For The Record, I am Attracted to Adults

Though Australian Senators Barnaby Joyce and Guy Barnett would probably just assume I am a pedophile. Or maybe they would just assume I am "at risk" as it were, for pedophilia. The symptom? I happen to be rather fond of small breasts. But according to Joyce and Barnett, porn that includes small breasted women should be banned, because it encourages pedophilia.

I wish I were joking, but I am not. Along with their campaign against small breasted women, Joyce and Barnett are also going after what they call the "abhorrent" sex act of female ejaculation. Apparently believing this is somehow akin to urination, breaking the rules against depicting urination as a sex act. For the record, female ejaculate is most assuredly *not* urine.

Of course just as important as female ejaculate not being urine, is the fact that it shouldn't fucking matter. I am not personally interested in water sports/golden showers, but there are a lot of people who are. Some of them are really into it. And you know what? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that - nothing whatsoever.

Human sexuality is remarkably diverse - diverse and complicated. One of the ugliest complications is intense pressure towards a social norm. Mind you, this social norm is ever changing. What we are told we should be attracted to/get our kinks from changes pretty much constantly - never mind we are diverse and diversity means we are attracted to/get our kinks from many different things. This pressure to engage in this ever changing social norm creates a great deal of shame for a lot of people who happen to be into something else.

And of course when your fetish happens to be rather more atypical than most, that shame is just that much worse. People who have a bodily waste fetish are pretty much wide open to ridicule and disdain. People who are into latex fare little better. People who are huge into being abused - about the same. People who are into providing the abuse - just vile excuses for human beings. People who are into feet, fur, vegetables or power tools - complete and utter freaks.

Only they are most certainly not. They are no more or less than part of the diverse web of human sexuality. Some engaging in sex acts that are only marginally about what most people think of as sex or sexual fulfillment. Sex is beautiful, diverse, complicated, fascinating and wonderful. That is not to say it doesn't have an ugly side. Nonconsentual sexuality is just plain unacceptable and steps should be taken to ensure that people who would engage in it are comfortable with getting the help they need not to - before they cannot control the drive to act on it. But outside of that, sexual diversity is a beautiful thing.

Certainly not something that we need a government trying to control.

(more or less a HT to Pharyngula's never ending thread - though Juniper pointed me to the article, not the post)

On Strip-searches in Schools: What About Boys? And other questions...

I think a great many of us are aware that SCOTUS ruled the other day, on a case involving the strip search of an eighth grade girl, by school faculty.  As Ed put it, it is indeed a partial victory for sanity, given that the majority opinion explicitly stated that such a search might have been reasonable had the faculty suspected that she had illicit drugs on her person, rather than the Advil they were looking for.  Several people have weighed in on the ruling, including Greg Laden, who's blog is so very often a starting point for very interesting conversations.  So I don't feel all that compelled to throw much into the legal discussion, except to say that I strongly feel faculty should not be performing strip searches - ever.  If there is a reasonable assumption that a child has contraband secreted in their underwear, the school should call the police in to deal with it - period.  If the police don't believe there is adequate reason to search, then the search should not happen.

But I do want to weigh in on a discussion that got started over on Greg's thread - namely the question of how outraged we might be if it were a boy who was strip searched instead.  I am not at all fond of the commenter who got that ball rolling - he and I have butted heads way to harshly for that.  But he raises a very important question and one that is indicative of far more than just the implications of strip searches. 

I am going to go into a great deal more detail on this, when I don't have three tests between now and Tuesday that I really need to study for.  However, I would like to refer you to my paper on masculine social gender constructs and help-seeking in men.  And I would also pose the question to you:

How would you feel about this situation if it had been a boy who was strip searched, instead of a girl?  Would you feel any different about it?  If so, why?  And please try to be objective in your thinking and honest with yourself.  Moreover, if you are comfortable doing so, drop your answers in comments or an email.  And on this post only, I am willing to accept completely anonymous comments, because I want to know what you really think.  I figure that some people might not want to be associated with their real feelings on this and I will respect that.

And while I am asking questions, I would also be interested to hear from some skeptics who were raised without religion. Stemming from an earlier discussion about cannabis, I am inclined to think that there is some tendency amongst those who never went in for particularly pervasive forms of magical thinking, to discount their skeptical nature when it comes to certain topics they hold dear - or dare I say, sacred. The lovely Juniper and I were discussing this the other night and it occurred to me that it might be a very good topic to write about. So if you were raised a free-thinker, or at least without Faith, these are for you.

