In my last post, I talked about some of the concerns I had with the overall way CrossFit works, particularly the question of who is able to access and/or use the services it provides. Today, I want to talk about something that is much more personally troubling to me: the sexism that seems to be an undercurrent to much of the main CrossFit media. My letter is addressed to Greg Glassman, one of the founders, but I invite anyone who is a part of the CrossFit community and who comes across this post to consider whether they are contributing to the issues I raise. For those who aren’t part of that community, I invite you to read along and come to your own decision about what is going on here.

Dear Coach,

I’ve been a CrossFitter for a little over a month now, following a very scaled WOD as faithfully as I can given the equipment available to me. I’m grateful to you for the free service you provide with your website, especially all of the videos. The are so information-packed that just by watching them I began to develop an awareness of how my body works, which even yoga and dance classes had never previously made clear to me. If that had been all I gained from CrossFit, I would happily share the news with those around me. And to be certain, I’ve already gained far more than that.

But in these videos, I’ve also begun to see a disturbing trend, one that makes me reluctant to set foot in a CrossFit facility despite the fact that I know a visit to an affiliate would be hugely helpful for me. The trend I refer to is one that equates masculinity with strength and femininity with weakness. Surely I don’t need to explain to you why this is a problem, when you have worked closely with so many strong and amazing women while developing CrossFit. Yet this trend persists in many places.

I have yet to come across any direct references to women as weak in CrossFit videos, for which I am grateful. Too many women, I think, have avoided fitness endeavors in the past because they fear being mocked for taking on weightlifting, etc at scalings appropriate for their fitness levels. The only direct reference to women that slightly troubles me is the way men’s and women’s records are sometimes tracked separately. Perhaps I just don’t understand the rationale behind this. Is it because of differences in body weight? The CrossFit Total rankings don’t seem to indicate this – equal body weights have different standards. Perhaps because of the way muscles develop in men and women? Or perhaps just different expectations? I would love to see some explanation of this somewhere, but that’s somewhat beside the point.

What’s much more troubling to me is when male CrossFitters are “motivated” by framing them as feminine if they fail to perform. This ranges from the very subtle to the blatant. On one end of the spectrum is putting a man who is new to CrossFit against Nicole or one of the other iconic CrossFit women in an overhead squat competition to convince them CrossFit is more effective than their current program. (I am unfortunately unable to find the video in which a man commented about this afterwards.) Why not find a man of similar age and/or body weight, if you were following the division seen in other rankings like the CFT? It seems to me that the implicit reason is that being beaten by a woman will be a bigger hit to a man’s ego. This may in fact be true, but it depends on the reinforcement of the sexist idea that a “real” man should be stronger than a woman. CrossFit can do better than this.

Closer to the other end of the spectrum are things like this affiliate video, which contains 4 different references to “defending masculinity” (plus several more about defending “reputation” or “name”, which without any other context amount to the same thing) in the space of less than 6 minutes. Meanwhile, the woman who breaks the female gym record twice and, I would guess, could have done it again if necessary, seems to fade in importance behind the implied humiliation of her competitors. I felt embarrassed for her – she was doing her best in the front squat, not trying to bring down a family’s masculinity. Surely men and women can compete in CrossFit without this sort of baggage.

The most disturbing example of this for me, however, was the one that came from your own mouth in this video (wmv,mov). Really, is “pussy” the best word you can come up with for that situation? How about wimp, weakling, loser… you get the idea. There are many insults that can have motivating power without equating a woman’s sexuality with weakness.

And speaking of a woman’s sexuality, if you haven’t seen it already, I would like to recommend you read my post here in which I commented on my dismay with the objectification of CrossFit women on the blog. I would also like to echo some of the other posters in asking why that particular photo was chosen, if the form in the photo is sub-par. Surely there are other pictures of powerful women with good form. If the reason this one was chosen was because of the prominence of her breasts, shame on you. As I said there, this tacit acceptance of those sorts of comments can seem like approval. When it is combined with the use of femininity as an insult, I begin to wonder if CrossFit is a safe place for me to pursue my goal of improved performance. I believe CrossFit can do better.

3-2-1-GO!

P.S. If your first response to this was something to the effect of “But it wasn’t intended that way!”, I highly encourage you to read Melissa’s post here, which talks about how sexism is an objective reality, not a question of intent.

________

ETA: I tried to add another comment to the post I mentioned above, and was informed that my comment had been held for approval by the blog administrator. Given that that was more than 24 hours ago, it’s possible that the comment won’t ever show up. So for those coming from the CrossFit site, I’m reproducing it here.

