Monday, July 23, 2012

Asian Markets Tumbled and Euro Slumped to its Lowest Level



Posted by Channel News Asia on 23 July 2012.

Asian markets tumbled and the euro slumped to its lowest level against the yen in almost 12 years on Monday as Spain's debt crisis deepened, raising concerns over the wider eurozone.

With borrowing costs hitting the danger levels that forced Ireland, Greece and Portugal to seek a bailout, investors are concerned that Spain, one of the eurozone's biggest economies, will also have to call for help.

Hong Kong led the losses, diving 2.63 percent by the break, while Tokyo shed 1.27 percent, Sydney slipped 1.70 percent, Seoul lost 2.09 percent and Shanghai slumped 2.11 percent.

Market players were spooked by reports that one of Spain's indebted regions, Valencia, would ask the central government for financial support, while officials in Madrid warned that the economy would likely contract through 2013.

"Europe is definitely a drag on risk assets again this week as investors are worried that Spain's debt burden could be bigger than expected and that a full bailout may be required," said Peter Esho at CityIndex in Australia.

The worries sent Spanish borrowing costs to a euro-era record level, with the 10-year bond yield climbing to 7.24 percent, while the euro at one point fell to 94.61 against the yen, its lowest level since November 2000.

In afternoon Tokyo trade the euro, which also tumbled Friday amid the Spanish woes, bought 94.70 yen, compared with 95.38 late Friday in New York.

"It's not the kind of situation where fears are just going to fade away, since the required amount of aid that Spain will need is likely to mount given the increasing needs of local governments," Rakuten Securities senior market analyst Masayuki Doshida told Dow Jones Newswires.



The euro tumbled below 95 yen for the first time in almost 12 years on Monday as dealers rushed to the safe-haven Japanese unit owing to growing fears about Spain's debt crisis.

The common currency dipped as low as 94.61 yen in morning Asian trade -- its lowest level since November 2000 -- from 95.38 in New York trade on Friday.

It was changing hands at 94.71 yen by 0430 GMT.

Investors must be ready for the euro's fall below 93.00 yen this week if the euro falls below US$1.18, said Atsushi Hirano, senior trader at Royal Bank of Scotland in Tokyo.

"We don't have much important economic indicators this week, so we'll pay attention to stock prices and headlines related to European debt problems," he said.

The euro was also weak against the dollar, treading around two-year lows at US$1.2115, while the dollar bought 78.16 yen.

The euro fetched US$1.2152 in New York trade Friday while the dollar was at 78.48 yen.

Dealers have been moving out of the euro after the borrowing costs on 10-year Spanish bonds soared to euro-era highs above seven percent, which is seen as unsustainable for the government to service.

With yields so high, unemployment at 24 percent and the economy expected to remain in recession throughout next year, analysts say Madrid will likely need a bailout on top of the one agreed for the country's banks last week.


Friday, July 20, 2012

Marriage for the 99%: Seeing Family as a Social Justice Issue


Marriage for the 99%: Seeing Family as a Social Justice Issue
How research demonstrates that marital status can predict a person's socioeconomic status.
By Glenn T. Stanton. Published by Christianity Today on 13 July 2012.

Bill Galston, a senior fellow at Brookings who served as President Clinton's domestic policy advisor, has explained that an American today must only do three things to avoid living in poverty: graduate from high school, marry before having a child, and have children after age 20. Only 8 percent of people who do these three things are poor, while a stunning 79 percent who fail to meet these expectations live in poverty.


Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute makes important observations of how marital status is related to poverty in his important new book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960–2010. In 1960, the poorly and moderately educated were only 10 percent less likely to be married than the 94 percent of college-educated Americans who were married. The comparison between the two groups largely held until 1978. Today, these two groups are separated by a 35 percent margin. According to a recent report from the Brookings Institute, the strong rate of marriage among the highly-educated, top-earning Americans has largely held constant and even seems to be increasing. But the bad news is that marriage is sinking dramatically among low and middle-class Americans, down from 84 percent to a minority of 48 percent today—a dramatic decline over the last 40 years, and no indicators hint at a slowing pace. The stark trend line leads Murray to lament, "Marriage has become the fault line dividing America's classes."
In some ways, the concern about marriage and class mobility is not new at all. In 1965, a young Daniel Patrick Moynihan passionately warned his boss, President Lyndon Johnson, and our nation that the new landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act was not likely to be fully successful because the African American family was dangerously fragile and continuing to weaken. On the first page of his infamous report—which was one of the first shots fired in the modern culture war over the family—Moynihan warned of the consequences stemming from the persistent "crumbling" of the African American family: "So long as this situation persists, the cycle of poverty and disadvantage will continue to repeat itself" among African Americans.
The problem has persisted: the percentage of all married women in the U.S. is 50 percent (53 percent for white women), but is a tragically low 29 percent for African American women. The wide disparity led to culturally soul-searching books such as Stanford professor Ralph Richard Banks's Is Marriage for White People?, in which he contends that marriage recovery is essential for the socio-economic well-being of African Americans. A larger question could be, "Is marriage for rich people?"
Marriage is not just a personal, sentimental institution, giving couples something to feel good about at each year's anniversary. The scholars at the National Marriage Project working from the University of Virginia offer dramatic evidence in their recent report (page 78) that marriage is a "wealth-generating institution."
All other things being equal, the never-married are 75 percent less wealthy than their continuously married peers. And two people are not necessarily wealthier than one. Cohabitors generally are 58 percent lower in financial wealth than those who are married. And those who divorce and never remarry have a 72 percent lower amount in wealth. The National Marriage Project suggests that those with better financial prospects are not necessarily more likely to marry, but the "institution of marriage itself provides a wealth-generation bonus."
Nobel-winning economist George Akerlof has explained the pro-social influence of marriage upon men and fathers. "Married men are more attached to the labor force, they have less substance abuse, they commit less crime, are less likely to become the victims of crime, have better health, and are less accident prone," he said in a prestigious lecture. He found cohabitation was incapable of providing these benefits, he said, because, "men settle down when they get married and if they fail to get married, they fail to settle down."
And settled-down men work more, earn more, save more, and spend more money on their families than on themselves. Married men are also dramatically less likely to abuse their wives and children than men of any other relational status. Marriage boosts the well-being of women as well in nearly every important measure of well-being.
The evidence is impossible to ignore or explain away. Marriage drives well-being and upward mobility. The absence of marriage drives it down. Any smart poverty alleviation program cannot ignore this.
And for Christians, the research enriches our reading of two of God's earliest and most profound statements about humanity and marriage. First, "It is not good for the man to be alone." Second, "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife." As we are created as an icon of the Trinitarian God in the world, we're made deeply and mysteriously for one another. And just as Jesus yearns deeply for his bride, it is very natural and deep in our wiring for us to yearn for a spouse. It is in our God-imaging nature to do so. No wonder marriage boosts our well-being in such important and diverse ways.  
Such a truth is so evident that even some sociologists grasp it. 
Will the church?
Read more here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/julyweb-only/seeing-family-as-a-social-justice-issue.html?paging=off

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

What does the Bible say about gay marriage/same sex marriage?"


By Peter Mattice.

While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.


Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.

The Bible alone, however, does not have to be used to demonstrate this understanding of marriage. The biblical viewpoint of marriage has been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history. History argues against gay marriage. Modern secular psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and emotionally designed to complement one another. In regard to the family, psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Psychology argues against gay marriage. In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to “fit” together sexually. With the “natural” purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues against gay marriage.

So, if the Bible, history, psychology, and nature all argue for marriage being between a man and a woman—why is there such a controversy today? Why are those who are opposed to gay marriage/same-sex marriage labeled as hateful, intolerant bigots, no matter how respectfully the opposition is presented? Why is the gay rights movement so aggressively pushing for gay marriage/same-sex marriage when most people, religious and non-religious, are supportive of—or at least far less opposed to—gay couples having all the same legal rights as married couples with some form of civil union?

The answer, according to the Bible, is that everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and the only way to suppress this inherent knowledge is by normalizing homosexuality and attacking any and all opposition to it. The best way to normalize homosexuality is by placing gay marriage/same-sex marriage on an equal plane with traditional opposite-gender marriage. Romans 1:18-32 illustrates this. The truth is known because God has made it plain. The truth is rejected and replaced with a lie. The lie is then promoted and the truth suppressed and attacked. The vehemence and anger expressed by many in the gay rights movement to any who oppose them is, in fact, an indication that they know their position is indefensible. Trying to overcome a weak position by raising your voice is the oldest trick in the debating book. There is perhaps no more accurate description of the modern gay rights agenda than Romans 1:31, “they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”

To give sanction to gay marriage/same-sex marriage would be to give approval to the homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage/same-sex marriage. Further, there are strong and logical arguments against gay marriage/same-sex marriage from contexts completely separated from the Bible. One does not have to be an evangelical Christian to recognize that marriage is between a man and a woman.

