Landelijke manifestatie: "Schoon genoeg van kernenergie"


Een blog geleden heb ik gesteld dat de anti-kernenergy lobby in Nederland op haar lauweren rust. Ik ging onder andere af op de schaarse mediaberichtgeving en het teleurstellende gebrek aan activiteit bij het Landelijk Platform Tegen Kernenergie. Gelukkig zat ik fout! Een gezamelijk initiatief is opgezet door Comité Borssele2Nee,  DWARS (GroenLinks jongeren), GroenLinks, Greenpeace, Jongeren Milieu Actief, Stichting Laka (Landelijk Kernenergie Archief), Milieudefensie, Natuur en Milieu, Partij van de Arbeid, Partij voor de Dieren, ROOD (SP jongeren), SP en WISE (netwerkorganisatie tegen kernenergie) en de twaalf Natuur en Milieufederaties.

Deze coalitie van maatschappelijke organisaties en politieke partijen roept op tot een landelijke manifestatie tegen kernenergie op 16 april op de Dam in Amsterdam. Helaas is ChristenUnie niet van de partij, hoewel zij ook - voorlopig - tegen kernenergie is; dit heeft waarschijnlijk te maken met het feit dat men vreest geassocieerd te worden met 'links'. Jammer, want kernenergie is geen exclusief links thema en moet dat ook niet zijn.
De doel is omschreven als: "Laat samen met ons zien dat Nederland schoon genoeg heeft van kernenergie. Dit kabinet moet kiezen voor een schone en veilige energietoekomst." Daarbij moet gemeld worden dat de actie met name betrekking heeft op de bouw van een nieuwe kerncentrale (zoals het huidig kabinet van zins is). Het gaat dus niet direct over de sluiting van de bestaande centrale in Borsele, of de onderzoeksreactor in Petten. Dit blijkt uit de rondzendbrief die ondertekenaars aan hun contacten kunnen doorsturen:
"Hallo,    

Ik heb net de petitie 'Schoon genoeg van kernenergie' ondertekend, omdat ik niet wil dat er nieuwe kerncentrales worden gebouwd in Nederland. Kernenergie is onveilig, duur en zadelt ons 240.000 jaar op met levensgevaarlijk afval. Het kabinet moet juist kiezen voor een schone en veilige energietoekomst. Vind jij dat ook? Teken dan hier.

Bedankt!"
De website is zelf karig, er wordt bijvoorbeeld niet op aangegeven wat verstaan wordt onder 'schoon'/'vuil'; er is weinig achtergrondinformatie. Dat is jammer. Ik hoop dat de boodschap duidelijk mag zijn:
  • Risico's zijn niet te verzekeren, de (verzekerings-)kosten worden afgewenteld op de burger
  • Kerncentrales zijn niet niet emissievrij (op dit moment een populair argument van de kernenergielobby) 
  • We blijven duizenden jaren opgescheept zitten met radioactief afval, een permanente oplossing blijft uit
  • Investeringen in een nieuwe kerncentrale ten koste gaan van investeringen in duurzame energie
  • Veiligheidssystemen worden telkens weer verslagen door 'menselijke fouten' (zo bewijst elk incident weer)

"I preached against homosexuality, but I was wrong"

American news site Salon.com features an interview with Murray Richmond, a Presbyterian minister for 17 years and a hospital chaplain for three years.
---

As a Presbyterian minister, I believed it was a sin. Then I met people who really understood the stakes: Gay men.

A recent poll shows a huge shift in American attitudes toward gay marriage, from a 32 percent approval in 2004 to 53 percent today. I am one of those people who changed their minds.

In 1989 when I was ordained as a minister to serve a small church in North Carolina, homosexuality was an invisible issue. Gay rights were barely on the radar of mainstream churches. The idea of an openly gay pastor was beyond the pale. 
 I knew there were "gay churches," of course, but I did not believe one could be a practicing homosexual and a Christian. The Bible was straightforward on this issue. It all seemed incredibly obvious to me. But over the next five years, homosexuality not only became an issue -- it became The Issue. Sides were drawn, and those of us in the middle were pulled to either end. I was a biblical Christian, of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" crowd. And so it seemed clear that I could not fully accept, ordain and marry gays. If I was going to be forced to choose a side, that was mine.

