Sex and the Health Care Reform Bill

There’s one thing members of both major political parties agree on: The U.S. needs some type of health care reform. From there, though, opinions diverge wildly.

The 2,032-page bill introduced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) outlines a national healthcare plan with some very good points. For instance, the bill:

• prevents insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions
• caps personal financial liability when someone faces a medical emergency
• prevents insurers from dropping people who become ill

Two of the key sticking points in the plan passed in November by the House of Representatives and now facing the Senate are – not surprisingly — sex education and abortion funding. The old adage rings true: in the end, it always comes around to sex.

Sex education, not abstinence teaching, supported
One provision of the bill, titled the “Healthy Teen Initiative to Prevent Teen Pregnancy,” supports taxpayer funding of sex education proven, through evidence-based research, to:

• delay sexual activity in teens;
• decrease the number of sexual partners;
• reduce teen pregnancy;
• reduce sexually transmitted infection rates; or
• improve rates of contraceptive use.

Abstinence-based programs, all the rage in many schools recently, will not be supported by tax dollars. According to some sources, the provision considers the abortion drug RU-486 as “contraception,” along with Plan B (the morning-after pill), IUDs, birth control pills and condoms.

Taxpayer-funded abortions nixed
While the conservative community may have lost the battle over sex education, an amendment to the bill barring federal funding for abortions, however, can be viewed as a conservative victory. In fact, it’s much more than that — it’s politicians listening to the majority of their constituents based on poll results.

A CNN poll showed that 61% of Americans (across all political parties) oppose using public funds to cover abortion. Thirty-seven percent are in favor of taxpayer-funded abortion. Slightly more than half believe all abortions should be paid for out of pocket, rather than through any insurance at all.

It’s interesting to note, however, that of respondents to a Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey, only 3 % cited abortion funding as a reason to oppose health care reform. Yet our legislators have turned this into a hot-button, make-or-break issue.

What do opponents really dislike about the bloated health care reform bill? The two highest-ranking responses, tied at 27 % each, were: “it’s too expensive” and “don’t want government involved in health care.”

When you consider the post office, Department of Motor Vehicles, Social Security and other government-regulated programs, it’s amazing the numbers for the latter response weren’t higher.

I firmly believe Americans need to take more responsibility for their health as a whole, in the form of healthy eating, frequent exercise, and common sense wellness care. But if I do get sick, I don’t want the government in charge of the tools that can assist me in healing. This firmly overrides any other issue relating to the health care reform bill, all of which seem to make sizzling headlines.

Health care reform good for LGBT Community
Too much government involvement aside, there are a few bright points to the legislation. One provision eliminates the hefty tax penalties non-married partners — a large percentage of which are gay or lesbian — face when they put their partner on their health insurance plan. As someone who lived with my (opposite sex) partner nearly seven years before we got married, this makes all sorts of sense to me. Marriage, again, should be a personal choice based on love, not economics.

Additionally, the bill prohibits discrimination in health care based on “personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.” This includes gender and sexual orientation.

Certain parts of health care reform are on the right track. But the question remains: Will the bill pass before 2009 ends?

Sex and… Taxes?

They (whoever “they” are) say the only two certainties in life are death and taxes. A teen in Germany is learning about the second certainty the hard way. According to this article in England’s Daily Mail, Romanian-born Alina Percea, a student in Germany, could owe the German government approximately half of her 2009 earnings.

The teen auctioned off her virginity for 8000 British pounds. That’s just shy of 13,000 American dollars – a decent sum for one night of “work!” Even nicer, Percea said she had a great time with the 45-year-old Italian businessman, and would see him again, without charging him.

Then the government had to step in and ruin a good thing. Prostitution is legal in Germany, so that wasn’t the issue. But prostitutes pay a 50 percent tax on their earnings. Additionally, because the teen earned so much money in one night, she could get hit with a VAT (Value Added Tax) bill, too, which would typically be collected from the customer. She’d end up with not even $5,000 USD for her entrepreneurial efforts.