Do you believe that you are pretty much immune to magical thinking - that you have some innate ability to think rationally about anything and everything? (discounting inherently arational notions, like love) Do you feel that you don't really have to be careful about how you approach topics that you may have strong personal feelings about? Do you ever find yourself questioning the evidence for something, not because you have seen more compelling evidence to the contrary, but because you don't like the conclusions implied by the evidence you discount?

Again, please be as objective and honest as possible. And again, feel free to email me answers or leave them anon. Any emails I receive about this will remain confidential.

First Baptist Church of Jacksonville Florida: Snakes and Vipers

Please pass this along. I just don't have the time to really go into all that is wrong with this situation, but I would love to see more folks post about this and show FBC JAX that attempts to suppress dissent will lead to a greater dissemination of that dissent. And though I am no longer a Christian, I still believe that it's important to strike a blow against those who misuse the authority they are granted, such as it is, as leaders of churches.

Thomas Rich, a member of FBC, was disturbed by the actions of one Mac Brunson, when he became the senior pastor of FBC. Seeing that the complaints lodged by him and other members of the church ignored, he started a blog to provide a platform from which to express the legitimate concerns of himself and other members of the church.

This situation took a very dangerous turn towards the end of last year, when Detective Robert Hinson of the Jacksonville sheriff's department and member of Brunson's security detail, opened an official investigation to discern Rich's identity and ultimately to quell dissent. Hinson, with the support of his superiors in the department, obtained a warrant from the state attorney's office to force google to reveal the identity of the previously anonymous Rich. Though the investigation turned up nothing illegal and though Rich was never contacted about the investigation, Hinson then revealed to church authorities that Rich was in fact the dissenting blogger.

Rich and his wife, longtime members of FBC JAX, have now been kicked out of the church and there is an official no trespassing order against them. FBC also did their best to ensure that Rich and his family wouldn't be welcome in other Jacksonville churches. Moreover, the church board and the deacon's counsel have passed a resolution to ensure they can quickly and efficiently quell any future dissent against the FBC power structure (see video in the above link).

While I am no longer a man of Faith, I fully understand just how difficult this must be for Rich and his family. Being booted out of one's church family can be and often is very painful - a pain I am all to aware of. And beyond the direct impact on the Rich family, this story has very frightening implications for all of us. Yet another situation where police authority has been abused, in an attempt to quell dissent - this time in the name of a church. I have yet to hear back from Thomas Rich, having only just emailed him, but I have little doubt that he would object to a short letter of support (email at his blog).

I also think it would be appropriate to write the FBC JAX, to voice your distaste for their tactics and to let them know that by their actions, they will be known - that because they chose to act in this manner, the criticisms leveled by Rich will be spread much further than they ever would have. And comments can be sent to the Jacksonville sheriff's department, via this email form - or by phoning them through this link. If you do use the email form, be sure to use the drop menu at the top of the form and use the label general comments. And the State Attorney's office can be contacted at sao4th@coj.net or (904) 630-2400.

Halleluia!!!

It could be better, he could go to prison for his crimes. But for now, I'll settle for this.

Privacy and Personal Information

I would like to thank Icepick, whom I ran across in comment at Respectful Insolence, for allowing me to post this comment on the front page. Icepick is a human resources guy, who blogs at The Kitchen Drawer, even more sporadically than myself.

He describes himself thus, in response to my accusation of libertarianism;
I appreciate the kind words. However, I would like to correct one perception - I'm actually a (small-government) conservative and not a libertarian. While I generally like the idea of less government, I'm not as adverse to the idea of government as libertarians are, especially at the local level. I tend to think of government as a necessary evil, but the "necessary" part is just as important as the "evil" part, and I think libertarians badly underestimate the importance of government.

I would just respond that I actually agree with the sentiment, with the adjustment that few would call me very conservative. . .

HR departments have access (directly and indirectly) to lots of personal information, and we have a responsibility to protect that info, both from the public at large and even (for the large companies) from individual supervisors and such.