The truth is, I was put out that this was an issue. Feeding the hungry, preaching the gospel, comforting the afflicted, standing up to racial intolerance -- these were the struggles I signed up for, not determining the morality of what adults did in their bedrooms. 
But the debate would not go away. It came up, again and again, year after year, pushed by activists on either end. Each time, I grudgingly voted to hold the traditional line and limit the role of gays in the church. But I felt increasingly uncomfortable. What I believed was biblically correct began to feel less and less right in my heart.

Continue reading on Salon.com

Fukushima? Nederlandse anti-nucleaire lobby rust op lauweren

Onze ´groen-rechtse' Minister President grijpt de situatie in Fukushima doodleuk aan om te pleiten vóór een nieuwe centrale in Nederland, immers, dan kunnen we ook de lessen uit Japan meenemen. Het Landelijk Platform tegen Kernenergie blijft opvallend stil. 25 Jaar na Tsjernobyl wordt weliswaar aangegrepen voor een herdenking, maar op de website wordt verder geen woord gerept over Japan waar zich de op een na grootste ramp met een kernenergiecentrale afspeelt. Dat terwijl deze week,oud-hoogleraar elektriciteitsvoorziening Cees Andriesse, in een interview stelt dat er sinds de jaren tachtig ernstige en 'onacceptabele' storingen hebben voorgedaan. "Een van de ernstigste incidenten deed zich voor in 1986, tijdens een brandstofwisseling, waarbij een nieuwe transformator in bedrijf werd genomen. Door een storing viel de elektrische voeding uit en door een menselijke fout kwam slechts één noodstroom-dieselaggregaat in werking."  De enige reactie? Van EPZ, de uitbater van de centrale in Borsele, die zegt dat "Serieuze veiligheidsincidenten volgens de internationale norm" zich niet hebben voorgedaan. We moeten EPZ dus maar op haar woorden vertrouwen, want kamervragen zijn volgens mij niet gesteld; reacties en vragen van het Landelijk Platform blijven voor alsnog uit.


Nee, dan Duitsland, waar Fukushima aanleiding geeft tot massale protesten tegen kernenergie.... De Bundeskanzlerin heeft haar pro-nucleaire agenda zelfs moeten aanpassen in de hoop verliezen voor de CDU te beperken in de aankomende bondsstatenverkiezingen. Zeven kerncentrales die voor 1980 in gebruik zijn genomen worden voor drie maanden gesloten voor controle. Natuurlijk, het besluit is meer ingegeven door politieke redenen dan door wijsheid. Ten eerste is het controleren van zoveel centrales in drie maanden tijd gekkenwerk, ten tweede importeert Duitsland in de tussentijd meer kernenergie uit Frankrijk. Maar goed, in ieder geval rust Duitsland niet op zijn lauweren; wat Nederland wel lijkt te doen. 


Nederland is te klein voor een (nieuwe) kerncentrale, de risico's zijn niet te verzekeren, de (verzekerings-)kosten worden afgewenteld op de burger (so much for goedkope energie); de bouw (en de operatie van een kerncentrale) is alles behalve emissievrij; een permanente oplossing voor opslag van afval blijft uit; bovendien zou een investering in een nieuwe kerncentrale ten koste gaan van investeringen in duurzame energie. We horen telkens dat 'onze centrale' nu en in de toekomst tot de veiligste ter wereld behoren, maar duurzame veiligheidsmanagementsystemen worden telkens weer verslagen door 'menselijke fouten', zo bewijst elk incident weer. Nederland verhef je stem tegen een nucleaire toekomst!

10 jaar Homohuwelijk: nog steeds anker voor zelfrechtvaardigende christen

Na meer dan tien jaar blijven partnerschapsregistratie en homohuwelijk filosofisch-linguïstische ijkpunten voor het opdelen tussen goed en kwaad. Dat blijkt weer eens uit een RD commentaar van 26 maart 2010, over tien jaar homohuwelijk. Als je schrijft: "Het homohuwelijk ...Wie daaraan went, miskent bijbelse, historische, culturele, en internationaal-juridische bezwaren." Dan denk ik... je hebt nog heel wat uit te leggen... Of, misschien ook niet, immers het homohuwelijk is een magisch, symbolisch anker voor de zelfrechtvaardigende christen; die staat boven rationele uitleg.

