Get Real! I Want to Wait to Have Sex…Can I?

Heather Corinna

What I hear you saying is that you've yet to be in a situation or relationship where sex has really felt like the right thing for you, or like something you wanted and took part in on your own terms.

Miss Anonymous asks:

am worried about sex, and I don’t think its normal at my age (24) but I
don’t know what to do about it. I was raised in a really strict family
and so I didn’t lose my virginity til I was 21 which was really way
later than everyone else, even my younger sister. I wasn’t really ready
but I was sort of curious and I did it to please my boyfriend and lots
of other reasons. We dated for about a year and I had sex with two more
guys after I split up with him but mainly from feeling like I should to
fit in. I haven’t had a serious boyfriend in ages now, and I’m afraid
to have another relationship cos I think it will surely involve sex. I
know in theory you can say no, but hey, what guy is going to stick
around with me when he can get it from any other girl on the street? It
doesn’t seem realistic. When I think about sex I just get scared, cos I
feel like I don’t know at all what to do, and its not like I was even
an adventurous teenager so I can’t give head or anything either. I
really don’t know how to do anything except kiss. But I’m sure most
guys are expecting way more than that! I don’t want to become a slut
just to learn but I can’t claim to be a virgin any more so I don’t know
what to do. In my ideal world I’d like to be with a guy for at least a
year before sleeping together, maybe wait til marriage, but I am scared
to even admit that’s what I want cos I know its not normal. Please
help! I’m worried that being so messed up about this will mean no
decent guy will want to be with me.

Heather replies:

A lot of people are worried, anxious or nervous about sex, whether they are 15, 24 or 44. It’s not just you, really.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Given how many people in the world have conflicting feelings about
sex and sexuality, I’d disagree that the concerns you’re having are not
normal at your age or any other. You say a couple times that you know
how you feel isn’t normal. Looks like it’s time to question what you
feel you know, because from my side of the fence, in working with a
wide range of people around sexuality for a long time now, I would
disagree with you. I have seen and heard what you are voicing before,
far more than once, and don’t think there is anything abnormal about
it. The range of wants and needs, personal ethics and values, and
comfort and discomfort with sex and sexuality is vast among all of us.

How we each feel about sex is influenced by an awful lot of
different things. Some of our feelings come from childhood and our teen
years, and how sex and sexuality was treated in our families, in terms
of what was said to us as well as what wasn’t said: we get a lot of
messages about sexuality from our upbringing which are covert or
subtle, but influential all the same. We also get loads of messages
about sex from our peers, our communities and our culture. You use the
word "slut," which tells me that somewhere you picked up the (very
common) idea that some kinds of sex, frequency of sex, or number of
sexual partners is a bad thing, and that the way someone has sex, or
the motivations someone has to have sex, say something about a person’s
value. Ideas like that are going to impact how you think about sex and
yourself in relationship to your sexuality.

We also have feelings about sex and sexuality based on what our
sexual experiences — by ourselves and/or with partners — have been,
and what our sexual relationships have been like. I hear you voicing
that your sexual relationships, and your sexual experiences within
them, have not been particularly positive. You voice feeling like you
have only had sexual partnership out of feelings of obligation or a
need to fit in or keep someone around: those are not positives.

By all means, as time goes by, as any of us have more experiences
with sex or more sexual partners, we will learn some things about sex,
and will tend to become more comfortable with sexual partnership, when
we do feel like we know what we’re doing, and also when we don’t.

However, every single time we have a new partner, in so many ways,
it’s everyone’s first time. In other words, if we’re doing it right and
really treating every partner as a whole person, a unique person, we’re
all learning sex anew with that new partner, and we’re all at least
somewhat clueless. Everyone does not like all the same things, or finds
that one way of doing an activity is how that activity feels best for
them. Too, our sexual dynamics tend to differ from relationship to
relationship, so something we didn’t like with one partner may be
something we love with another; something that felt good this way with
that partner may not feel so great with this one. So, when you’re with
a new partner, you’re not the only one who doesn’t know what to do,
even if your partner (or you) thinks they do. What they, or
you, know, is what has worked for partners before. You or they will
learn what you two, uniquely, like, just over time through
experimenting together.

