Sunday, January 20, 2008, 10:33 AM
January 4 was a quiet Friday evening in Lima, Ohio for Tarika Wilson. Only 26 years of age and already the mother of several young children, she was upstairs helping them clean their bedrooms when suddenly the front door to her modest home was violently pushed in. What happened in the next couple of seconds is still under investigation but only minutes after SWAT officers had entered her home, Tarika Wilson lay dead – her lifeless body slumped over her 1-year-old son.
Yes, this was a drug raid. And yes, the officers had a warrant. And yes, Tarika’s 31-year-old boyfriend, Anthony Terry, did in fact live with her at that address and was no doubt dealing crack cocaine.
But the officers themselves admitted they knew there might be young children inside the house when they saw the children’s toys in the yard. There were six children in that home. And while living in a home where crack cocaine is begin dealt is not a good environment for children, is life better for these children now that their mother is dead?
The baby in Tarika’s arms when she was shot dead by police, Sincere Wilson, was shot in the shoulder and hand, with a bullet blowing off a finger. One can only imagine the nightmares and rage which will plague this little boy as he grows into a man.
Some people have dared to ask why the police didn’t wait for the suspect to come out of the house, before opening fire. Most of us like to think that once we lock the door to our homes, we are safe. We would like to think anyone trying to get us to open our front door might knock first – maybe even tell us who they are? But it is a routine practice in these drug raids to circumvent any and all claims to civil rights and simply bust the door down with guns drawn. Given the agitated emotional state of the officers, there is no wonder that so many innocent and not-so-innocent citizens have been gunned down before they ever got a chance to surrender.
We have been led to believe that the War on Drugs is so important; we should be willing to surrender our civil rights. But is it? Do drug addicts belong in prison? Or might society and the individual be better served if drug addicts got treatment for their addictions?
Some, not many, but some drug dealers aren’t even addicts. In their case, they don’t need treatment for addiction – they need an income. I am so tired of the implication that impoverished people lack character when their desperation drives them to break the law in an effort to support themselves and their children. Survival is a natural instinct.
Wealthy people are praised for their ambition even when the products and services they profit from create pollution and death. You don’t think so? What about factory farming, prescription pills, alcohol, the oil industry, coal mining and war? When wealthy people break laws, even kill their customers, our government doesn’t push in their front doors and enter their homes shooting. Our government files injunctions and takes them to court.
Let's get real here. If this had happened to a white upper class family, it would be all over the national news and people would be enraged. But because this happens almost routinely in poor black communities, people just shrug and say "that's what you get for breaking the law." Well, it's hypocritical at a minimum. The fact is that alcohol is a drug too and it kills more people in drunk driving accidents than crack has ever killed. I have been clean and sober for over two decades so this is not about my right to do drugs - legal or otherwise. I have no use for alcohol or drugs. I don't even take aspirin.
But while Pfizer pumps out hundreds of ads coaxing America into mainstreamed drug dependence - all with the government's stamp of approval - the drugs of choice for poor people are demonized. The War on Drugs is a lie. It isn't about getting Americans off of drugs. The War on Drugs is a racist and classist one which punishes poor people and people of color while protecting the interests of some of the largest and most sinister drug dealers in existence: pharmaceutical companies.
[ 1 comment ] ( 2 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink |
( 3 / 580 )Monday, January 7, 2008, 11:15 PM
This week, Dr. Michael Gumert, a primatologist at the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore told the world that male macaque monkeys pay for sex by grooming females. As a former sex worker, I have nothing against mixing business and pleasure. And as a sex educator, I am aware of more than a few animals who engage in the "world's oldest profession." In fact, I often enjoy pointing out that prostitution predates humans.
Penguins do it. Our closest living relatives, the Bonobos, do it. But let's get something straight here; prostitution is defined as an exchange of money and or goods for sex. The Bonobos trade food for sex. Penguins charge for sex by requiring stones for their nests. But since when did foreplay constitute commerce?
Oh yeah, since scientists refuse to acknowledge that animals other than humans are anything but soul-less machines intent upon recruiting resources and spreading DNA.