Of course, the government may end up losing out on the deal, too, if the businessman – as so many do – decides to find some way to justify the expense in that lovely little gray area of a business “entertainment” write-off.  I’m no expert on German tax law – and I have an accountant so I don’t even have to be an expert on US tax law – but I’m pretty sure you can deduct at least 50 percent of any business entertainment expenses, which means the money the government took out of young Percea’s hands would go straight back to the customer who spent it in the first place. I guess it’s another instance of the rich getting richer because, really, do you know many people who have $13,000 lying around to pay for sex?

A few other observations, courtesy of a close friend of mine, name withheld because he has no idea I’m quoting him on a sex blog, but I’m pretty sure he’d think it was cool.

- “Why would anyone pay $13,000 for a virgin? If I’m paying that much for sex, I want someone with some experience, who knows what she’s doing already.”

- “Why would anyone pay $13,000 for a virgin? I’ve bedded two and all it cost me was dinner and drinks.”

My friend (who is bi) then confessed he’d give up his ass-cherry for $13,000 but not for the paltry sum of $5,000, unless he was going to do it anyway, in which case, the cash would be a nice bonus.

Yours truly then began to consider what she might give up – and realized she’s got no cherries left to offer. Maybe a kinky S&M experience or two if the price were right?

My friend and I both realized there’s very little we’d want to do for $5,000 if we weren’t planning on doing it anyway. For most people, an extra $5,000, while it would be nice to have, wouldn’t exactly mark a significant turning point in your life, while losing your virginity is a memory to treasure or regret. Granted, it can be a memory to treasure or regret whether you get paid for it or not, and, according to reports, Percea has no emotional or physical regrets whatsoever about the experience.

I can only hope the teen learned an important fiscal lesson, which will serve her well in all her future endeavors, sexual and otherwise. Always, always, always factor taxes into your hourly rates, because the government will take their cut. They always do.

Darling readers, please share your thoughts. What would you do for $5,000? What about $13,000 (tax-free)?

Prop 8 Upheld in Cali but Existing Marriages Still Legal

Perhaps your lover tied you up in full restraints and a ball gag this Memorial Day weekend and just released you this morning. If that’s the case, here’s the latest news not involving Jon and Kate:

On May 26, California Supreme Court voted to uphold Proposition 8, which makes gay marriage once again illegal. However, the 18,000 couples who were married between May and November 2008, when a law passed stating that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, are still legally married in the eyes of the California courts.

So if you are a gay or lesbian couple in California who got cold feet at the altar – you’re out of luck for now. He who hesitates is lost (hopefully only temporarily).

An article in the Christian Science Monitor reports Chief Justice Ronald George as writing that only the term “marriage” is withheld, and same-sex couples in a civil union will have the same rights as married heterosexual couples. Essentially, he’s implying the “spirit” of marriage will remain for gay couples – just not the terminology.

It feels like an empty victory, if it can be called any “victory” at all. Language is powerful and to offer gay and lesbian couples the same rights in a civil union as married  heterosexual couples enjoy smacks of unconstitutional segregation. Didn’t we (i.e., the United States) determine in the 60s that “separate but equal” isn’t really equal at all?

From an economic standpoint – which I’ve talked about before – at least the GLBT community receives the same financial benefits as straight married couples. But same-sex couples have made it abundantly clear that their argument is not about money, but about love and equality.

Meanwhile, with the latest ruling, the state of California loses any financial benefits of simply upholding Prop 8 and not recognizing any sort of legal union for same-sex couples. Maybe I was wrong and it’s not always about money – at least not entirely?

For reasons unfathomable to me in the liberal state of California, the decision seems to be more about preserving the so-called religious sanctity of the word (and concept of) marriage. Which brings us back to a very compelling argument about separation of church and state.

At this point, your happily married, mostly-heterosexual blogger – who really isn’t affected in either way by the whole argument other than as a human being and an American who believes in civil rights for all – just wants to throw up her arms in disgust and shout that either way you slice it: “Proposition 8 is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!”

I’m not alone in that sentiment, either. Following the ruling, protest rallies and marches ensued in 100 major cities across the country. One of the largest took place in New York, beginning at Sheridan Place and ending in Union Square. City Council Speaker Christine Quinn implored the 1000-person crowd to lobby the state senate for gay marriage to be legalized in New York.

