Pope OK’s Condom Use- But Only if You’re a Gigolo

LadyBlaga

In comments released today from the Vatican, Pope Benedict seems to have changed his mind a teensy tiny bit on the morality of condom use.

(cross-posted from veritiesandvagaries.com)

In comments released today from the Vatican, Pope Benedict seems to have changed his mind a teensy tiny bit on the morality of condom use.  Benedict on condoms in 2009:

“You can’t resolve [AIDS in Africa] with the distribution of condoms,” the pope told reporters. “On the contrary, it increases the problem.”

Benedict on condoms in 2010:

Like This Story?

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

Donate Now

There could be single cases that can be justified, for instance when a prostitute uses a condom, and this can be a first step towards a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, to develop again the awareness of the fact that not all is allowed and that one cannot do everything one wants.

So basically, prostitutes are so far gone down the path of immorality that for them, using condoms is alright, because they’re doing so many other things wrong that in comparison, the condoms are the good part of their behavior?  The pope’s comments come in advance of a book to be released next week, which apparently has a whole section on male prostitutes.  It’s unclear to me why male prostitutes using condoms is more acceptable than their female counterparts, but trying to find logic in the Catholic Church’s stance on gender issues is always a losing strategy.

According to CNN Senior Vatican Analyst John Allen (true title, though it sounds like something from The Daily Show), Benedict’s comments might also suggest that condoms are ok between heterosexual couples if they’re trying to prevent transmission of an STD from one to the other.

I feel strange saying this, but Pope Benedict’s comments actually do seem like a small step in the right direction.  Acknowledging that condoms are effective at preventing the spread of HIV is inarguably a good thing, even if the admission is way overdue.  On the other hand, I don’t really understand why it could be morally acceptable to prevent babies being born to HIV-infected individuals when it’s not morally acceptable to prevent pregnancy if the individuals suffer from other afflictions: stupidity, immaturity, drug addictions, other diseases, etc.  I’m having trouble untangling the moral code that says that as long as you aren’t using condoms for the primary purpose of contraception, it’s fine that you’re using something that still has the effect of preventing pregnancy.

Maybe next, the pope can give his blessing to birth control pills that are used for acne?

Commentary Violence

This is Not The Story I Wanted—But It’s My Story of Rape

Dani Kelley

Writer Dani Kelley thought she had shed the patriarchal and self-denying lessons of her conservative religious childhood. But those teachings blocked her from initially admitting that an encounter with a man she met online was not a "date" that proved her sexual liberation, but an extended sexual assault.

Content note: This article contains graphic descriptions of sexual violence.

The night I first truly realized something was wrong was supposed to be a good night.

A visiting friend and I were in pajamas, eating breakfast food at 10 p.m., wrapped in blankets while swapping stories of recent struggles and laughs.

There I was, animatedly telling her about my recently acquired (and discarded) “fuck buddy,” when suddenly the story caught in my throat.

When I finally managed to choke out the words, they weren’t what I expected to say. “He—he held me down—until, until I couldn’t—breathe.”

Hearing myself say it out loud was a gut-punch. I was sobbing, gasping for breath, arms wrapped as if to hold myself together, spiraling into a terrifying realization.

This isn’t the story I wanted.

Unlearning My Training

I grew up in the Plymouth Brethren movement, a small fundamentalist Christian denomination that justifies strict gender roles through a literal approach to the Bible. So, according to 1 Corinthians 11:7, men are considered “the image and glory of God,” while women are merely “the glory of man.” As a result, women are expected to wear head coverings during any church service, among other restrictions that can be best summed up by the apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 2:11-12: Women are never allowed to have authority over men.

If you’ve spent any number of years in conservative Christianity like I did, you’re likely familiar with the fundamentalist tendency to demonize that which is morally neutral or positive (like premarital sex or civil rights) while sugar-coating negative experiences. The sugar-coating can be twofold: Biblical principles are often used to shame or gaslight abuse victims (like those being shunned or controlled or beaten by their husbands) while platitudes are often employed to help members cope with “the sufferings of this present time,” assuring them that these tragedies are “not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.”

In many ways, it’s easy to unlearn the demonization of humanity as you gain actual real-world experience refuting such flimsy claims. But the shame? That can be more difficult to shake.

The heart of those teachings isn’t only present in this admittedly small sect of Christianity. Rather, right-wing Western Christianity as a whole has a consent problem. It explicitly teaches its adherents they don’t belong to themselves at all. They belong to God (and if they’re not men, they belong to their fathers or husbands as well). This instilled lack of agency effectively erases bodily autonomy while preventing the development of healthy emotional and physical boundaries.

