CuckYou.

The European Common Cuckoo is an asshole. Well, the technical term is a brood parasite. Basically, Mama Cuckoo will lay her eggs in another bird's nest, so that some schmuck of a pigeon or something gets stuck raising her kid. Papa Cuckoo is a sneaky fuck too, often he'll cause a distraction in order to lure the schmuck birds away from the nest so Mama can get in there and deposit her business (she has actually evolved to do this quickly and discretely). And Baby Cuckoo isn't innocent in this Jerry Springer-esque nonsense either, it's the skeeziest of the bunch -it hatches quicker than the schmuck babies, grows faster, and pushes the schmuck eggs and/or chicks out of the nest so it doesn't have to share regurgitated worms with nobody. It's born with that instinct. Ugh, kids are the worst.
Unfortunately, birds don't have access to DNA swabs and lie detector tests and sassy audience members to give them sage advice -which is a shame, because I would totally watch that show.

Just a thought.

Let's talk about sexts, baby

Okay so I'm late to this party, or at least to posting about it. I'm listening to a re-run of a talk radio show from this afternoon and they are talking about the current teenage phenomenon of "sexting". It frustrates me to hear these same arguments played out. Although at least this is one thing that actually does happen as opposed to the outcry over mythical "rainbow parties" and the jelly bracelets that depict a girl's sexual reportoire. Because of course the only teen sex scandals the media is interested in are the ones that involve girls behaving badly. Circle-jerking rarely gets airtime.

So what? Girls and young women take photos of themselves partially or fully naked and send them to boys, as a means of flirting. And in some cases, the images end up getting circulated around the whole school/town/internet. Now I'm not saying this whole things is no big deal. Yes, sexting is problematic, especially when you are talking about underage girls and the distribution of what then becomes child pornography. [Though the case of charging underrage girls for taking pictures of themselves is ridiculous... talk about not granting them ownership of their own bodies!]. The images can also be used manipulatively to threaten and bully those in them. And while these issues may be taken seriously at the legislative and schoolboard levels, in the domain of popular media -television, radio shows, magazine articles, it seems that the danger of the sexting craze is the potential shame that is bound to occur if other people see your body, and the very idea that girls would want to send pictures of themselves to boys at all is made out to be horrifying.

The warning seems to be that naked photographs are extremely personal, that they should kept private and that because of the easily shared nature of digital media, should not even be sent to partners/boyfriends and the like in case things turn sour/a phone is lost and suddenly the whole basketball team/boardroom has seen your tits.

It's not bad advice really, but sometimes you want to live a little. And if a saucy text ends up in the wrong hands, so what?

They are just breasts. Most women have them. We are bombarded everyday with images of breasts, or at least an airbrushed, silicone-pumped [per]version of them, on television, bilboards, online. They are nothing new.

Are women's breasts de-valued everytime they are seen?

Are women de-valued everytime their breasts are seen?

Yes, it can be embarrassing when something we expect to be kept private is made public, be it a photograph, email, or old diary. But the idea that our very bodies are something to be humiliated by is wrong and damaging. That something so mundane as taking your clothes off may affect your reputation, impede your chances at employment or promotion, and simply de-value you, is awful and instead of flat out warning girls not to photograph themselves we should also be pointing out that your life does not end once people have seen you in [or out of] your undies.

And of course, through all of the discussion, nobody talks about boys sending naked images of themselves to girls. And yes they do. Maybe not as much, maybe just as much, but oh yes they do. And nobody cares. Because once he's doing it of his own will, a shirtless picture of a young man, even with his pants down is not considered as damaging to his reputation, or as humiliating, or as wrong. Unlike young women,his worth is not based on his sexual purity. His naked body is not even considered as sexual as a naked girl's body. Boys who send overtly sexual messages are not wearing down the moral fibre of society, it's not cause for concern.

No, instead, the media's account of this problem is that girls are going wild, that their sexuality is dangerous, and that they will end up as the victims in this. The fear is that sexting is only symptomatic of what the girls are actually DOING with boys, even though this is not usually the case. How about we start having some real conversations with girls and young women, and hell, older women too for that matter. Coversations about their sexuality and how there is nothing wrong with expressing it, and even maybe better, more authentic ways of expressing it? What kind of models do young women have for this? There is such a narrow range of idols provided to girls in mainstream media, and most of them eventually strip off for Maxim anyway. Or Playboy -an empire that markets fashion and jewellery lines to preteen girls. And then we act surprised when they start to take their clothes off and pose? Maybe they feel that such behaviour is the only way they can compete for male attention because they are quite aware of the images of women boys are used to seeing every day. Why don't we talk to girls about more meaningful and less risky ways of relating to boys, and how they don't need to depend on their bodies? How about we discuss what to do if sexting does result in your picture all over Facebook and how, while it's natural to be embarrassed, ultimately other people's reactions to your body say more about them than you?

