Sex and all things sexual

Using webcams to spy on other students is, sadly a common enough phenomenon in college. What made this case different was that Tyler Clementi was hooking up with another guy – and by broadcasting the encounter to his classmates, Dharun Ravi was “outing” his roommate to the entire university.

The case was charged as a bias crime – with a possible sentence of 10 years in prison, and deportation for Dharun Ravi, who is an Indian citizen.

This morning, this reporter was at Middlesex County, New Jersey Superior Court, as Judge Glenn Berman read his verdict. He surprised everyone by sentencing Ravi to just 30 days in jail, and three years’ probation. Read about it in the New York Times.

For the prosecution, and for gay rights advocates who’d vilified Ravi as an example of the pandemic bullying of LGBT teenagers, the sentencing seemed inadequate.

“We opposed throwing the book at Dharun Ravi,” said Steven Goldstein, chairman of prominent New Jersey gay rights group Garden State Equality, “but we have similarly rejected the other extreme, that Ravi should have gotten no jail time at all, and today’s sentencing is closer to that extreme than the other. This was not merely a childhood prank gone awry. This was not a crime without bias.”

But others, including many among the Indian-American community, had exactly the opposite reaction.

Dharun Ravi’s lawyer, Steven Altman, warned: “Dharun’s youth and immaturity were unable to provide him with the tools necessary to appreciate the consequences of his actions.” He claimed a prison sentence would ultimately not serve as any more of a deterrent than probation and community service. He clarified that the media attention surrounding Clementi’s suicide meant, “This case is being treated and exists today as if it’s a murder case.”

What do you think? Do you think Dharun’s sentencing was too light?

Or do you think it reflects the argument Ravi’s lawyer is making; that it was just a college prank that had tragically unforeseen, and deadly, consequences?

Let us know in the comments below.

The first was that the patent on landmark HIV/AIDS drug Combivir expired this week. Approved in 1997, it remains one of the most prescribed anti-viral medications for patients with HIV. Now that generic versions can be made, it will become much more cost effective and more widely available than ever before.

One of the benefits of antiviral medication like Combivir is that it reduces the chances of transmitting the HIV virus during sexual activity, potentially helping to reduce or eliminate the spread of the disease.

This is interesting when considered the context of another top news story this week, in which California authorities arrested, charged and jailed a 34-year-old man for refusing to take medication that would prevent his Tuberculosis infection becoming contagious. It is the 32nd time someone in the county has been charged with a criminal offense for refusing to take medication, including one woman who refused to take medication to treat the bacterial disease Syphilis, and slept with multiple partners while infected.

It’s already common in some areas of America to charge people when they sleep with a partner without disclosing their HIV+ status beforehand, but could the combination of easier access to HIV meds and the court case in California take that a step further?

Will HIV+ patients now be opened up to facing criminal prosecution if they refuse to take their antiviral medication? At the heart of the issue is the perception of public safety. The Tuberculosis patient posed a public health risk by refusing his medication. Does that same logic apply to HIV+ patients?

Most would argue no, as unlike Tuberculosis, HIV can only be spread through sexual activity, not coughs, sneezes and other mundane methods. But if an HIV+ patient is sexually active, does that perceived “public health risk” become a valid concern again?

Two years ago, Dr. Brian Williams of the South African Center for Epidemiological Modeling and Analysis outlined a bold plan to eliminate AIDS within 40 years through the use of existing antiviral drugs. It relied upon at-risk patients taking responsibility for having themselves tested every year, and then taking and sticking to a lifetime regimen of antiviral drugs. So far, this plan hasn’t panned out because some HIV+ patients refuse to do either or both, and perpetuate the cycle of infection.

Some argue that laws holding HIV+ patients legally responsible to take their medication could help turn Dr. William’s bold vision into a reality, but how do you feel about that?

Should HIV+ patients be required – at the risk of criminal prosecution – to take their medication? Or is that too much of a violation of their personal freedoms, even in the face of the world’s horrifying AIDS epidemic? Let us know in the comments below.

This morning, supporters of same-sex marriage might have thought they were on the ropes – having just received a punishing one-two legislative punch from North Carolina and Colorado, states which hours earlier had made it that much harder for gays and lesbians to have their commitments legally recognized. But instead, the day looks as if it will finish with marriage equality advocates boasting a powerful new ally – in the form of none other than Barack Obama, President of the United States.

In an interview for ABC, President Obama took a step back from his former position, in which he’d supported same sex civil unions, but not marriage itself, and cited an “evolution” in his thinking about the issue.

He told reporter Robin Roberts: “You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. It wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.”

