May 24 2013

Some Things I Learned From Reading “Best Sex Writing 2013″

Best Sex Writing 2013 coverSome things I learned from reading Best Sex Writing 2013: The State of Today’s Sexual Culture (available in paperback and on Kindle):

I learned that the Doc Johnson “marital aid” company was mockingly named after Lyndon B. Johnson.

I learned that in 2005, high-end vibrators were given to celebrities in the Golden Globe Awards gift suite.

I learned that a 2009 Gallup poll showed that 92 percent of Americans think that having an extramarital affair is morally wrong.

I learned that sexual and romantic relationships in nursing homes typically have a no-pressure, enjoying-the-moment quality to them, since “no one here is burdened with finding the loves of their lives.”

I learned that some queer people still feel a need to be closeted about their queerness if they want a career in politics. And I learned that, for some bisexual people, this is both easier and harder than being gay.

I learned that gay male sex at rest stops is way, way more common than I’d imagined. I learned that if you’ve ever pulled over to a rest area — summer, winter, any season — you’ve been near men having sex.

I learned to wonder about a question I hadn’t thought about before: If you have sex with a girl, and you’re a trans woman who knows you’re also a girl, but your partner doesn’t know that… is it lesbian sex? Is it lesbian for you, but not for her?

I learned that the entire concept of virginity often means something really different for trans people than it does for cis people. (Not that it’s always so straightforward for cis people…)

I learned that sports journalists get really, really weird when confronted with male athletes who are virgins.

I learned that there are some people in the leather community — not all, probably not even most, but some — who think that at SM play parties, people shouldn’t have orgasms or talk dirty. (To which I can only comment: What the actual fuck?)

I learned that when New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote about prostitution ads in he back pages of newspapers, he acknowledged that many prostitutes are consensual and non-coerced, but said, “They’re not my concern.” (I’d say that I learned that Nicholas Kristof is a douchebag… but I already knew that.)

I learned that there exists a group, the Religious Institute, that examines the intersection of theology and human sexuality. Their president, Rev. Debra W. Haffner, is “completely shocked that contraception is being made to seem as if it’s a controversial issue.” Not sure if she’s being deliberately disingenuous, or if she’s really shocked. If the latter, I need to learn what rock she’s been under for the last decade. Seems like an interesting organization, though. Maybe I need to investigate.

I learned that in the late 1940s, ’50s and ’60s, Church & State magazine, the publication of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, was “studded with stories about often-successful attempts to block access to birth control.”

I learned that some people have called the birth control pill the most important invention of the twentieth century. I think that, while this is something of an overstatement, they definitely have a point.

I learned that, while the mainstream video porn industry is mostly tanking financially, porn parodies of pop culture (such as Spiderman XXX) are flourishing.

I learned that in New York City, half of all underage prostitutes are boys — and only 10 percent are involved with pimps.

I learned that Marilyn Monroe was such a big fan of Jean Harlow that she got Harlow’s hairdresser to dye her own hair blonde.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you want to learn more about a massively varied variety of kinds of sex, ideas about sex, perspectives on sex… Best Sex Writing 2013 is a great place to go.

Best Sex Writing 2013 is edited by Rachel Kramer Bussel and Carol Queen. To learn more about the book, go to the Best Sex Writing 2013 website, Cleis Press, Goodreads, or Rachel’s personal website. The book is available in paperback and on Kindle.

May 23 2013

“This is about adding to, not taking away”: Interview With Charlie Glickman, Co-Author of “The Ultimate Guide to Prostate Pleasure”

the-ultimate-guide-to-prostate-pleasure-coverIf you have a prostate, or if you’re having sex with someone who has a prostate, or if you ever plan to have sex with someone who has a prostate, you want to read this book. Period.

I’d thought about writing a fuller review of The Ultimate Guide to Prostate Pleasure: Erotic Exploration for Men and Their Partners. (Available in paperback and Kindle.) I might still do that at some point. But really, my thoughts on the book pretty much boil down to this: If you have a prostate, or if you’re having sex with someone who has a prostate, or if you ever plan to have sex with someone who has a prostate, you want to read this book. Period.

Of course, the author can tell you a lot more about it than that. Charlie Glickman, Ph.D., co-author of The Ultimate Guide to Prostate Pleasure, has very kindly given me some time to discuss the book, and some of the ideas and information in it.

GC: If there was one thing you could say to people who are reluctant to explore prostate play, what would it be?