Het is bedroevend hoe homo's omwille deze zelfrechtvaardiging met zulk gemak worden afgeschilderd als een kerk- en maatschappijondermijnend collectief. Individuele homo's worden per definitie als representant van 'de homobeweging' gezien. Zo wordt over de ruggen van homo's de heiligheid van de eigen kring bevestigd. (Welke rol rest God nog in de heiliging?) 

Ondertussen verhullen sommige broeders en zusters door dit magisch symbolische discours, het strijden en het lijden van individuele homo's, of zo men wil: het strijden en het lijden van 'mensen die worstelen met homoseksuele gevoelens'. Deze mensen zijn geen exponent van 'de homobeweging', evenmin kunnen zij uit de voeten met een hard magisch symbolisch discours dat hun geen tussenweg laat tussen zwart/wit, wij/zij, redding/verdoemenis... leven/dood. 

Wanneer spreken deze broeders en zusters over mensen. Is er de intentie om echt de harten van mensen te begrijpen. Is er de intentie om mensen te overtuigen door liefde (en zelf overtuigd te worden door liefde)? Of tekenen we dikke scheidslijnen tussen 'wij' en 'zij'? Ik heb verdriet over het stukje christendom dat zo haar redding boven dat van anderen wil bewerken.

It Gets Better? If Youth Lead the Struggle, Perhaps…

It gets better campagne, ik vind het een mooi initiatief. Maar er zijn ook kritische geluiden die waard zijn gehoord te worden. Zoals het volgende komentaar van Radical Queer.

It Gets Better? If Youth Lead the Struggle, Perhaps…

Allen Ginsberg saved my life. Listening to his crass celebration of sexuality, his explorations of his suicidal tendencies, his vivid descriptions of madness sweeping through his generation, and his hatred of the military, the state, and the church, I found a friend, a mentor, and someone I resonated with. He was bitter, perverted, and outcast like me. Thus, in my moments of utter despair and self-loathing, as a youth, I’d turn up the volume on tapes of his poetry and feel free and alive. And I survived.

If my Mom was concerned that I was a depressive kid suffering from bullying and decided to hand me a book with Bill Clinton, a bunch of liberal preachers, a few sex-columnists and a slew of rich married people telling me life would get better, I’d have burst into tears or chopped up the book for an art project. Either way, within hours, I’d be jerking off to Ginsberg’s Howl again.

To this day, when I’m self-destructive and depressed, I’m not in a space where I want to listen to successful people talk about how good their lives are. I want to hear raw, painful, complex truth.

So for me, reading the affirming words of successful members of the LGBTQ and allied communities in It Gets Better: Coming Out, Overcoming Bullying, and Creating a Life Worth Living, I felt skeptical that the book was doing anything more than helping older people feel better about themselves.

I too love telling childhood war stories of overcoming bullies and surviving violence. Like many adults, I’m proud I survived.

But do our stories really change people? Somehow our narcissism makes us feel like we are doing are part. Are we?

With excellent intentions, sex-advice columnist Dan Savage and his husband Terry Miller started the “It Gets Better” online video project as a response to the suicides of a number of gay youth. The idea was that if kids could hear from successful LGBTQ people living normal lives, the youth could overcome the pains of bullying and survive. The book compiles edited transcripts of the best of the older generations’ video testimonies.

Most of the entries in the book are from socially privileged and economically successful people. We don’t hear from the homeless, people in nursing homes, incarcerated people, or others suffering through the violence of the system. We mostly hear from folks who have walked the gauntlet of white high school hallways and perceive that they’ve come out on the other side where life is a bowl of ripe strawberries. How irritating for the rest of us.

Were the book’s biggest crime the self-indulgence of older LGBTQ folks it would be passable; however, reading Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support victims of bullying is enough to make socially aware LGBTQ youth upchuck in their mouths. How could politicians who have been supporting military-might across the world for a decade have anything reasonable to say about the issue of bullying? After waging wars that have killed hundreds if not thousands of LGBTQ youth in Iraq and Afghanistan, how dare they pretend to sympathize with the suicidal tendencies of youth in the United States?

