Ms_Lara's Amplify Diary

Condoms Too Big: A Man's Struggle

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:08:00 -0500

A recent study that included over 400 guys ages 18 to 67 found that many men refuse to wear condoms because they don't fit right. Some men claim the condom often breaks, so they opt not to wear one at all. Others claim the condom is too big, and their egos wont allow them to buy a "small" or a "medium" at their nearest pharmacy.

Well, that's a problem. And here's why:

1) The fact that the condom might break shouldn't deter men from wearing one and protecting themselves. "The condom will break anyway -- so I just wont wear one." That isn't even logical. Wearing a condom shouldn't have to be a chore. You should want to protect yourself, and your partner. Proponents of abstinence only education preach that condoms are ineffective -- but you shouldn't buy into that. Use your noggins and wear a condom.

2) A man's ego is fragile -- we get that. We're even sensitive to the issue (ie, nobody talks about how our boyfriend John is balding, and we rarely talk about faking an orgasm because George couldn't get us going). But putting yourself, and your partner, at risk for an unintended pregnancy or an STI just because you refuse to wear a condom that fits is beyond stupid. Clearly you lack the mental capacity to make good decisions when it comes to your sexual health. This definitely warrants some ego busting, boys.

3) Sex is fun. HIV is not. Condoms are typically effective in protecting people from HIV. According to Advocates for Youth,

In a two-year study of sero-discordant couples (in which one partner was HIV-positive and one was HIV-negative), no uninfected partner became infected among couples using condoms correctly and consistently at every act of vaginal or anal sex versus 10 percent of those using condoms inconsistently

So, what did we learn today? Protect yourselves. No matter how big, or small, you are. When it comes to our sexual health, we can't afford to screw around. No pun intended.

The APA Addresses Ex-Gay Therapy

Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:00:00 -0500

This is such GROUND BREAKING news, folks. The American Psychological Association has just declared that psychologists should NOT be telling gay people that they should turn straight.

.....*cricket, cricket, cricket*

But seriously, this progressive step is interesting in that the APA is encouraging these psychologists to consider "multiple options": celibacy to switching churches.

That brings me to my next point: I disagree. I mean, are there really multiple options to being gay? I can't see how being celibate can somehow reverse your sexual orientation or downsize the impact of your homosexuality. While this declaration from APA is groundbreaking, it should seem like common sense. Of course you can't tell gay people to turn straight! Why is this even being debated?

[More]

People Blaming Dugard

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:49:00 -0500

As most of you may have heard, Jaycee Dugard was kidnapped in 1991, when she was just 11 years old.

The details of the crime are so intense, so gruesome, so disgusting and malicious, that I will not go into extreme detail. I will tell you this though: there is a facebook group, Jaycee Lee Dugard - she had it coming, that is calling the victim a liar and "a slut".

One of the many comments on the group wall is: "I've been watching the news reposts and it seems Jaycee wasn't so innocent after all. She let that pig Garrido rape her small children every weekend. Only in American eh ?"

Where do I begin? First off, the fact that anybody with working organs and a normal blood flow can somehow justify rape and child molestation is despicable and that language should be damn right illegal. I don't care how much I advocate for free speech. I do not want to hear a empty minded poor excuse for a human being talk about how "stupid and slutty" rape victims must be for "letting" a man rape them. The ignorance behind such statements are sexist--both anti-woman and more generally, anti-human.

[More]

Single and Successful Black Women: Does It Matter?

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:10:00 -0500

“Marriage eludes high achieving black women"

What does that headline say to you? Before I delve into the article itself, let's explore the implications this headline has to offer: either marriage discriminates, or high achieving black women aren't getting married.

I'll go with the latter.

Even when I asked my boyfriend what he thought the headline meant, he said "[The headline implies that] marriage is hard for successful black women." So, before I even read the article, I had this preconceived notion that this was going to be based on the stereotype that all women are supposed to get married. But I was wrong.

