So in case you didn't know, Rush Limbaugh honored the sanctity of marriage by having his fourth wedding on June 5, 2010. The conservative radio host who has a large, right-wring Christian fan base was married by an "anti-gay activist" pastor  Ken Hutcherson and had a wedding reception performance by...wait...did I hear that correctly!?

Elton John!?

Yes, the man who some people jokingly claim 'invented' homosexuality played a set at Rush Limbaugh's wedding reception to the tune of one million dollars. 

When I first heard this news I was livid. Homophobic rhetoric has not played a huge role in the ignorance-spewing outlet that is the Rush Limbaugh. However, I was still surprised that Elton John would play at a wedding for a man seen as a hero by many Americans who do not support civil rights for LGBTQ folks. I'm not the only person who felt this way, as the criticism of Elton John ballooned in the liberal blogosphere shortly following news of his performance.

I felt that John was a sell-out. 

However, as the week has progressed I've wondered if I have any right to be mad at Elton. If he declined to provide a service to Limbaugh because of their different views wouldn't that make those of us who support this civil rights movement hypocrites? (FYI, their views aren't that different). In this link from CNN, it was reported that Elton was surprised at his invitation to the Limbaugh wedding, and saw it as an opportunity to change peoples' perspectives and build bridges. 

But...how does this change people's perspectives of the GLBTQ community for the better? To me, all this says is we're willing to put our opinions about civil rights aside for the right price. Ugh. I know it's unfair to place every action of GLBTQ celebrities within the context of their sexuality, but it's Elton Freaking John! 

I may not have the right to be mad at Elton, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I still feel as if he accepted dirty money. It would be a different story if he donated some of it to a good cause. 

What do you guys think? It's a free country, but are Elton's actions a bit disappointing? Was it just business? Or is it a slap in the face from those who have supported and looked up to him as an icon for the GLBTQ community--some for their entire lifetimes? 

What does the reaction of GLBTQ supporters to Elton John in this instance say about our movement? Are we just as intolerant as the right? 

A few days ago Elle magazine ran a very interesting story about paternal rights and abortion, focusing on a couple by the name of Greg Bruell and Sandra Hedrick.

Let me set the stage for you:

Greg and Sandra were a sexually active couple, but they were practicing family planning. Sandra was on the pill. However, they had an understanding: if Sandra’s birth control was to fail and she got pregnant, she would terminate the pregnancy without wavering.

Eventually, Sandra did get pregnant, twice. She terminated the first pregnancy. However, during her OB-GYN appointment for the second pregnancy Sandra made “a bad move” of looking at the ultrasound. She realized that as a woman in her late 30s, this might be her last chance to have a baby, and told Greg she was keeping it.

Feeling betrayed, Greg broke up with Sandra: although he had pleaded with his ex-wife for the two children he already had, he felt that he was done having kids when he met Sandra.

So Greg washed his hands of Sandra’s pregnancy. End of story, right? Think again: two months later Greg was served with papers. Sandra was suing him for child support. This is the story of how Greg Bruell became a spokesperson for male reproductive rights.

This is one of those stories where I think there is no right answer—at least in my opinion. It is an interesting story and does raise a lot of questions. Do woman have all the choices as far as birth is concerned (termination, adoption, child support)? Are men agreeing to be responsible for a baby by virtue of engaging in sex? If you say yes, then that mirrors the pro-life argument that a woman is agreeing to be responsible for a child by engaging in sex. If there is eventually a law that absolves a man of financial support in a child’s life is it fair that society picks up the tab for that child?

I think one thing most of us reading this can agree on is a man can never force a woman to carry a baby she does not want. But what about the other questions in the Elle article?

All I can really say is I understand where Greg is coming from, but that if someone has to pick up the tab for his kid quite frankly I would rather the money come from his pocket instead of mine.

I found this article through Digg, and here are some of the comments it received:

"Reproductive rights are anything but equal."

"If a woman can't be forced to be an incubator for children she doesn't want, then she shouldn't be able to force a man to be a piggy bank for children he doesn't want. Simple as that." "If a man has no right to choose, a man should not be held responsible for the child he has no rights over."

"[W]hen a man has no reproductive rights why should he have reproductive responsibility."

What are your thoughts?

I recently stumbled upon a whimsical techno-pop song of Lady Gaga's called "Ribbons."  Why haven't you heard of it? Well, it's unreleased. But I hope it does get a studio release someday because it is fabulous. 

Have a listen! 