“I’m not naive enough to think that anyone here would listen to me if I simply told them to “just shut up about the boobs already”. That’s why my point has always been that the accumulation of comments contributes to an overall hostile environment. I would however invite anyone who made those sorts of comments to consider how they would feel if strangers made those sorts of comments about their mother, wife, or daughter – not to mention how their mother, wife, or daughter would feel. Then I would remind you that the woman in this picture is someone’s daughter, and possibly someone’s wife and mother too.

I cannot stop anyone from making comments, though I can ask them to reconsider their motivations for doing so. As I said before, I am not speaking for CrossFit as a whole any more than anyone else has.

My point has always been aimed at those who care about the public image of CrossFit. If you truly don’t care, that’s your issue. But keep in mind that every time you work out with a CrossFit shirt on, or tell someone about CrossFit, you are representing CrossFit for the people you interact with. When you post here, you are contributing to the overall impression of CrossFitters as a group that a visitor to the site can see. If a person comes here and sees that a fair number of CrossFitters think that “yay boobies” is an important part of CrossFit, they may decide to go elsewhere. And if you care about CrossFit as a whole, that should matter to you – even if it’s to recognize that “we just don’t want those people here”.

The only response I want from CrossFit HQ is better choice of pictures in the future. I of course recognize that they are free to make their own choices on the matter. But the choice on their part to post pictures like this concerns me, because there doesn’t seem to be a good explanation for choosing this particular picture out of all the ones in the video. If the goal was to show the strength of CrossFit women, dozens of others would have served that purpose. If it was to show “the sexy side of CrossFit”, why not put up the picture of the woman in fishnets – a picture that is obviously taken and submitted with that goal in mind? As others have commented, this picture does not seem to show off good form – and if the goal is to show exertion, not form, other pictures would have done so just as well.

The message that this picture (with the man in the background who at least appears to be staring at the woman), and the accompanying comments which could easily have been anticipated given past experience, send is this: If you come to CrossFit, and the sexual parts of your body happen to catch someone’s eye while you are working out, people will evaluate them in public spaces and their behavior will not be discouraged by CrossFit. I find that to be a very troublesome message.”

Edit, part 2: My comment appears to be up now.

About a month ago, Weetabix over at Elastic Waist posted about Crossfit, a fitness program based around the completion of daily workouts designed with the explicit goal of wiping out elite athletes. I went to the site, checked it out a bit, watched a whole bunch of videos, and decided to give it a shot. I’ve been doing a very, very scaled down version, mind you, but still following the general concept of constantly varied functional movements. It’s been a lot of fun so far, and I’m feeling good, although I wouldn’t say I’m 100% convinced yet.

I was a bit skeptical of the concept at first – especially before I found the scaled down versions! It didn’t help that almost all of the people in the videos looked a bit like (sweaty, exhausted) magazine covers. There were lots of shirtless men with bulging muscles and women with small hips and breasts, and both sexes had washboard abs. I don’t mean to say that I mind watching videos of people that look that way, but it was and to some degree still is somewhat intimidating. In fact, it took until this video (wmv,mov), which was posted a few days ago, to see a Crossfitter who looks like me (she comes up about 15 seconds after the audio of “3-2-1-GO!”, running, in a black v-neck sleeveless shirt). “Where are all the fatties?” I wondered. And I still do wonder, but now that I’ve seen that the program can be scaled to fit pretty much any level of fitness, I’m willing to let that go.

What made me willing to give the program a shot was watching videos of the founder, Greg Glassman. I firmly believe that any topic can be fascinating, given the right teacher, and Glassman (or “Coach”, as he’s more generally called on the Crossfit page) is a great teacher. Like any good teacher, he loves nothing more than to share his knowledge. And like any good teacher, he knows what he’s talking about! Or at least, he’s convincing enough to make you think he does. I don’t know enough about the topic to verify what he says, except through my own experiences so far.

And so far, they’ve been really positive. I’ve always been the type who can do something forever without really getting it, but if it’s explained to me in a more theoretical way, it will almost always click immediately. So when I watched lectures about how it’s the muscles in the back of your body, not your arms, that do most of lifting, or about how running is really controlled falling, movements that I’d been doing all my life suddenly became a totally different experience. My posture is improving, just from the realization that I wasn’t using my spine to support myself. My biking endurance doubled from thinking about the motion of pedaling differently. It’s those sorts of things that are really Crossfit’s big draw for me – because I get the sense that Coach sees the human body like I do, as an incredibly complex organism that we are constantly learning new things about, and that that knowledge can be used to improve our experience of this life. The first video I linked above really captures that spirit, as does an anecdote related by marc on this page:

Got a lot of strange looks when I carried my homemade wall-ball into the local city gym. One of the Personal Trainers asked me what I was training for, I said “fatherhood.”