According to the article on msnbc.com, the "fact" that most successful black women are choosing not to get married defeats the purpose of affirmative action. Now, I've heard the arguments that single women are statistically less happy than married women, or that women who do not bear children are contributing to a population decrease detrimental to society, or that married women live longer than single women. But never have I heard that single (and successful) black women are defeating the very purpose of affirmative action. It's an original (and ridiculous) argument.

"This defeats the goal of affirmative action...The idea behind assuring that blacks had access to higher education and graduate school was that after a generation or so, African-Americans would reach a kind of achievement parity after generations of suffering educational and career restriction. But if black women, who comprise 71 percent of black graduate students, do not have children, the rate of achievement reaches a kind of familial dead end."

Well that's a nice way to put it: a familial dead end.

[More]

Our Government and Our Sex Lives

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:01:00 -0500

It's a little weird that the federal government is so concerned about our sex lives. I mean, does that freak anyone out? Because if it does, then do not visit www.4parents.gov.

I was sitting on my couch, watching the TV when a commercial came on encouraging parents to talk to their kids about sex. I thought to myself: "How great! Finally we can encourage parent-child communication about teen sex!" I mean, I know my own parents skipped out on the whole conversation entirely, so I can see the benefits of youth-adult partnerships. But when I actually checked out the website, I found that the Obama Administration wasn't exactly encouraging open communication about sex.

It was encouraging abstinence-only until marriage.

And that's cool, too. After all, the only 100% effective method in avoiding an unintended pregnancy is abstinence. But there was very little information on the entire website that offered tips for safe sex.

Under one page in this website, entitled "Why is Marriage Important?", it gives you an idea on how better married couples are than single (and thus clearly dirty and promiscuous) couples are.

What are the benefits that married people enjoy? According to the website, they live longer! Yay!!! Oh, and they are apparently happier! And...they earn MORE money! Sounds like we should all just get married, right?

The website also discusses setting "house rules". I'm surprised it didn't blatantly come out and say 'lock your child up in a cage'. Isn't the point of this 'sex talk' supposed to be a verbal exchange between BOTH the parent and the teen?

And then, if talking to your kid about waiting to have sex is an absolute failure, scare them by telling them that it is ILLEGAL for them to have sex! There's a separate page on this site that discusses the laws about teens having sex, which says that some states have laws that forbid sexual intercourse before a teen turns 18.

Check out the site and please do see for yourself. Make your own judgement about the site and how the government is handling our sex lives, without really keeping into consideration youth's point of view.

Being a Young Woman of Color in the United States...

Sun, 12 Jul 2009 11:44:00 -0500

The other day I was walking with my 12-year-old cousin into the train located in a predominantly white area to get to my class at Columbia University, 20 minutes away from my house. Those on the train stared as I held my cousin's hand, assuming that my cousin was my very own daughter. I spoke to my cousin about school and whether or not she's excited to enter high school next year. The white man and woman in front of me simply stared. They felt disgusted.

Their body language led me to feel unwanted in my community, since my town is a very quiet suburban area. This sort of racist and sexist situation happens every day, and it's beginning to creep into the White House.

Where can the line be drawn between simple dislike for President Obama and racist hatred for him? Is there even a bright line separating the two feelings? For years now conservatives have been coming out with negative commentary on “the left” and even moderate liberals; their negative commentary somehow evolved into something deeper than a few attack ads on the TV… it’s spreading to the Free Republic blog and it’s attacking the children—the young girls—of President Barack Obama.

An article by the Vancouver Sun says it all.

This is no longer an interesting debate between the left and the right. This is becoming a racially charged debate. Here are a few comments posted on the blog next to a picture of Malia Obama wearing a t-shirt with the peace sign on it:

“A typical street whore."
"A bunch of ghetto thugs."
"Ghetto street trash."
"Wonder when she will get her first abortion."