Well, science ceases to be science when it becomes so enamored with its own dogma that it can no longer observe the facts.
Monkeys touching each other before copulating? Sounds to me like the male monkeys must be a little savvier about female sexual response than the scientists who are studying them. It’s called foreplay guys.
[ add comment ] | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink |
( 3 / 565 )Saturday, September 1, 2007, 11:14 AM
The more deeply I explore sexual activity, sexual energy and sexual reality; the more I am left with the knowledge that everything we have been told about sex is a lie.
It is as if someone decided a long time ago that the truth was just too overwhelming for us. Maybe this great obliteration of the essential nature of life was motivated by fear; but I am much more inclined to believe the true objective was power.
Sex is powerful. We all know this. Yet we are encouraged to think of sex as a particular set of behaviors; we tend to think of sex as something separate from the rest of our lives.
But what is sex? As a sex educator, I know that even the long list of behaviors which qualify as sex, creates controversy since some of those behaviors may not seem "sexy" to some people. I find some sex to be down right repulsive. But just because I am not aroused by a particular sexual act, does not change the fact that it is sex for others.
The list of things which arouse and titillate is endless and includes everything from so-called "vanilla" sex like the "missionary" position to extreme forms of BDSM play such as "bloodsports."
Some sexual practices such as Tantra, are known for exceeding the bounds of technique and delving into the inner landscape of mind and spirit. However, any sexual activity can lead to a spiritual experience. In fact, sex itself would seem to be inherently spiritual.
This may be an obvious truism for those who are actively engaged in a particular sacred or spiritual sexual path. But for the vast majority of the people on this planet, sex is the opposite of spirit. Sex is seen as an "animalistic" drive keeping us tied to the physical plane and risking our immortal souls. At best, sex is envisioned as the bonding element in a romantic relationship and the rather embarrassing manner in which the next generation is birthed.
Part of the problem with this outlook on sex is that it is at its core, adversarial. We are called upon to "control" our sexual desires and refrain from "acting like animals." Sex is suspect. Sex represents the downfall of mankind. Being sexual is in fact something we share with other life forms and as such represents our limitations as flesh and blood.
Our entire culture is predicated upon the premise of transcending the limitations of the body. We want a pill for everything. A pill to make us fertile. A pill to make us infertile. A pill to make our penis bigger and harder. A pill to make us less anxious. A pill to cure anything and everything which threatens to remind us that we are in fact not machines but flesh and blood.
Humans are terrified that they are in fact animals and not gods after all. Perhaps if we learn to love and respect our fellow travelers on this revolving orb, we won't need to imagine ourselves as something other than what we are. "Animal" is not a dirty word. In fact, there is a great deal of beauty we can learn from other animals.
At the very heart of patriarchal paradigm lives the belief that things of the flesh are inferior and separate from things of the heart and spirit. This indicts animals, women and sex as being inferior to human males. How? Simple. Animals have sex openly and unashamedly. Women have menstrual cycles and bleed and give birth and breastfeed their offspring. Sex can involve our genitals and usually involves some sort of stimulation of the senses which takes us out of our logical selves. Animals, women and sex are seen as contradictory to "culture" and "civilization."
Of course, patriarchal paradigm can easily morph into an indictment of the human male too. Men are often referred to as "animals" who crave sex with "anything which will stand still long enough." Our tug of war between "woman as the keeper of hearth and home" and "man as the moral compass of his community" does not require a basis in logic. It need not make sense but only produce the desired result: sexual shame for everyone.
I have spent a great deal of time pondering why sexual shame and sexual taboo constitute an almost universal aspect to human culture. Since I don't think humans can be trusted to explain themselves, I prefer to study the behavior of the other inhabitants of this planet for clues.
For instance, chimpanzees accomplish sexual shame. Only the male in leadership role has the right to have sex. He may choose to allow a couple of his male supporters sexual access to the females he controls. Here we find the roots of political payoff, sexual coersion and rape.
Wolves don't necessarily evoke sexual shame but they do structure the pack so that only the alpha male and female are allowed to procreate. Most of this appears to be accomplished hormonally as the testosterone levels fall in those members who lose bids for dominance. Still, the control and limitation of sexual behavior is unmistakable.