We all know the conflicting messages this culture sends to girls, it's nothing new. They are told that being beautiful, sexy and desirable is so important, while simultaneously being told to be innocent and chaste and not act on any desires they have themselves. No wonder many girls equate their sexuality with looking sexual. You can look without touching, you can be sexualised without being sexual. Until we start having conversations about this, girls are going to continue to think think healthy sexual expression is about looking sexy, wanting to be wanted, and getting kicks out of turning on the boys without actually owning their own sexual wants.

Maybe some people are just worried that in this case, for once, nobody is actually making any money from the sexualisation of girls and women?

Overly cynical? Perhaps. But pornography is an obscenely lucrative industry. And just as record companies argue that file sharing could destroy the music industry, those in the porn business may feel they are losing a buck for every naked picture a girl sends out for free.

schminnocence

When people talk about kids, they throw the word "innocent" around a lot. I've noticed this even more since I started working in an elementary school (in Korea, by the way). Innocence is considered  an inherently good quality for a child to have, and is often spoken of by adults in awe, like it's some ideal and magical state that one way or another crumbles and is lost by the time we hit six or seven, or earlier. How precious! How fragile! How ridiculous
.
So innocence, what is it?  Lack of guilt, a perfect conscience, a clean slate? Lack of knowledge, naivety, gullibility? Purity? Goodness? I have heard the term used to express all of these.

People would have you believe innocence is something to be valued and something to be protected and something which cannot be regained.
(Just like 'virginity', another bullshit term which only serves to commodify sexuality. What's the term for someone who hasn't been snowboarding, who has never had a foot massage, who has never driven a car?

"You're just a virgin who can't drive." -Way harsh, Tai, but the words speak volumes. There are no labels for people who haven't snowboarded, been massaged, driven, yet we ascribe the term 'virgin' to somebody who lacks this one specific experience. And a particularly heterocentric one at that, as usually it's applied to someone who has not yet had a penis in their vagina, or a vagina on their penis, no matter how many dicks they have sucked or clitori they have licked to orgasm.) -Okay, I digress a little, but like 'virginity', innocence is something we are seemingly born with, something pure and special that is associated with youth, that we want our children to retain for as long as possible and that once it's gone, we are forever changed. (barf.)

When I was undertaking research for my thesis (which I have yet to write about on this blog, whoops) I spoke to sex education teachers, sexual health educators and youth group leaders about their experiences with young people and their quests for sexual health information. The issue of innocence cropped up in numerous interviews.. when was too young to start providing that information and what negative effect may it have on them -there was this acceptance that education was necessary but oh wasn't it a pity they couldn't just remain 'innocent' a little longer?  Education is not a dirty word, knowing about sex does not make a kid less wholesome or more 'guilty' than knowing about flowers or pokemon.

When is innocence lost? The first time a kid tries to find out if they can reach the cookie jar when their dad's not looking? The first time they start to doubt the existence of the tooth fairy? The first time they accidentally see an erect penis when mom forgets to delete her browsing history? And what, suddenly they're not as perfect as they once were, they're tainted? Fuck that! It's called learning, it's called critical thinking, it's called curiosity. These are skills and values to be encouraged in kids, not considered some sort of perverse development that is threatening grown-ups' idealised notion of 'innocence'. 

I don't believe in innocence (apart from the judicial kind). Ignorance is another story. We're all ignorant about plenty of things, but gradually we learn more and more. Kids are ignorant about a whole lot of things. That's okay, it's allowed, they're new here and they'll pick it up as they go along. But let's stop pretending their lack of knowledge, of understanding and experience is itself wondrous and something to be revered. It's not. Their thirst for knowledge, on the other hand, is.

My first colposcopy!

So I forgot to blog about my most exciting cervical adventure yet -my colposcopy. Seeing as I've blogged about my previous pap exams (see Pap Rally and my most popular post of all, Ch-ch-check It) , I figure I should really provide an update for anyone who's maybe worried about their own upcoming colposcopy.

