Tangible Harm

There is a common dialogue that I've heard a lot during this election season, and it worries me. It goes something like this:

Me: "Aren't you worried about this candidate's stance on this Very Important Social Issue?"
Other person: "All the social issue stuff is just posturing. People are emotional voters, and they need to win those voters over by talking about social issues. But you'll see, as it gets closer, what they really want to talk about is the economy, and Issues That Matter. All the posturing won't matter by then."

Photo: CBS News

There is the first problem, which is the idea that social issues don't matter, only economic issues matter. And that leads right into the second, bigger problem, which of course is what I want to discuss: tangible harm.

This mentality ignores the fact that, while politicians are posturing and saying whatever they feel they need to say in order to gain the "emotional vote," they're spreading and promoting a culture that accepts harmful ideas, and in a culture like that, people tend to invest their resources in causes that promote harmful actions as well. In short, a backwards mentality will support a backwards culture wherein backwards things are commonplace, and as such, people get hurt. Posturing achieves tangible harm.

Border Patrol and the TSA
I had a wonderful conversation with my boyfriend recently that I feel illustrates this point very clearly. We were on a long car trip near the Mexican border and we were stopped for a quick search by the border patrol (this is normal in that area, even if you're not actually crossing the border). This got us on the topic of the constitutionality of the actions taken out regularly by agencies like Border Patrol and the TSA.

Photo: Flickr creative commons

The ineffectiveness of the measures taken out by the TSA at airports is a popular topic of conversation in political and scientific circles. In short, the conclusion that people continue to draw is that the TSA doesn't actually increase security at airports. Bombers, hijackers and terrorists in general can get on an airplane as easily as any common citizen can, and the TSA's implementation of x-rays, scanners, pat-downs and interviews doesn't actually change that. But this is an uncomfortable truth, one that people don't like to face. So, the government funds the TSA, a massively expensive project, to give the appearance of security. This simultaneously gives people peace of mind and the appearance that something is being done about the problem. But both are false, and in the meantime money is wasted.

My boyfriend has been repeating this argument to me for many years now, and for the longest time I just nodded and said "That's fine, it's low on my priority list. Next to a lot of the other backwards laws being proposed, having my suitcase rifled through isn't a huge infraction on my right to privacy." But this time he made his point clearer, and I'm starting to agree with him.

I asked him, if he could only pick one fight, which would it be: the TSA or the "mandatory ultrasound" bills being proposed in multiple states that require women seeking an abortion to undergo a medically unnecessary vaginal sonogram? I sat back and waited, comfortable in my assumption that everyone judges an invasion of privacy involving one's genitals to be more severe than that which involves ones suitcase, but his response surprised me. He said, without hesitation, that he would fight the TSA. This was his explanation:

Photo: Texas Tribune

Culture of Complacency
The TSA has become a commonplace infrastructure in American life, despite it being more or less common knowledge that the airport scanners accomplish nothing. What this means is that we have a nation (and, as a consequence, a planet) full of people who are complacent with the idea that their government can invade their privacy in the name of a ruse, a ploy to create the appearance of security.  This is an acceptable idea to us now, we have been desensitized to it. It is this sort of action that sets the stage for further infractions upon our personal privacy and freedoms. In short: the TSA made the ultrasound bill possible. Without this prerequisite, such a ludicrous, perverse manipulation of the law would be unfathomable. These anti-abortion bills would never have gotten as far as they have.

My boyfriend's point was simply that when you poison the national conversation about personal freedoms, this does noticeable and lasting damage. Words are not just words, they affect what we perceive to be acceptable and normal, and as such can pave the way for more and more backwards legislation.

I've always felt this way, but my boyfriend was able to show me that I was doing triage - attending to the worst wounds first - while knowing full-well that more would simply pop up in their place. Instead, he proposed, we should attack the problem at its root. Propoganda, anti-science thinking and outright lies about one's political agenda confuse and distort the truth, leaving people handicapped when they approach these topics. Once you see this effect taking place, you realize that a complacent attitude toward political posturing contributes in a very real way to quantifiable, tangible harm.