Iowa, Vermont, and Maine recently voted to legalize gay marriages, joining Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages have been legal since 2004.

I understand this is an extremely serious matter and we can only hope that public opinion and the GLBT community will once again sway lawmakers into legalizing gay marriage again – in California and in the remaining states. I can practically feel the frustration of Californians after all they’ve been through in fighting for their rights. But to end this post on a lighthearted note, I thought I would share this witty – and I hope facetious! — blog post about why gay marriage *isn’t* fair to straight couples, especially brides-to-be!

New Site Gives “Wanderlust” New Meaning

In a recent post, your resourceful romancer, Desiree Sweet, talked about public places that are relatively safe to sneak a quickie.

A unique new Web site, outdoorlovemap.com, puts some organized effort into the concept.  Deemed “the International Guide to Places to Make Love Outdoors,” the Wiki-style site (which means the site grows as users contribute information) lists 63 lustful locations in 19 countries. It’s been reviewed—and praised—in several places on the Web.

Locations, which range from beach to public parks and even a zoo(!), are rated on a scale of one to five stars for privacy, comfort and legality.  Listings include GPS coordinates and a map powered by Google.

Right now, the site is too small to be very practical.  I typed New York City into its search engine and got locations ranging from Virginia Beach to the Cayman Islands, with nothing closer. I can name at least five locations in the tri-state area, right off the top of my head. And if I started thinking, I could come up with many more than that… including a few transitory locations. (Think Long Island Railroad…)

Outdoorlovemap’s best feature is the user-posted stories about the places listed. Some are simply one-line promptings, such as the listing for the famous “Lawn” at the University of Virginia, which tells readers that it’s tradition to have sex on the lawn.  Others, however, go into explicitly detailed stories about sexual experiences in interesting places. Whether you’re visiting the site for a good read or seeking a practical suggestion for outdoor romance, the site has a lot of potential.

I should add the standard disclaimer about sex in public places. Laws vary state by state; you could get slapped with charges of indecent exposure or even “disturbing the peace.” But for many, that risk is part of the fun. What else is it about sex in public places that gets people so excited?

For some new couples, it’s raw passion. They must have each other, here and now, wherever and whenever that may be. For others — and, by the sharing nature of Outdoorlovemap.com, I suspect this is the case for many of the Web site’s users — it is the thrill of exhibitionism. You can’t be sure, but someone MAY be watching. If this is the case, you’ll want to find a semi-public spot, with opportunities for a quick getaway if you do get caught.

I personally haven’t been brave enough to try any risky spots, but I do have a wish list. Confession: Desiree Sweet yearns to join the Mile High Club and do it on an airplane. There’s also the Three Dolphin Club, but that’s more the stuff of science fiction. In spite of living on an island, I’ve never done it on the beach, so that’s another dream of mine.

What about it, Vibrator.com readers? Share your fantasies and tell us where you’d love to make love! Then help the Outdoorlovemap.com founders (and the world as a whole) by sharing your favorite outdoor love location.

Election Day Brings Sad News for California GLBT Community

And so it goes, again…

Thousands of gay and lesbian couples in California celebrated this past June when the state’s Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, as reported here.

But November 4 saw Proposition 8, an amendment that overturns the Supreme Court’s decision, pass, with 52 percent of California voters supporting the ban on gay marriage.

The proposition was backed by a tremendous grassroots campaign, Yes on Proposition 8. According to the organization’s Web site, the group raised more than $40 million from more than 70,000 contributors and garnered the active support of 100,000-plus volunteers.

Some media voices attribute Proposition 8’s success to the large number of African-American voters who turned out to support Obama. In an editorial, the Los Angeles Times hypothesized that “many African Americans, who tend to have strong ties to their churches, believe that same-sex marriage is immoral.” This group therefore voted for Prop 8.

Need I point out the irony of a demographic of people largely conservative in their social views voting to elect a liberal Democrat president? Or that such a notoriously Blue state as California pass such a conservative proposition?

The LA Times editorial also astutely pointed out that the “No on 8” side never countered the Yes on 8 group’s marketing efforts with its own effective campaign.