According to the Bible, marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6). Gay marriage/same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. As Christians, we are not to condone or ignore sin. Rather, we are to share the love of God and the forgiveness of sins that is available to all, including homosexuals, through Jesus Christ. We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and contend for truth with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). As Christians, when we make a stand for truth and the result is personal attacks, insults, and persecution, we should remember the words of Jesus: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).

Transsexual Returns to Original Gender After Relationship With Christ


By Jeff Schapiro, published by The Christian Post on 11 January 2012.

By his early teenage years, the fantasy had only grown. He adopted the female name Andrea West, and began cross dressing. At age 15, he also began learning about Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS) and, although he struggled against his desire to be female, he says those feelings were like a radio playing in his head that he just couldn't turn off.


"While I didn't want to be going down this pathway I seemed to be on this track that I couldn't interrupt, stop or change,” he recalled. “But I wasn't homosexual. I was having dates with girls, I never felt any desire to have relationships with men, so from the standpoint of my sexuality I was always heterosexual.”

“That I think, too, is one of the...misleading factors. Most people consider transgenders to be homosexual and, from my experience...98 to 99 percent of the people who contact me are not homosexual...It's really a gender identity issue, not a sexual preference issue.”

In the midst of his struggle, Heyer got married and had two children. He worked as an engineer for a while and achieved significant financial success.

“But the difficulty that I faced was that I couldn't shut the thoughts or the feelings off," he said. He turned to alcohol to cope with his issues, and eventually his life came crashing down around him.

He and his wife split after 17 years of marriage, and he lost his job when he began making the physical transformation into becoming a woman. He got breast implants, began taking hormones, had electrolysis to reduce the hair on his face and had his genitals removed.

As an adult woman, he gave himself the name Laura, and lived under that identity for eight years.

After studying psychology while still living as a woman, however, he says he eventually realized that a person can't actually change genders and that he was delusional. He also later found out that he had a dissociative disorder and multiple personality disorder as a result of his haunting past.

"You're not born transgender, something happens in your childhood that causes you to not want to be who you are...And today the only thing that is...socially acceptable is calling yourself a transgender,” he said.

“I don't think that's an accurate description of where the people are. They're individuals suffering from a delusional disorder that is going to become very self-destructive if, in fact, they don't get good psychological counseling or psychiatric help during that process.”

While he was living as Laura, Heyer says that he believed in Christ but struggled to be accepted in the church. He recalled one church he attended where he entered as a woman but was asked to leave by the pastor once his identity issues were revealed.

Not all his church experiences were bad, however. He found a church that welcomed him in, even with the knowledge of what his struggle was. The pastor of that church told him, “Our job is to love you and it's God's job to transform you.”

“The church, what it did for me was it allowed me to really get to the point where I asked the Lord for forgiveness. I began to pray for forgiveness. And I realized that the critical point is understanding that you can accept Jesus Christ, but there's a point where that doesn't become real...until you're walking with Christ,” he said.

“Because the real truth that Christ is alive is the fact that you see a transformed life. And so what happened in my life is that when I finally... got down on my knees and was working through these things many years after I had accepted Christ – probably 10 to 15 years after I accepted Christ – I finally felt that I was broken enough as a man that I got on my knees and prayed.”

He says that one day he had a vision while praying with his psychologist. He saw Jesus pick up a baby version of himself, look at him and say, “You will now be saved with me forever.” From that point on he could feel the Holy Spirit moving and guiding him in his life.

Today, Heyer says he no longer struggles with his gender identity and uses his testimony to speak out in support of those who have similar struggles and against those who advocate sex reassignment surgery as the solution to the gender identity problems.

A Swedish study published online in February 2011 examined individuals who had sex reassignments between 1973 and 2003, and found that switching sexes can have a significant negative impact on the individual and is not a good solution to someone's gender identity crisis.

“This study found substantially higher rates of overall mortality, death from cardiovascular disease and suicide, suicide attempts, and psychiatric hospitalizations in sex-reassigned transsexual individuals compared to a healthy control population,” the study's authors write in their conclusion. “This highlights that post-surgical transsexuals are a risk group that need long-term psychiatric and somatic follow-up.”

Heyer is the founder of websites such as Sex Change Regret and True Trans Christians, and is the author of several related books including Trading My Sorrows and, most recently, Paper Genders, which was published in June 2011.