Some Thoughts on Sex Education

I've taken a lot of sex ed courses, from the 2nd grade separate-the-boys-and-girls and learn-about-our periods class to college-level psych courses on human sexuality wherein we parsed out straw feminism from true equality struggles. They all had one thing in common: they were dry.

Pardon the pun, but it carries an important point: sex ed should be fun, right? I mean, not sexually satisfying, obviously that's inappropriate, but talking about sex should be fun. And I think with a younger audience, especially teenagers, we risk alienating them when we try to keep it textbook and intellectual. I think bringing a little humor and levity to the subject could help make some of the more important topics accessible.

I remember a time when I was younger and there were discussions about whether or not condoms were cool. It wasn't quite that straight-forward, but in general kids were parsing out their urges to contradict authority figures, to seek out pleasure, and to keep themselves safe. Since then, I think the condom companies and culture at large have done a good job of branding condoms as sexy (it's not like it's hard to do,) and I think the same lesson could be applied to other parts of sex ed that are suffering from an overly textbook-type of treatment in these classrooms, namely: consent.



The concept of sexual consent has received a wide variety of treatments in popular culture. But in my experience, even attempts to make it light and funny still equate it to a contractual obligation. And while it might get a laugh for the time being, and does an effective job of spreading awareness about obtaining consent (as well as its highly conditional nature, which is something that often gets missed), I think that dry, vanilla image of a paper contract tends to stick with people.


The reality is that consent can be sexy, just like condoms can be sexy. It's simply unnecessary to break the mood and have a "serious discussion" in order to obtain consent properly. What's even more important is the message that nonconsensual sexual encounters, encounters where there is doubt about the other person's desires and intentions, are stressful, dangerous and (this one is key) un-fun. Consent is hot! And it's way more fun to have sex with someone who repeatedly, enthusiastically, desperately tells you how hot they are for you, and that they want you. Never mind that it's safer and healthier - it's more fun! I think that's a message that will stick with teenagers a lot better than simply stressing the importance of consent, and then scaring them with messages about rape. Because the first step to truly combating rape culture is to make consent cool.

In terms of branding, I honestly think this is another gimme, just like condoms were. We can talk about "communication" all day but when we phrase it that way, all teenagers are ever going to picture is two people sitting down having a very serious, very dry, very un-fun conversation about what they will and will not do in bed tonight. But as sexually active adults, we know that that's not always the reality. Talking about sex gets you hot. And consent can be obtained in ways that promote the mood, rather than killing it. Why are we hiding this super awesome truth from kids? It's something they would love to hear! And it would help prevent rape and sexual assault due to lack of communication, which is way more common than aggressive rape.

I'm not saying that no sex ed class has ever been fun or used humor to keep things moving. I've certainly had some entertaining sex ed teachers and professors during my schooling. But in my experience, consent is a topic that's treated with a lot of weight. I understand why; it's very important that this message get across. At the end of the day, it's about safety. But learning HOW to do it, how to obtain consent, how to have sex in safe, respectful ways doesn't have to be dry and boring. In fact, I feel that strategy is somewhat purpose-defeating.

Another problematic aspect of classic lessons about consent is the focus on the word "no." Of course it's important for kids to hear that if your partner says "no," you stop. But the tricky part is that people don't always say "no." Sometimes they can't, sometimes they won't and sometimes they're scared or nervous. The problem with using "no" as our starting point is that then we have to backtrack through a laundry list of "warning signs" that people need to keep an eye out for. By the time you're done with a lesson like this, sex sounds like a chore.

There has been something of a shift lately - and I hope it continues - to focusing instead on "yes." Rather than going forward unless there is an audible objection, how about we only move forward if there is a clear and obvious agreement? This is, in every possible way, a more positive message. And even more importantly: it's more fun.

In short, the first and best tool we have for combating rape culture is to first remind ourselves that sex should be fun. If everyone involved isn't having fun, you're doing it wrong. I think that's a rule of thumb that everyone can agree with.