CG: There are some pretty common concerns that men and their partners have around trying prostate play. When we wrote the book, Aislinn and I conducted two surveys and we asked people to tell us what held them back. Almost all of the answers fell into three categories: will it hurt? will it be messy? what does this mean for my masculinity?

Those first two are technical questions, in the sense that they focus on the technical skills that make anal play enjoyable. As a sex educator and coach, I hear those same questions from people of any gender who are thinking about receiving anal play, and there are lots of ways to make it easy, fun, and hygienic. Since getting fucked is usually seen as “the woman’s role” in sex, a lot of men worry that anal penetration and prostate pleasure will somehow make them less masculine.

This is such a prevalent issue that we devoted an entire chapter of the book to unpacking it and offering alternative perspectives. But the short version is that what kinds of things feel good to you is about where your nerves are, while the gender(s) of the people you want to have sex with is about your sexual orientation. Those are two different things, in the same way that what foods you like and who you want to have dinner with are two different things.

I think it’s really unfortunate that so many men are stuck on this because there are some incredible opportunities for pleasure that they miss out on. And it’s not like prostate play means you can’t also have lots of fun with other kinds of sex. This is about adding to, not taking away.

If there was one more thing?

When I talk with men about their experiences with prostate play, whether massage, pegging, or anything else, they describe it in much the same way that a lot of women describe G-spot play. The sensation of prostate massage is often compared to “the beginning of an orgasm,” but instead of lasting just a few seconds as you reach the “point of no return” (or in sex therapy language, “ejaculatory inevitability”), it can last for as long as you want. The orgasms that come from prostate massage are felt as bigger, more expansive, coursing through your body, and with practice, you might even be able to have multiple orgasms. If you’ve ever heard someone talk about their G-spot experiences, some of this might sound similar.

I think this is important because a lot of guys have had first-hand experience on the giving side of G-spot pleasure (no pun intended), and can’t even imagine being able to have something like that for themselves. But actually, you can and we give you all the info you need to try it for yourself.

And one more?

There’s a difference between anal stimulation and prostate stimulation. Yes, the most effective way to reach the prostate is through anal penetration, though it’s not the only way, but a lot of guys prefer to focus on just the prostate with minimal anal stimulation. Others like to mix them together, and a few told us that they enjoy anal play, but that prostate stimulation didn’t do much for them.

This is important because some men resist exploring prostate pleasure as a result of experiences of not enjoying anal play. But as long as the anal penetration is painless, you can have a great time. If you decide that you like it too, then you have more fun options. Prostate play isn’t about size. You can rock someone’s world with something as slim as a finger. So don’t let your worries about anal sex keep you from trying something new.

Along those lines, a medical prostate exam isn’t meant to feel good. They don’t want it to hurt, but they also don’t want you to get turned on and think that the doctor is trying to have sex with you. I’ve had a lot of men tell me, “I got checked out at the doctor’s office and I didn’t like it, so I guess this isn’t for me.” It’s funny- I’ve never heard a woman say, “Getting a pelvic exam isn’t fun, so I guess I don’t like intercourse.” Trust me. Doing this at home is completely different.

What has the response been to the book so far?

Really amazing. I’ve received emails from men with all levels of experience, from total novices to experienced prostate players, and they’ve all said that they learned something useful. One of the advantages of surveying almost 200 people about this is that we could offer more tips and ideas to make things fun. Our goal was to make it relevant for everyone with a prostate and for their partners, and from the feedback we’ve gotten so far, we hit our target. Aislinn and I are both really proud of that.

I’m also really happy that men of all sexual orientations have told us that we spoke to their experiences and made our book relevant to them. Most sex guides are written for specific communities or with only some sexual orientations in mind. The fact that we have been getting such positive responses from men of all orientations makes me really proud.

How does this book differ from other guides to male anal pleasure, such as The Ultimate Guide to Anal Sex for Men?

While there are some guides to male anal pleasure, they focus much more on the anal play. There’s some mention of the prostate, but that’s not the main point. We give you lots of info about anal play, but most of our attention is on the prostate. Think of it as sort of like the difference between a book on sex positions and a book on the G-spot. There’ll be some overlap, but a lot that’s different.

Our website has a lot of great info to get you started. We wrote it to make sure that you’d get enough of the basics to give it a try, even if you never pick up a copy of the book. Of course, the book (available on Amazon in paperback and Kindle) has a whole lot more. So if you’re ready to try something new and rock your world, you know where to go. And if you have feedback, questions, or you just want to get in touch, I’m easy to find at my website, Facebook, and Twitter.