He emphasizes the point that SRS is cosmetic surgery only, that it is “scientifically, medically and surgically impossible” for a man to actually be changed into a woman, but also says other people need to show compassion toward those who are struggling with gender identity issues.

Today Heyer is married once again, and he says that he has found happiness in being the gender that God created him to be.

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Why Catholics and Evangelicals Can Be United Against Nihilism



A Christianity Today editorial [ posted 6/27/2012 ].

Chuck Colson's vision for Christian unity and full-orbed reform lives on.


Chuck Colson knew that we must aim our reform efforts at a long horizon. On this score, he took inspiration from the historical example of William Wilberforce, who for almost four decades pursued in the British Parliament the abolition of the slave trade and then slavery itself. Colson's 1985 CT article celebrating Wilberforce's persistence was titled "Standing Tough Against All Odds." Colson was under no illusion that we could mend American society as the result of a single election or Supreme Court decision. He knew that he, like Wilberforce, was called to a long obedience in the same direction. That is why he titled one of his CT columns "The Sky Isn't Falling." He perennially fought evangelical tendencies to play Chicken Little because they undermine efforts to reform society.
Like Wilberforce, Colson knew that he was called to comprehensive reform. Wilberforce fought not only the slave trade but also the poor working conditions of chimney sweeps and textile workers. He advocated education and prison reform and founded the world's first animal welfare organization. Likewise, Colson worked for justice reform and against prison rape. He advised the George W. Bush administration to fight against HIV/AIDS in Africa and to support human rights around the world. In all of these things, he built coalitions.
Unlike Wilberforce, Colson did not live to see his greatest aims achieved. But before he died, he saw his leadership exert tremendous force on American Christianity.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Standing up for sex workers is standing up for pimps




Prostitutes are not sex workers, they are prostituted women.

ELITE academics in Australia love to profess their support for ''sex workers''. University of New South Wales academic Catharine Lumby in ''Sex is not dirty work'' on these pages pleaded for the media to treat sex workers with more respect, given that prostitution is a legal form of employment in Australia.
Lumby recalls telling her sons over the dinner table to not make jokes about women their friends call ''prosties'', and to remember that feminists and Christians could be condemned for failing to properly recognise prostitution as work.
This idea of prostitution conveyed to the two Lumby juniors is unmistakably a liberal one. In this framing, prostitution is embarked upon by individual women as something akin to a small-business enterprise (women in brothels in Australia are legally recognised as sub-contractors, not employees). While ''sex workers'' might be at the bottom rung of the social ladder in terms of education, prior victimisation, social networks, and personal asset bases, liberals see them as admirable for attempting to improve their circumstance, and possibly give their kids a better chance in life.
In conveying this idea of prostitution, Lumby teaches her sons to be nice to ''sex workers'', which is indubitably a charitable thing for an elite academic to do.
However, in framing prostitution as a benign form of ''work'', Lumby also disenables her sons taking social and political measures against the sex industry and its customers as perpetrators of serious and widespread harm against women in Australia.
There now exists a mountain of empirical research, not only from feminist social scientists, but also from psychologists, clinicians, nurses, anthropologists and economists, of the harms of prostitution for women. These harms include post-traumatic stress disorder, genital and other physical injuries, pregnancy, depression and anxiety, and social isolation.
It has been known since the late 1970s that a major precursor of women's entry into prostitution is childhood sexual abuse. There is also empirical evidence of the damage to women's social status, and the negative impact on women's connection to local community, of the sex industry.
Overwhelmingly, the social science and health literature condemns prostitution as a source of harm to women, as well as children.
For liberals to successfully frame prostitution as ''work'', rather than commercially mediated sexual abuse, they must close their eyes to this evidence. They must also avoid encountering most women in prostitution - even the most conservative demographic studies of this population find that half would leave the sex industry if they could. And they must overlook the good results that governments in Sweden, South Korea, Norway and Iceland have achieved in declaring prostitution a violation of gender equality, and criminalising the sex industry and its customers.
Most significantly, though, liberals must avoid mentioning pimps, traffickers, and sex industry customers in making their argument that prostitution is a legitimate form of work for poor women. Lumby doesn't breathe a word of the profit-making activities of pimps in Australia, nor the acts perpetrated by sex industry customers who buy women in half-hour blocks. She fails to tell her sons about the strategies of violence, debt and intimidation that pimps use to keep women in prostitution, and to make sure they service customers with a smile.
She also omits to mention the kinds of sex acts customers do to women in prostitution, and the misogynistic abuse and brutality that women face when they're dispatched to the hotel rooms and houses of prostitution buyers.
These inconvenient facts cause liberals great difficulty in selling the message that prostitution is work. In light of these facts, prostitution begins to look like a system of hush money paid to pimps to supply men with vulnerable women for sexual use and abuse.
When elite academics like Lumby publicly declare their allegiance to ''sex workers'' they concurrently reveal a loyalty to pimps and sex industry customers. They do this through framing prostitution as ''work'', and therefore sending the message that no policy or community action need be taken against the sex industry as an employer of women and legitimate business sector.
In this atmosphere, pimps and their customers are able to continue their harmful activities, and the sex industry in Australia is able to profitably expand and diversify.
On the other hand, when elite academics like me declare our support for ''prostituted women'', we declare a commitment to elimination of the sex industry. We work towards public recognition of prostitution as a social harm through public awareness campaigns highlighting the effects of the sex industry on individual women, and women's social status.
Just like the anti-smoking campaigns that began in the 1970s, we seek a reorientation of the public's thinking about prostitution towards a critique of the ''pretty woman'' and ''happy hooker'' stereotype. Australian policymakers and community leaders mobilised against the tobacco industry in the past three decades, and we seek similar government action against the sex industry as a driver of social harm.
The criminalisation of pimps and sex industry customers is a necessary first step towards this goal, but we also call for public education about the reality of prostitution, as well as policy planning for programs and initiatives to assist women to leave the sex industry and build lives that reflect their worth as full citizens.