Fans of Gaga have their suspicions that the songs is about condom usage. Here some lyics from the song that support this conclusion: 

All the girls they like their presents, like their presents
When boys wrap 'em up in ribbons, ribbons, ribbons,
Doesn't matter if they're precious or expensive if they're
Well thought out, sexed out, wrapped right.
Every time, get in line and give me mine.

more: 

It's the life style that I like, I'll give you yours,
You'll give me mine,
But don't forget to wrap them up in pretty pretty ribbons.

(Lots of presents) It's not complicated,
(Filthy riches) just a fashion statement.
Everybody wrap it up (wrap it up now), everybody wrap it up.

These are just some of the lyrics. What do you think?

*If* the song is about addressing the subject of safer sex then I think it is great that she is making the use of condoms a fashion statement in a completely catchy, not-cheesy way. Making the incorporation of condom usage into sexual practices "Not complicated" is just the message young people need to hear. We need celebrities young people idolize to proclaim a message that condom usage should be the norm, not the exception, and that the use of "Ribbons" is fun! 

To end off: here are my favorite lyrics: If you can afford the best, don't be stressed, take a rest. Get a job, do it right. It's my birthday all night." 

According to the BBC, a UK study concluded that it is best for women to undergo STI testing every time they have a new sex partner.

The study was a result of surveying 2,500 sexually active UK college students, testing them twice, a year apart. The study revealed that getting tested annually might be inadequate at detecting Chlamydia, one of the major culprits of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, before it is too late.

We now interrupt this blog post with an informative flow chart: 

So what exactly do I mean by "Too late?" 

Chlamydia and Gonorrhea are known to cause Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PIV) over time if not treated. What is PIV? PIV is exactly what it sounds like: it is an infection of the female reproductive system that causes inflammation. Over time this leads to scarred tissue which could lead to infertility (bad), chronic pain (chronically bad), or ectopic pregnancies (very bad: this can be fatal!).

The article claims that those who were diagnosed with Chlamydia were able to cut their chance of developing Pelvic Inflammatory Disease by 80% by getting prompt and proper treatment.

So what's the take home message here? Get tested!

I wonder if this will become a recommendation that is adopted by US health committees.
My opinion? It should be.

This morning, on the Today Show, Cyndi Lauper and Lady Gaga appeared to show their support for MAC Cosmetics' Viva Glam campaign. 

For those of you that are not glamazons who live in the world of MAC, the Viva Glam campaign was started by MAC in 1994 to support men, women and children around the world  living with HIV/AIDS. 

Lauper and Gaga were chosen to lend their names and faces to the 2010 campaign, and went to the Today show to promote the message about safer sex. I love that they do not mince words! 

Click image to go to video source. 


Quotes from this interview: 
Gaga:
"There is no negotiation in the bedroom about condoms." 
"It's not only ok for a woman to say 'Not unless you wrap it up.' but you have to."
"This lipstick is a gift and a message of I want you to aspire for a loving and monogamous relationship, and I want you to practice safe sex."

Gaga also talks about how this is a message older women with empty nests need to take home too. Talk about a demographic that is never addressed! 

I think it is great that these two women were able to be so forward and direct about such an important issue on a popular, daytime show such as the Today Show. Great work, Gaga!

After nearly three years of litigation Dr. Warren and co. over at eHarmony got the message that, gosh darned it, gay and lesbian people want to have serious relationships too.

The makers of eHarmony already had a site dedicated to individuals seeking same-sex relationships called Compatible Partners. So what was the problem?

Initially, Compatible Partners did not exist. It was created by eHarmony in a settlement from a similar class action lawsuit in New Jersey.

Secondly, bisexual users of eHarmony services had to pay two fees in order to search for heterosexual and same-sex relationships, even though someone using eHarmony did not need to pay an extra fee to conduct searches in exciting categories such as “Black” and “Senior” dating.

Californians felt this was in poor business practice and segregated customers based on sexual orientation, which provided grounds on which to sue.

Although the creators of the site admit no wrongdoing they agreed to add a category for those seeking same-sex relationships to their homepage. Additionally, the one fee will apply to both straight and GLBT users of eHarmony.

So why was there so much resistance to this decision?  Well, creator Robert Warren claims his matchmaking technique has only been studied in heterosexual couples. But the foot dragging was likely based on the fact that Warren is an evangelical Christian, and did not want to lose the support of "pro-family" groups. Yikes.

Personally, I am really surprised they folded, but maybe it’s a sign of the times? A sign that the days of neglecting the gay and lesbian population of America is no longer a decision that goes without consequences, and both a company’s image, as well as their pocketbook are at stake.