On top of that, the biblical literalism frequently required by conservative Christianity in the United States promotes a terrifying interpretation of Scripture, such as Jeremiah 17:9. The King James Version gives the verse a stern voice, telling us that “the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.” If we believe this, we must accept that we’re untrustworthy witnesses to our own lives. Yet somehow, we’re expected to rely on the authority of those the Bible deems worthy. People like all Christians, older people, and men.

Though I’ve abandoned Christianity and embraced feminist secular humanism, the culture in which I grew up and my short time at conservative Bob Jones University still affect how I view myself and act in social situations. The lessons of my formative years created a perfect storm of terrible indoctrination: gender roles that promoted repressed individuality for women while encouraging toxic masculinity, explicit teaching that led to constant second-guessing my ability to accurately understand my own life, and a biblical impetus to “rejoice in my suffering.”

Decades of training taught me I’m not allowed to set boundaries.

But Some Habits Die Hard

Here’s the thing. At almost 30, I’d never dated anyone other than my ex-husband. So I thought it was about time to change that.

When I found this man’s online profile, I was pleasantly surprised. It was full of the kind of geekery I’m into, even down to the specific affinity for eclectic music. I wrote to him, making sure my message and tone were casual. He responded instantly, full of charisma and charm. Within hours, we’d made plans to meet.

He was just as friendly and attentive in person. After wandering around town, window-shopping, and getting to know one another, he suggested we go to his favorite bar. As he drank (while I sipped water), he kept paying me compliments, slowly breaking the touch barrier. And honestly, I was enthralled—no one had paid attention to me like this in years.

When he suggested moving out to the car where we could be a little more intimate, I agreed. The rush of feeling desired was intoxicating. He seemed so focused on consent—asking permission before doing anything. Plus, he was quite straightforward about what he wanted, which I found exciting.

So…I brought him home.

This new and exciting “arrangement” lasted one week, during which we had very satisfying, attachment-free sex several times and after which we parted ways as friends.

That’s the story I told people. That’s the story I thought I believed. I’d been freed from the rigid expectations and restraints of my youth’s purity culture.

Now. You’re about to hear me say many things I know to be wrong. Many feminists or victim advocates almost certainly know the rationalizations and reactions I’m about to describe are both normal responses to abuse and a result of ingrained lies about sex in our culture. Not to mention evidence of the influence that right-wing conservatism can have on shaping self-actualization.

As I was telling people the story above, I left out important details. Were my omissions deliberate? An instinctive self-preservation mechanism? A carryover from draconian ideals about promiscuity?

When I broke down crying with my friend, I finally realized I’d kept quiet because I couldn’t bear to hear myself say what happened.

I’m a feminist, damn it. I left all the puritanical understandings of gender roles behind when I exited Christianity! I even write about social justice and victim advocacy. I ought to recognize rape culture!

Right?

If only being a socially aware feminist was enough to erase decades of socialization as a woman within rape culture—or provide inoculation against sexual violence.

That first night, once we got to my car, he stopped checking in with me. I dismissed the red flag as soon as I noticed it, telling myself he’d stop if I showed discomfort. Then he smacked my ass—hard. I pulled away, staring at him in shocked revulsion. “Sorry,” he replied, smirking.

He suggested that we go back to my house, saying we’d have more privacy than at his place. I was uneasy, unconvinced. But he began passionately kissing, groping, petting, and pleading. Against my better judgment, I relented.

Yet, in the seclusion of my home, there was no more asking. There was only telling.

Before I knew it, I’d been thrown on my back as he pulled off my clothes. I froze. The only coherent thought I could manage was a weak stammer, asking if he had a condom. He seemed agitated. “Are you on birth control?” That’s not the point! I thought, mechanically answering “yes.”

With a triumphant grin and no further discussion, he forced himself into me. Pleasure fought with growing panic as something within me screamed for things to slow down, to just stop. The sensation was familiar: identical to how I felt when raped as a child.

I frantically pushed him off and rolled away, hyperventilating. I muttered repeatedly, “I need a minute. Just give me a minute. I need a minute.”

“We’re not finished yet!” he snapped angrily. As he reached for me again, I screeched hysterically, “I’M NOT OK! I NEED A MINUTE!”

Suddenly, he was kind and caring. Instead of being alarmed, I was strangely grateful. So once I calmed down, I fucked him. More than once.