Despite powerful older people blowing smoke up the asses of a younger generation, a few entrances in It Gets Better: Coming Out, Overcoming Bullying, and Creating a Life Worth Living ring true, perhaps even useful.Kate Bornstein opens her piece with the most honest words in the book: “I don’t always think it is going to get better. Sometimes it gets worse.” She argues that outside of being mean, young people can do anything, and she really means anything, to make life worth living. She goes so far as to admit that at times the only reason she’s lived is to do illegal things. According to her, as long as people are not mean, they are ethically okay.

Luan Legacy writes quite bluntly: “I’ve never been a big advocate of hope, and I never will because, frankly, hope is for losers. Hope is for people who are too lazy to solve their own problems so they rely on hope.”

Legacy’s critique of hope could be used to articulate my trouble with this book and why I suspect it won’t be that powerful for most youth. It is based in hope, in the wrongheaded argument fueling the American dream: “You can be anything you want in life if you want it bad enough.”

Guess what, middle-aged messiahs: it’s not true.

Some people will suffer from mental illness their entire lives and may very well die from it. Despite all the affirming words that their friends, family, and self-congratulatory, talking heads on Youtube videos say, they may still feel that there is nothing worth living for. Suicide is their last decision and I believe it should be respected.

Unfortunately, Legacy goes on to make some blanket statements about suicide I find rather offensive. ”Suicide is quitting. Suicide is you not having enough respect for your own life that you just give up. You should never give up.”

I find it crass for the living to judge the dead for their choices. Why does our society disgrace the last decision a person who died by suicide ever made? While we can inspire people to fight to live, we should not do so by insulting their autonomy and their free will to end their lives. Instead of judging the dead, we should live to take action against our oppressors and struggle to find reasons to thrive.

Urvashi Vaid writes eloquently in her piece entitled “Action Makes it Better,” that “The only reason big changes happen is when people like you and me decide to fight for things to change, when we take action to make things different.” Instead of arguing that things “get” better, Vaid argues we have to fight to make them better. She uses the example of Gandhi’s multi-decade struggle to free India from the British to demonstrate action creates change.

The book is peppered with a handful of inspired writings. Nonetheless, the crux of the book perpetrates a condescending “we’ve been there done that” attitude from one generation to the next.

If youth survive, it will not be because older folks tell them, “It gets better, just wait.” Youth will survive because they take action, fight back, and discover reasons to live. They will forge the path towards their own survival. It will not be determined by us older folks. While our fights are indeed inspirational, young people are figuring their shit out and are in charge of their destiny. No amount of autobiographical history and inspiration can change that.


Other Blog mistakenly fed through www.sanderchan.com

I subscribed to an interesting blog "Queer Today, Equality Tomorrow". Instead of using my usual email address, I used the direct blog feeder address, which I often use in China as a means to 'jump over' the great fire wall. However, by doing this the QTET blog directly fed into my blog. Meanwhile China's been stepping up internet control over the last weeks because of the annual CPPCC and NPC sessions. And since almost all blogs are blocked, I could not repair my mistake. But now... finally this blog should be 100% ww.sanderchan.com again.

[New post] The Homosexual Germ

The Homosexual Germ

Apparently, to a lot of close minded human beings out there, there is still something of a homosexual germ.  Apparently, if you spend enough time with a queer person you too can catch the awful bug of homosexuality.  It usually starts off with an occasional feeling or two, but eventually can turn into something worse.  According to church doctrine, this germ is also a sin.  You will go to hell if you catch this bug, and don't get rid of it.  Thankfully for all of us, there are a lot of wonderful organizations that can help you become homosexuality negative.

There are a lot of silly theories floating around out there.

Even while writing this, I felt like a total idiot.  Folks, being a queer person is NOT caused by a germ, the germ theory.  Let's grow up here.  However, there are still people who think like this, maybe not to this extreme, but there are remnants or mutations found in almost nearly every single anti-gay person.  Some believe that is a disease, others a genetic mutation.  Some people think it is like the comic to the right portrays it, as a sexual addiction or habit that can be passed on to someone else.  Some see it in the religious/faith based perspective, queerness being a temptation or a sin.  Regardless of the view, it is portrayed as something that comes to a person that they can opt out of with careful work and determination.  Did you know that Wikipedia lists the pathogen hypothesis as one the many theories causing homosexuality.  In an article from Out Magazine from 12 years ago, Did a Germ Make You Gay?, the author states the potential for this.  However, in the article there is also mention of what homophobes could do with such a theory.