Basically, after getting irregular results from two routine paps in a row, I was booked in for a colposcopy at the Adelaide and Meath Hospital in Tallaght last June or so. To be honest I was kind of nervous, for a start because I hate hospitals but also because I wasn't sure what to expect. The procedure is described as being like any normal pap, except the doctor inserts a thin rod with a hoop on the end, and removes a tiny area of tissue to be checked out. The literature says "it's slightly uncomfortable but completely painless" and my friend said "Oh my god, my sister had that and said it was hell, she could barely walk afterwards."

Thankfully my friend is just mean and the literature was right, the whole thing is nothing to worry about. Mine got off to a good start when I arrived to find a really nice, modern hospital without a trace of that creep hospital scent. I sat down in the waiting room, on a seat that made loud fart noises at the slightest movement. Then I changed seats, and watched someone else sit on the fart chair and get embarrassed and move. This entertaining process repeated itself until I was called in to see the doctor.

After answering a few questions, I changed into a gown, and hopped up on the chair that reclined back. Their was a TV on the ceiling screening pictures of waterfalls and forests and playing similarly "calming" music that was kind of funny. It started off like a normal pap, except there was another nurse present too who was chatting away to me the whole time. Then I got to see my cervix on a screen which was pretty cool!! The machine made a pretty loud noise, but really that was the most unnerving part of the whole thing. I also realised, afterwards, that she had given me an injection. IN MY CERVIX. Just think of where your cervix is and then think how long that needle must have been!! Ha, but totally felt nothing.
It took maybe ten minutes or less altogether, and truly was a piece of cake.

So yeah, I told you it was a boring post, but still I thought I should update you on my cervical goings on, I know you guys were hotly anticipating it, like a Breaking Bad season premiere.

Ch-ch-check it

So, last year I wrote a post about the importance of getting regular paps, where I described my own pap experience. Well, a couple paps later I figure why not update y'all? I registered with Cervical Check back in August which is an awesome program that provides free pap tests to women over 25, and got an appointment in September. All went fine, I was out of there in ten minutes and treated myself to ice-cream afterwards for my troubles. A few weeks later I get a letter saying my cells show signs of "irregularity" and I need to go back in six months. No biggie, I know this happens a lot and usually, by the time you go for the second one your cervical ecology has returned to normal.

So in April I go back for another, and -I have to be honest, if I had to rank it it would only barely make my top 3 pap tests ever. And it was only my third one.

For a start, the doctor seemed nervous and it turned out to be contagious. Starts asking me about my sexual partners and I start blabbing about how I'm sleeping with someone on the regular, though he's not exactly a boyfriend, but at the same time, we're not sleeping with other people, but I mean we're not like .. a couple. Wait, am I blushing?! Just shut up already! Anyway, she raises an eyebrow all judgementally and suggests I get tested for chlamydia. Which is fine, I'm all for sexual health and my last STI check less than a year ago, which is more than I can say for most people I know (yes I'm looking at you, and you -and you in the back) but I don't appreciate her attitude. Anyway, whatever, I agree to pay the extra 15 bucks for a chlam test if it will make her stop giving me the judge-y eyes, and then it's onto the table for the pap.

Skirt up, undies down, in she goes for a gander around.(Hey, that rhymed!) And then I hear the one thing you don't want to hear when you're half naked with your legs spread..

"Hmmmmm......"

"Hmm?" I ask.

"I'm just going to get the other doctor to take a look".

"Okay..."

I assume she's not calling another doctor in just to admire the great piece of kit that is my cervix. Even worse, it's starting to feel a bit uncomfortable to have a big chunk of metal stuck in my vagina for more than a few minutes.

Other doctor comes in and straight away I feel more at ease. She doesn't give off the super nervo vibes the former does.

Takes a look and right away goes "Oh right. That's just a [something-i-can't-pronounce-but-similar-to-a-birthmark]. Harmless. Oh and there's a polyp. Harmless too."

Which is good to hear, though I could still use a little clarification on what the fuck a polyp is or what a like-a-birthmark is doing up there. I want to ask if it's the shape of an animal or continent or anything, but don't.

Cool doctor leaves, and nervous doctor takes my pap swab, and then I'm allowed get dressed, and they tell me they'll send me a letter with the results etc.