It was—I told myself—consensual. After all, he comforted me during a flashback. Didn’t I owe him that much?

Yet, if I didn’t do what he wanted, he’d forcefully smack my ass. If I didn’t seem happy enough, he’d insistently tell me to smile as he hit me again, harder. He seemed to relish the strained smile I would force on command.

I kept telling myself I was okay. Happy, even. Look at how liberated I was!

All week, I was either at his beck and call or fighting suicidal urges. Never having liked alcohol before, I started drinking heavily. I did all I could to minimize or ignore the abuse. Even with his last visit—as I fought to breathe while he forcefully held my head down during oral sex, effectively choking me—I initially told myself desperately that surely he wouldn’t do any of this on purpose.

The Stories We Tell and The Stories That Just Are

Reflecting on that week, I’m engulfed in shame. I’m a proud feminist. I know what coercion looks like. I know what rape looks like. I know it’s rarely a scary man wearing a ski mask in a back alley. I’ve heard all the victim-blaming rape apologia you have: that women make up rape when they regret consenting to sex, or going on a date means sex is in the cards, or bringing someone home means you’re game for anything.

Reality is, all of us have been socialized within a patriarchal system that clouds our experiences and ability to classify them. We’re told to tend and befriend the men who threaten us. De-escalation at any cost is the go-to response of almost any woman I’ve ever talked to about unwanted male attention. Whatever will satiate the beast and keep us safe.

On top of that, my conservative background whispered accusations of being a Jezebel, failing to safeguard my purity, and getting exactly what I deserve for forsaking the faith.

It’s all lies, of course. Our culture lies when it says that there are blurred lines when it comes to consent. It violates our personhood when it requires us to change the narrative of the violence enacted against us for their own comfort. Right-wing Christianity lies when it says we don’t belong to ourselves and must submit to the authority of a religion or a gender.

Nobody’s assaulted because they weren’t nice enough or because they “failed” to de-escalate. There’s nothing we can do to provoke such violence. Rape is never deserved. The responsibility for sexual assault lies entirely with those who attack us.

So why was the story I told during and after that ordeal so radically and fundamentally different from what actually happened? And why the hell did I think any of what happened was OK?

Rape myths are so ingrained in our cultural understanding of relationships that it was easier for me to believe nothing bad had happened than to accept the truth. I thought if I could only tell the story I wanted it to be, then maybe that’s what really happened. I thought if I was willing—if I kept having him over, if I did what he ordered, if I told my friends how wonderful it was—it would mean everything was fine. It would mean I wasn’t suffering from post-traumatic stress or anxiety about defying the conservative tenets of my former political and religious system.

Sometimes, we tell ourselves the stories we want to hear until we’re able to bear the stories of what actually happened.

We all have a right to say who has what kind of access to our bodies. A man’s masculinity gives him no authority over anyone’s sexual agency. A lack of a “no” doesn’t mean a “yes.” Coercion isn’t consent. Sexual acts performed without consent are assault. We have a right to tell our stories—our real stories.

So, while this isn’t the story I wanted, it’s the story that is.

I was raped.

Analysis LGBTQ

Medicaid Coverage for Transition-Related Care ‘Is Really a Life-or-Death Issue’

Annamarya Scaccia

Medicaid's exclusionary regulations deny many low-income transgender people access to medically necessary health care, advocates say, and cause physical, mental, and economic harm.

Pennsylvania’s ban on Medicaid coverage for transition-related care is discriminatory and unreasonable, says a transgender man who filed a federal court lawsuit against the state’s Department of Human Services Secretary Theodore Dallas in February.

The plaintiff, John Doe of Delaware County, says Medicaid denied him coverage in 2015 for an abdominal hysterectomy his doctor deemed medically necessary to treat his gender dysphoria diagnosis, according to the complaint. Doe’s complaint notes that “Medicaid coverage in Pennsylvania includes payments for medically necessary hysterectomies,” but that it bans those for individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria. He claims state regulations banning transition-related care, which led to the coverage denial, violate federal and constitutional law. The courts granted Doe’s request for anonymity shortly after he filed his complaint.

Pennsylvania is one of 16 states that prohibit Medicaid coverage of transition-related care, including hysterectomies, gender confirmation surgeries, and hormone therapy. These exclusionary regulations deny many low-income transgender people access to medically necessary health care, advocates say, and cause physical, mental, and economic harm.