So it would seem that even the supposedly "moral" aspects of human culture are not unique as we share a common objective of controlling sexual behavior with other animals. In fact, our rather pedestrian approach toward sexual shame and repression relegates us to the ranks of other less evolved cultures such as that of the lion who kills the cubs of competitors and forces the motherless females into sexual subjugation. And maybe that is why we celebrate the lion in books and movies. Perhaps we identify with infanticide, rape and harems more than we would like to admit. Books such as the Bible certainly chronicle if not celebrate these less than attractive historical artifacts.
By definition, patriarchy demands sexual shame because it is the only effective way to limit sexual access and ensure that fathers know who their offspring is. Of course it isn't foolproof but it has afforded fairly reliable results over the centuries.
However, patriarchy is not the only game in town. It has dominated the cultural landscape for many thousands of years and for many different earth-bound species. But I suspect patriarchy has dominated precisely because it is a dominant structure. There exist more life affirming and peaceful approaches to life. And it should come as no surprise that life affirming and peaceful paradigms always incorporate two elements which are missing from patriarchy: 1.) respect for the female and 2.) a celebration of sex.
In fact, our closest living relative, the bonobo, offers an example of peaceful, female centric and sexually celebratory community. After acquainting myself with bonobo culture and ancient goddess cultures, I have come to believe you can't have peace without embracing sex. Wouldn't that be a kick in the head for all those sexually repressed sorts who love to "talk" about peace but don't know the first thing about living peacefully?
In recent months, I have found myself moving into a realm which formerly frightened me: tantric and sacred sex. I had my first firebreath orgasm over 15 years ago. And it was my last one too. The expansive and deeply intense experience of merging with the universe and touching the face of god or goddess was just too wonderful and too real. I preferred my rape fantasies and hurried sexual intercourse with my husband. Sex for orgasm and sex for love I could handle. But sex for spiritual enlightenment? No thanks.
And yet like a moth to the flame I find myself moving further and further into the realms of sacred sexual transcendence. My definition of sex is enlarging to encompass the very spark of life and all energy which drives the universe. The explicit sexual images which used to populate my sexual fantasies have been replaced with expansive imagery such as the sensuous flight of a favorite bird and the fiery path of a huge shooting star.
As someone who has a very accepting attitude toward all consensual adult sex, I find it a little surprising that my sex is becoming more and more intimate and transformative. I don't even comprehend all the sentiments I have begun to experience and express. For instance, I have become fond of saying "in Tantra, everything is sex and nothing is sex." Really? Just what do I mean by that? I kind of get it. And yet, I know I am playing with a brand new concept which seems to have sprung from my masturbation ritual.
I use to look at porn and imagine a "hot" scenario when I masturbated. I liked to think about being coersed into a public sex act. I loved the rush of hot blood to every part of my body as I fantasized about submitting to someone else's sexual power. I still think those scenarios are hot!
And yet, it just isn't what I fantasize about today. Maybe I will pick up those old fantasies at a later date. But right now, my soul is delving into an entirely different direction.
I am exploring the uplifting and inspiring aspects of orgasm in masturbation ritual. I meditate and use conscious breathing techniques before I masturbate. This helps to raise my kundalini energy and open my chakras. During masturbation, my fantasies are about nature and creativity and connection to all life. At the moment of orgasm I am likely to say "Oh God" just like the popular cliché. But the difference is that it is not just words to me, but an actual prayer. Afterwards, I feel invigorated and inspired like I could do and be anything I want.
Masturbation has become a spiritual act for me - something which creates peace of mind, healing and connection. I even believe that masturbation has the power to unleash my creative powers and catapult my life into ever more expansive realms. Affirming the things you want in life at the very moment of orgasm just might provide the magical spark needed for transformation as well as transcendence. It certainly doesn't contribute to anything negative and it might even go a long way toward creating world peace.
[ 3 comments ] ( 23 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink |
( 3 / 598 )Wednesday, April 18, 2007, 01:48 PM - 'Stuff I Need to Say
It has been only two days since the Virginia Tech massacre which sadly qualifies as the deadliest single-perpetrator civilian shooting in U.S. history. Of course amid the grieving and the condolences, proponents of gun control have already begun crying for more laws and restrictions. That seems to be a fairly universal response to any tragedy. We humans want to know whose fault it is and how we can control it in the future.