The main concern I had as I began the program, and one that still is troubling for me, is the question of equipment and facilities. Crossfit talks about how its equipment needs are minimal – a place to do pullups and an Olympic weight set are the only crucial elements. Which is fine, unless like me you have neither. I’ve been able to come up with some substitutions that work for me, especially given my current fitness level. I can use doorways or playground equipment for pull-ups, and I don’t need a weight set until I’ve got the form for many of the movements down well enough to avoid injuring myself. But at some point, my progress will depend on being able to come up with the cash to get access to heavy objects to lift, whether by buying them or purchasing a gym membership. As I’m currently unemployed, I’m not sure how that will work.

This latter concern ties into the other fact that struck me in all of the videos I’ve seen so far: the people represented are overwhelmingly white. In fact, with the exception of a few of the female trainers who are in many videos, I could count on one hand the number of people of color I remember seeing in the videos. That concerns me, and I think it should concern the founders of Crossfit too, because it speaks volumes about the accessibility of the program to people who live on a limited income or work jobs that do not give them leisure time for extra physical activity. This is a problem inherent to all recreational fitness, and I don’t mean to imply that it isn’t. But I’m concerned by it. How does Crossfit answer those who don’t have a spare dollar to allow them access to weights? Who don’t have safe streets to run on? Who don’t have a playground nearby or a place to put a pullup bar in their apartments?

Crossfit bills itself as “Forging elite fitness”. And I’m inclined to agree that it is successful at its goal. But is this a goal that can only be pursued by those who have money and time to spare? Is elite fitness only for the elite in society?

Claude is the Streetwise vendor who is often found outside of J’s workplace. He is one of the most compassionate, heartfelt men I have ever met. Every time I see him, it brings a smile to my face, because he has a beautiful sort of faith I’ve found in few other people. He knows what’s going on in J’s life and mine, and he prays for us in our struggles. How many other complete strangers have you met who will do that for you?

Claude is not, by anyone’s definition, a physically handsome man. His clothes are ragged, his teeth are crooked and stained from smoking. I don’t know how old he is, but he is not young. Despite his outward appearance, he has a radiant spirit that shines through and transforms his face into a beautiful sight.

Claude is not homeless. He has an apartment somewhere, though I’m not sure where. He lives off what he makes from selling Streetwise, the occasional odd job, and the generosity of those who pass by. When he lost his gloves this last winter, a friend gave him a new set. Another friend bought him a pay-as-you-go cell phone, so that he would have a way to get help if he was hurt; he has epilepsy, and can’t always be sure someone will be able to help him if he has a seizure. Many people bring him food or drinks from the bakery where J works. If he has extra, he takes it and shares it with the people in his apartment building who are struggling to get by.

Claude is not a beggar. I have never seen him ask anyone for money – he is simply selling a product, and many who don’t want the product but want to help him get by give him cash without taking a paper. J and I buy the papers whenever he has a new one, because they are interesting, though we rarely get around to reading them.

Claude has told us that he used to be quite wealthy – but he has told us at the same time that he did some pretty terrible things to get there. I think he’s happier now, though I can’t be sure. He once had a daughter, but she was killed when she was still a child.

This January, when the winter here was at its coldest, Claude disappeared for a while. Neither J nor I had seen him, and we started to worry about whether he was doing okay. It turned out that he had been doing some work for his uncle while it was cold. But as we asked around, trying to find out what had happened to him, we discovered the sheer ugliness of heart that many people have towards street people. J told me how he asked a friend about Claude, and the response was “Oh, that crackhead who always is in front of [J's work]? Haven’t seen him.”

Claude is not, to the best of my knowledge, an addict of any sort. Even if he was, that wouldn’t make me love him any less. I’ve known several active and recovering addicts, and while their disease can lead them to act in terrible ways and do things they’ll regret, they are all wonderful people when not in the grips of that disease. I have never seen Claude be anything but loving and kind towards everyone he meets, and the assumptions that people make about him because they have never stopped to talk to him break my heart.

It was equally heartbreaking (and unfortunately unsurprising) to come across two news stories in the past few weeks that show just how much fear and hatred there is of street people in our society. The first talks about a church in Madison, WI that has lost its access to a parking ramp owned by another business because it serves as an overflow shelter for about 20 men in the winter.

Fred Mohs, the ramp owner, thinks efforts to help the homeless are destroying Madison’s vitality.

“The fundamental problem is the homeless are bad neighbors as a group,” Mohs told WISC-TV.

Mohs told church members they can no longer have free parking for their Sunday services unless they stop catering to the homeless.

“It’s my way of making a point,” Mohs said.