“Medicaid is supposed to be a safety net for people who can’t otherwise access health care,” said Harper Jean Tobin, director of policy at the National Center for Transgender Equality, in an interview with Rewire. “That puts people who need care and can’t afford it and can’t get covered under Medicaid in a very bad situation.”

Like This Story?

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

Donate Now

According to the complaint, Keystone First Health Plan, which administers Medicaid in southeastern Pennsylvania, denied Doe’s doctor’s insurance request for Medicaid coverage in July 2015. Doe appealed, but an administrative law judge upheld the decision in October 2015, stating that Keystone is bound to “clear and express regulations,” which do not “permit the approval of the requested hysterectomy.”

Doe is seeking an injunction to order DHS to immediately cover Doe for all transition-related care, as well as eliminate Pennsylvania’s exclusionary regulation. He also asked for a declaratory judgment ruling that Pennsylvania’s Medicaid exclusion regulations are discriminatory and a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

“We hope that that declaration will enable thousands of the neediest among us to be provided with Medicaid for their gender dysphoria,” said Doe’s attorney Julie Chovanes, who runs the Trans Resource Foundation.

The state responded to the complaint on March 31, denying allegations that its policy is discriminatory and unconstitutional. The state also believes that Doe is not entitled to any relief. At press time, no hearing or trial date had been set in Doe’s case.

“This Is Really Life or Death”

Exclusionary policies like Pennsylvania’s, advocates say, have a twofold effect: They deny necessary health care to transgender Americans and, in turn, threaten their economic stability and safety. Transgender people are disproportionately more likely to be poor and more likely to rely on needs-based state-run programs such as Medicaid, and research shows that they benefit from the very transition-related care for which Medicaid is denying them coverage.

A 2015 joint report by the Center for American Progress and the Movement Advancement Project found that transgender Americans are four times more likely to live on less than $10,000 a year per household than the cisgender population. Rates are even higher for transgender people of color—Asian and Pacific Islander (API) and Latino transgender Americans, for example, are nearly six times more likely to live in extreme poverty than cisgender API or Latino Americans, respectively.

“If you think about Medicaid as a policy that’s not just to protect people’s health but to potentially make it possible for people to climb out of poverty,” said Tobin, “then having broad exclusions on important health needs is something that helps keep them stuck in poverty.”

Research has shown the benefits of transition-related care. A 2015 Journal of Urban Health report found that when trans women have access to and utilize transition-related care, they are at significantly lower risk of suicidal thoughts and substance abuse. But remove that access, and transgender Medicaid enrollees are left in a precarious position, says Joanne Carroll, president of TransCentralPA, an advocacy group based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. They may forgo care, leading to emotional, mental, and physical distress; they may find risky ways to pay for care or plunge deeper into poverty; or they may use illegal methods to get the care they need.

To that last point, Carroll said transgender people will sometimes buy hormones offshore without medical supervision or go to illegal silicone pumping parties because they can’t afford augmentation.

And it’s costing lives, she said. Last January, a 40-year-old transgender woman died after being injected with silicone at a party in Santa Ana, California. Another trans woman died on New Year’s Day 2014 after two months in a coma from illegal silicone injections. Trans Road Map has a list of further incidents from 2003 through 2011 on silicone-related deaths.

“Denying people health care is causing them to seek stuff off the radar,” Carroll told Rewire, “which is ultimately killing off a lot of people.”

Advocates note that Medicaid coverage alone won’t stop these off-the-radar methods, as intolerant doctors, inadequate medical services, and other systemic barriers cause trans people to seek out that care. But, they say, eliminating transgender health-care exclusions in Medicaid is a necessary step toward addressing these safety concerns, though not a complete solution.

Leading health organizations have affirmed the medical necessity of providing coverage for transition-related care throughout the years. In 2008, the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association both passed resolutions supporting transgender health-care inclusion in public and private health insurance. Similar declarations have been made by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 2011, the American Academy of Family Physicians in 2012, and the American College of Physicians in 2015, to name a few.

“The evidence is there around the effectiveness and medical necessity of this type of care,” said M. Dru Levasseur, director of the Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal, in an interview with Rewire. “This is really a life-or-death issue for transgender people.”

“Actionable Under the Law”

In September, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released proposed regulations clarifying that civil rights protections afforded in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act also apply to Medicaid. The proposed HHS rule states that, under Section 1557’s sex discrimination ban, many health insurance plans—which include state-run Medicaid programs—cannot discriminate on the basis of gender identity. HHS already made this explicit for Medicare, which serves older Americans and people with disabilities, two years ago.