By all means, the awkwardness, the unfamiliarity, of new sexual
partnership can be daunting — for either or both partners — but how
daunting it is or is not tends to have a lot to do with who we are
with, how we feel about them and how they feel about us, what our
dynamics are in that relationship, and if we’re entering into sexual
partnership when it really does feel both right and like something we
want, not just because someone else wants it or because it seems like
something we "should" be doing based on someone else’s standards. It
can also feel all the more daunting if we have the idea that sex isn’t
always about experimenting, trying things out, fumbling plenty of
times, relearning every time, but is about somehow being an expert with
sexual activities, about doing things "right," in some kind of static
way that magically works for everyone, despite the fact that we’re all
so different.

What I hear you saying is that you’ve yet to be in a situation or
relationship where sex has really felt like the right thing for you, or
like something you wanted and took part in on your own terms. You’re
hardly the only young woman at your age who feels that way at this
point in your life: I’ve even heard women twenty years, forty years,
older than you voice feeling that way before.

You talk about what would be ideal for you as dating someone for at
least a year before you’re sexual together, or perhaps saving sex until
after a marriage. You get not only to have that ideal, you also get to
choose to live that ideal if that is what you want to do and what feels
best for you. Is that ideal going to work for every potential partner?
Nope, just like someone else’s ideal of having sex before then isn’t
working for you. But that’s okay: it tends to take anyone some
trial-and-error to find partnerships that fit them best, and the world
won’t end if, in dating, you like someone but you two aren’t a good fit
in that department.

There are other women who share your ideals and there are other men
who share them, too. I’d encourage you not to think of men as a group
of people who all think and act the same, because they’re not. While
some men would want sexual activity before then, others want what you
want. Men, like women, vary.

I also want to address some of your statements, and let you know
what I hear in them. You voice concerns about why a guy would stick
around without sex when he could "get it from any other girl on the
street." That seems to presume that other women besides you don’t have
their own sets of wants and needs which are just as important and valid
as yours, and that there are all these women hanging around just to put
out for some guy you won’t put out for. Absolutely, some women are not
only okay with more casual sex, or sex earlier in a relationship, but
want casual sex or sex earlier in a relationship. (And they’re not in
competition with you, for the record: their wants and needs are just
different from yours.) But there are also some who don’t want that, and
want other things, other scenarios. That statement also suggests that
sex is nothing more than this thing men get or don’t get, rather than
something any two (or more) people create together, experience
together, express themselves through together, and have as part of some
kind of relationship. It seems to suggest, too, that you think men, as
a whole, don’t see relationships as about more than sex, or see sex as
about more than just getting off. Do some men feel that way? Sure. Do
all men feel that way? Nope.

And you can say no, or not yet, or that you want to do this thing
now, but save that one for later, or that you want to do something, but
need more time first in more than just theory: you can, realistically,
say that in practice, too. If you haven’t ever done that, it may feel
unrealistic now, but I assure you that you can, and that doing that
does not mean every guy you say that to will simply go find someone who
will say yes immediately. To be clear, you have the right to only have sex when you want to and on whatever your own terms are: we all have that right.

Someone who is in a relationship with you which is about more than
sex alone, someone who cares for you and has respect for you, someone
who wants to be IN relationship with you, based on who you are as a
whole person, someone who has some maturity and heart can handle a no
to something they ideally may have wanted (if, in fact, that is what
they wanted). A person like that, who feels strongly for you, who
doesn’t want to date a doormat in the first place, is not just going to
run out on you because they can’t get laid when they want to. But in
order to find that out, you do have to go ahead and say no when no is
what you’re feeling and give them a chance to respond like adults.

For any of us, we are much more likely to find what we want with
partners when we are clear about what we want with partners. You say
you’re afraid to voice your wants and needs, and I’d encourage you to
try and get past that. You voiced them here, which is a good first
step, now it’s time to voice them to people you are dating or
interested in dating. Until you CAN say what you want to those people,
you are, indeed, going to be unlikely to find it and get it. Once you
can start clearly and confidently voicing your ideals and your wants,
the chances of you having your needs met in this way will increase
exponentially. It might be a good idea to think about how, exactly,
you’d even find the kinds of guys who share similar wants and needs as you — and they are out there — if you aren’t voicing them.