That point, presumably, is “Christians should not shelter the homeless”. Lest you think I’m overstating the point, here’s the last bit of that article:

Mohs said he would restore free parking as long as the church took a single step: “Close the shelter.”

I don’t have any way to justify this assumption, but my guess would be that Mohs thinks of himself as a Christian, or at least would claim he was one if asked. If that’s the case, I think he needs to take another look at his Bible. But what really gets to me is the statement about how “the homeless are bad neighbors as a group”. Replace “the homeless” with “black people” and it becomes obvious just how hateful this is. And I have to wonder whether Mohs truly believed nobody would notice – because aside from being disgusting, that statement is business suicide, especially when other businesses can step in and fill the need. I know that I would not want a single penny of mine to go to support this man. I’d give the money to the church, instead.

And yet the second article manages to be even more astonishing. Esther Viti, the woman mentioned in the article, is so upset by homeless people having the audacity to sit on public benches that she is asking for volunteers to sit on the benches so that homeless people can’t use them. It’s the ultimate in fake social service – volunteer to quite literally sit on your ass.

Since the homeless sleeping on the benches has become an issue, her [Deborah Marengo, president of Promote La Jolla] group has purchased benches with dividers to prevent people from lying on them. However, that hasn’t solved the problem because the homeless have “perfected sleeping sitting upright,” Marengo said.

Again, how dare they sleep sitting upright when they’ve got nowhere else to go! At least Marengo later acknowledges that the problem is not going to be solved by people sitting on their asses for three hours at a time. Maybe if the call had been for people to spend three hours at a time volunteering in shelters, or advocating for homeless rights, it would have gotten some actual volunteers.

Both of these stories show a fundamental and crucial lack of understanding about homelessness. The prevailing mindset seems to be “If we just get rid of all of the things that could possibly support a homeless person, they’ll go away.” Which to some extent may be true – they’ll find their way to a neighboring city, or get so desperate they commit a crime and end up in jail, or just die of hunger, overexposure, and the like. And if “I wish they’d just go away” is your mindset towards the homeless, let me remind you of something: 23% of homeless people (mostly men) are veterans. If you can’t overcome your contempt for those struggling with mental illness, addiction, and/or the aftereffects of the housing crisis, maybe you can muster up some respect for those who risked their lives to protect the privileges you enjoy.

The solutions to homelessness, such as they are, will never be completely effective – but they can sure do better than they are now. Shelters are a crucial part of the puzzle (along with affordable access to treatment for mental illness and addiction), because without a place to sleep, shower, store their belongings, and care for their physical appearance, a homeless person will have a very difficult time finding a job, a more permanent place to live, or a way out the trap our society’s hatred of street people puts them in.

I’ve never been particularly involved in politics. Really, the most involved I’ve ever been is participating in the 2004 Iowa (Democratic) Caucus, and that was as much a whim as anything else. So paying attention to the candidates in the current cycle and seeing all of that mess is a bit of a new thing for me. I wanted to talk a bit about what it’s meant for me to be an uninformed voter, and why having the opportunity for everybody to learn about the candidates is an important part of democracy.

When I participated in the 2004 caucus, I really appreciated the fact that I could go there, talk to people, and find out about the candidates before making my decision. I didn’t need to come in with any research done (which is not to say I shouldn’t have done any, but given the person I was at the time, that wasn’t going to happen). After moving to Illinois, I’ve realized what a unique opportunity the caucus system really is.

See, moving to Illinois came with moving in with J. And J is far more politically involved than I am, at least in terms of knowing about the candidates and paying attention to what they do and say. He’s the sort of guy who comes home from work and immediately starts watching videos on YouTube about politics. I have no doubt that if we had a TV, he’d spend much of his free time watching political news there, too.

This last fall, J became really interested in the Ron Paul campaign. He even made some contributions on the big donation days, and he was telling everyone he knew about this guy. I’d never heard of him before, but I listened to J talk about him, and saw how excited everyone was getting, and I thought “Hey, maybe there’s something to this guy.” So I listened to his speeches, and thought “Okay, no foreign involvement, not going to happen but that makes sense.” Then I did something I hadn’t ever done with a candidate before: I looked at his official positions. And then I was confused. Pro-life, pro-gun, all of that. An immigration stance that includes the call to “End birthright citizenship.” (What does that even mean? How should citizenship be defined, then?) But also anti-Iraq, and supported by veterans. J’s dad is a veteran, so I can see why J values those issues.

