of men masturbate and the other 10% are liars? If you're not one of the 100% who everyone "knows" wants sex then you're going one of a couple of ways, none of them very good and some really bad. For instance you might do really ugly stereotype-ish things because you're trying to "pass." Or you might take the prim/prudish path and say all sex is sin and should only be done "for reproduction." If that. Or you might just lie a lot. But since we live in a misogynist culture pretty much all the ways of "passing" involve misogyny, and since people trying to pass tend to be over the top then, yeah, you can end up with a lot of over-the-top misogyny.

Most of which (though not all) could be mitigated (though probably not eliminated) if the asshats at USAToday and "experts" from the L.A. Times would keep their ignorant, stereotype-enforcing pie holes shut.

A few years ago I got a brainstorm from one of Twisty Faster's posts and decided that in a lot of ways it makes more sense to say that men are the "sex class" (meaning they're the class constructed to be reflexively, uncontrollably, obligately sexual) while women might be better designated as the "no sex" class where it's simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable that a woman would ever experience, let alone admit, sexual interest. In either case, people who don't fit their respective stereotypes aren't just thought to be somewhere on the normal bell curve, and they're not just considered maybe a little quirky, and they're not maybe just in a less-obvious part of the population, they're broken, sick, wrong, and actually kind of a threat. One that needs to be "mended," or explained away or even outright denied.

The opprobrium heaped on Gunn just makes the case. He's male but not obligately sexual and he's suddenly weirder than if he had three buttocks.

More proof, by the way, that society's patriarchal. And classed. And gendered.

Me? I'm not on the same part of the bell curve as Gunn but since my first trip through a gym lockerroom in 7th grade I've experienced intense pressure not just to "be a man" but to be compulsively sexual. Sexual's fine -- I like being sexual -- but compulsively? No, that's not been good at all -- it pushed me into places I'd rather not have gone, before I was ready to go there, and I'm just continuing to confront, over and over, the places that pressure told me to go that I really should never have gone and wish I hadn't.

I wish Tim Gunn and all the other asexual and unsexual people in the world the best of luck, sure, but even more I wish they got a little more understanding too. Actually, more than that, earnestly hope someday they'll be as tolerated and accepted as "not broken" as anybody else.

Ugg. Sorry about the rant. Hope it doesn't sound like man'splaining, it's just... I've got a lot of frustration about this. And I'm really glad you brought it up, Jill, because if we're ever going to get out of the patriarchy/gender trap (I know we have different opinions about whether we can) we're going to have to get people to stop contemplating psychiatric "fixes" for men who don't fit the "and the other 10% are lying" stereotype.

* Where have I used that kind of language before? No, I probably won't make it Rule #3. But...

Note: I lightly edited this post for clarity and a couple of more glaring typos when Andrew Sullivan linked to it. There are bound to be plenty of other typos and general grammar failures. --fl

Image by Flickr user Mark Klotz. Used under a Creative Commons license.

In a review of historic opposition to contraception in the face of President Obama's directive that (virtually) all employee healthcare plans fund contraception for women the way they fund Viagra and Cialis for men E.J. Graff first reviews the biggest standard, historic objection to contraception

Late-19th- and early-20th-century pundits said that the nation would become a bordello if anyone could have sex without consequences and warned of the death of the American family.

Source: TAPPED

And finds it wanting (emphasis mine)

In other words, women can work for Catholic hospitals, colleges, social-services groups, and so on—and still have the same rights to sexual health coverage as men, under the same plans. All that Viagra needn't lead to either 19 children and counting; to abortions; or to impoverished women.

Ouch!

The Viagra-but-no-pill argument actually cuts two ways with hidebound institutions such as the Catholic and many Protestant churches. Their argument against contraception is that it interferes with women's "natural and normal" functioning, and thus constitutes an unnatural intervention in human reproduction.

The problem, of course, is that even if one were to argue (as the Catholic hierarchy in fact still does) that "virtuous" men could use Viagra "only" for reproduction there's the issue of the Church's ban on other forms of "unnatural intervention" like in-vitro and artificial insemnation. Sort of by-definition if a guy can't get a woodie without medication then "nature" has decreed he should do without.

And yet to the very best of my knowledge there is no Church doctrine forbidding its employee insurance plans from covering, or indeed its healthcare facilities from dispensing, Viagra or Cialis.

But I digress...

At the end of the day, neither Viagra or Cialis have created catastrophic baby booms, orgy outbreaks, upticks in divorce, or any of the other bugaboos projected by opponents of contraception. Certainly not among the kind of people willing to become employees of the Church.

Therefore prior evidence suggests that contraception availability will also not produce similar licentiousness.  Nor, as we have seen, above, is contraception any more of an "unnatural intervention" in fertility than is Viagra or Cialis.  Both claims, therefore, are red herrings.  There may be <em>some</em> legitimate reason that conservatives object to giving women control over their own fertility.  But if so they don't seem very comfortable saying it.  Thus the prevarication.

Last week I posted a comment I added to Em & Lo's regular "Wise Guys" feature. This week I'm in the rotation as Em & Lo's "straight married" Wise Guy, answering the question...

“What would you tell a guy who was intimidated by the idea of his partner bringing sex toys into the bedroom?”

Source: Em & Lo

Here's how I answered (slightly reformatted since, hey, now it gets to be a second draft):

The dead cliché answer would be to remind him that they’re only called “toys” and “novelties” to get around puritanical blue laws.In reality, you could tell him, sex “toys” are tools for sex. Guys like tools.