The theory that being gay is caused by something that is as easy a fix as a pathogen is really hard for us to swallow, and as liberal, modern queer people, I think we could very easily chock it up to a bunch of crock science with no validity to speak of.  However, a fellow Redditor, Bootled said this concerning my post on the lack of queer sex education in schools/homes"It's necessary, but in most of America it will take decades for people to realize they aren't "trying to teach our children to be faggots" just because they try to include LGBT sex education."

Could these been monsters to homophobes?

How often do we think of our queerness in these ways?  Terms that to us seem archaic really are legitimate concerns to some people.  Could the idea of homosexuality be something that we can rub off on children (pardon the suggestiveness of the chosen statement). Do anti-gay, lack of queer knowledge people really foresee me as that much of a threat?  When I come off as a little over dramatic, could homophobes really be seeing me as a monster?  Is it possible that when homophobes see images such as the ones portrayed on the right they are only capable of imagining the worst for them, for their children, for others and their children?  Do they automatically think that if exposed to a homosexual and their beliefs you could potentially become gay?  Is it like the boogie-monster?  "No, Jimmy, don't go around the gay man next door, or he might eat you, or dress you in ass-less leather chaps!!"

Are we really just monsters to homophobic people?  Is this idea of homosexuality being a contagion really the source of some of the contention in our movement?  We know religious doctrine is a huge area of contention, but what about those who aren't overly religious that still persecute queer men and women for living as who they are?  Where's the line in the sand?

 

Add a comment to this post


Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

[New post] Bisexuals? Real or imaginary?

Bisexuals? Real or imaginary?

bmoneyhabs | March 12, 2011 at 4:10 am | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p1j3rh-2V

Many queer people know that sometimes the safest way to come out is to first say, "I'm bi!  I'll probably fall in love with the other sex, but for right now I am just opening myself up."  Bisexuality to a lot of gay and lesbian people is the stepping stone to come into their own.  I said it, almost all of my other queer friends said it.  It wasn't till I felt truly comfortable with who I was that I was able to label myself as gay.  As I have learned in the past few months, bisexuality takes a lot more identity and discovery time, and really for a lot of people isn't a stepping stone, its their life.

If you saw Glee from a couple weeks ago, the episode Blame It on the Alcohol, you saw Blaine dealing with a bisexual stage.  After kissing Rachel in a drunken stupor, he decided he would go on a date with her to see.  When Kurt, who actually has feelings for Blaine, found this out he shouted a few lines that really struck a beloved friend of mine who is bi.  Kurt said:

Bisexual is a term that gay guys in high school use when they wanna hold hands with girls and feel normal.

It wasn't until Blaine kissed Rachel again that he knew he was 100% gay because of the lack of a firework, a spark of sorts.  Very humorous storyline, cute, right?  Well, I really don't think its the best way to encourage true bisexuals to feel completely comfortable with themselves.  They already have a nasty stigma in society from people in their own queer community as "people who just can't make up their minds."  Some gays and lesbians go as far as to oppress bisexuals and make them feel like they are less than welcome making them almost pick between being gay/lesbian or straight.

Why is this happening?  Even in our own queer community, we cannot even agree to be open with all inside of it.  Is there a true bisexual though, someone who is attacted, 50/50 to both male and females?  Are all bisexuals just gays, lesbians, or straights who have a slight attraction to something else?  Is bisexuality a freedom of sex type of thing?  Is it true what Kurt said, is bisexual just that stepping stone term?