It's a reasonable request and yet wholly founded in a lack of logic or science. The fact is that the facts are usually ignored in preference for a lot of hysterics and back-slapping. Politicians rush to pass measures and laws which will garner a higher approval rating from their constiuency. Voters remain uninformed and disempowered. The status quo is preserved.
As a gun owner, I risk my otherwise solid credentials as a liberal. But a gun owner I am - a pro-choice, feminist, sex worker rights activist and former whore who totes a gun on my walks in the woods. It seems like a prudent choice given the close encounters I have had with cougars and bears. I also derive some comfort knowing I might stand a fighting chance if I run into one of the local crystal meth dealers or the Mexican mafia who grow pot in this forest.
The truth is that a cougar intent upon eating me would probably just creep up silently from behind and snap my neck before I knew what hit me - leaving my 9mm holstered to my half-eaten corpse. And as for the crystal-meth dealers, most of them are families who don't want to bother me any more than I want to bother them. The Mexican pot growers carry AK47's which trumps my little handgun. But no matter how small the risk that I might be called upon to defend myself and no matter how impaired my ablity to defend myself might be, I sure don't want to lose my right to contribute to my own survival.
So despite my distaste for sport hunting and my less than tolerant view of hunters in general, I just joined the NRA. I don't embrace all of their politics and I don't enjoy counting myself among their members. But our society is experiencing an infrigement of our civil liberties that I find alarming and the NRA poses one of the few successful lobbies against the annilation of our right to bear arms.
I believe I have the right to defend myself and I wonder when that became such a controversial concept. I was intrigued to discover that two other rather recent attempts to perpetrate massacres (January 9, 2002, Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va. and October 1, 1997, Pearl High School, Pearl, Ms.) were prevented by legally armed citizens. Rather than watch 32 people drop dead, citizens with the right to carry firearms were able to hold the murderers at bay until the police arrived. This certainly seems like a very positive use of guns. Somehow, this didn't make a lot of noise on the news. It isn't popular to point out the advantages of possessing firearms.
[ 1 comment ] ( 10 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink |
( 3 / 636 )Monday, January 22, 2007, 03:52 PM
I can't decide. This is like a liberal's wet dream and yet I am torn between my choices. I will be 47 this year and I have waited most of my life for the opportunity to vote for a presidential candidate who isn't just one of several white males. I am ecstatic! And I am confused.
The advancement of an entire race and an entire gender hang in the balance. Even if neither Obama nor Clinton win - giving voters the chance to vote for a black man or a white woman will change history forever. The mere fact that individuals of a race and a gender which have never before in the entire history of our country been granted a major bid for USA presidency are now being seriously contemplated for the most powerful position in the world - is huge!
What hurts about this year's Democratic nominations, is that no matter how we cast our votes, an important demographic loses. If Obama wins, women will not experience the same surge forward for equal rights. And if the nomination goes to Hillary Clinton, the same is true for civil rights. Although I am sure both candidates will do their best to embrace rights for all races and genders, the power of what they symbolize accrues only to the race or gender that they represent.
Of course, if Condoleezza were to run for president, we could vote for a candidate who is both African American and female! But after 8 years of Condoleeza I doubt most of us will be in a hurry to sign up for more in 2008. Although I recognize the importance of advancing equal rights for women and blacks, I know I have to temper that with at least some attention to the individual candidate's ideologies and political platforms. I have to admit though, that as long as U.S. politics occur within the current poltical structure (i.e., unprecendented campaign spending and bowing to special interest lobbies) my optimism for any given candidate is limited.
But that won't dampen my enthusiasm for the impending presidential election. I know that because of the 2008 election, an entire generation of female and black youth will grow up thinking it might be possible for them to achieve the highest position of power in the land. And that is amazing considering that when I was growing up, we will still debating whether women could handle a part-time job.
[ 1 comment ] ( 10 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink |
( 3 / 645 )Next