Charlie Glickman Ph.D. is a sexuality educator, writer, blogger, workshop teacher, and sex & relationship coach. He is certified as a sexuality educator by the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors, and Therapists and was a pioneering Program Educator for Good Vibrations for sixteen years. He lives in Oakland, CA.

May 23 2013

American Terror: Excerpt From “Godless Americana: Race and Religious Rebels” by Sikivu Hutchinson

Godless Americana coverThe following is an excerpt from Godless Americana: Race and Religious Rebels, the new book by Sikivu Hutchinson. Available on Amazon and CreateSpace; coming soon on Kindle.

*****

American Terror

A little white boy, a cherub with an impish grin, earnestly clutches a microphone before a church congregation in a blurry video of the Apostolic Truth Tabernacle in Greensburg, Indiana. He begins to belt out a ditty, “I know the Bible is right, somebody’s wrong…Ain’t no homos going to make it to heaven,” in a playful schoolboy lilt. The crowd erupts, rising to its feet, fists pumping, high fives extended, roof raised. The pastor beams proudly from the pulpit, deliciously pleased by this home team display of American Idol precocity.

The video generated thousands of hits and comments online, some praising, many condemning. Christians were slammed as hypocritical and un-Christian; detractors were piously directed to Bible verses smearing homosexuality. The mantra from tolerant Christians was that God doesn’t endorse hate, especially from the mouths of babes. Biblical condemnation of homosexuality was a remnant of antiquity, inapplicable to the complexities of the modern world, a distortion of God’s unconditional love.

Eavesdropping on the red-blooded zeal of the Tabernacle’s come-to-Jesus audience, it’s clear that the cherub has renewed its wilting faith. The straight backs of dark-suited men frame the furtive glances of silent little girls in frilly dresses peaking around the camera as whistles and applause ripple through the sanctuary. With the womenfolk tucked away, giving praise to Jesus is just another alpha male sporting event. The wisdom of heterosexual solidarity will not be lost on more tolerant corrupted generations. The cherub is no more than five years old. Soon, he will be new to elementary school, new to the savage dance of peer pressure and the playground rituals of gender. He is “innocent,” yet fully initiated into the culture of violence, permissiveness, and patriarchy that says “boys will be boys.” Western civilization revolves around this unbreakable sacrament. From the nameless, faceless American military drone victims of the Middle East to the expendable Jezebels of American inner cities, to be American is to always be innocent against the global backdrop of otherness. It is to accept as gospel that “they” hate us because of our freedoms while “we” are free to pillage the globe with American war machines and pipeline youth of color into prisons. Historically, conquering and “democratizing” savage foreign lands has been part of the U.S.’ foreordained Christian mission as an “exceptional” civilization. American exceptionalism was a key theme for the GOP and Religious Right in the 2012 presidential race. Former Republican congressman and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich amplified this theme in his book A Nation Like No Other: Why American Exceptionalism Matters:

The ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the unique American identity that rose from an American civilization that honored them form what we call today “American Exceptionalism”…President Obama, for example, simply does not understand this concept. In the past he was outright contemptuous of American Exceptionalism, deriding Americans as “bitter” people who “cling” to guns and religion…If the ideas in the Declaration were not new or particularly radical, then why did this single document fundamentally alter world history? The answer is this: no nation had ever before embraced human equality and God-given individual rights as its fundamental organizing principle.

Caricatured by the right as a socialist revolutionary, Obama sought to burnish his Americana credentials by trotting out the rhetoric of exceptionalism. In 2009 he maintained that it’s a “core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.” Yet, Obama’s identification with exceptionalism was not enough for GOP ideologues like Gingrich, who insist that Judeo-Christian might and right makes the U.S. superior to other nations. Predictably, Gingrich’s summary of the U.S.’ exceptionalist path contains only passing reference to slavery. For Gingrich, slavery was only a minor deviation from this “nation like no other’s” ascent to global leadership. If the Declaration of Independence invokes “unalienable rights” of liberty and equality granted by God, then the U.S.’ unique righteousness lies in this contract. According to this view, American civilization, as the most religious superpower on the planet, means God—white, Christian, straight, and pure. And even though the U.S. is the fount of freedom and individual liberty, God cannot be expected to bend to the whims and cultural relativisms of modernity. To do so would be a betrayal of his will, as manifest in “natural” law.

