Vote For Me. Here's My Dick
House Candidate Releases Sex Tape, On Purpose
Last week, I wrote an article for a client about period sex. For SEO (search engine optimization) purposes, I had to use the phrase “on your period” a lot. It hurt. I hate that phrase. It’s got a unique combination of bad grammar and vivid visuals. While most of you probably haven’t given it a second thought, I know I’m not alone in my hatred, at least among my friends. One friend (hi, Rachel) who works with teens and tweens asked me to investigate this phrase which she hears a lot and hates as much as I do.
We wondered if it was an age thing (like how saying pot instead of weed dates you as at least Gen-X), a regional preference (like the difference between soda or pop), or just a case of phrases coming and going over time (I feel like I watched “no worries” enter the lexicon slowly in the early 2000s and now I say it all the time). Of course, because this is about sex, comfort with the issue could be at play a role as well.
It’s too bad this wasn’t included in the New York Times quiz on language that can pinpoint where you grew up within a few zip codes based on what you call the strip of grass between the sidewalk and the road and whether you call a water fountain a bubbler (hi, Rhode Island). While a very quick lit review found some interesting academic articles on attitudes toward menstruation among different groups, the one that best addressed the language question—"The Vernacular of Menstruation” by Natalie F. Joffe—was published in the journal Word in 1948. (Why is it not surprising that the two most common German words for menstruation at the time had roots in the word swine?) Fascinating to be sure, but not current.
I will keep looking for scientific answers as to when this term popped up, who uses it, whether other people hate it as much as I do, and—if I dare to dream—how we can make it go away.
In the meantime, we’ll have to settle for a 10-question survey monkey about this dreaded—or perhaps beloved—phrase. It’s unscientific but it should only take two minutes to complete and maybe we’ll learn something
Please fill it out and send to anyone who you think might want to add to our knowledge or just get a kick out of it.
University of Idaho Clarifies Campus Rules (but We Should Still be Nervous)
Two weeks ago, I mentioned a memo sent out by the University of Idaho’s General Counsel which suggested that in light of recent laws the school should stop providing contraception to students, and teachers should be careful when talking about abortion on campus. Top administrators at the school have since weighed in, promising that nothing has changed… yet. Before we get to that, however, I need to clarify some information about the original memo.
I assumed that the law in question in the general counsel’s memo (which had not yet been released in the press) was Idaho’s new ban on abortion. This trigger law criminalizes the procedure. It kicked in as soon as SCOTUS overturned Roe but was quickly challenged by the Justice Department. It argued that Idaho’s law violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, a federal law which requires medical professionals in hospitals that accept Medicaid to ensure the physical well-being of all patients. Contrary to what some GOP lawmakers would like to believe, pregnant people are patients too.
Idaho’s law does make exceptions for rape and when a mother’s life is in danger, but it doesn’t address situations where her health or future reproduction is at issue. The Justice Department maintained that this could prevent doctors from performing necessary procedures out of fears that they would be charged with criminal abortion. While the case plays out in court, a federal judge agreed to a partial injunction that applies only to emergency situations.
Interestingly, however, this was not the law that prompted the memo from the university’s head lawyer. He was worried about legislation passed in 2021 called the No Public Funding for Abortion Law and a portion of the Idaho criminal code that was added 50 years ago (and clearly ignored until now).
The newer law says that “no public funds can be used to promote abortion.” As the memo explains: “The section does not specify what is meant by promoting abortion, however, it is clear that university employees are paid with public funds. Employees engaging in their course of work in a manner that favors abortion could be deemed as promoting abortion." The lawyer also pointed out that academic freedom is not a defense and recommended that faculty be “conservative” when discussing abortion in class.
Contraception is not covered in the 2021 law but is mentioned in section 18-603 of Idaho’s criminal code which was added in 1972. The section declares it a felony for anyone other than a licensed health care provider to advertise “any medicine or means for producing or facilitating a miscarriage or abortion, or for the prevention of conception.” Since the purpose of birth control is to prevent conception, the lawyer once again suggested the university take a conservative approach by not providing any contraception to students, though the memo does say that condoms can be provided for the prevention of STIs.
The language of the code does not discuss dispensing contraception, only advertising it. It seems like the school could be within the law if it muzzled health educators but quietly continued to provide contraception. The fact that the general counsel took an extreme approach to a very old law now seems indicative of the environment we’re living in.
This story, like the one out of Oberlin College this summer, got a lot of media attention and served as a rallying cry for reproductive rights advocates who have long argued that access to contraception would be the next target. President Biden weighed in saying: “They told university staff they could get in trouble just for talking or telling students about birth control. Folks, what century are we in?”