While the president’s support will undoubtedly have re-energized the campaign for marriage equality, there are some who are quick to point out that Obama’s shift of positioning came conveniently after some of the toughest battles for marriage equality had been fought (and lost). An endorsement of same sex marriage just a day earlier could have seen the legislative battles in North Carolina and Colorado turn out differently – possibly even with victory for same sex marriage advocates.

But similarly, a defeat following his endorsement could have been a big blow to Obama’s November reelection campaign. Cynics suggest this is why he waited.

Nevertheless, it now appears “Barry” has put his mouth where the money is, and even if your response to his announcement was “It’s about fucking time!”, there’s no denying that his support of same sex marriage will set a precedent for many elections to come.

What do you think? Should Obama have stepped up to support same sex marriage earlier? Or do you support his decision to only talk about the issue now?

In London or New York, the Gay Pride March is a momentous event filled with fun and frivolity – all tinged, of course, with some very valid political activism. But this embrace of LGBT equality hasn’t reached all corners of the first world yet – which is why Sunday’s first parade organized by Tokyo Rainbow Pride was attended by a modest, but proud 2,500 participants.

“Japan has yet to have a culture of accepting diversity,” said Tokyo Rainbow Pride’s spokeswoman Sayaka Kato, “Compared with that of New York or London, Japan's awareness of sexual minorities is quite low.” She also added that Tokyo Rainbow Pride hoped to be attracting crowds of 50,000 people – rivaling that of better known pride marches, within five years.

To those of us in America, the march makes an interesting and inspiring contrast to the struggle for LGBT equality on home turf. While the LGBT community is faced with true discrimination across many parts of the country – some worse than others – there has been talk of a kind of “mainstream exhaustion” with the sheer size and spectacle of the annual gay pride marches in various cities.

Some have argued that gay pride marches have become overtly sexualized – featuring graphic displays and costumes that certainly go beyond what’s considered “family friendly.” Even some who support LGBT equality argue that the parades have lost much of their political edge – especially in places like New York and San Francisco, where the goal of legislative equality has pretty much been achieved.

Some argue that if the goal of pride is to make people fully embrace the LGBT community, a march highlighting the community’s difference is counterproductive – or even actively harmful.

What are your thoughts? Are gay pride marches still a valid and important part of LGBT activism? Or as more goals are met, and more of society becomes accepting of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people, is it time to reassess just what message these parades are broadcasting?

On that long-running animated series, the boys wanted Big Gay Al back as their Boy Scout troop leader after he was given the boot for being gay. So, they petitioned the Scouts and got the rules changed to bring Big Gay Al back, only to find that Big Gay Al himself felt the Scouts shouldn’t be forced to change their mind but hopes they will be able to be persuaded to do the right thing.

Real life doesn’t have writers that wrap things up so nicely. In real life, the Boy Scouts have been under fire for their gay exclusion policy for years.

Pink News reports that the latest challenge comes from Ohio mom Jennifer Tyrell, who was told, after a year of voluntary service, she could no longer be a den leader because of her sexual orientation. Jennifer has petitioned the Boy Scouts to have the policy changed. The full petition is online here at Change.org.

In addition to enumerating all the good work her Tiger Cubs did while she was overseeing the group (volunteering at a soup kitchen and a state park conservation project among them), she also says that the revocation of her membership “came shortly after I was elected treasurer of my pack and uncovered some inconsistencies in the pack’s finances.”

“Within a week of reporting these findings to the council,” Jennifer says, “I received notice that my membership had been revoked, based on my sexual orientation, citing that because I’m gay, I did ‘not meet the high standards of membership that the BSA seeks.’”

Natalie Hope McDonald of the Philadelphia Magazine’s G Philly blog reports that a peaceful protest was planned outside Tyrell’s former troup’s BSA headquarters by parents angered by this and similar discriminatory oustings all over the country.

McDonald reports that Philadelphia was the cite of a battle over the BSA’s use of a government building. The city is fighting to have the Scouts leave because they have a discriminatory policy while the city does not. In a civil jury trial, the court has ruled that because the BSA is a private organization, they can discriminate.

“The financial matter is still pending with the city held liable for the Scout’s legal fees,” McDonald writes.

Pink News reports that since 1991 the BSA has had a policy stating that homosexuality “is inconsistent with the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed.”

Here’s the Scout Promisee: “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight,” the Scout Oath “A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent,” and the 12 core values of scouting: citizenship, compassion, cooperation, courage, faith, health and fitness, honesty, perseverance, positive attitude, resourcefulness, respect and responsibility.

How teaching boys to treat gay people as less-than encourages them to be loyal, helpful, kind, compassionate, cooperative or any of those other values … Well, it must be some kind of Magic Eye optical illusion because we can’t see it.