Let’s focus on the conservatives first. What exactly entails a “street whore”? And how is there a correlation between that and Malia Obama? Sure, these insults didn’t blatantly say “black thugs!” but the implication was there… and the implication was filled with hatred.

[More]

Stop Funding Failed Programs

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:51:00 -0500

Do you want to know something….startling? Something scary? Something that should ignite fear, and possibly congressional action?

Nearly half of HIV-infected youth are completely unaware of their status.

According to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 22 percent of sexually active high school students are tested for human immunodeficiency virus. I can enumerate reasons why many students opt not to get tested. It could be one of two reasons:

1.) The student may not believe there is a need to get tested.

2.) The student may feel ashamed if they opt to get tested. It might make them feel like a “whore” or a “player”. After all, the only people who need to get tested are the ones having risky sex with multiple partners, right?

Why would youth feel ashamed of getting tested? Why should youth divert their attention from their sexual health to purity balls? This garbage that our conservative society feeds us needs to be justified by facts and statistics. In reality, all abstinence-only education provides are arguments questioning the morality of intercourse before marriage. It also feeds us misinformation about our sexuality. Why then does the federal government continue to fund this ineffective education?

[More]

Young Women Against Sex Ed

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:46:00 -0500

Last week, for the entire week, I was in Central Jersey at Girls State. The purpose of the program is to allow young women from across New Jersey to form their own state government, by electing city councils, town mayors, county officers, a state party chairwoman, and lastly, a Governor. I mean, the concept of this program is pretty great; I had a great time campaigning and helping my friends campaign for their candidacies. I ran for Governor.

Now, as a candidate for Governor, I wasn’t able to create the party platform. A platform committee had to meet in the wee hours of the morning to form the platform that I would base my campaign on. It surprised me that almost all of these young women wanted abstinence-only education included in the platform.

I spoke out immediately. I was like, uh hello? Shouldn’t you of all people understand the dangers abstinence-only inflicts on youth?

The girls agreed that all seniors in high school should walk around with a fake baby for two weeks. This baby will be electronic; it will cry when it is not “fed”, it will weigh 13 pounds, it will make random noises…etc etc. I raised my hand and told them that this would be a tactic to scare our youth from engaging in sexual activity. I assured them that if they truly wanted to avoid unintended pregnancies, they should teach how to put on a condom and how to make healthy sexual decisions.

But no. Nobody ever listens to me. The girls went on a rant about how if we teach the high school students about contraception, they will think it is encouraging them to engage in sexual activity. Aside from the fact that this is FALSE, it is also a major misconception about comprehensive sex education. Plenty of our policy makers seem to portray sex education as a devilish and counterproductive curriculum. In reality, as we can see in Mississippi, abstinence only education is the reason for high teen pregnancy rates.

It freaked me out how a group of young education high school women were so quick to judge comprehensive sex education and so quick to blindingly support abstinence only education. It just goes to show you that adults aren’t the only people uninformed.

Gardasil: GET VACCINATED!

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:39:00 -0500

How many women reading this blog have gotten the three Gardasil shots? If you haven’t gotten it yet, schedule an appointment with your doctor and get it. Gardasil can help prevent cervical cancer and four types of HPV. As of right now, it’s the only vaccine (in the world!) of it’s kind. The CDC recommends that women ages 9-26 get Gardasil.

According to their website:

HPV is a common virus

HPV is a virus that can affect both men and women.
HPV usually has no signs or symptoms, so many people don't know they have it or that they could pass it on to others.
About 80% of women will have had HPV by the time they are 50 years old.*

HPV and cervical cancer

For most women exposed to HPV, the virus will clear on its own, but for some, cervical cancer and other diseases—like genital warts—can develop.
Most of the women diagnosed with cervical cancer were exposed to HPV in their teens and 20s.
Regular Pap tests and wellness visits are the best ways to help protect against HPV and cervical cancer.

