kitchen table math, the sequel: the "lesbian safe sex" pamphlet is wrong-wrong-wrong

Friday, October 19, 2007

the "lesbian safe sex" pamphlet is wrong-wrong-wrong

Alright, I am on a Mission from God.

The Comment left on the earlier thread, apparently written by a high school student, takes it as a given that the "Woman to Woman" brochure is real and valuable and contains important information for young gay women to learn.

That thing has to go.

At least one IUFSD student has apparently been misled by the brochure into thinking that the claims it makes are accurate.

They are not.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not to get too clinical, but I presume that you're aware that some women who have sex with other women also have, or have had, sex with men? And some of them may be infected with annoying, though non-life-threatening, diseases such as herpes and genital warts?

And then there's this study: CDC Survey: Oral Sex Substitutes for Intercourse With Many Teenagers -- "About 12 percent of males and 10 percent of females aged 15-to-19 have participated in oral sex with a member of the opposite sex" -- which doesn't say anything about woman/woman sex but does indicate that teenagers are still sexually active even if it is not p-in-v sex.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, I think I might be missing the spot where the explanation came up, but if not could you possibly explain why the "lesbian safe sex" pamphlet is wrong?

Catherine Johnson said...

Yes, of course, many gay women have had sex with men.

The problem with the brochure is that it tells gay women to use saran wrap, dental dams, or a square of plastic cut out of a latex glove or condom to protect themselves from HIV transmission during oral sex.

The CDC states, plainly, that it does not have a single case of woman-to-woman transmission of HIV in its database.

There are some case reports, but they have not been confirmed.

This brochure is the type of material distributed by anti-gay groups (I know because I've talked to people who've seen such things).

The way anti-gay "health brochures" work is the same way this one works.

Ostensibly, on the surface, the brochure is "informational."

"Beneath the surface," the goal is to portray a group of individuals as sexually beyond the pale.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Catherine Johnson said...

I can't believe I'm talking about this!

And some of them may be infected with annoying, though non-life-threatening, diseases such as herpes and genital warts?

Right.

That's not what this brochure is about.

This brochure was strictly about gay women and HIV.

That's the title: "Lesbians And HIV: Are You at Risk?"

Inside, the brochure says, "Are women who have sex with women at risk for HIV? Yes!"

The exclamation point is theirs, not mine.

This brochure is AWFUL. I really can't stress that enough.

It's not about real gay women and whatever their real vulnerability to STDs excluding HIV may be (I tend to think they probably have lower rates of infection, for a couple of reasons.)

This brochure is PURELY about gay women and HIV.

And btw, this isn't an "Irvington" problem.

This is a Westchester County problem.

The County has no business giving this thing out to anyone, no matter what his or her age.

Catherine Johnson said...

I've deleted the above comment, which is an ad hominem attack on parents "chaining" their kids to the kitchen table, stringing up the principal, etc.

Anonymous said...

"The CDC states, plainly, that it does not have a single case of woman-to-woman transmission of HIV in its database."

That's because they are either wrapped in Saran or shielded by layers of dental dams.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for assuring free speech and deleting my previous post.

I repeat, why are you after the principal's head, but no questions are being asked of the organization, public health, how brought the pamphlets?

I find it odd that a blog that prides itself on facts would delete the statitics that I posted about teenage sex.

Doug Sundseth said...

"Thanks for assuring free speech and deleting my previous post."

For future reference, "freedom of speech" does not require us to provide a forum for your speech. "Freedom of the press belongs to him that owns one." Go buy your own press.

"I repeat, why are you after the principal's head, but no questions are being asked of the organization, public health, how brought the pamphlets?"

Because that's not the subject we chose to address. It's a worthy subject; why don't you address it on your own blog? It's clear that it's a subject you find more important than this one.

KarenA said...

The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . ."

The First Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects the individual against various types of interference by the federal government. The U.S. Supreme Court, as the final interpreter of the Constitution, has applied the First Amendment protection to the states.

The purpose of the First Amendment is to allow people to express their political opinions freely and to criticize government actions or policies. In other words, people should be allowed to criticize the government without fear of retribution on the part of the government.

Catherine Johnson said...

I repeat, why are you after the principal's head, but no questions are being asked of the organization, public health, how brought the pamphlets?

I find it odd that a blog that prides itself on facts would delete the statitics that I posted about teenage sex.


Hi----

I deleted the post because we have an informal rule against ad hominem attacks.

The statistics are fine; it's the ad hominem attack that is a problem.

My issue with the principal is simple: he was the adult on site.

At least two children brought him the pamphlet and told him it was inappropriate.

One of these children was only 11-years old.

When a child comes to his principal with a concern, the principal has a professional and moral obligation to take that child seriously, not to wave him away.

The fact that the principal has not stepped forward to explain what happened, to apologize, or to assure parents that in the future he will take his students' concerns seriously is a further problem.

If you compare Artie's response to Joe Witazek's response, you see that Artie stepped up.

Artie explained what happened, made an apoloogy, assured parents that this mistake would not be made in the future -- and iirc gave us some information on the specific steps that would be taken to make sure it didn't.

Artie took responsibility.

Not only has Mr. Witazek failed to take responsibility, in an email to me he appeared to transfer responsibility to Artie.

Catherine Johnson said...

Just to be clear, I certainly do not feel that it was Mr. Witazek's responsibility that the Woman to Woman brochure is inaccurate.

Catherine Johnson said...

For future reference, "freedom of speech" does not require us to provide a forum for your speech. "Freedom of the press belongs to him that owns one." Go buy your own press.

Thanks --- I was going to have to write this if you didn't.

Anonymous said...

The quoting of the CDC's discussion of HIV infection risk from lesbian sex is incomplete: see
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/wsw.htm

Anonymous said...

For future reference, "freedom of speech" does not require us to provide a forum for your speech.

Did you get that quote off the back of the teachers' lounge door?

Doug Sundseth said...

"Did you get that quote off the back of the teachers' lounge door?"

We like pizza -- and surrealism.

Anonymous said...

"For future reference, "freedom of speech" does not require us to provide a forum for your speech. "Freedom of the press belongs to him that owns one." Go buy your own press."
Just because you censor others opinions so that they are not heard doesn't mean yours is correct or any better than theirs.

SusanJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

"You are correct that the deletion of a comment does not mean that the blog post or other comments on the post are factually correct or that the moderator agrees with all the opinions in the remaining comments.

Many blog moderators choose to delete comments for a variety of reasons. One should always consider more than one source for verifying information that one considers important.

As for opinions as opposed to facts, there are more than 15 million active blogs on the Internet. I'm sure you can find a number of others where you can express your opinions."
Fascist.

Silly Old Mom said...

Anonymous said...
"Fascist."
======================
"Fascist," from Dictionary.com:

"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." [Robert O. Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism," 2004]
========================

Oh yeah, that's describing KTM-2 to a T. {snort}


"Fascist," from Anonymous at KTM:

"Anybody who thinks my opinions are wrong, half-baked, or illogical; anybody who thinks he has a right to ignore or disagree with said opinions, thereby trampling on my civil rights, the Constitution, motherhood, and apple pie."

Catherine Johnson said...

ok, anonymous has to go.

I'm going to delete all future comments by this particular anonymous.

Or...I may just set up a moderation requirement.