The little white boy of Apostolic Truth Tabernacle is the unofficial face of Americana, the spiritual inheritor of God, mom, and apple pie. This holy trinity was sorely tested by President Obama’s landslide victory in the 2012 presidential campaign. The GOP’s anti-government message of lower taxes and shiftless welfare queens, coupled with its attacks against birth control, abortion, gay rights and undocumented immigrants, was repugnant to many voters. Yet, although a majority of the electorate rejected the party’s Christian fascist rhetoric, those that would write the political and cultural obituary of fundamentalist Americana are premature. God has always been one of the U.S.’ primary afflictions. The performance of American national identity is steeped in this cancer. The right-wing backlash against democratic citizenship is fueled by it. Unleashed from its YouTube moment, the cherub’s folksy performance deep in the heart of this small Midwestern church reverberates in hundreds of so-called gay conversion therapy sessions throughout the nation. It provides the backdrop for the monster popularity of alpha male toys that give little boys license to prey and pillage. It fuels the suicides that claim the lives of hundreds of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth every year. It drives the she-asked-for-it rape culture that says women’s bodies are dirty, shameful, sinful, and always there for the taking.

*****

Godless Americana: Race and Religious Rebels is available on Amazon and CreateSpace; coming soon on Kindle.

May 22 2013

What Does Religion Bring to the Table? Katha Pollitt’s Talk at Women in Secularism 2

Women In Secularism 2 logo

Note: The Women in Secularism 2 was kind of a weird rollercoaster. The highs — and it was overwhelmingly highs — were very high indeed; the lows were seriously low, and of a variety that seeped poison into the highs and made them harder to appreciate. Many other people have been writing about some of the lows: I will probably weigh in on them at some point myself (although others have already said most of what I would want to say). But the speakers and panelists at WiS2 mostly seem to have cared deeply about making this conference incredible, and overwhelmingly brought their A-game. Lows aside, this was easily one of the best conferences I’ve attended. It’s hard to find the balance between not ignoring the awful but not letting it take over everything, and I’m not going to tell anyone else where that balance should be for them. Myself, I want to spend a couple of days writing about the awesome, before I decide what to say about the crap.

What does religion bring to the table?

Katha PollittAmong the great awesomeness at the Women in Secularism 2 conference was Katha Pollitt. She’s a brilliant thinker; she’s an engaging and down-to-earth speaker who makes complicated ideas clear without talking down to her audience; and she is hi-fucking-larious. (I dearly wish Christopher Hitchens were alive, and had attended this conference, so he could see how funny women are.) And her talk about “Sexism and Religion: Can the Knot Be Untied?” has gotten the wheels of my brain spinning in about twenty different directions at once. The main one at the moment being: What does religion bring to the table?

The tl;dr of Pollitt’s talk (or at least, the main thing I got from it): In the simplest, most practical sense, yes, sexism can be untied from religion. Some religions do oppose sexism, and don’t have sexist teachings. Religion — and here’s the kicker, the part I’ve been ruminating on — is very adept at adapting to changing social mores, to the point where it will twist around and say the exact opposite of what it’s said for centuries, and will actually deny that it says what its teachings clearly say, or even that it ever said that. (“Of course when Paul said ‘I suffer not a woman to teach,’ he didn’t mean all women! He was just talking about one particular woman in one church! Or else he meant something else by ‘silence’ — he was trying to create a peaceful space for women to learn in! Or…”)

But the same social progress and rational, evidence-based thought processes that leads people to reject sexism also leads people to reject religion. Not in every individual case, obviously: but on the whole, as a general social trend. So while in a small sense, religion doesn’t have to be sexist and can be compatible with feminism, in the long run it’s not: the rope of inequity and irrationality that ties people to religion is the same one that ties people to sexism, and when the rope is loosened, both will eventually fall.

So. Ingrid and I were talking about this the other night. We were talking, specifically, about all the ways religion contorts and twists itself to fit changing social standards and evolving human ethics. We were talking about how it eventually catches up to the idea that witch-burning isn’t so great, and slavery isn’t so great, and racism isn’t so great, and homophobia isn’t so great, and so on. We were talking about how religion generally acts as a brake to these forms of social progress, since people do need to get over their belief that their god wants to them to burn witches and own slaves and whatnot. But eventually, people will reject their religion when their morality outpaces it, and religion has to twist itself around to catch up if it wants to stay relevant. And Ingrid, in one of her ranty rages (I love her when she’s ranty), asked this pertinent question:

“So what does religion bring to the table? If God never has anything to tell us about morality that we don’t figure out on our own, and if religion is always contorting itself to fit evolving morality… what the hell is the point?”

An excellent question.

The answer we pretty much came up with was, “Nothing. It brings nothing to the table.”