But this isn’t about Ron Paul. See, while J was talking up Ron Paul to other people, there was always the other side – why he wouldn’t vote for a Democrat in the primary. (J is more of a Democrat than a Republican, all things considered.) All the Democratic candidates received an assessment, but the one that always stuck out in my mind was that for Hillary – “she’s just scary”. I don’t think he meant this in a sexist way; I think he was talking about her stance on the issues. Though honestly, I don’t know. And here’s where this gets hard for me to talk about, because I’m embarrassed to admit: I never looked at any other candidate before I voted in the Illinois primary. I’m not sure why exactly. It’s probably the same reason I don’t do other things that I know I should, or that are good for me – whatever that reason is.

Super Tuesday rolled around, and J and I walked over to the polling place. I didn’t really want to go. After all, I didn’t have enough information to make an informed decision. On my own, I might have accepted that the time had come to do the research I’d procrastinated on, and spent a little time looking around before I went. But J wanted to go right now, as he usually does when he sets his mind to something, and so I went.

And this is the point where feminism and being an uninformed voter meet. See, in the Illinois primary, you walk in and ask for either a Republican or a Democrat ticket. J went first, and got his Republican ballot so he could vote for Ron Paul. Then I had a moment to think – vote for the candidate I know a little about, or choose between several I know nothing about? Well, I took the Republican ballot. And I’ll never forget – J said, in a shocked sort of way, “You’re going to do it?”

I did.

I wish I hadn’t.

That sort of thing is why I love J. He gets things sometimes that I haven’t yet fully come to understand. In this case, he understood that no matter how much he talked about Ron Paul and badmouthed the Democrats, he would not think me less of a person if I voted for one of them. J understands that I have the full agency to vote my conscience, even if I disagree with him, and that he has no right to judge my personhood based on my choice.

In part, I think J is able to understand this because he occupies a privileged position in society in most ways. Because of that, he is able to exercise his agency as a person without expecting that he will lose opportunities or status if he makes the “wrong” choice. In other words, he can honestly not care what other people think. J is a feminist (aka, an all-around great guy) he respects all people as full people, with the ability to make their own decisions. That’s a big part of why I love him.

It’s also why I need feminism, and why I am a feminist. Because the patriarchal system of power taught me to place so much value in other people’s opinions. So much value that I saw my vote as mattering, not for the effect it would have on the election, but for the effect it would have on J’s opinion of me. I’m not the first one to be in that position, and unless we work to give all people the same agency regardless of their opinions, I won’t be the last.

Sorry for the long break in posts; I took a short trip to NYC and as soon as I got home I was knocked out by a cold for a few days. I’m feeling a bit better now, so hopefully I’ll be able to post a bit more often.

In the final part of the three-part series I’ve been doing about this site (parts one and two), today I’m going to address the parts of this site that are truly ugly. Some of them are not particularly the fault of the site’s authors, except insofar as they don’t really question the ugliness of the cultural norms that they’re repeating. Others are just disturbing.

1) The page titled “How to Express Love“. It’s not so much the anything that this page says that bothers me so much as the fact that it needs to exist at all. I am saddened by the reminder that many people have never had an opportunity to learn what the expression of love looks like. I’m also a little worried about the fact that this page seems to be targeted at men – with ‘tips’ like “pick up after the children (even if it’s not your job)” and “change a diaper” – and then puts “listen to them” at the bottom of the list, “as an aside”. Listening is absolutely CRUCIAL to expressing love. If all you do is listen and react accordingly, you will be more loving than anyone who follows all the “rules” about expressing love. You’ll be honoring the other person as a person, not as a body filling the role of “loved one” in your life. And that is, at the most fundamental level, what it means to love someone.

2) The “shame and blame” attitude surrounding the discussions of premarital sex. I do not mean to say that premarital sex can’t be emotionally harmful. As I mentioned in the first post in this series, I recommend this book for its thoughtful discussion that talks about how that harm can occur without implying that everyone should feel that way. In other words, my issue is not so much with a person saying “It’s possible/likely that you’ll regret it later if you have sex now” as with the implied claim of “and that’s the way you should feel, since it’s a dirtybadwrong sin, and if you don’t feel that way, there’s something wrong with you.” If you tell someone they will feel shame, and they respect you, then they probably will – either regarding the act itself, or regarding the fact that they don’t feel ashamed of the act. Neither of those is necessarily a reflection on whether the act is shameful.

3) The “sex for the clueless groom” page. Reading this page just makes me angry and sad in so many ways. I think the common root of all of my complaints is the implication that on the hypothetical wedding night, this groom should have some sense of what to do, but his clueless bride should be expected to be shy, nervous, not really know what’s going on. Not to state the obvious, but if they’re both “pure”, shouldn’t they be equally shy, nervous, and not really know what’s going on?