As for bravery, Jennifer Tyrell seems more brave by being an out Scout (or former Scout) than anyone who hides behind tradition to justify bigotry.

“I feel like a debutante,” said Valerie Scott. “I feel like a citizen.”

Scott was a litigant in a landmark Ontario case that has made it legal for prostitutes to work out of brothels and to hire protection.

The Globe and Mail (interesting video on that link, by the way) reported that on Monday a five-person appellate panel in Ontario “said it is senseless to have a law that compels prostitutes to work in dangerous isolation, given that prostitution itself is legal.”

The Ottawa Citizen clarifies that bit for us state-siders by saying “The court’s analysis begins with the fact that Parliament has not chosen to pass any laws making prostitution illegal,” though there have been laws to criminalize certain activities associated with it. Keeping a “bawdy house,” “living on the avails of prostitution” (pimping), and communicating for the purpose of prostitution (soliciting) were three of those criminalizing laws. They were struck down in 2010 by Judge Susan Himel who said such provisions were too broad and that laws meant to protect women and neighborhoods were endangering prostitutes lives, said the Toronto Star at the time of the 2010 ruling.

Scott, along with Amy Lebovitch and Teri-Jean Bedford, a dominatrix, “took on the legal might of the federal and provincial governments, their battle waged on a shoestring legal aid budget and the volunteer services of expert witnesses and lawyers.”

On Monday the court agreed with Himel’s decision on bawdy houses and “living on the avails,” unless the circumstances constituted exploitation – that would be illegal. The only part the court didn’t agree with was that soliciting, which Himel had said limited a street sex worker’s ability to screen a prospective client in a public place, thus putting her in greater danger. Three of the five appellate court judges felt that Himel hadn’t recognized that street prostitution is associated with other problems like drug trafficking and organized crime, The Star reported on Monday. So that remains illegal.

The other two new protections won’t go into effect for 30 days, allowing both sides time to appeal. It also gave the government a year to redraft the legislation and the country will certainly be talking about it, so the dust hasn’t settled just yet.

Not everyone was thrilled about the ruling which another story from The Star says has had a mixed reaction among prostitutes and sex worker advocates. Angel Wolfe, whose mother was murdered by a serial killer of prostitutes, argued that the ruling would make it more difficult for police to get warrants and uncover abuse and child trafficking.

Chanelle Gallant, spokeswoman for Maggie's: Toronto Sex Workers Action Project told The Star that most sex workers – 95 percent - are arrested under the part of the ruling that was struck down (solicitation), leaving the street prostitutes still just as vulnerable.

It’s very much worth mentioning that almost all the Canadian newspaper stories cited above invoke the name Robert Pickton, the serial killer who murdered Angel Wolf’s mother and who is clearly well-known enough in Canada not to require backstory. Macleans magazine provides a detailed chilling account of what made it so easy for Pickton, a pig farmer, to find sex workers on the streets of Vancouver’s crime-ridden Downtown Eastside and engage in “what police now believe to be the largest serial killing spree in Canadian history.” A combination of crime, street violence and an unwillingness of many prostitutes to report victimization to authorities made it “the perfect combination of vulnerabilities for an urban predator.” Authorities suspect Pickton “murdered and butchered” more than 30 women but he was only tried, convicted and jailed for six.

The Pickton nightmare happened in British Colombia, far away from Ontario’s new sex worker laws which are not binding in BC, reports The Province, only in Ontario.

All of it seem to be happening a million miles away from the United States which still seems to be sweating the fact that women have sex – never mind attempting to protect sex workers. A comment on the Overheard on CNN blog on the bawdy house subject noted “Ontario legalizes brothers. The U.S. wants to regulate contraception…Which country was founded on freedom again?”

So says Bernadette Lambert, the attorney for the two gay men who were arrested on Wednesday for having sex in full view of people on land in Dominca - a country with a law prohibiting sex between two men, according to the AP.

Booze and beauty (booty?) – whatcha gonna do?

Instinct Magazine posted a statement released by Rich Campbell, the president of Atlantis Events, the gay travel company whose ship was the scene of the alleged jolly rogering, saying that John Robert Hart, 41 and Dennis Jay Mayer, 43 of Palm Springs were “engaged in a sexual act,” though the Dominica News Online quotes Hart as saying “We were naked on the balcony but we were not having sex.”

The two men were initially arrested for “buggery” says the International Business Times but ultimately plead guilty to indecent exposure, apologized “humbly to the people of Dominica,” and were fined nearly $900 by Chief Magistrate Evaline Baptiste who called them “rouges and vagabonds,” a phrase sure to get them teased by their circle of friends. IBT says that the buggery charges were dropped because they would have taken “too long to expedite.” The pair were released on Thursday.