Add a comment to this post


Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

[New post] Coming Out Resources

Coming Out Resources

I feel like I have been talking to a lot of people this week about coming out, the process, the pain, the journey.  I think I have been specifically connecting with people to this extent since the blog has been receiving a ground swell of support from people, and I am so happy to be connecting with each of you.  A lot of people have been asking about how they should come out, whether to friends, family, or others.  I have been putting a lot of thought into this the past couple days, and I wanted to share some resources that I have found really helpful all from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).  As many of you may or may not know, I actually spent my fall semester of 2009 interning at the HRC, the largest LGBT civil rights organization in the United States.  I specifically worked with their Public Education and Outreach Division, and put a lot of my hard work into the Coming Out Project

Working four months in this program really changed my life, and has inspired me to focus my work on LGBT people in coming out of the closet.  I want to specifically give some focus to the awesome work going on at HRC.  Before I say anything, I will critique them in one way, I think they could really benefit from having a full time person working on the Coming Out Project.  The site hasn't changed since I have been there, and its kind of sad.  Coming out is the framework of helping create stronger allies, the publications and online resources should be updated regularly and kept fresh for all.

HRC publishes a lot of really awesome Coming Out publications that you may enjoy requesting some of, free of course, which you can request using the request form. You can also view any of the publications, plus others, completely free in PDF format.  Its pretty awesome how connected they are.

  • The Resource Guide to Coming Out is the best concise guide with practical steps for coming out and living openly.  It gives steps and support for assessing your sexuality, who you think you are, and then most importantly gives you conversation starters for coming out to people.  My favorite section in this guide is the awesome reassurance that it gives for coming out to your family.  The writers and editors in no way sugar coated the coming out process and have prepared it in a way that could suit people in more supportive environments to people in non-supportive, harsh ones.

    My dearest girlfriend, Carmen, and I at the Human Right Campaign, getting ready to march.

  • The Straight Guide to LGBT Americans provides practical tips and ideas for becoming a supportive straight ally for the greater LGBT movement or just for a friend or family member who might need you.  It addresses the issues in a fairly straightforward way.  I printed this guide out from the PDF, and I wrote in the margins all these little notes and I gave it to a friend of mine who had never had a gay friend before.  It was an opening for dialogue, and I really think he is grasping the idea of being a straight ally.  My favorite aspect of this guide is when it addressed people mistaking straight allies with being gay, which I think prevents a lot of people from being vocal.  It is put together with help from Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)
  • Living Openly in Your Place of Worship is the final publication I'll talk about today.  In Living Openly, you get a lot of ideas and thoughts for being gay and Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, and anything else you could imagine, with a specific focus lying on Christianity.  We've discussed a lot this week about Pray the Gay Away, the documentary on the Oprah Winfrey Network, and this provide support to people wanting to live openly in their faith.
  • National Coming Out Day is just important to touch on.  HRC always promotes a lot of interesting opportunities on the weeks preceding and on October 11th.  If you've never been involved in a Coming Out Day activity, look into it this year.

HRC's Coming Out Project provides other wonderful guides that I fully encourage you to check out from transgender resources to resources for Spanish speakers and African Americans.  If you are interested in learning more about HRC and their Coming Out Project, click one of the links above and go to them.  I am sure you won't be sorry for it.

I also encourage you to e-mail me, brandonhabron@gmail.com.  I would really love to be a point of support for you.  Just know, I am proud of you as are soooo many people around me and even around you, even if you can't see them.

Add a comment to this post


Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

[New post] Queer Sex Ed

Queer Sex Ed

In the life of some straight teenagers, their parents awkwardly set them down and have the weirdest, most uncomfortable conversation.  The birds and the bees, the sex conversation, the big one about where babies come from.  In the awfully awkward time during this conversation, there are a lot of different avenues the conversation can take.  There is "don't have sex till your married" street, which was what I got told in church in its best attempt at sex ed.  Then there is always "don't have sex, but if you do use protection/contraceptives" lane, which I never heard from anyone as an option growing up.  There are also those cool parents that are really chill with sex encouraging the teenager to have sex when they are ready, evaluate the situation, don't jump into it, practicing safe sex with provisions that the parents give, i.e. birth control, box of condoms, etc.  Another option that I think causes a lot of problems is the one I lived in "Let's not talk about that".  I know SOOO many people who never had a conversation of this caliber with their parents, including myself.  Sex is something that you don't talk about in my house, period, and I truly believe my parents only had sex twice, one time for each of their children.

Then if you happen to be gay... oh wow... things just go from bad to worse.