Of course, that would challenge the ideals of our society in which men are always in control (of the situation, I mean… or something…). So instead of just telling both men and women “relax, have fun, touch each other and see what feels good, don’t do anything that hurts, and be willing to laugh when things go wrong”, there’s this whole page so that the “clueless groom” can at least have a plan going into the wedding night. Of course, most of the comments that are of a “how-to” sort of nature will only apply to some women. And I worry about the other women, when their guy comes in trying to pretend he knows what he’s doing, because it’s so hard to say “no, that’s not right, please stop” – especially if you don’t know for sure what is right. Really, guys, the answer to any sort of “how-to” of this nature is the same as it is for “how to express love” – listen, try something, and then listen some more.

4) The pages on penis enlargement and breast enlargement. Do I really need to explain this? How is it that penis enlargement = bad while breast enlargement = good? Oh, that’s right, we live in a patriarchal society. Look, it can’t go both ways. Either men’s sex organs should be just as subject to scrutiny as women’s, or neither should be. Personally, I’d prefer the latter be the case in any public arena.

Also, why is it the case that when penises are at stake, a lack of FDA regulation means “Danger, Will Robinson!” but when breasts are the issue, they say this:

Is it Safe? The FDA has approved the device, and chosen not to regulate the device since they were convinced it was safe. There have been a number of studies and tests, and no damage or risks have been found.

Call me crazy, but I think there’s a bit of a double standard here that leaves me wondering if this site gets some sort of reimbursement for promoting this particular system.

But really, what disturbs me most about these pages is that neither asks the obvious question: why not accept the body that God has given you? Why try to conform your penis or your breasts to the visual standards of a society you reject in so many other ways? Here, if anywhere, is a place for a bit of that gospel (good news!) that is so central to everything else – God created, and God saw that it was very good.

In my previous post, I looked at The Marriage Bed and pointed out some of the parts that can be helpful to many people, regardless of whether or not they believe in the basic tenets of conservative Christianity and/or biblical literalism. Today I want to take a more critical look at this site and see what parts of it are potentially harmful or incomplete.

In doing so, I want to do my best to set aside the whole issue of submission. The issue of whether and/or how women should be submissive to men is too big of a topic to cover here, and by not discussing it I don’t mean to condone the view that women should be submissive to men. Obviously, this issue is an integral part of the site, and if you find that part so off-putting you can’t be bothered with it, I certainly can’t blame you. But I think there’s some value to be found in distinguishing between the assertions that are a direct result of the argument for submission and the harmful messages that creep in alongside of them. If nothing else, recognizing them in a discourse that we’re already reading with a generous chunk of salt makes it easier to recognize and avoid them in the more familiar territory of our own words and actions. So without further ado, here are some ways in which this site could be improved.

1) There is a distinct lack of any information about or reference to any form of STD, except a vague “Google it!” on this page. This is dangerous. Regardless of whether you believe people should remain sexually pure until marriage, the fact is that most people don’t. Refusing to talk about STDs other than to say “this is scary stuff!” does several things:

• It makes you sound like a scaremonger. If a topic really is worth talking about because it can do real harm – which STDs definitely can – then talk about it. Otherwise it’s just a vague threat.
• It denies people information that could be useful for them. Someone already engaging in premarital sex who comes across this site might not be “scared straight”, but they might recognize symptoms or risky behavior and get themselves to a doctor to get tested and/or treated. They might also be more careful in the future, helping to prevent further spread of these diseases.
• It ostracizes people in the Christian community who have STDs from any source, sexual or otherwise. When the only place they are discussed is as a scare away from the “sin” of premarital sex, they become associated with shame and guilt. Not only does this cause emotional harm to the people who have these diseases, but it may cause them to hide them from spouses or other potential sexual partners.
• Not discussing STDs also means not discussing ways to prevent the spread of STDs. Let’s face it, Christians are no more perfect than anyone else, though they certainly try hard to be. A person who comes across this site may be having or considering an affair and wondering whether their marriage can survive. It would be worth the effort to discuss the topic of STDs if it meant that the pain of an affair was not compounded by the pain of an STD transmission which could have been avoided.

Frankly, I’m surprised that the site which included such a thoughtful discussion of birth control omitted a similarly thoughtful discussion of STDs.

2) Refusal of sex is provided as a reason in and of itself for divorce, along with the “4 A’s” of adultery, abuse, addiction, abandonment. This is really a tricky issue, partly because it’s my opinion that usually if a person is refusing sex on a consistent basis, there’s some underlying physical or emotional issue that is the real problem. Making the refusal of sex itself the issue avoids addressing the real problem. I’m also concerned that this could lead to situations in which one partner could threaten the other with “justified” divorce as a way of coercing them into sex.