Great care has to be taken so that the HR departments don't even get some of the employee info. For example, HR departments should not have access to individual employee medical records. Most of the large companies these days are self-insured on the medical side, and so they do have an interest in managing employee health. To that end, third party providers generally manage the healthcare delivery system, and provide the companies carefully scrubbed data about employee health - records shouldn't be connected to individual employees.

The funny thing is this: I personally believe privacy is a dead concept in any event. (Note that in practice I excercise great care to protect the confidentiality of any records I deal with. It is my job afterall.) Technology has become so advanced that the idea that information can be kept private seems ludicrous to me. If someone REALLY wants to find out the facts on somebody else, they can do so if they're willing to spend the time and money to do so. As technology progresses it will become cheaper and easier to peal back the layers of privacy. Satellites can increasingly look through walls and ceilings, and if they can the tech they use can certainly do so at closer range.

I do believe we're rapidly approaching the day when we will all effectively live in glass houses. I'm not happy about this development, but I believe that's where we're headed nonetheless.

What IS Privacy?

I would like to thank BobApril, regular commenter at my brother's blog, Dispatches, for allowing me to cross-post this article on privacy. This will be one of two guest posts on privacy, from very different angles. BobApril is a military guy, who often adds an interesting insight to many conversations.

The right to privacy is much in the news of late. Apparently this right, while not explicitly stated in the Constitution, underpins Roe v. Wade. It’s the main reason for the uproar about President Bush’s authorization of wiretaps without warrants. But what are we talking about, exactly? Let’s look at some examples. In which case or cases is privacy being violated, and in which is it not?

1. A husband and wife are prosecuted for sodomy for consensual acts perfomed in the privacy of their bedroom.

2. An unmarried man and woman are prosecuted for sodomy and adultery for consensual acts performed in the privacy of one of their bedrooms.

3. A married man and a woman not his wife are prosecuted for sodomy and adultery for consensual acts performed in the privacy of a motel room.

4. A man and another man are prosecuted for sodomy for consensual acts performed in the privacy of one of their bedrooms.

5. A married man and a female prostitute are prosecuted for sodomy, adultery, and prostitution for consensual acts performed for money, in the privacy of a motel room.

6. A husband is prosecuted for sodomy, battery, spousal abuse, and rape for acts he forced on his wife in the privacy of their bedroom.

I will grant that in most of those cases the prosecutor is going to have a heck of a time gathering evidence – but let’s assume that all of them were caught red…um, handed, in the various acts while the police were searching the house under a legal warrant for an unrelated offense. That (unlikely) circumstance would make it all admissable in court…and under laws still on the books in some states, ALL of those cases are illegal!

Let’s try another one.

1. A government agency records a phone conversation, without a warrant, including the following sentence: “I plan to get bombed at TGI Fridays in Pentagon City this weekend.”

2. A government agency records a phone conversation, without a warrant, including the following sentence: “I’m planting the bomb this Friday in the Pentagon. Stay away from the city this weekend.”

I don’t know about you, but in one of those cases, I’d really sort of like to find out the NSA was listening…but isn’t it still a violation of privacy? I’d really like to find a way to define privacy that would provide for reasonable violations for appropriate causes, but still protect me from unreasonable invasions. I just cannot for the life of me imagine a way to word a definition to control those limits.

For that matter, I have some question about the whole need for privacy, at least in terms of government intrusion. After all, if I’m not breaking any laws, what do I care if someone knows what I’m doing? Obviously, I don’t want it all released to the media, or posted on the Internet, or whatever…but as long as my personal information is used ONLY to prosecute legitimate crimes, I can’t see a real problem with having a camera in my bedroom, or attached to my arm, or whatever – 24 hour surveillance. After all, if everyone is being watched, that serves to PROTECT me from any number of crimes that might affect me – from terrorist bombs, muggers in dark alleys, even idiots who run red lights.

I really believe that most people’s fear of invasion of privacy stems from their suspicion or solid knowledge that some of the things they do are at least immoral, and probably illegal. In some cases, I believe that means the law should be changed, so that people can do what they want, as long as no one else is harmed without their consent – such as the laws against prostitution, drug use, and driving without a seat belt. In other cases, the world would be a better place if people could not get away with their crimes – such as rape, selling substandard prescription drugs, or driving with small children without child seats.

If our laws were written to protect us from others, instead of protecting us from ourselves, we wouldn’t need privacy. Since they’re not…I’d like to keep my privacy intact. I just wish I knew for sure what I’m asking for.