Several celebrities, however, did stand up against the proposition. Ellen DeGeneres, who was one of 1,500 people married in a June ceremony, even paid for Public Service Announcements to air on television. On her official blog, she commented on the election of Barack Obama and the Prop 8 results: “Here we just had a giant step toward equality and then on the very next day, we took a giant step away.”

It’s true… As civil rights took a step forward with the election of a black President, it took a step backward when it comes to equality for all.

The good news, according to the LA Times report? In 2001, 61 percent voted down same-sex marriage. This year, the proposition passed by just over half. Baby steps.

June Brides in California Have Special Reason to Celebrate – Or Do They?

The wedding season now seems to last year-round (much to the chagrin of the unhappily un-wed!) but the archetype of the “June bride” persists. This June was extra special for hundreds of gay and lesbian couples in California, when more than 1,500 partners wed on June 17 after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage.

California is only the second state (Massachusetts was first) to legalize same-sex marriage. But the battle continues, with 48 states to go. Additionally, an initiative on California’s November ballot could supersede the law by amending the state’s Constitution so it recognizes only marriages between opposite sex partners as valid.

Arguments against same-sex marriages are impassioned on both sides. Marriage is one way to pledge your undying love to your spouse, and also show the world that you are a team: united in love, committed partners.

Engaged couples often hear people say, “Everything changes when you get married.” In my experience, and from what I’ve heard from friends, this isn’t true—and yet, it is!

Marriage will not fix problems in a relationship, and it can make existing problems seem even larger. The toad doesn’t turn into Prince Charming. Many couples who have lived together prior to marriage, however, do notice a subtle shift in their lives and their ways of thinking.

I don’t want to say that co-habitating couples aren’t committed to each other. I was committed to my now-husband for five excellent years before we decided to tie the knot. But it is different. Only those who’ve been there can understand.

Why shouldn’t same sex couples be allowed to experience this same “wedded bliss” (for lack of a better term?) There are religious arguments, and I don’t want to minimize their impact, although I may point to the constitutional amendment that separates church (religious beliefs) from state.

Marriage is a function of the government and state; that’s why marriages can be performed by a judge at city hall. Couples aren’t required to marry in a church—that’s a choice—but couples must have a government-issued marriage license.

Unfortunately, there’s more to it than religious beliefs. And marriage is about a lot more than the mushy stuff I mentioned earlier. It comes down to, as a mentor of mine once said, “following the money trail.”

Marriage is about love, passion and commitment. Sadly, (and unromantically), it’s also about health care, social security benefits and tax breaks.

In spite of dozens of reports claiming “there is no social security crisis,” Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson recently admitted in a CNNmoney.com article that Social Security is “financially unsustainable.”

What happens when you take a system already on the brink of bankruptcy and add thousands more people, now eligible for spousal benefits, into the mix?

I am not implying that same-sex marriages occur purely for the financial benefits. I know straight couples who got married because it was a sound financial decision when one partner was without health care. I know many more couples, gay and straight, who have married for more conventional reasons—love, commitment, raising children.

Call me naïve, idealistic, or a hopeless romantic, but I think it’s a shame that the beauty and sanctity of marriage has to be sullied by financial concerns, and that same-sex couples should be denied a beautiful way to demonstrate their undying love and commitment. Take that to the bank.

Options Beyond Abstinence: Government Takes Another Look at Sex Ed Funding

For decades, ever since boys and girls were brought into separate rooms in fifth grade and shown grainy films with titles like, “My Body, My Self,” Sex Ed has been a hot topic of controversy. Many of us, to this day, aren’t quite certain what went on in the “other” room, and it was never discussed between boys and girls.

Today, it’s all too clear what’s being taught in publicly-funded sex ed classes for middle and high school students—and it’s all too clear that it’s not effective education, either. Since 1998, the U.S. government has provided 1.3 billion dollars in funding for abstinence-only sex education programs in public schools. And, as Jon Stewart so succinctly put it in his segment titled “The Global War in Your Pants: “Apparently, teenagers STILL want to do it!”