3) In a similar vein, the injunction to fulfill the sexual needs of one’s spouse could easily be used to hide or avoid addressing the real problem of spousal rape. I am especially concerned by this page, which advises a husband with a wife who refuses him to “do everything possible to bring her to a point where she could receive sexually from him”. I could easily see this used by a person with religious authority to tell someone that if they were truly meeting their spouse’s sexual needs, they wouldn’t be raped. While I’d like to believe that this would never happen, I’m all too aware that we live in a broken world.

4) Nearly all of the explicit or implied injunctions to meet the sexual needs of one’s spouse are aimed at women. While the site gives lip service to the idea that women also have desires that need to be fulfilled, the main focus seems to be that men want sex while women should want to give it to them. Thus, there’s “better sex 4 him” but not “better sex 4 her” (women get “full body sexual massage“). There’s “how to strip (for your husband)” and “how to get him to want sex” but no equivalent pages about women. There’s also a page about how frequent sex is better for women. The pages which speak about a reluctant spouse in gender-neutral language address issues such as sexual abuse, which are more likely to be relevant to a woman’s situation (although to be fair, they also talk about physical problems which could affect either spouse). The underlying message seems to be this: if a woman refuses sex, it’s likely there’s some physical or emotional cause – ie, there is something wrong with her – and the correct course of action is to address these issues. Either that, or the woman is actively refusing what is “best” for her. If a man refuses sex, however, it’s because the woman isn’t doing enough to turn him on. Either way, it’s the woman’s fault. Obviously, they don’t say this outright. But there does seem to be a theme of making the woman responsible for fixing any issue of mismatched sexual desire.

5) Finally, in the sections on biology, there are many examples of essentialist arguments (a simple discussion of the concept is here). Basically, they boil down to “Most men/women are X, therefore God designed men/women to be X”. For example, this page claims, “Apparently God designed women to become more and more interested in sex as they become more active.” Yet note 1 on that same page points out that “the data is what most men and women experaince” [sic, emphasis mine]. The problem is that this pathologizes difference. If someone has a different experience than “what God designed”, does this mean that there is something wrong with them? Should they question whether they are sinning secretly in their hearts? I think that a better approach would be to accept that God has created a dazzling array of diverse experiences, and that we can learn from all of them.

All told, there’s definitely room for improvement on this site, even within the general construct that they provide. Next up: the ugly.

I ran across The Marriage Bed the other day. It’s a pretty interesting site, and worth taking a look at if you can get past and/or accept its assumptions about marriage and interpretation of the Bible. They attempt to offer “a safe place for married Christians to discuss sex”, and also offer some articles target to young/unmarried people about waiting until marriage for sex.

I should say to start with that I don’t agree with several of their claims about how marriage and sex should be, and I definitely don’t read the Bible as literally as they do. I also think that some of the ideas that result can be harmful; I’ll discuss those in a later post. Nonetheless, I think that even without accepting those assumptions there is a fair deal to be gained from any discussion of sexuality that treats its audience as responsible, thinking adults. This one does just that, showing a refreshing amount of critical thought from a group whose loudest voices are too busy shouting “NO!” to listen to any objections. Here’s a few of the insights that I think many people could find helpful.

1) I truly appreciate the focus on how emotional intimacy makes sex better. I don’t agree so much with the subtle (or not-so-subtle) implication that sex without emotional attachments is bad. I prefer the approach taken in Virgin Sex for Girls*, which emphasizes knowing what one’s sexual conditions are and demanding that they be met. If casual sex falls within those? Heck, hump like a bunny and have fun (just please use appropriate protection!). But if you want to have your first kiss on your wedding day with the person you love? That’s great too.

2) I highly approve of their endorsement of naked time in the form of sleeping, showering, and snuggling together. We are so touch-deprived as a society, and I honestly believe it contributes to the anxiety, fear, and anger so many people feel. If you’ve got someone in your life that you’re comfortable doing so with, be sure to take advantage of opportunities for snuggling, cuddling, hugging, and just sitting close together – naked or not. If you don’t, check out the Free Hugs Campaign – maybe I’ll see you with a sign someday. I’ll be sure to stop.

3) A thoughtful discussion of divorce which emphasizes marriage as a serious decision. (Instead of just something you should do because it’s better than the alternative!) Again, I don’t agree with all of this, especially the idea of refusal of sex alone as a reason for divorce, but I’ll cover that in a later post.

4) The site seems committed to providing more or less accurate resources about birth control, even if the couple who writes the articles doesn’t agree with the use of all of the methods they mention. They acknowledge that it is possible for different decisions to result from a prayerful attempt to understand what the Christian approach to this question is.