He gives her the talk like this: 

"Things with you and Adam have been progressing emotionally for weeks now. I suspect that pretty soon, you're going to start getting more physical and women are never too prepared. So what I want you to do is take this with you when you go overnight with Adam."

Here's the thing: men worry that if the bring a condom the woman will be turned off because it comes off as presumptious. Women don't think to bring condoms because they think the guys want to handle it. But in fact, a man finds it very reassuring when a woman comes prepared.

In my opinion, he's going a little further than a contract obligation to bring up the name Trojan. He was asking women to be realistic and prepared when headed into a situation where sex is a possibility, and that the responsibility to be safe is on both partners involved. Angel does act embarrassed and is worried to be perceived as a "slut," but Steve adamantly assures that it's better to be prepared.

I am so proud that he addressed this topic on this show.. it's an important message and men and women regardless of sexual orientation need to hear: 

Will the idea that children need a mother AND a father go the way of the dinosaurs? 
 
In a five-year study conducted by the University of Southern California research has found that same sex couples are as effective at parenting as heterosexual couples. Here is a quote from the USA Today article on the matter: 

"It's more about the quality of the parenting than the gender of the parents," says Judith Stacey of New York University, co-author of the comprehensive review.

Criteria such as self-esteem, academic performance and social skills were just some of the criteria researchers used to determine the well being of the children of both types of households. According to Timothy Biblarz, sociologist and other primary researcher of the study, the results are "Statistically indistinguishable." with the exception of one issue: lactation. 

The findings of this study also determined that regardless of sexual identity and marital statuses, children better thrive in two-parent homes as compared to single-parent households. 

And how do boys fair in households solely run by women? According to the study, their masculinity does not suffer in the absence of a father. 

The research confirms what many supporters of same-sex families and children of such families have known for years: a home full of love is what is best for the child, regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the parents who are providing it.  

Hopefully more studies comes forth that chip away at the presumption that well adjusted children need parents from both genders, thus providing same-sex couples with more opportunities and support to share their love by becoming parents.

In other recent news, the sky is blue, and fast food it bad for you. 

I did it, and so can you!

What he/she says: “I’ve never been tested but I’ve always been safe!”

What he/she means: “I have never been tested and have usually used protection but have potentially exposed myself to STIs that cannot be prevented with some latex barriers such as HPV and genital herpes and have likely never used protection for oral sex giving or receiving.”

More...

Here's a little would-be-funny-if-it-were-not-real-life news from across the pond: 

According to The Press Association a recent poll in the UK has revealed some common misconceptions about sex : 

The poll of 2,000 individuals ages 16-50 revealed the following: 

• 11% believed a woman could not get pregnant if she has sex standing up
• 19% believed a woman cannot get pregnant if she is on her period
• 19% believed that a woman would not get pregnant if the man withdraws on time
• 17% were unaware that conditions such as herpes and genital warts cannot be cleared with antibiotics.
• 77% would give their friends advice about an STI even if they were not sure about the facts.

Yikes. I guess it's a good thing that the UK government is making it mandatory that pupils get at least 12 months of sex education before their 16th birthday.

I would be interested in seeing a poll like this on US citizens. Send a link or post a blog about it if you know of one! 

In the meanwhile--in the nature of this article--I'm going to smoosh a common misconception about sexual health just for kicks...you're more than welcome to contribute as well: 

Cold sores, if you did not already know, are caused by a type of herpes, known as HSV-1 a.k.a. herpes simplex virus type-1. Most of us have been exposed to this version of the virus. But did you know that the virus that causes the cold sores that we see on people from childhood to old age can also be transmitted to the genitals!? A lot of people do not! Yeah, another reason to protect your business with a barrier if you will be participating in activities of the oral persuasion.


Anyone want to go next? :-))

So here's some news that may make your vagina and your pocketbook smile! 

According to ABC News The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released new guidlines regarding annual pap smears and cervical cancer screenings. Women can now wait until 21 for their first cervical cancer screening, instead of 18 or after becoming sexually active, as I am sure most of us have been advised to do so by our primary care physicians.

In addition to starting cervical cancer screenings at a later age, ACOG also recommends that women with normal pap smears can go two years between pelvic exams, and that women in their 30 can go as long as three years between exams granted they have had three consecutive normal exams. 