As well, it is up to you as much as anyone else if your
relationships do or do not involve sex, or sex at any given point. You
say you’re afraid to pursue relationships because they "will surely
involve sex." For sure, if you are entering what’s understood to be a
sexual relationship, then that, understandably, will probably involve
an expectation of sex. But you get to construct your relationships how
you like, which can absolutely include things like making clear before
or during initial dates that you’re not interested in a sexual
relationship right away. Might that mean some dates who DO want that
will opt out? yes, but since you don’t want that right now, that
shouldn’t be a problem: think of it as a screening process, where you
are screening out those who won’t be a good fit for your wants and
needs, and a screening IN process for those who may feel exactly the
same way as you. Again, if you don’t own and voice what you do and
don’t want, you can’t expect to find it.

No part of what you have written here feels "messed up" to me, save
that I do think you’d be benefited by adjusting some of the ideas
you’re expressing about what you feel all men are like, and what it
seems you presume the dynamics of sex and sexual relationships must be
like. I think it’d be a good idea to examine how you’re thinking about
yourself and others, to put some more stock in yourself and what you
want as valuable and absolutely normal, and to throw away any ideas you
have that there’s anything wrong with what you want, or that what you
want is unattainable, because it’s not.

I think if you can become more confident and assertive with your
values, your wants, your needs, you’re going to start discovering that
you start to meet more people who value and respect them — even if
theirs differ — start to find some of the ways you think about men,
women and sex evolve, and that you’re going to feel a whole lot less
worried and uncomfortable about all of this. And I think that if you
can put more value in yourself and your own values, no matter what they
are, you are going to be far more likely to find relationships of real
quality that feel good for you, all around, whether or not sex is a
part of them.

Here are some more links I think will help you out:

Roundups Sexual Health

This Week in Sex: The Sexually Transmitted Infections Edition

Martha Kempner

A new Zika case suggests the virus can be transmitted from an infected woman to a male partner. And, in other news, HPV-related cancers are on the rise, and an experimental chlamydia vaccine shows signs of promise.

This Week in Sex is a weekly summary of news and research related to sexual behavior, sexuality education, contraception, STIs, and more.

Zika May Have Been Sexually Transmitted From a Woman to Her Male Partner

A new case suggests that males may be infected with the Zika virus through unprotected sex with female partners. Researchers have known for a while that men can infect their partners through penetrative sexual intercourse, but this is the first suspected case of sexual transmission from a woman.

The case involves a New York City woman who is in her early 20s and traveled to a country with high rates of the mosquito-borne virus (her name and the specific country where she traveled have not been released). The woman, who experienced stomach cramps and a headache while waiting for her flight back to New York, reported one act of sexual intercourse without a condom the day she returned from her trip. The following day, her symptoms became worse and included fever, fatigue, a rash, and tingling in her hands and feet. Two days later, she visited her primary-care provider and tests confirmed she had the Zika virus.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

A few days after that (seven days after intercourse), her male partner, also in his 20s, began feeling similar symptoms. He had a rash, a fever, and also conjunctivitis (pink eye). He, too, was diagnosed with Zika. After meeting with him, public health officials in the New York City confirmed that he had not traveled out of the country nor had he been recently bit by a mosquito. This leaves sexual transmission from his partner as the most likely cause of his infection, though further tests are being done.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s recommendations for preventing Zika have been based on the assumption that virus was spread from a male to a receptive partner. Therefore the recommendations had been that pregnant women whose male partners had traveled or lived in a place where Zika virus is spreading use condoms or abstain from sex during the pregnancy. For those couples for whom pregnancy is not an issue, the CDC recommended that men who had traveled to countries with Zika outbreaks and had symptoms of the virus, use condoms or abstain from sex for six months after their trip. It also suggested that men who traveled but don’t have symptoms use condoms for at least eight weeks.

Based on this case—the first to suggest female-to-male transmission—the CDC may extend these recommendations to couples in which a female traveled to a country with an outbreak.

More Signs of Gonorrhea’s Growing Antibiotic Resistance

Last week, the CDC released new data on gonorrhea and warned once again that the bacteria that causes this common sexually transmitted infection (STI) is becoming resistant to the antibiotics used to treat it.