One of the worst parts about growing up queer is that you are never taught by anyone the process of having sex, being safe, and knowing when its right.  Very few queer teens have parents who want to talk about them being gay much less gay sex.  Most of them have no clue how it works or proper precautions that need to be taken.  This isn't good for the teens or the parents because sure enough, the close minded parents will end up getting the blamed for the teen's lack of sexual knowledge.  What's the solution?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr3AJ2maSS8

This, while incredibly awkward, is what should be happening in homes where teenagers are brave enough to come out to their parents. Parents should be educating themselves, overcoming their own discomforts, and learning about their children's sexuality.

At this point queer teens learn their sex ed on the internet by watching porn, reading on websites, and consulting mature gays on dating site chats.  Impersonal, discouraging, and not how queer youth should be educated when it comes to sex.  This education of sex should have happened in the homes and schools of the queer youth.  It should be about them and their feelings.  Imagine how confused and awkward it was for you to talk with your parents about sex, imagine how that would feel for a gay teen going to his straight parents that have no idea how gay sex works.

But! What can actually be done to change this?

In the long run, the first step would be to bring open queer sex education to schools.  You start educating kids in safe straight sex practices as well as gay sex in school then as time goes on, the cycle will create safety for the students and also an opening for future parents.  This education should be devised in a way that teachers and facilitators are universally educated and expected to teach the exact lessons, almost like a standard of learning developed by prominent queer scholars.

But!  What about now?

That is my question to you!  I have been pondering this since seeing the Glee episode the other night.  Burt and Kurt Hummel on Glee had an increasingly awkward conversation, but it was eye-opening for a lot of us.  Are their publications available for parents to stimulate dialogue with their children?  Are there people out there trying to stimulate conversations like these?  I did a lot of research on this topic, and I could not find anything that is a potential assistant to keep queer teens off the internet and in their classrooms and living rooms asking questions about condoms, lube, and sex toys.

Your thoughts?

Add a comment to this post


Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

Funniest Opinion in the Global Times


Charlie Sheen is not filial

  • Source: Global Times
  • [10:34 March 07 2011]

By Hao Leifeng

Actor Charlie Sheen is a classic example of the difference in Western and Eastern values and norms.

Ignoring public pleas from his father, Sheen has continued a weeklong media blitz, exhibiting obvious signs of mania. With no firm hand to guide them, Western media has deliberately goaded him into making increasingly delusional statements, more concerned about "winning" higher ratings than Sheen's own sense of pride, or the negative example his brash public admissions about his private sex life and unverifiable international conspiracies could be setting for society.

How many young people have been led astray by Sheen's boasts about his substance abuse and freewheeling sex life? And that was when he was in character on national television, as a randy bachelor in Two and a Half Men.

Sheen attracted 1 million Twitter followers in just 24 hours, yet more evidence that microblogs spread the most unhealthy contagions in society like a disease. Chinese family, coworkers, or the authorities would have taken firm steps to make sure someone like Sheen did not make a public spectacle of himself.

Take Edison Chen, who humbly apologized and slipped away to Canada. Or Li Gang's father, who wept as he sought forgiveness on his son's behalf.

The fact that Sheen continues to embarrass himself unabated, becoming even a hero to many, points to the vast differences in cultures.

His employers are unhappy that he was distracted with prostitutes and drugs, and didn't show up to work on time. Why not take a tip from the Chinese business community, and make visits to a KTV parlor part of Sheen's workday?

And instead of epic parties at his home with porn stars, why not keep Sheen occupied with business banquets?

Sheen goes on television and boasts that he has two girlfriends, who both sleep in the same bedroom. Is he too poor to set up his wives and mistresses in different houses?

In Chinese society, these problems are dealt with delicately and privately. Sheen is like a typical Westerner throwing fuel on the fire with each interview and tweet. It is almost as if he feels no shame and is loving the attention.

Racism, spousal abuse, addiction, politics, mental illness, boasting about mistresses, - these are all subjects best dealt with behind closed doors.

As much as Sheen has lived a life most Chinese men can only fantasize about, our admiration of him can only go so far. He has not only lost face with his public rants, but also crossed a cultural barrier no Chinese can abide.

He ignored his own father's advice to keep quiet, who was once the president of the US. Sheen is a disgrace, unfilial to his father and his fatherland.

Martin Sheen should at once go on television and tearfully apologize on behalf of his son for his inability to keep up appearances and keep his mouth shut.