Of course, this news does not come without controversy. Let's break it down: 

The Good: 
-Recommending less frequent screenings can free up doctors for other services
-Fewer screenings can allow women to avoid unneccesary treatment for HPV that may clear up on its own before causing cervical cancer. (ACOG claims that 90% of infections caused by HPV clear up on their own).
-The smaller incidents of unecessary screenings can also reduce the need for diagnostic surgery which may cause complications during pregnancy.
-Reduce over-testing and over-treating.
-Fewer screenings means women do not have to spend as much money on these check ups. Cha-ching for your cha-cha! 

The Bad: 
-Some OB/GYNs feel like the age recommendation is still too young, and that women do not need to start screenings until 25, for the reasons listed above.
-Some Physicians also feel as if this will cause women to neglect their overall health, since a lot of OB/GYNs are where many women get their primary care as well.
-Other OB/GYNs feel that this is a step in the right direction, but will not solve the problem with what is really causing cervical abnormalities to go unnoticed: not getting exams at all.



I personally think this is great news, mostly for the cost aspect and the risk of over-treatment/over-testing. Also, with the increased use of the HPV vaccine, I think this is the next logical step.

What do you think?

One more video! Here's  Kathleen and I poolside during our last day of the BACHHUS and GAMMA conference, a conference hosted by an organization commonly associated with peer education groups on campuses nationwide. We share what we learned over the three-day conference.

Sometimes it feels like we are fighting an uphill battle when it comes to young people taking charge of their sexual health. Besides, the fact of the matter is that we are. Luckily, there are plenty of young men and women joining us in the fight for honest, comprehensive information about sexual health. Here are some inspiring young women of color that Kathleen and I met at the BACCHUS and GAMMA conference this weekend in Orlando. I encourage you to watch: perhaps you can get ideas for your school!  

 

First off, here are two girls Chanda and Angelica from George Washington State University in Washington, DC. The girls talk about their peer education program, using protection and feeling comfortable standing up for yourself under pressure in a relationship.

Next, Tatiana, a health specialist from Salt Lake Community College in Utah talks to Amplify about the importance of young people of color using protection:

More...

Let me introduce you to Ceara Sturgis, a 17-year-old student at a Wesson Attendance high school. She's an honors student, member of the school marching band, and member of SADD.

However, Ceara Sturgis has done something so offensive by her school administration's standards that she will not be allowed to have her picture in the school 2009-2010 yearbook. 

She wore a tuxedo in her school yearbook photo shoot.

Oh yeah, did I forget to mention that Ceara identifies as a lesbian, and chooses to wear boys' clothing, and has done so since her freshman year?

So what's the deal here? Apparently, her school requires males to wear tuxedos and females to wear drapes. But Ceara, who has consistently worn boys' clothing, decided to stay consistent and wore a suit, just like her male peers.

The school officials say they are clear in their requirements over what males and females are allowed to wear in their photos, and since Ceara has not complied, she does not get to have her photo in the yearbook. After further prying by media sources, it was revealed that Ceara is also openly gay.

At this point, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken over Ceara's case, approaching it from a freedom-of-expression point of view. The school officials are still standing their ground.

More...

Domestic violence comes in many forms, be it verbal, sexual, psychological or physical. Regardless of whether it leaves a scar or not, and regardless of what led to the incident of abuse domestic violence is wrong! 

Why am I bringing this up? This October marks the 22nd Annual Domestic Violence Awareness Month. The site for the observance is here: http://dvam.vawnet.org/

Quite unfortunately, violence in relationships has made the headlines recently, from Chris Brown assaulting girlfriend Rihanna in February, to VH1 reality star Ryan Jenkins brutally murdering his wife in August. The Chris Brown case especially brought the topic of domestic violence into national dialogue.

I plan to write more about support for survivors, but to kick off this month, let's define the term 'domestic violence.' The National Domestic Violence Hotline defines domestic violence as a pattern of behavior in any relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner.

This issue is especially pertinent to young people engaging in relationships. In 2003, a Center for Disease Control study revealed that 8.9 % of male and 8.8% of female high school students experienced physical dating violence. The study also stated that such abuse caused young people to engage in risky behaviors such as unhealthy dieting, unsafe sexual behavior, suicide, binge drinking and physical fighting.

More...

According to this article by WebMD an FDA panel has recommended approval for the use of Gardisil, an HPV vaccine, in males.

What does this mean for men and women? Although the link between cervical cancer and HPV is well known, it is less known that HPV also contributes to penile cancer in men, and anal and oral cancer in both sexes.

Hopefully, wider use of this vaccine, in addition to improved education about this virus causes a decrease in HPV diagnoses in years to come.

For more information on HPV, check out this link from the Center for Disease Control.