But here’s a more original approach: Tell him, if someone brings a Monopoly board into the den it would be a pretty good sign she’d like to play [Monopoly] with you, right? So if your partner brings a sex toy into the bedroom that’s an even better sign she wants to play with you.

Yeah, we men are under a lot of social pressure to feel inadequate or even jealous about... well... all kinds of things. But, seriously, once you give up on the idea that sex is a test it can be a heck of a lot of fun. Whatever you want to call them, sex toys are pretty much always going to make sex even more fun. For both of you.

Guest-blogger Ziff of Feminist Mormon Housewives wonders

Number of times pornography has been mentioned in General Conference in the past 20 years: 128

Number of times rape has been mentioned: 4

I’ve been wondering recently why General Authorities spend so much time condemning porn use and so little time condemning rape. Porn use and rape seem like related problems: they’re sexual wrongs that men do to women. (I realize they aren’t exclusively done by men or exclusively done to women, but this is their most common variety, and that’s what I’ll talk about.) So why in the Church is there so much focus on one and so little on the other?

Source: Feminist Mormon Housewives

Ziff says he has basically no experience with either rape or porn, and says therefore most of what he says should be considered speculation. And based on some of his speculation you can sort of tell. That said he also drills in very nicely.  From his list of why the church might choose to focus on rape.

6. GAs may blame women for rape, at least to some degree. I think this is evident in the excessive rhetoric on modesty they direct at young women with the rationale that women control men’s thoughts. It’s a short step from blaming women for men’s thoughts to blaming women for men’s actions. Their attitude probably shouldn’t be surprising considering the ages of the most senior GAs: they were raised in a time when blaming women for rape was probably typical.

7. GAs may not realize that most rape victims are raped by men they know. This is pretty speculative on my part, but if GAs are hanging on to the old belief that rapists are mostly strangers lurking in dark allies, they may feel like it’s hopeless to preach to such psychopaths. Again, given their ages, it wouldn’t be surprising if they believed this.

And from his reasons why his church should address rape more directly than it has been.

A. Mormon women are particularly vulnerable to being raped. They are taught to be deferential and submissive.

...

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with being tender, kind, and refined. But resisting rape requires toughness, and probably also coarseness and rudeness. Women who are taught that toughness is worldly and therefore wrong are women who are less likely to stand up and say no when their boyfriends or husbands are pushing them sexually in ways they don’t want to go.

B. Mormon women are particularly likely to blame themselves for being raped. As I’ve already mentioned, there’s not much Church teaching out there on the topic of rape. A woman who is raped is likely to find only the old line of thinking popularized by President Kimball that a woman is better of dying than ‘allowing’ herself to be raped. She may also connect the dots as I did in reason #6 above, and figure that she must be to blame for being raped because of what she wore (or if she doesn’t do this, people around her may do it for her).

Both of these teachings are incredibly destructive. Women are not responsible to sacrifice their lives if attacked by a rapist. Women’s clothing choices are not to blame for rape. The last thing women who are raped need is a heaping pile of guilt to add to their pain. GAs’ choice to leave these teachings out there unrepudiated is a choice to let women suffer more.

It's good stuff.  And while he, as a Mormon, is specifically referencing the teachings of his particular church it's really, seriously important not to get caught saying "oh yeah, those whacky, out-of-touch Mormon elders."  Because, duh, the same dynamics affect a heck of a lot of other denominations.

For that matter, as has been much observed lately, the same dynamics affect <em>atheists!</em>  Who may not rail about porn as much but sure as heck ruminate on rape in their own communities.

Speaking of impacts on communities, another of Ziff's speculations ought to make every self-interested heterosexual male take note.  (Emphasis mine.)

Rape is far more evil than porn use is. This is the obvious response to #1. A man who rapes a woman not only hurts her in the moment of the act, he also likely causes her to suffer for a long time afterward. Her experience of sex, which should be such a wonderful way to connect with her partner, becomes laden with horrifying associations. Her ability to trust other people will likely be harmed, making all kinds of social interaction more difficult. Her feeling of personal safety may also be reduced, restricting her ability to go to particular places or to go out at particular times. I can’t see that porn use is anything like as bad as this.

You know, the funny thing about stereotypes is that even nominally "inoffensive" ones like, say, things we "know" must be true about Mormon men given their church's history, can be damagingly off the mark.

Almost by definition allies aren't soul mates.  (For instance the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were allies in world war two!)  And so almost by definition we're going to have differences with allies that we might not have (or that we at least overlook) in soul-mate affinity groups.  But we can find allies in the most unexpected places.  And we overlook or, worse, alienate allies at our peril.

Tweet from @LOLGOP.

Objectively speaking, Britney Spears is more likely to be a competent President than Newt Gingrich. Yet nobody's calling her activities "leadership."* Meanwhile, objectively speaking, Newt Gingrich has had more sex partner than Britney Spears.* Yet nobody's calling him a "whore."

This observation isn't particularly limited to the GOP in particular or even conservatism in general -- in non-partisan terms Gingrich is just a poster child of a much larger phenomen.  The bogus Two Rules of Desire are alive and well.

* Note: Rumors and tabloid headlines about her private life notwithstanding, Spears is an adroit public performer, choreography, producer, and impresario.
** Note: Rumors and tabloid headlines nothwithstanding, Spears' total "life list" of sexual partners still isn't that much higher than the number of Gingrich's marriages, let alone his other affairs, dalliances, hookups, or casual/commercial sexual relationships.