Older studies have shown that students who receive abstinence-only education are inclined to delay sexual activity longer than those who receive a well-rounded, or comprehensive, sex education, but that one-third of those students taught an “abstinence-only-until-marriage” curriculum are not using condoms when they do have intercourse. Teaching abstinence-only, when teens fail to listen, does nothing to prevent the spread of STDs and HIV. A group called Advocates for Youth calls abstinence-only education “ineffective, unethical and poor public health.” The group’s report spotlights just some of the misinformation being spread to teens in abstinence-only classes.

A recent study by the CDC shows that teenage boys who had comprehensive sex ed in school were 71 percent less likely than those with no sex education whatsoever to have intercourse before the age of 15, and were also more likely to use contraceptives the first time they had sex. Other reports show that comprehensive sex ed programs hold the most promise for lowering the rate of teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs.

Fortunately, these findings have opened the eyes of policymakers in Washington, and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held its first-ever hearing on abstinence-only-until-marriage sex ed programs last month. A number of witnesses, including researchers and other health professionals, touted the advantages of comprehensive sex education, and said that federal funding should go toward comprehensive sex ed, which has proven to be effective. Currently, federal funding is only available for abstinence-only curriculum.

If parents, or even parochial schools, wish to teach abstinence, that’s their prerogative and I support that wholeheartedly. But government funding – and public school sex ed – should focus on unbiased, medically-sound, and practical, sex education, including such topics as the use of condoms and other birth control methods.

HPV Vaccine: Cancer Prevention or Corporate Profits?

There’s a lot more to the HPV vaccination debate than whether or not it will encourage sexual activity in young women by providing peace of mind in the form of protection against one sexually transmitted virus. Merck’s HPV vaccine, Gardasil, is purported to protect against two strains of Human papillomavirus (HPV), which could lead to cervical cancer, and two strains of the virus connected to genital warts.

The debate pits public interest groups and the profits of one of the largest drug companies in the world against conservative ideals and unrealistic beliefs about sexual activity and teens. But there’s more to the argument. The vaccine is under attack by many leaders in the field of natural health and concerned parents on both sides of the political fence. With the health and well-being of tens of millions of young women at stake, who do you believe? Is Gardasil effective, and, more importantly, is it safe? Some say it’s neither.

Mike Adams, known as the Health Ranger, exposes what he calls the “Great HPV Vaccine Hoax,” in a special report at Natural News. At the core of his argument is the assertion that, according to an FDA report, most HPV infections are “short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer.” Additionally, if the vaccine is given to a young woman already carrying HPV in a dormant state, it could activate the infection, causing precancerous legions, according to Adams.

Equally scary are attempts to push the vaccination on young boys! Clearly, they are not at risk for cervical cancer, but Merck claims the vaccine will help prevent the spread of HPV and genital warts. It sounds to me like they are just trying to widen the market for this new “miracle vaccine,” without considering the possible long-term health consequences.

In what looks like another attempt to force usage and increase profits, the powerful pharmaceutical lobbyists have convinced many states to introduce legislation making the vaccination mandatory for girls entering sixth grade. According to recent accounts, none of the bills have passed yet, and those without an opt-out clause for philosophical or religious reasons have died. In Texas, Governor Rick Perry signed an executive order mandating the vaccine for all girls entering the sixth grade. Upon careful examination, we discover that Perry’s former chief of staff, Mike Toomey, is now a Merck lobbyist. Perry also allegedly received significant funds from Merck’s political action committee in 2006. However, the Texas legislature over-rode the executive order.

Understandably, many parents are up in arms about the vaccine, and especially about the government trying to mandate its use. Because Gardasil only works if a woman has not been exposed to HPV, it is most effective in young girls who have never had sex. Some medical professionals recommend starting the vaccine, given in a series of 3 shots over 6 months, at age 9.

Some parents believe the vaccine will encourage promiscuity or sex without a condom. Others simply can’t fathom the thought of their daughters having sex, and eschew any discussions along those lines.

This faction ignores the fact that adolescent girls turn into grown women who do, indeed, have sex and who also have the right to protect themselves against sexually transmitted infections. Fifty percent of all sexually active women have, at one point, contracted HPV. If the vaccine really works, it offers the chance to beat those odds.

These “watchdog” groups hide their true objections behind the medical arguments, which are more difficult to refute. So we’re back to the original question: does Gardasil work?