Dr Caroline Norma is a lecturer in the school of Global Studies, Social Science & Planning at RMIT University.

Selling Sex Short: The Pornographic and Sexological Construction of Women’s Sexuality in the West



http://feministsforchoice.com/feminist-conversations-meagan-tyler.htm Published by Feminists for Choice on 18 June 2012. By Hennie.
Feminist Conversations is a regular feature at Feminists for Choice, in which we spotlight activists. After reading Meagan Tyler’s book Selling Sex Short: The Pornographic and Sexological Construction of Women’s Sexuality in the West, and not being able to put it down, I had to ask her a few questions. 
You have written extensively about pornography, the sex industry, and the construction of women’s sexuality. How did this interest come about?
Looking back now, it seems rather an odd thing to have chosen to research! What really got me interested was teaching in high-schools in my home town of Melbourne. Most schools in Australia have uniforms and on the few “free dress” days a year, students often want to wear their most coveted pieces of clothing. All the way back in 2004, I noticed a growing number of 12 and 13 year old girls wearing Playboy branded t-shirts, which seemed like a new phenomenon. I wanted to know about the marketing operations that were going on with companies like Playboy and if they were consciously “mainstreaming” their brands. So I went back to uni to do a PhD.

What was your motivation for writing Selling Sex Short?  

The book came out of my PhD research. When I started looking at the mainstreaming of pornography, or what some scholars refer to as “pornographication” or “pornification” of popular culture, it became clear that you can’t look at these pop culture trends without looking at the pornography industry itself. I hadn’t bargained on this when I started and didn’t really know what to expect when my research led me to actually having to look at how elements of the porn industry operate.

A lot of other academics have undertaken content analyses of pornography (i.e. to find out what is in mainstream porn, e.g. what kind of acts, violence, engagement with the camera / other actors etc.) so I needed to do something different. What interested me was what those within the industry actually say about how and why porn is produced, which is what led me to analyse Adult Video News, a porn industry based magazine aimed at producers, directors, distributors and vendors. In intra-industry forums people are often very open and forthright about the problems and harms that they believed are associated with the production of pornography. That, to me, was fascinating, and occasionally, quite disturbing. But it is important that we understand pornographic content in the context of its production. How the porn industry markets its products, for example, gives us important information about how the industry wants itself to be seen and what those within the industry believe consumers want to see and buy.
The other half of the book is really about sex therapy. I had done some previous research on the supposed “epidemic” of female sexual dysfunction (FSD), which was largely “discovered” after Viagra hit the market. In countries like Australia, the US and the UK, some medical experts were claiming that almost half of all women were suffering from some form of FSD. I wanted to find out how the sex therapy industry was marketing its treatments for this form of dysfunction and what larger cultural changes were occurring to create such popular interest in a medicalised understanding of sexuality.
In the end, I wanted to know what kind of sex these two industries were promoting. The trend towards pornographication and the trend towards the medicalisation of women’s sexuality post-Viagra were both noticeable cultural shifts occurring in roughly the same time period but I had no sense of if they were connected or if they related to each other at all. I was quite surprised to find that there were both theoretical and material connections between the two. I had no idea before starting my research, for example, that some therapists recommend pornography to patients as a template to follow for their own sex lives or that a number of porn stars have produced their own sex advice literature.
The book really came about because I didn’t want the debates about these issues to be limited to academia. We need to be having much more informed public discussions about sexuality and inequality.
The book is written from a feminist perspective (especially so radical feminism), what does feminism mean to you?
Yes, the book certainly draws on radical feminist writing and theorising, which is quite unusual these days. So much so, I am often required to dispel myths about radical feminism and feminism in general before even beginning to speak about my research. It is quite bizarre being accused of being a prude or being “anti-sex” when you spend your professional life researching, writing and talking about sex and sexual pleasure!