[More]

The Purity Myth

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:57:00 -0500

I’m feeling a little inspired, a little ambitious, and heck, perhaps a little more liberated. I’m in the middle of reading A Purity Myth by Jessica Valenti. Trust me when I tell you that you need to go to Barnes and Nobles right now and get this book. Just buy it. Don’t ask questions.

Throughout the book, Valenti presents the question of virginity. What is virginity? Is it really “sacred”? When a teenage girl loses her virginity, does she lose her innocence? Is she no longer pure? According to the book, over 1,440 purity balls took place in 2007. Now, purity balls are extraordinary events in which a girl vows to “save herself” until marriage. The young woman, or the star of this ball, promises her father that she will not engage in intercourse until after she is married.

For those of us who have never had a purity ball of our own, and who might have already lost our virginity, we’re basically…doomed. Impure. Dirty little things.

Or at least that’s what society tells us. Abstinence-only education encourages young people, especially young girls, to “save themselves for their husband.” What does that even mean? I am supposed to save myself? If I have sex, I will have doomed myself?

[More]

Terrorism in the US backyard: The War on Abortion Providers

Sun, 31 May 2009 15:31:00 -0500

This is disgusting. There aren’t enough words in the English language to properly denounce the act of killing another human being because they work to preserve a woman’s right to choose. The abortion debate has plagued this country in so many ways; it has destroyed the very fabric of the American lifestyle. For centuries women have been mishandled, mistreated, and politically ignored. Women have been harassed, abused, raped, and killed. 150 years after the Seneca Falls Convention, when men and women drafted up the Declaration of Sentiments (which declared men and women equal), we as a nation are still faced in sexism. Not only has this sexism affected innocent women fighting for the right to their own body, but it has reached those who support the women’s rights movement.

According to the Wichita Eagle:

Tiller, 67, was shot just after 10 a.m. in the lobby of Reformation Lutheran Church at 7601 E. 13th, where he was a member of the congregation. Witnesses, a city official and a police source confirmed Tiller was the victim.

That’s right. Dr. George Tiller was killed. Why? Because he provided abortions for women. Even an anti-abortion group denounced the killer:

"We are shocked at this morning's disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down," anti-abortion group Operation Rescue said in a statement on its Web site. "Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning. We pray for Mr. Tiller's family that they will find comfort and healing that can only be found in Jesus Christ."

In conservative Kansas, it’s clear that the anti-abortion sentiment is strong, especially among church congregations. Still, there is no justification for this. None, whatsoever.

[More]

Transgender Student Kicked Out of Catholic School

Wed, 20 May 2009 18:32:00 -0500

I cannot grieve with you enough at the fact that an eight year old transgender student can no longer attend Catholic school. I’ve been to Catholic school. I’m relatively religious myself. But seriously? A condition that can never be predetermined should not be reason enough for the administration of a religious institution to suspend—no, expel—a student.

According to this news article:

The child’s case recently came to light when her parents met with a leader of the Omaha Catholic Archdiocese to talk about transitioning the student into third grade at her school, St. Wenceslaus.
The family wanted the child to use a new female name, be able to wear a girl’s uniform and be included in girls' activities.

And here they come to ruin the day:

Taphorn [the Reverend] said having the child attend the school for three years as a boy, and then presenting as a girl would not be a good learning environment for the child or other students. He said school has to be a peaceful, positive environment for everyone.

Now this case presents two problems to the public. One: there is an obvious identity concern with this child. Although she looks like a boy, she acts like a girl. She walks, talks, and presents herself like a girl. Who is to say this is wrong? Who’s to say this is unnatural? Absolutely nobody. What ever happened to freedom of expression? I can tell you one thing: when I went to Catholic school, I was constantly told to “be true to myself.” I was told to be a genuine and honest person to others and especially to myself. This child, who did not release her name, is simply being true to herself. She is being a genuine person, as they should preach in any religious institution.