The fact is, existing evidence does not consider the long-term effects of the vaccine. (It hasn’t been around long enough). However, clinical studies have shown Gardasil to be more than 95 percent effective in protecting against four different strains of HPV.

In deciding whether to have your daughter (or yourself, if you’re under the age of 26) vaccinated, consider this: all vaccines carry some risks. Do the drawbacks (which may or may not be evident at this time) outweigh the benefits of becoming, as the commercial goes, “One less?” Like most decisions related to sexual activity, lifestyle and your health, it’s a decision only you can make.

Vibrator.com Airplane Ad Pulled in Texas

XBIZ NEWS REPORT
By Tod Hunter
Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008

SOUTH PADRE ISLAND, Texas — A pink banner advertising adult products website Vibrator.com that had been flown over spring break destination South Padre Island has been grounded after complaints by residents.

“It’s just a little community, and there are a lot of older folks there,” John from Houston-based National Sky Signs told XBIZ. “We flew it a couple of times and the county asked me if I would not do it anymore. It was an informal request. I said, ‘Not a problem.’ They moved the banner to another place.”

The banner is 25 feet high and 68 feet long, with the words “Got Toys? Vibrator.com” alongside the company’s logo of a silhouetted woman.

“We felt that it’s a great audience for us, spring breakers,” Vibrator.com CEO Keith Levenson told XBIZ. “We know our demographics, and the 18-25 crowd is a big audience for us.”

Levenson told XBIZ that he might pursue the ban through the courts.

“So far as I knew, flying planes and aerial banners was a First Amendment right,” Levenson said. “From what we heard, this was a little airport that took the law into their own hands. We’re contemplating legal action.”

Client 9 For Governor

When news broke yesterday of New York’s Governor alleged involvement with Emperors Club prostitutes, I couldn’t help but laugh at the perfect irony of it all. Those who know about Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s (otherwise known as “Client 9″) crusade against prostitution in New York state while still working as attorney general are either confused and shocked by the news, or rightfully pissed off at another supposed white knight politician who ended up guilty of the same sins he campaigned against.

In 2004, Spitzer indicted 18 people associated with elite escort services in New York City for “promoting prostitution” and related charges. That same year, he prosecuted individuals promoting prostitution in Asia, also known as “sex tourism”. As governor, Mr. Spitzer passed legislation for stricter penalties for “sex tourism” operators and “sex traffickers” who bring foreigners into the U.S. and force them into prostitution. That is all well and good, but while legislating and enforcing the laws, it seems Mr. Spitzer forgot that he, himself, was also required to adhere to them.

Gov. Spitzer can now hang out with the likes of Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, and Larry King (not the talk-show host); and not necessarily for the heinousness of the crimes committed, but for their hypocrisy and sheer disrespect for the law. Foley was one of the House of Representatives’ top opponents of child pornography and introduced legislation to change federal sex offender laws. He resigned in 2006 over the now infamous “congressional page sex scandal”, turning out to be quite the offender himself. Larry Craig was an outspoken opponent of same sex marriage, even while lying to Matt Lauer’s face on The Today Show about soliciting gay sex in an airport bathroom. The formerly respected Evangelical pastor, Ted Haggard, preached that ‘God hated fags and their disgusting lifestyle’ (to paraphrase), but was outed purchasing meth from a gay prostitute. Possibly the most gruesome and under-publicized sex scandal in the history of this country, however, belongs to Larry King – an up and coming member of the Republican party and Evangelical Christian church in Nebraska during the 80’s. King was alleged to be involved in a child prostitution ring that extended all the way to the The White House, but was acquitted and instead convicted and imprisoned on charges of cooking-the-books in a credit union criminal case.
(Watch Conspiracy of Silence – a previously un-aired Discovery Channel documentary about Larry King and Republican party VIP involvement in child prostitution.)

Eliot Spitzer joins a long line of dickhead politicians and public figures who have campaigned against the sins of infidelity, prostitution, and homosexuality to ultimately hide their own sweaty guilt. An overly simplified comparison would be the high school jock who called me a “fag” and who I ended up fucking the hell out of senior year.