There are about 350,000 cases of gonorrhea reported each year, but it is estimated that 800,000 cases really occur with many going undiagnosed and untreated. Once easily treatable with antibiotics, the bacteria Neisseria gonorrhoeae has steadily gained resistance to whole classes of antibiotics over the decades. By the 1980s, penicillin no longer worked to treat it, and in 2007 the CDC stopped recommending the use of fluoroquinolones. Now, cephalosporins are the only class of drugs that work. The recommended treatment involves a combination of ceftriaxone (an injectable cephalosporin) and azithromycin (an oral antibiotic).

Unfortunately, the data released last week—which comes from analysis of more than 5,000 samples of gonorrhea (called isolates) collected from STI clinics across the country—shows that the bacteria is developing resistance to these drugs as well. In fact, the percentage of gonorrhea isolates with decreased susceptibility to azithromycin increased more than 300 percent between 2013 and 2014 (from 0.6 percent to 2.5 percent).

Though no cases of treatment failure has been reported in the United States, this is a troubling sign of what may be coming. Dr. Gail Bolan, director of CDC’s Division of STD Prevention, said in a press release: “It is unclear how long the combination therapy of azithromycin and ceftriaxone will be effective if the increases in resistance persists. We need to push forward on multiple fronts to ensure we can continue offering successful treatment to those who need it.”

HPV-Related Cancers Up Despite Vaccine 

The CDC also released new data this month showing an increase in HPV-associated cancers between 2008 and 2012 compared with the previous five-year period. HPV or human papillomavirus is an extremely common sexually transmitted infection. In fact, HPV is so common that the CDC believes most sexually active adults will get it at some point in their lives. Many cases of HPV clear spontaneously with no medical intervention, but certain types of the virus cause cancer of the cervix, vulva, penis, anus, mouth, and neck.

The CDC’s new data suggests that an average of 38,793 HPV-associated cancers were diagnosed each year between 2008 and 2012. This is a 17 percent increase from about 33,000 each year between 2004 and 2008. This is a particularly unfortunate trend given that the newest available vaccine—Gardasil 9—can prevent the types of HPV most often linked to cancer. In fact, researchers estimated that the majority of cancers found in the recent data (about 28,000 each year) were caused by types of the virus that could be prevented by the vaccine.

Unfortunately, as Rewire has reported, the vaccine is often mired in controversy and far fewer young people have received it than get most other recommended vaccines. In 2014, only 40 percent of girls and 22 percent of boys ages 13 to 17 had received all three recommended doses of the vaccine. In comparison, nearly 80 percent of young people in this age group had received the vaccine that protects against meningitis.

In response to the newest data, Dr. Electra Paskett, co-director of the Cancer Control Research Program at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, told HealthDay:

In order to increase HPV vaccination rates, we must change the perception of the HPV vaccine from something that prevents a sexually transmitted disease to a vaccine that prevents cancer. Every parent should ask the question: If there was a vaccine I could give my child that would prevent them from developing six different cancers, would I give it to them? The answer would be a resounding yes—and we would have a dramatic decrease in HPV-related cancers across the globe.

Making Inroads Toward a Chlamydia Vaccine

An article published in the journal Vaccine shows that researchers have made progress with a new vaccine to prevent chlamydia. According to lead researcher David Bulir of the M. G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research at Canada’s McMaster University, efforts to create a vaccine have been underway for decades, but this is the first formulation to show success.

In 2014, there were 1.4 million reported cases of chlamydia in the United States. While this bacterial infection can be easily treated with antibiotics, it often goes undiagnosed because many people show no symptoms. Untreated chlamydia can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease, which can leave scar tissue in the fallopian tubes or uterus and ultimately result in infertility.

The experimental vaccine was created by Canadian researchers who used pieces of the bacteria that causes chlamydia to form an antigen they called BD584. The hope was that the antigen could prompt the body’s immune system to fight the chlamydia bacteria if exposed to it.

Researchers gave BD584 to mice using a nasal spray, and then exposed them to chlamydia. The results were very promising. The mice who received the spray cleared the infection faster than the mice who did not. Moreover, the mice given the nasal spray were less likely to show symptoms of infection, such as bacterial shedding from the vagina or fluid blockages of the fallopian tubes.