5) They are anti-pornography for reasons which include “unrealistic view of the female body” and “wrong ideas and expectations about sex”. Personally I find those two reasons enough to reject any particular instance of smut that meets them, though I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say I’m against all porn, anywhere, any time. I do wish they had talked about about how the porn industry as it stands now harms women (oh, where to begin…). And I wish that they had seriously considered the possibility that women might sometimes look at porn too, instead of reinforcing the ever-present idea that only men look at porn. But encouraging realistic ideas about the female body and sex itself is a good start for anyone.

6) They encourage use of sex toys in marriage. Yay! They also link to this store, which sells products in ways such that the nudity on the packages is removed and/or covered. If that idea caught on in the wider world, companies might have to create good products instead of just advertising “buy this product and get the woman free” deals.

7) They are remarkably kink-friendly, as such discussions go. Though they do condemn homosexuality (certainly not a minor thing, but not a surprise given their stance on the Bible), they take a honest, critical look at topics ranging from anal sex to nudity to adult nursing. Mostly, it boils down to this: If the action is a) not prohibited specifically, b) not disruptive to relationships, c) medically safe, and c) not a fetish, it’s allowed. Their condemnation of BDSM is lacking justification in my opinion, but on the other hand their discussion of Domestic Discipline is quite thoughtful. Overall, I’d say that they are part of the small group of people who object to homosexuality in such a way that I can believe it’s not mainly an “ew, buttsex” objection at some level.

Overall, as I said, there are things you can learn from this site even if you’re not a Christian, as long as you’re willing to agree to disagree with them about some important assumptions. Next: The Bad, The Ugly

____

*One of my favorite books on this topic. There’s also a version for boys, which I’ve skimmed and which looks equally interesting.

Peggynature has created this awesome video as part of a school project. Go check it out – I’ve watched it three times already and I can’t stop smiling

I was browsing the internets today for a completely unrelated topic when I came across a user’s page at 43things.com. In among the other, relatively normal goals was this:

“become anorexic“

Now if you’re familiar with the layout of 43things, after each goal, there’s usually a number representing the number of people who want to do that goal. The number after “become anorexic”?

3941.

3,941 of the people using the site want to somehow obtain a mental illness. Specifically, a disease with the highest premature fatality rate of any mental illnesses. One where 50% of those fatalities are the result of suicide. These 3,941 people would quite literally rather be dead than fat. If this doesn’t tell us that there’s something seriously wrong with the way we see idolize thin bodies in our current culture, I doesn’t know what does.

I suppose you could argue that I’m blowing this out of proportion. In a preliminary search, I can’t find an exact figure of the number of people using 43things, but here’s some other top goals for comparision:
1. lose weight 29039 people
2. stop procrastinating 21663 people
3. Fall in love 19533 people
4. write a book 19203 people
5. be happy 17307 people
…
10. get married 13889 people
20. To live instead of exist 8630 people
41. make a difference 5674 people
67. make more friends 3963 people
68. be more social 3790 people

Now, you might wonder… why is “become anorexic” not number 68? In fact, it doesn’t show up at all on the list of the top 100 goals. That’s because 43things has noticed how popular this goal is, and so it doesn’t show up on any sorts of popular goal lists – just on individual people’s goal lists. They’ve also added a special version of the “goal page”. Instead of the normal page (see here for an example), which shows people currently doing a goal and provides you the options of “I want to do this” and “I’ve done this”, they’ve created this page. It lists some resources about eating disorders and emphasizes that providing instructions to another person on how to harm themselves in the form of an eating disorder is cause for suspension of one’s account. It also provides a list of “alternate goals:

• Recover from my eating disorder
• Overcome my eating disorder
• Overcome anorexia

I applaud them for creating this page, although I’m concern by their attempt to hide this goal’s popularity, since this to me only seems to increase the sense of secrecy surrounding eating disorders. But I’d like to suggest a few additions to their list:

• Learn to love my body the way that it is
• Challenge the culture that tells me that I have to be thin to have value

From a link at Fashion Incubator: Heelarious – Her First High Heels!

These just disturb me so much. They have everything wrong with them. Why should babies wear heels? So they will encourage pedophiles (after all, what are high heels about if not sex)? So they can start malforming their foot bones as early as possible? I can’t think of any good reason to do this. Although I should give the creators some credit – assuming that the shoes are made of a soft/stretchy fabric, they probably won’t do any damage to a little girl’s feet. But these are being promoted as “her first high heels”. Who is making her second and third high heels, and what does it do to a girl’s body development if she’s got her own high heels to wear starting as soon as she can walk?

Unfortunately, I would not be surprised if this becomes a big trend. So cute! So heel-arious! You get to make that pun every time someone comments on them! I just hope that people who put these on their children get a good kick in the eye with a baby high heel the first time they’re trying to change their baby’s diaper.

That would be heel-arious.