Secondly, since when did private schools gain the authority to dismiss students as they please? Alright, stupid question. But seriously. Since when was it morally acceptable for a private school, no matter the religious affiliation, to dismiss a student simply based on their identity?

I can only hope that her parents decide to press charges.

A Man's Fight Against Feminism

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:52:00 -0500

LOL I love blogging on Amplify for many reasons. I learn more and more about the world around me, and—perhaps most importantly—I get to verbalize my every belief. There is no such thing as “Cristina, shut up!” in here. There is no such thing as “Cristina, you’re not making sense,” in here.

My blogging experience allows me to voice my opinion on wonderful news, terrible news, confusing news and stupid news. Take for example Roy Den Hollander. Roy is a men’s rights lawyer with a big mouth and an even bigger ego.

Roy Den Hollander has recently vowed continue his struggle in his battle to force Columbia University to drop its women’s studies program, after a judge basically dismissed the case as ridiculous and unrealistic. Now, my readers, you may recall Hollander from such previous ‘popular’ lawsuits as the fight against ladies' nights and his suit against the federal government's Violence Against Women Act (you know…because we all love violence against women).

Now…there is no way that any sane man would oppose legislation that has in it’s mission to end violence against women. I mean…what the hell, man? Well, behind every angry man is a heartbreaking love story. According to the Columbia Spectator, Hollander's gender-based…aggression, if you will…began after he learned that the wife he brought to the United States from Russia was in fact a prostitute connected with the Chechen mafia! From then on, Hollander has been turning against any women’s rights program or legislation.

[More]

Lima Beans and Gays

Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:42:00 -0500

Wayne Anthony Ross, the most controversial, divisive, polarizing man possible to have been selected to be Alaska’s attorney general had a few interesting things to say this week. He always seems to have interesting things to say, and each time the gaffes just pile up. It's interesting....

Take for example the "Lima Beans" story.

Representative Lindsey Holmes asked Ross how he would view cases involving homosexuality, you know…him thinking they’re “degenerates” and all, and writing it in the Alaska Bar Newsletter. Ross responded:

“Let me give you an analogy. I hate lima beans. I’ve never liked lima beans. But if I was hired to represent the United Vegetable Growers would you ask me if I liked lima beans? No. If I disliked lima beans? No. Because my job is to represent the United Vegetable Growers.”

Now, we love a good analogy here at Amplify. In fact it’s one of our favorite literary devices. So, if gays are lima beans, and the United Vegetable Growers are the state of Alaska, then what does it sound like when we replace those words in our little analogy? “I hate gays. I’ve never liked gays. But, if I was hired to represent the State of Alaska, would you ask me if I liked gays? No. If I disliked gays? No. Because my job is to represent the State of Alaska.”

Ah, now we see. So do we feel better now? No.

Being your partner's parent?

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:06:00 -0500

Now I’m a fan of happy relationships. I’m a fan of healthy relationships. Dude, I’m a fan of relationships…period. But, one thing that I would never support (nor adhere to), is treating my partner like a child. This article on CNN blatantly describes the story of a woman who tried parenting techniques on her husband….and they worked.

This is interesting because…I don’t know. Imagine your partner treating you like their child? Creepy…

According to the woman in the article:

When Greg walked in the door that evening, late again, I bit my tongue and avoided any mention of ice, trays, or irresponsible husbands. And the evening turned out to be much more pleasant than it would have been otherwise.

You see…I don’t understand that. If your partner came home late again, you have a right to be pissed off. Granted, I wouldn’t be breaking dishes and calling the police, but I certainly would be rightfully angry. Maybe the reason her night turned out to be much more pleasant was because her partner didn’t know she was angry. And if you’re angry, but you avoid communication, then you’re headed for the wrong path. You’re essentially measuring your relationship’s success level with an inaccurate meter. (oh, that was good!) But in all seriousness, talk it out. Don’t ignore it.

The article says there are five ways you can go about treating your partner like a child:

[More]