There are many steps to go before this vaccine could become available. The researchers need to test it on other strains of the bacteria and in other animals before testing it in humans. And, of course, experience with the HPV vaccine shows that there’s work to be done to make sure people get vaccines that prevent STIs even after they’re invented. Nonetheless, a vaccine to prevent chlamydia would be a great victory in our ongoing fight against STIs and their health consequences, and we here at This Week in Sex are happy to end on a bit of a positive note.

Roundups Politics

Campaign Week in Review: Republican National Convention Edition

Ally Boguhn

The Trump family's RNC claims about crime and the presidential candidate's record on gender equality have kept fact-checkers busy.

Republicans came together in Cleveland this week to nominate Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention (RNC), generating days of cringe-inducing falsehoods and misleading statements on crime, the nominee’s positions on gender equality, and LGBTQ people.

Trump’s Acceptance Speech Blasted for Making False Claims on Crime

Trump accepted the Republican nomination in a Thursday night speech at the RNC that drew harsh criticism for many of its misleading and outright false talking points.

Numerous fact-checkers took Trump to task, calling out many of his claims for being “wrong,” and “inflated or misleading.”

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

 Among the most hotly contested of Trump’s claims was the assertion that crime has exploded across the country.

“Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this administration’s rollback of criminal enforcement,” Trump claimed, according to his prepared remarks, which were leaked ahead of his address. “Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America’s 50 largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent. They are up nearly 60 percent in nearby Baltimore.”

Crime rates overall have been steadily declining for years.

“In 2015, there was an uptick in homicides in 36 of the 50 largest cities compared to the previous years. The rate did, indeed, increase nearly 17 percent, and it was the worst annual change since 1990. The homicide rate was up 54.3 percent in Washington, and 58.5 percent in Baltimore,” explained Washington Post fact checkers Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee. “But in the first months of 2016, homicide trends were about evenly split in the major cities. Out of 63 agencies reporting to the Major Cities Chiefs Association, 32 cities saw a decrease in homicides in first quarter 2016 and 31 saw an increase.”

Ames Grawert, a counsel in the Brennan Center’s Justice Program, said in a statement posted to the organization’s website that 2016 statistics aren’t sufficient in declaring crime rate trends. 

“Overall, crime rates remain at historic lows. Fear-inducing soundbites are counterproductive, and distract from nuanced, data-driven, and solution-oriented conversations on how to build a smarter criminal justice system in America,” Grawert said. “It’s true that some cities saw an increase in murder rates last year, and that can’t be ignored, but it’s too early to say if that’s part of a national trend.” 

When Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chairman, was confronted with the common Republican falsehoods on crime during a Thursday interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, he claimed that the FBI’s statistics were not to be trusted given that the organization recently advised against charges in connection with Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.

“According to FBI statistics, crime rates have been going down for decades,” Tapper told Manafort. “How can Republicans make the argument that it’s somehow more dangerous today when the facts don’t back that up?”

“People don’t feel safe in their neighborhoods,” said Manafort, going on to claim that “the FBI is certainly suspect these days after what they did with Hillary Clinton.”

There was at least one notable figure who wholeheartedly embraced Trump’s fearmongering: former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke. “Great Trump Speech,” tweeted Duke on Thursday evening. “Couldn’t have said it better!”

Ben Carson Claims Transgender People Are Proof of “How Absurd We Have Become”

Former Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson criticized the existence of transgender people while speaking at the Florida delegation breakfast on Tuesday in Cleveland.  

“You know, we look at this whole transgender thing, I’ve got to tell you: For thousands of years, mankind has known what a man is and what a woman is. And now, all of a sudden we don’t know anymore,” said Carson, a retired neurosurgeon. “Now, is that the height of absurdity? Because today you feel like a woman, even though everything about you genetically says that you’re a man or vice versa?”

“Wouldn’t that be the same as if you woke up tomorrow morning after seeing a movie about Afghanistan or reading some books and said, ‘You know what? I’m Afghanistan. Look, I know I don’t look that way. My ancestors came from Sweden, or something, I don’t know. But I really am. And if you say I’m not, you’re a racist,’” Carson said. “This is how absurd we have become.”