I mean, yes, religion obviously gives people some stuff they want. Among other things, religion lets people believe that the creator of the universe cares about them, and that they’re never going to die, and other pretty notions that aren’t true. And it’s an effective idea to organize around, since the requirement to believe ridiculous bullshit acts as a form of psychological hazing.

But when it comes to morality… it’s got nothing. The only thing it brings to the table is the illusion of a cosmic enforcer to whatever ethics a society has come up with on its own. When it comes to the actual ethics, it offers nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Thoughts?

May 22 2013

If You Have Something To Say, Say It To the CFI Board

cfi-logoIf you have something to say about Ron Lindsay’s insulting and contemptuous talk at the Women in Secularism 2 conference, and/or about his insulting and contemptuous follow-up post responding to the controversy… say it to the CFI Board of Directors.

Don’t just say it on Twitter, or on Facebook, or on blog comments, or even on your own blog. Say it to the people who can do something about it. If you’ve already said something on some other forum, please copy and paste it, edit as appropriate, and send it to the CFI Board of Directors.

The CFI Board of Directors can be emailed via the Corporate Secretary, Tom Flynn, at [email protected] They can also be reached by snail mail, at:

Center for Inquiry Board of Directors
PO Box 741
Amherst, NY 14226-0741

The CFI Board of Directors, as posted on the CFI website, are: R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Kendrick Frazier, Barry Kosmin, Richard Schroeder, Eddie Tabash (Chair, Board of Directors), Jonathan Tobert, Leonard Tramiel, and Judith Walker. Their email addresses are not posted on the CFI website: if you already have contact information for these individuals, it would be awesome to go the extra mile and contact them directly. However, if you don’t, please don’t let that stop you: just email [email protected], and/or send snail mail to Center for Inquiry Board of Directors, PO Box 741, Amherst, NY 14226-0741.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, and need some background, here are some links. I will almost certainly weigh on on this sometime soon: for right now, these folks have said much or most of what I want to say.

An Open Letter to the Center for Inquiry, Amanda Marcotte
The Silencing of Men, Rebecca Watson
An Alternate Universe, Stephanie Zvan
Taking it Personally: Privilege and Women in Secularism, Ashley F. Miller
Some Sadly Necessary Remarks on the #wiscfi Intro, Adam Lee
It’s 4am and people are really annoyed, PZ Myers

If you have something to say — please say it to the people who can do something about it. That contact info again: The CFI Board of Directors can be emailed via [email protected] They can also be reached by snail mail, at:

Center for Inquiry Board of Directors
PO Box 741
Amherst, NY 14226-0741

May 21 2013

“People want to matter more than they want to live”: Rebecca Goldstein’s Talk at Women in Secularism 2

Women In Secularism 2 logo

Note: The Women in Secularism 2 was kind of a weird rollercoaster. The highs — and it was overwhelmingly highs — were very high indeed; the lows were seriously low, and of a variety that seeped poison into the highs and made them harder to appreciate. Many other people have been writing about some of the lows: I may well weigh in on them at some point myself (although others have already said most of what I would want to say). But the speakers and panelists at WiS2 mostly seem to have cared deeply about making this conference incredible, and overwhelmingly brought their A-game. Lows aside, this was easily one of the best conferences I’ve attended. It’s hard to find the balance between not ignoring the awful but not letting it take over everything, and I’m not going to tell anyone else where that balance should be for them. Myself, I want to spend a couple/ few days writing about the awesome, before I decide what to say about the crap.

“People want to matter more than they want to live.”

Rebecca GoldsteinA somewhat interesting thing happened at the Women in Secularism 2 conference. The talk that got most people excited and happy and buzzing was from a speaker who isn’t often seen on the atheism circuit. I asked almost everyone I spoke with at the conference who their favorite speaker was… and almost all of them said, “Rebecca Goldstein.” Or else, since many people weren’t familiar with Goldstein, they said, “The last speaker on Friday before the reception. The one who spoke about mattering.”

That was certainly true for me. I was gobsmacked. I’ve only seen Goldstein speak once before… and both times now, she has completely rearranged my brain. Today’s piece is something of a mish-mash between the ideas she presented in her talk, and the places where my now-rearranged brain is running with them. Mostly, though, they’re her ideas, and she deserves the credit.

The core idea: There are a handful of deep, fundamental desires that drive almost all human beings. We want to eat; we want to have sex; we want connection with other people; we want to feel good; we want to survive. Some others.

