Genital Integrity for All

This week's Philadelphia Public Record is calling for a ban on infant genital mutilation -- but only for those born female. I've submitted the following letter:

 

There are a couple blind spots in your editorial about genital mutilation.

You write that female genital mutilation "is sometimes euphemistically called female circumcision." What this overlooks is that the word circumcision is also routinely employed as a euphemism for male genital mutilation.

Medical organizations around the world have rejected non-therapeutic infant circumcision as not medically indicated (http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/ ). From ancient Egypt to as recently as the Victorian era, it has been stated quite openly that its purpose is to reduce "excessive" sexual pleasure -- much the same as with female genital mutilation ( http://empathygap.uk/?p=519 ). There is scientific evidence that it does have adverse effects on sexual function, as well as increasing propensities for aggression.

The vast majority of this mutilation in Anglophone countries is not done for religious reasons, poor excuse as those are in any case. It's simply a customary, and lucrative, practice of many doctors.

In addition, thousands of infants born with "ambiguous" genitalia are likewise subject to genital surgery in which they have no choice and which is in no way medically necessary, simply to appease cultural expectations. These procedures, too, create great anguish. ( https://aeon.co/essays/people-born-intersex-have-a-right-to-genital-integrity )

There is no legitimate reason for you to be calling for an end only to female genital mutilation. All infants -- male, female, and intersex -- have a right to genital integrity.

I might add that the adverse effects on sexual function not only reduce men's satisfaction, but also that of their partners.

You can contact the Public Record at:

Philadelphia Public Record
21 S. 11th Street, Suite 205, Philadelphia, PA 19107
Tel: 215-755-2000
Fax: 215-525-2818
E-mail: editor@phillyrecord.com

Tell Senator Hirono Our Constitutional Rights Matter

I just called Senator Hirono's office to express my outrage that someone sworn to uphold the US Constitution has, in just a few sentences, attacked both the freedom of speech and the presumption of innocence, as well as promoting the false stereotype that men and only men are responsible for sexual violence, something for which women actually show a comparable propensity (see attachment). SAVE's message about this, slightly edited, is below.

Hello Eric,

Most Americans believe free speech and the presumption of innocence are cornerstones of democracy. But not Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawii.

In a recent interview about the sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, Hirono remarked,

"Not only do women, like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard, but they need to be believed. Guess who's perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It's the men in this country. And I just want to say to the men in this country, 'Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change.'"

Are we going to acquiesce to Hirono's call to end free speech and the presumption of innocence? If not, please call her office now: (202) 224-6361.

Sincerely,

The SAVE Team

A Civil Rights Bill for Georgia Students

A bill has been introduced in the Georgia house of representatives that would restore constitutional protections to students in the state's universities. This would correct the current lack of due process protections that has not only damaged or ruined the careers of some students, but also has a chilling effect on consensual relations by imposing on them an insuperable burden of second-guessing. I've just sent a note of support to the five sponsors as follows:

Dear Rep.-----,

I'm very pleased to learn of your sponsorship of H.B. 51, which will help restore fundamental constitutional rights to Georgia students. It's refreshing to see that some elected officials still care about them.

Support GA House Bill 51 to secure due process in universities

You can find contact information for the sponsors, whose names appear at the top of the bill linked from the above article, at http://www.house.ga.gov/Representatives/en-US/HouseMembersList.aspx.

Urge Your University to Preserve Dus Process

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) is urging its supporters to write their alma maters about the worrying trend toward so-called "victim-centered investigations." I've written a letter to Penn's President Gutman laying out the case against this approach:

I am very concerned about the threat to due process rights and the presumption of innocence posed by the trend toward so-called "victim-centered" investigations, primarily being promoted in connection with accusations of sexual assault on college and university campuses.

By substituting partiality toward the accuser -- even to the point of deliberately refraining from gathering evidence in some circumstances -- this approach not only increases the likelihood of false convictions, but ultimately can only undermine the public's confidence in judicial processes, and make it more skeptical even of true accusations.