ANYways. A couple weeks later I get letters telling me the good but un-exciting news that I don't have chlam and the somewhat bad news -that my cervix needs further investigation and I'm being referred for a colposcopy at a hospital. This procedure is basically just another pap test, except they use a special magnifying glass which lets them get even more up close and personal. They may or may not conduct the treatment on the same day -this involves inserting something that removes little patches of troublesome [read: potentially pre-cancerous] cells. It's still only supposed to take a few minutes and then you go home, so again sounds like no big deal. And again, lots of women get them, statistically it does not mean you're going to get cervical cancer, it's just better to be safe than sorry and all that.

I admit I am a little icked out about it. Mostly just because hospitals freak me out. The Well Woman Centre does not look like or smell like a hospital, whereas I imagine St. James' will. But overall, I'm a logical person and I take solace in the statistics and so won't fret about it. Hell, it makes me glad I signed up to Cervical Check -and oh yeah - I should mention that all my paps and this upcoming colposcopy are all free. Good news considering I am a broke and irresponsible student without health insurance.. But it feels good toI know that if something is up, I'm getting something done about it, and that is the point of this post. It might be considered oversharing or too much information, but it's important for women to talk about matters of the vag and it's important to get yourself checked. The reason these free screenings have been introduced is because issues can be so easily sorted if you spot them early, so there's no real excuse not to.

Go forth and register with Cervical Check!

P.S. I got the image from Comics with Problems -they archive vintage comics on health issues and have an awesome collection, take a look!!

warts 'n' all

Interesting article in the Irish Times the other day on whether boys should be getting the Cervical Cancer vaccine as well as girls. It's apparently already happening in the UK and Oz.

I was rather delighted earlier this year when Health Minister Mary Harney finally announced that beginning this September, the Gardasil vaccine would be administered to girls in Irish secondary schools.

The vaccine protects against four strains of HPV, two of which are associated with about 70% of cervical cancer cases and two of which are associated with about 90% of genital warts cases.

HPV is one of the more mysterious STIs out there. There are between 30 and 40 strains that can be transmitted through sexual contact, and because condoms do not cover the areas around the genitals or inner thighs which can be exposed to the infected person's skin, they are not effective in preventing transmission. Testing usually won't detect HPV, unless visible symptoms occur. It is so common, that most people who have been sexually active already have HPV, and for most of us, our bodies will clear the infection on its own without us ever knowing we have it. Of course everyone's immune system is different, and not everyone will clear the infection. Two possible results in this case are genital warts, and genital lesions which can progress to cervical cancer. Of course anything that can help prevent these sounds like a good idea.

However, because the drug only prevents HPV strains which have not yet been contracted and does not treat a person's existing HPV-related problems, it had been particularly recommended for younger girls who were less likely to have had (m)any sexual partners. But it has also been found to be effective for women up to their late twenties, and now it's also being recommended for boys.

Ok, so your average boy may not be in possession of a cervix, but seeing as the vaccine is also awesome at lowering the risk of getting genital warts as well as reducing the transmission of certain cancer-causing strains of HPV between horny kids, it sounds like a damn good idea to me. Of course, the government don't really want to talk about the genital warts thing, because if our girls realise the vaccine could also help prevent them from catching a nasty STI, next thing they'll be humping every boy in sight sans-durex and going wild, and Joe Francis would be cleaning up.

No, far more respectable to just stick with the cancer part, nobody can argue with cancer -even the Catholic church can't argue with that, right? [Hmmm...]

Personally I think they should be playing up the warts thing - or at least the profit-lovin' drug companies should. For a start it doubles their market. Also.. and I'm not for a second saying cervical cancer is preferable to some pesky vag warts... but at the same time, at least I can try to keep cervical cancer in check with regular paps -warts are less likely to call and let you know they're coming. They just arrive on your doorstep and then you're fucked and need to revert to celibacy and numerous cryotherapy treatments which I hear are no picnic. Shudder.

I'm not altogether sold on this whole Gardasil vaccine in the first place. In theory I am, but I've also read some dodgy reports on the health risks, and really I'd need to investigate a little more before I decry everybody should go out and get shot up with the stuff. But, also in theory, I think if we're going to do this we need to do it right, and to effectively reduce the risk of cervical cancer [AND warts!], I think we need boys to get in on this too. Pretty much like most aspects of feminism, it just works better if men and women are all on the same page.

I decided not to use a picture for this post. You're welcome.