Goldstein’s thesis — and one that’s now being supported by many psychologists — is that we have to add something to this list: We want to matter.

Some people, in fact, want to matter more than they want to live. Think about people who are willing to die for a cause. They are willing to die, indeed happy to die, if they think that their death — or the work and the fight they’re risking their lives for — will matter.

This is the idea that’s been resonating through my head for days now. I’m seeing it everywhere. Why are we so obsessed with fame and celebrity? Why do people take ridiculous dangerous risks, just so they can make videos that go viral on YouTube? Why do I get more upset about the ultimate heat-death of the universe than I do about my own eventual death? People want to matter… in some cases, more than we want to live.

So what does this have to do with religion and atheism — or for that matter, with women and feminism and social justice?

Well. For starters:

Jesus_Blessing_the_ChildrenOne of the main things people get from religion is the feeling that they matter. After all, what could make you feel more important than believing that the creator of the entire universe cares passionately about you: that he wants more than almost anything for you to do right and be with him after you die, and is even waging a war for your soul? In fact, Goldstein — along with the psychologists who are running with this idea — argues that modern religions with more interventionist/ caring gods began to arise with the rise of civilization and cities, when many people began to have less of an intimate connection with their society and their world, and became more anonymous and interchangeable. When you don’t matter as much to the people around you, when the human world is treating you like a replaceable cog in a machine, the more animistic, “gods and spirits are running around doing stuff that affects us but without that much attention to us” religion isn’t as attractive as a god or gods who keep close tabs on each and every human life.

Of course there’s a creepy Orwellian aspect of this kind of belief as well. What with the all-knowing creator of the universe constantly spying on you, never giving you a moment to yourself, listening in on even your private thoughts and desires. But I’m guessing — and I’d be interested to know if the psychology backs me up on this — that most of us who find this God thing more creepy than comforting are people who already have a strong sense of mattering. We don’t need to matter to an invisible magical creator… since we already feel like we matter to the world.

Which brings me to Part Two: What does all this have to do with women and feminism and social justice?

I bet you see where I’m going with this. Or rather, where Rebecca Goldstein is going with this.

Religion — especially this “God knows and cares about every feather falling off of every sparrow, of course he cares about you” religion — is going to be more appealing, and more important, to people who feel that they don’t matter. People who are marginal, invisible, anonymous to the world around them, will have more of a need to believe in a god who sees them and loves them, a god to whom they matter. People who have a greater sense of agency, visibility, influence, aren’t going to need that as much.

And when you think about people who are marginal, invisible, anonymous to the world around them — women are high on that list. Along with poor people, blue-collar people, people of color, LGBT people, disabled people, many others I don’t have space to list here.

So if atheism is going to flourish, we need to do two things.

1: We need to make damn well sure that these folks matter to us.

We can’t keep building a community and a movement for people who already have power, people who already feel like they matter. We need to build a community and a movement where otherwise marginal, invisible, anonymous people matter. And we can’t just decide to make their concerns our concerns, out of the benevolence of our hearts. We need to create a community and a movement where all atheists count as “we.” We need to create a community and a movement where these folks get a voice, a place at the table, a say in what matters to all of us.

And 2: We need to work towards a world where these folks matter more… period.

society_without_godIt’s already been well-documented (largely and most famously in Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment by Phil Zuckerman) that societies with high levels of happiness and social functioning tend to be societies with high rates of atheism. If Goldstein’s hypothesis holds up, this doesn’t just apply to the obvious elements of the “happiness index” Zuckerman talks about, a strong economy and a low crime rate and good education and good health care and well-supported arts and good beer. It applies to whether people feel like they matter: whether social policies are more egalitarian or more rigidly hierarchical, whether there’s relative economic equality or economic power is in the hands of a few, whether the government is deeply corrupt or the people have a say in it.

We need to treat people as if they matter. Everyone. We need to put work and effort into getting people to matter who commonly feel like they don’t. We have to do this if we want atheism to flourish.

Not to mention it being, you know, the right thing to do.

May 21 2013

Help the VIctims of the Oklahoma Tornado: Foundation Beyond Belief

The Humanist Crisis Response program of the Foundation Beyond Belief is taking donations to help victims of the Oklahoma tornado. Your donations will be directed to Operation USA and Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma. Please help if you can. Thanks.

May 19 2013

#mencallmethings: “fucking ugly. Kill yourself.”

Comment from Kali Dali, in the discussion on the post Some Thoughts on Secular Meditation and Depression/Anxiety:

goddamn you are fucking ugly. Kill yourself.