Indeed, inasmuch as the push for this approach is mostly restricted to the context of sexual assault investigations, it could end up making the public even less willing to believe these allegations than those of other crimes.

Please commit Penn to maintaining neutral fact-finding as the standard for all its judicial processes.

This Metaphor Is Bad for Our Health

In a solicitation from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, I found a reminder of an irritating practice of theirs that I'd always meant to comment on. I've just done so now in an email to them as follows:

I'm writing to express my disapproval of your use of the phrase "food porn." Clearly you are trying to convey the concept of food that tastes good but isn't good for you. Trouble is, that's not true of porn itself.

Despite generations of attempts to scientifically prove the "common sense"* that porn is bad for us, such evidence is essentially nonexistent, and sometimes it suggests just the opposite. Here, for instance, is a court brief debunking the idea that it's "harmful to minors":
http://www.fepproject.org/courtbriefs/ashcroft.pdf

And here's a study refuting the idea that the availability of porn lowers women's status: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3812808?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

This isn't a merely "academic" question. These false notions about porn have been used to justify restrictive laws and customs which, so far from protecting people, may well contribute to psychosexual problems and leave children more vulnerable to sexual exploitation, as discussed by Judith Levine in her book Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex.

*"What many people refer to as common sense is nothing more than a collection of prejudices accumulated before the age of eighteen." -- Albert Einstein

Call on UC to Reverse Its Sexual Consent Catch-22

In a very disturbing development, the University of California system has adopted a new policy on adjudication of sexual assault complaints that compounds the erosion of civil liberties already brought by its "affirmative consent" standard.

Now, any non-consensual recording of a sex act, even if it's never shared with anyone, is considered a form of sexual assault. This may seem reasonable until one remembers that verbal agreement isn't considered proof of consent if the accuser claims they were under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. Since such influence isn't always obvious, this means the very act of attempting to create proof of consent could get someone accused of sexual assault.

This prospect looms even larger because of another change. UC is now abandoning adversarial process in favor of letting a single administrator hear and decide a case -- an administrator who may feel pressured to produce convictions to justify Title IX funding. The accused's only recourse is to appeal to a higher administrative body, which would have the same institutional bias as the original hearing officer.

This isn't only an assault on due process; it's also an assault on sexual freedom. While encouraging people to be comfortable talking about sex with prospective partners -- or anyone else -- is absolutely a good thing, trying to prescribe forms of consent in this way can only have an intimidating effect on people as they explore their sexuality, something that typically involves a good deal of anxiety already. Taken to its extreme, it could lead to involuntary abstinence for women and men alike. Accordingly, I've written UC President Janet Napolitano (president@ucop.edu) as follows:

Dear President Napolitano: I urge you to reverse the new policy concerning adjudication of sexual assault complaints at UC. It is unacceptable to give a single administrator, possibly under pressure to get "results" to justify Title IX funding, the power and responsibility to adjudicate such serious accusations -- especially when the new definition of assault covers the very recording that the affirmative consent standard makes necessary for proving innocence. This puts the accused truly in a Catch-22.

The option to appeal does not adequately address these concerns, since it would still leave the ultimate decision in administrative hands. We have already seen examples of universities' refusing to consider clearly exculpatory evidence on the technical grounds that the original trial was procedurally correct, as illustrated here: https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/amherst-complaint.pdf

Please restore adversarial process and the presumption of innocence without delay.

For further information on this issue, visit Stop Abusive and Violent Environments at http://www.SAVEservices.org

Here's an excellent piece by Wendy Kaminer on what's wrong with "affirmative consent" as  a legal standard.

Stop HB 262

Responding to a statement from Sex Worker Outreach Project-Philly, I've written my state representative, Stephen Kinsey, regarding an ill-conceived bill, as follows: "Please vote no on HB 262. It would do little or nothing to help victims of sex trafficking while creating many new burdens and risks for voluntary sex workers. See Sex Worker Outreach Project-Philly's statement here: http://swop-philly.com/2015/10/07/swop-philly-votes-no-on-hb-262/"

You can contact your state representative via this page: www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/mbrList.cfm?body=H&sort=alpha