In a follow-up memo designed to clarify the school’s policies and procedures, University of Idaho President Scott Green and Provost and Executive Vice President Torrey Lawrence promised that nothing has changed on campus: there have been no changes to the academic freedom policy, the university continues to support faculty leading discussions on all educational topics, condom vending machines remain available on campus, and the health center will “continue to meet the reproductive health needs of students” including providing contraception.
That said, the two administrators noted that a lot of this is not up to the University at all: “The Idaho laws, brought to the forefront by the overturn of Roe v. Wade, are indeed complex, unclear and written to be punitive for state employees. We cannot make any guarantees about how the state will choose to enforce them.”
This story is a prime example of the damage abortion laws can do on top of just, you know, preventing abortion. These laws cause confusion about what is and isn’t allowed. Here, they are being used to censor teachers on the college level and deny college students (most of whom are legal adults) access to contraception.
Phexxi STD Trial Cancelled
Evofem Biosciences, the manufacturers of Phexxi, recently shut down a Phase 3 trial designed to determine if the contraceptive gel could also prevent chlamydia and gonorrhea. The company blamed changes in sexual behavior brought on by the pandemic for the fact that the product failed to meet its goal but said they were not going to try again.
Preliminary studies had suggested that the all-natural gel made from lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate (or cream of tartar) was effective in preventing these two most common bacterial STIs. This study, designed to confirm those findings, enrolled 1,903 women who had had chlamydia or gonorrhea within the previous four months. Participants were divided between a treatment group and a control group to see whether Phexxi could lower the proportion of people who contracted chlamydia or gonorrhea over the next four months. It did not.
In a statement, Saundra Pelletier, the CEO of Evofem, said:
"The impact of the public health response to the COVID pandemic included universal recommendations for social distancing, individual and household quarantines, and clinic visits for health emergencies only. We believe changes in clinical site operations, subject behavior and actions including deviations from following the clinical study protocol requirements related to STI acquisition, detection, and prevention contributed to this outcome."
I found this statement confusing. This was self-contained research that shouldn’t have been relying on the public health infrastructure to prevent or detect STIs.
Though it is considered good form to do so, the company is under no obligation to publish the findings of a failed study. All we have to go on is the company’s press release which is full of similar, slightly defensive quotes. One of them, from Dr. Brandi Howard, might contain more of an explanation:
“In a non-COVID environment, I believe the results would have likely been different, and that infection rates would have been higher in the placebo arm, as was seen in [the previous study]."
Reading between the lines, it sounds like there was little difference between the percentage of participants in each group who got infected, but researchers felt it was lower-than-normal STI rates in the placebo group rather than high rates in the treatment group that skewed the data.
Okay, but their answer to this was to pull the plug on all STI research rather than to, say, try another study in post-pandemic times. That seems telling.
New York City Candidate Releases Sex Tape, On Purpose
Political ads are not what they used to be, and neither are sex tapes? An independent candidate running for a New York House seat decided that instead of making an attack ad against his opponents (or maybe in addition to), he’d make porn.
Mike Itkis, a 53-year-old cybersecurity expert, is running for Manhattan’s 12th Congressional District against both long-time Democratic Rep. Jerry Adler and Republican opponent Mike Zumbluska. Itkis is running on a platform of sex positivity and sexual rights though he may define this slightly differently than most.
He opposes “the conservative idea” that sex is only between married men and women; supports people’s rights to “NOT become a parent in case of pregnancy;” would like to redefine the abortion debate as a right to unplanned sex; and believes “men should not be required to support biological children without prior agreement.” Itkis would like to see the government legalize sex work, protect privacy rights, define consent, and end adultery laws.
As a candidate he believes that just talking about sex positivity wouldn’t demonstrate a commitment to the issues. So, he made a movie called Bucket List Bonanza with porn performer Nicole Sage. Itkis said this was the first time in front of the camera for him and described it as “a huge learning experience, [that] actually influences items on my platform.” He added that it was “one of the most meaningful experiences” of his life.
And, lucky us, we can all tune in. It’s been released on a “leading” porn platform, though I admit I haven’t done the research to figure out which one.
It used to be politicians feared any mention of sex with good reason (umm, Gary Hart) and sex tapes only came to light by accident (umm, Rob Lowe), or at the very least accidentally on purpose (umm, Kim Kardashian). I guess we’re in a new era. If sex tapes can launch a billion-dollar empire (umm, Kim Kardashian), maybe they can launch political careers as well.
Jerry Nadler’s office declined to comment for a HuffPo article, but Mike Zumbluska had a different take: “You gotta do what you gotta do.”