When confronted with his comments during an interview with Yahoo News’ Katie Couric, Carson doubled down on his claims.“There are biological markers that tell us whether we are a male or a female,” said Carson. “And just because you wake up one day and you say, ‘I think I’m the other one,’ that doesn’t change it. Just, a leopard can’t change its spots.”

“It’s not as if they woke up one day and decided, ‘I’m going to be a male or I’m going to be a female,’” Couric countered, pointing out that transgender people do not suddenly choose to change their gender identities on a whim.

Carson made several similar comments last year while on the campaign trail.

In December, Carson criticized the suggested that allowing transgender people into the military amounted to using the armed services “as a laboratory for social experimentation.”

Carson once suggested that allowing transgender people to use the restroom that aligned with their gender identity amounted to granting them “extra rights.”

Ivanka Trump Claims Her Father Supports Equal Pay, Access to Child Care

Ivanka Trump, the nominee’s daughter, made a pitch during her speech Thursday night at the RNC for why women voters should support her father.

“There have always been men of all background and ethnicities on my father’s job sites. And long before it was commonplace, you also saw women,” Ivanka Trump said. “At my father’s company, there are more female than male executives. Women are paid equally for the work that we do and when a woman becomes a mother, she is supported, not shut out.” 

“As president, my father will change the labor laws that were put into place at a time when women were not a significant portion of the workforce. And he will focus on making quality child care affordable and accessible for all,” she continued before pivoting to address the gender wage gap. 

“Policies that allow women with children to thrive should not be novelties; they should be the norm. Politicians talk about wage equality, but my father has made it a practice at his company throughout his entire career.”

However, Trump’s stated positions on the gender wage gap, pregnancy and mothers in the workplace, and child care don’t quite add up to the picture the Trumps tried to paint at the RNC.

In 2004, Trump called pregnancy an “inconvenience” for employers. When a lawyer asked for a break during a deposition in 2011 to pump breast milk, Trump reportedly called her “disgusting.”

According to a June analysis conducted by the Boston Globe, the Trump campaign found that men who worked on Trump’s campaign “made nearly $6,100, or about 35 percent more [than women during the April payroll]. The disparity is slightly greater than the gender pay gap nationally.”

A former organizer for Trump also filed a discrimination complaint in January, alleging that she was paid less than her male counterparts.

When Trump was questioned about equal pay during a campaign stop last October, he did not outline his support for policies to address the issue. Instead, Trump suggested that, “You’re gonna make the same if you do as good a job.” Though he had previously stated that men and women who do the same job should be paid the same during an August 2015 interview on MSNBC, he also cautioned that determining whether people were doing the same jobs was “tricky.”

Trump has been all but completely silent on child care so far on the campaign trail. In contrast, Clinton released an agenda in May to address the soaring costs of child care in the United States.

Ivanka’s claims were not the only attempt that night by Trump’s inner circle to explain why women voters should turn to the Republican ticket. During an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Manafort said that women would vote for the Republican nominee because they “can’t afford their lives anymore.”

“Many women in this country feel they can’t afford their lives, their husbands can’t afford to be paying for the family bills,” claimed Manafort. “Hillary Clinton is guilty of being part of the establishment that created that problem. They’re going to hear the message. And as they hear the message, that’s how we are going to appeal to them.”

What Else We’re Reading

Vox’s Dara Lind explained how “Trump’s RNC speech turned his white supporters’ fear into a weapon.”

Now that Mike Pence is the Republican nominee for vice president, Indiana Republicans have faced “an intense, chaotic, awkward week of brazen lobbying at the breakfast buffet, in the hallways and on the elevators” at the convention as they grapple with who will run to replace the state’s governor, according to the New York Times.

“This is a party and a power structure that feels threatened with extinction, willing to do anything for survival,” wrote Rebecca Traister on Trump and the RNC for New York Magazine. “They may not love Trump, but he is leading them precisely because he embodies their grotesque dreams of the restoration of white, patriarchal power.”

Though Trump spent much of the primary season denouncing big money in politics, while at the RNC, he courted billionaires in hopes of having them donate to supporting super PACs.

Michael Kranish reported for the Washington Post that of the 2,472 delegates at the RNC, it is estimated that only 18 were Black.

Cosmopolitan highlighted nine of the most sexist things that could be found at the convention.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) asked, “Where are these contributions that have been made” by people of color to civilization?