So all’s well that ends with everyone going home safe and happy, if $900 down, but initial reports of the incident sparked alarm and outrage. Campbell said in another AP report that it was not the couple’s sexual orientation but their public sexual activity that was the problem.

Maybe, but the question remains: why would a gay cruise line travel to countries where sex between two men is illegal? “Gay Caribbean cruises have been popular for several years despite hostility to homosexuality on certain islands, especially in Jamaica, Barbados and the Cayman Islands,” says the AP.

The IBT also reports “Gay cruises have had trouble in several Caribbean destinations including Jamaica and Grenada where anti-sodomy laws are strictly enforced and have strong backing from religious groups. In 2010, the Cayman Islands made headlines when it rejected the arrival of an Atlantis gay cruise after protests from local religious groups despite the fact that homosexuality is legal on the archipelago.”

If you’re traveling and want the skinny on the attitude of your foreign location GaysOnTour.com provides a color-coded list of countries according to gay friendliness, with green being the most friendly and red the least. It’s not quite comprehensive – Dominica isn’t listed – but you can ask your travel agent, or research a specific country online if you have concerns and you’re traveling internationally. It never hurts to go online and do a little research before you book. You can see more of the world and do it safely and happily.

Just don’t let the world see too much of you, no matter how inspired you are by the mountains and margaritas. $900 is one helluva caution-to-the-wind fee.

It just goes to show those who want to put things in women’s vaginas against their will: women will fight back.

Virginia lawmakers once again put off voting on a highly controversial bill mandating that women seeking abortions be required to get a trans-vaginal ultrasound, “a procedure in which a foot-long probe is inserted into the womb” which many are calling “state-sanctioned rape,” according to the AFP. Neither women, nor their doctors would be able to opt out of the procedure (which is medically unnecessary, meaning the women would have to pay out of pocket) and the image would be kept on file for seven years.

Monday – Presidents’ Day – saw a massive protest outside the state’s capitol in which up to 1500 women stood silently, locked arm-in-arm against such extremist legislation, reports the AP. Other legislation being considered would cut state aid to poor women who are seeking abortions, and would define embryos as human and “criminalize their destruction.”

The Washington Examiner says that most Virginians – 58 percent – oppose the ultrasound bill, and that while Republicans have avoided Democratic efforts to scrap it completely, “women’s rights groups are optimistic it’s enough to force a significant overhaul of legislation before it's sent to Gov. Bob McDonnell.”

Both Virginia’s House and Senate have already passed the bill, but AP said on Monday that the bill was awaiting passage by the Senate Education and Health Committee.

According to The Guardian in an extensive story on the Virginia legislation, the forced ultrasound bill could actually constitute a sex crime. Democrats are hoping to show Republicans that the ultrasounds will “criminalise doctors under a local statute known as object sexual penetration (OSP), which carries a five-year jail sentence.”

“It is very difficult to look at the bill and look at the OSP statute together and think that you are not asking doctors to commit a sex crime," Democratic delegate David Englin said.

Charniele Herring, another Democratic delegate, is also concerned about according the fetus personhood status, saying it would criminalize the use of FDA-approved contraception in the state.

Dr. Jen Gunter, whose blog post on pre-abortion ultrasounds is cited by The Guardian, notes a 2009 study in which 73 percent of women who had pre-abortion ultrasounds opted to see the image, and not one of them changed their mind. They all went through with the abortion.

“Opted” seems to be a key word here. The Examiner reports that Charniele Herring may present an amendment making the ultrasound procedure optional.

Options? For American women? What is this, the 21st century?

Yesterday evening brought news of a potential change of heart among Virginia lawmakers. They’re once again reviewing the law, and say they were unaware of how invasive the procedure was before recommending it. So, that’s awesome. We love it when people make important decisions for us without first researching the subject. Maybe we should just do away with the approval process for medical procedures altogether, and let these guys police the hospitals and clinics.

Gov. McDonnell’s office reports that the governor is taking another look at this bill, as well. According to a spokesperson for the governor, McDonnell’s not so keen on signing the bill in its current state, and was scheduled to meet with delegates to discuss a compromise last night. What sort of compromise is unclear.

“Our position is: If the General Assembly passes this bill the governor will review it, in its final form, at that time,” McDonnell spokesman Tucker Martin said in a statement.

“Something is happening,’’ Jessica Honke, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia, said hopefully. “It’s important for [the governor] to take a long, hard look before he actually does this.”

Let’s hope she’s right.