#mencallmethings

A few notes:

1: Who the hell tells someone to kill themselves… as a comment on a post about clinical depression?

2: In the context of this weekend’s Women in Secularism conference: If anyone is still wondering why so many of think atheism needs to pay attention to sexism and misogyny, at the absolute minimum as an internal matter within our own movement, and why we need to actively work on making atheism more welcoming to women… wake up and smell the coffee. Wake up and smell the toxic cesspool that women, especially vocal feminist women on the internet, swim in every day. I don’t even get the worst of it: other women get it worse than I do, and more consistently. (Documentation; more documentation; still more documentation.) If you’re wondering why we need events like Women in Secularism, and other pieces of unique attention paid to to the experiences of women in this movement… this is Exhibit A. Except it’s not Exhibit A. It’s more like Exhibit W. It’s more like Exhibit W (2) h (iv).

3: Who the hell tells someone to kill themselves… as a comment on a post about clinical depression?

4: I’m going to issue the standard request that I always issue when the #thing that #menhavecalled me is some version of “ugly”: Please, unless you’re a personal friend or someone I’m having sex with, don’t try to make me feel better by saying that I’m not ugly. If I write about fashion or post the hot pic of myself in the Skepticon calendar, you can say nice things about how I look… but please don’t do it here. I’m not calling this out to garner reassurance about my appearance. I’m calling this out to show people the kind of shit women routinely deal with. I have a thick skin, and I don’t get my feelings hurt by sexist jackasses calling me names. That isn’t the point.

The point isn’t that I’m not ugly. The point is that it shouldn’t matter.

5: Who the hell tells someone to kill themselves… as a comment on a post about clinical depression?

6: The #mencallmethings hashtag does not say #allmencallmethings, or #mostmencallmethings. If you want to learn more about the history of this hashtag and why people started using it, please read But How Do You Know It’s Sexist? The #MenCallMeThings Round-Up and Why Are You In Such A Bad Mood? #MenCallMeThings Responds! on Tiger Beatdown, where the hashtag originated. And please do not start a “but not all men are like that, so the #mencallmethings hashtag is reverse sexism!” argument. That has been addressed, at length, in the comments in the #mencallmethings: “FUCKIN HOE,” “FUCKIN FEMINAZI SLUT” post, as well as elsewhere. Please read Why “Yes, But” Is the Wrong Response to Misogyny if you’re wondering why I will not take kindly that that particular line of conversation.

7: WHO THE HELL TELLS SOMEONE TO KILL THEMSELVES… AS A COMMENT ON A POST ABOUT CLINICAL DEPRESSION?!?!?

Do you understand that it’s fairly common for clinically depressed people are suicidal? I’m not, as it happens… but it’s a very common symptom of the illness. Who the hell goes to someone with an illness that puts them at risk for suicide, in a space where they’re talking about this illness, and tells them to kill themselves? I mean, who the hell tells someone to kill themselves anyway, ever… but seriously? Who the hell tells someone to kill themselves… as a comment on a post about clinical depression?

I’m just sayin’, is all.

May 17 2013

Some Thoughts on Secular Meditation and Depression/Anxiety

(This is part of a series on mindfulness based stress reduction: a secular, evidence-based meditation practice that I’ve recently started.)

Note to self: This works.

It has been a bad, bad couple of days. I don’t want to get into a lot of details… but it hasn’t been good. My depression, which has largely been lifting over the last couple/few weeks, relapsed with a resounding crash. I’ve been feeling alarmed, unsafe, exposed, powerless, despairing, unmotivated, hopeless.

I’m on a plane as I write this. With several hours to sit in one place and do nothing, I decided to meditate.

It was difficult: my mind has been racing even faster and wilder than usual, and it has been perseverating on all the dark things, all the failures of my past, all the worst possible outcomes of my future. It was more than a little difficult to just sit and be: be with myself, be with my thoughts and feelings and sensations. I bloody well didn’t want to be with my thoughts and feelings and sensations. My thoughts and feelings and sensations were freaking me the fuck out. I wanted to shut them up, shut them out, drown them out. But I knew — both from my own experience and from the research that’s been done on this mindfulness-based stress reduction thing — that this might work: that this might quiet me down, restore some sense of peace. Or at least, restore some sense of self.

So I did it. I sat still in my seat on the plane, and closed my eyes, and focused on my breathing… and my breathing… and my breathing… and on the sole of my left foot where it was pressing against the floor of the plane… and on my left big toe… and on my left pinky toe… and on the toes in between…

And when I finished, I felt better.