One of the most important elements of feminism is an understanding that sexuality is socially constructed. That is, sexuality is not purely an issue of biology. How we understand and experience sexuality is heavily contingent upon the cultural and historical circumstances in which we live. This perspective is not unique to feminism, but it is a very important element of all forms of feminism.
So when we talk about inequality between men and women, for example, a social constructionist approach forces us to recognise that this is not an innate or pre-determined situation. This is a situation that can, and should, be challenged.
But challenging inequality is, unfortunately, not enough. There are real material barriers relating to overcoming disadvantage associated with gender, class, race and ethnicity, disability and sexuality (to name but a few). And this is why claims that individuals can simply be “empowered” to overcome disadvantage rings a bit hollow. If we do not recognise that there are often structural and institutional barriers to equality then we tend to blame people for their own circumstances.
To bring about real change, we need social movements. And that is what, to me, feminism is at its heart: a social movement for equality and women’s civil rights.
What are the main points you would like readers to know about the book, but also about pornography and sexology?
The overarching theme of the book is really that sex is a social act. Our conceptions of what sex is, and what is should be, are framed by cultural expectations and norms. The porn industry and sex therapy are both important players in forming these expectations and norms in the West today. So it is important that we question the glamourised version of porn that is (carefully) presented to us in many pop culture representations and that we also question the over-simplified and medicalised version of sexuality presented to us by many so-called “sex experts”. The book shows that the concepts of what “good sex” is in both porn and sexology (the “science of sex”) actually have a lot in common, in particular, the idea that women’s sexuality is largely there to service men’s needs. Hardly a great vision for women’s sexual pleasure!

Ultimately, we need to start imagining versions of sexuality we would like to see and this is how I end the book. There aren’t any grand solutions presented, I just hope it opens up some new conversations.
You discuss the influence of the sex industry and sexology on women’s sexuality and the notion that these industries promote harm, objectification and the sexual servicing of men by women. For those who have not read the book, could you offer a short explanation?
I argue that the dominant model of sexuality promoted to women in both pornography and in sexology / sex therapy has a lot in common with systems of prostitution. That is, it is assumed that women should be constantly sexually available and that women’s role is primarily having to sexually service men. In this model it is not a woman’s sexual pleasure that defines whether or not sex is “good sex” but rather whether or not she has performed to the expectations of an (assumed) male lover.

That this model of sex, focused on men’s sexual pleasure, is a hallmark of how the porn industry constructs “good sex” is probably not surprising.  What was surprising, to me at least, was that these same assumptions about what women are “really for” can be found in academic and popular sexology. There are concepts such as “receptivity”, for example, which suggest normal and healthy women should be “highly receptive” to sexual advances from a male partner and that women should have sex when they don’t want to in order to please angry or irritable partners. This vision of sex presented to women is quite bleak, and in many instances, tends to justify men’s sexual coercion.
A model of sex which promotes the idea that women should acquiesce to unwanted sexual advances because they are there simply to please men is seriously harmful, not only to individual women’s interests, but to women as a group. It also sounds like something from a century ago! Instead of telling women to “Lie back and think of England” we tell them to watch porn or take a variety of pills, patches and creams.
When you are not busy lecturing, writing and doing research, what do you do to unwind?
Nothing very glamorous – I’m not sure how I survived before the advent of DVDs and Wii. Curling up in front of the TV with a blanket and a cuppa helps keep me sane and I like to kid myself that being good at tennis on the Wii means I could have been a Wimbledon champion if only I hadn’t spent all my time reading books.

Dr Meagan Tyler is a lecturer in sociology at Victoria University, Australia. She tweets @DrMeaganTyler.