Like, really better.

I’m still upset. But I feel… I don’t quite know how to put this into words. I feel like myself, feeling upset. I don’t feel like the upset itself. I don’t feel swallowed by the upset, or carried away by it. I’m still upset… but I feel like the stuff I’m upset about is manageable. And I feel like it’s worth it. I feel like the stuff I’m upset about is one sour note in a good piece of music… not like it’s swallowing me whole.

At the beginning of the session, my mind was stubbornly racing to all the dark things. It took me I don’t know how long — I wasn’t looking at a clock — to really feel the sole of my left foot, even for a second, and really experience the sensations in it. My mind would not shut the fuck up: I had to keep noticing the thoughts and gently pull my focus back… and notice the thoughts and gently pull my focus back… and notice the thoughts and gently pull my focus back… like every three fucking seconds. I wasn’t looking at a clock, but I suspect it took me a good half hour just to get through my left leg.

But by the time I got to my right leg, I was starting to feel better. My mind was still racing, still frantically jumping from branch to branch… but at least some of the branches it was landing on before I pulled my focus back on were happy ones, plans I was excited about, ideas I’ve been having fun with. By the time I got to my pelvic girdle, I was remembering that I actually enjoy meditation and take pleasure in it: that it is a deep and genuine pleasure to set aside time and experience my body, to notice that I am my body and to return to that awareness. (I always like it when I get to my pelvic girdle.) There was a weird scary moment when I got to my mouth and nose: the feeling of awareness of each part of my body felt like sinking into a warm bath, and when it got to my mouth and nose, I had a sudden panicky feeling like I was about to drown. But I noticed it, and paused, and just stayed with my neck for a little while, and finally I reframed the “sinking into water” thing as “sinking into a pool of super-oxygenated air,” and moved on. By the time I got to the top of my head, the process of noticing thoughts and letting them go to be in my body, noticing thoughts and letting them go to be in my body, had become second-nature. And by the time I was finishing, by the time I was experiencing my entire body as a whole entity and was returning to noticing my surroundings and my sense of myself in the world, I felt… not just calmer, not just happier, not just more hopeful. I felt like myself. I felt capable of experiencing pleasure, capable of managing the problems in my life, capable of doing the work that I love so much… because I felt like I had a self. I felt like there was a there there.

It was like a circuit-breaker.

This is not a panacea for depression. Far from it. I don’t think this would be working without meds, and therapy, and exercise, and sitting on the sofa with Ingrid petting cats, and all the other things I do to heal my depression.

But it sure as heck is helping.

So I’m writing this: partly to let other people know that they might want to check this out, but mostly as a reminder to myself:

This works.

So keep doing it.

I wrote something a few days ago about the meditation practice, about how after a week of doing it I was already seeing noticeable results…and about how then, inexplicably, I stopped doing it. As if it were a theorem in math, and once I’d figured it out, I didn’t need to do it again, and could move on to the next theorem. But it’s not a theory. It’s a practice. And there’s a difference between theory and practice. I can’t say to myself, “Aha! You now know that meditation helps with your depression and anxiety and makes you better able to focus — problem solved!” Any more than I can say to myself, “Aha! You know that working out builds your muscles and gives you strength and stamina — problem solved!” I have to actually freaking do it. Several times a week. Every day, if I can.

But when I do it, my life gets better.

So yeah. Note to self. This works. Keep doing it.

Other piece in this series:
On Starting a Secular Meditation Practice
Meditation and Breakfast
Meditation, and the Difference Between Theory and Practice

May 16 2013

Godless Perverts Social Meetup Now A Regular Thing! Next One This Tuesday 5/21!

Reminder: The Godless Perverts Social Meetup is now a regular thing! And the next one is this Tuesday!

Wicked Grounds iconJoin us every third Tuesday of the month at Wicked Grounds, San Francisco’s renowned BDSM-themed coffee house, for an evening of conversation and socializing. Community is one of the reasons we started Godless Perverts. There are few enough places to land when you decide that you’re an atheist; far fewer if you’re also LGBT, queer, kinky, poly, trans, or are just interested in sexuality. All orientations, genders, and kinks (or lack thereof) welcome. There’s no admission, but we ask that you buy food and drink at the counter, or make a donation to the venue.

The Godless Perverts Social Meetup will be every third Tuesday at Wicked Grounds, 289 – 8th Street at Folsom (near Civic Center BART). The next one: May 21st, 7-9 pm. Hope to see you there!

Older posts «

:)