The proposed federal rule, then, upholds that Medicaid exclusions nationwide are discriminatory on their face, advocates say. “That basically sets out that this is actionable under the law,” said Levasseur.

HHS is expected to release its final rule this summer.

There’s case law to support HHS’s clarification. In March 2015, a federal court ruled in Rumble v. Fairview Health Services that anti-trans discrimination is prohibited under the ACA for providers and hospitals accepting federal Medicaid or Medicare funds. The federal lawsuit was brought on behalf of a young trans man in Minnesota who alleged health-care providers at a nonprofit hospital were intolerant and provided substandard care because of his gender identity.

But while federal law prohibits health-care discrimination by providers on the basis of gender identity, how it applies to Medicaid coverage varies state-to-state. Such spotty interpretation has led to a patchwork of policies protecting against transgender health-care discrimination.

Only 11 states plus the District of Columbia have Medicaid policies inclusive of transition-related care coverage, according to data from the Movement Advancement Project. Pennsylvania and 15 other states have explicit regulations denying such coverage of care. Twenty-three states have no clear rule on the matter. Nearly two-thirds of the LGBTQ population live in states that either have exclusionary policies or have no explicit policy at all.

lgbtmaFurthermore, 12 states plus the District of Columbia—nine of which have laws prohibiting health insurance discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity—have also banned transgender health-care exclusions from private insurance. (Although Minnesota mandates protections for transgender health care in private insurance, its state Medicaid program specifically excludes transition-related care, according to MAP.)

Advocates say that efforts to abolish state-sponsored exclusionary policies are already happening at the local, grassroots level. New York state announced in late 2014 that its Medicaid program would cover transgender health care after 12 years of campaigning by the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, a collective providing legal services to New York City’s transgender population. Advocates hope more states will roll back their prohibitory regulations as they wait for HHS to release its final rule.

“It’s a matter of time and multiple strategies for states to fall in line with where they should,” said Levasseur, “which is the medical consensus that you cannot have exclusions for certain people’s health care.”

The cost to states for inclusive transition-related Medicaid coverage would be negligible, advocates say. According to Tobin, states would only have to cover the health-care needs of “a relatively small part of the population” on Medicaid. In fact, when Oregon added transition-related care to its Medicaid program in 2014, the state’s Health Evidence Review Commission estimated it would cost the state less than $150,000 of its total annual Medicaid budget and impact about 175 enrollees per year, reported the Advocate.

“In that sense, it’s a drop in the bucket,” said Tobin. “But you’re also talking about spending a little bit of money now to prevent treating complications later.”

And, she continued, providing transition-related care would also cost states far less than covering later symptoms from untreated gender dysphoria, such as depression and substance abuse.

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D) has spoken out against the state’s Medicaid exclusion in response to the John Doe case. He said through his spokesperson that precluding coverage for transition-related care is “wrong” and that the state shouldn’t discriminate “based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression,” according to Philadelphia Magazine.

“The governor hopes to have a robust conversation with the legislature, community and all other parties regarding this issue to move the commonwealth forward,” the spokesperson said last month.

“It’s great that Gov. Wolf agrees that the exclusions are wrong and should be eliminated,” said Thomas W. Ude Jr., legal and policy director at the Mazzoni Center in Philadelphia. The Mazzoni Center provides health and wellness care, in addition to legal assistance, to Philadelphia’s LGBTQ population.

“The only question is what his approach would be to actually make that happen,” he said in an interview with Rewire.

Eliminating exclusionary policies would, in no small measure, open the door to fundamental health care for transgender people and save the states money. But that’s only one piece of the puzzle regarding “health-care delivery all-in-all,” said Carroll. The other: ensuring physicians actually treat transgender patients.

Carroll says she’s fortunate to not have faced many barriers to care. But she acknowledges she’s the exception and not the rule; more often, transgender people are denied treatment for something as common as walking pneumonia on the basis of their gender identity alone. And in many states, including Pennsylvania, there is no law broadly protecting the transgender population from discrimination in health care, employment, or public life. (Despite bipartisan support, the so-called PA Fairness Act has languished in a Republican-controlled general assembly that’s had trouble even passing its budget bill, said Carroll.)

“Right now we’re almost captive to these individual physicians whether or not they’ll even agree to treat somebody,” she said.

In a way, John Doe’s case is bigger than itself. While the complaint addresses a specific systemic barrier, it also underscores the discrimination transgender people face in health care across the board. Whether it’s hormone therapy or a yearly physical, advocates say, transgender people should have uninhibited access to care, period.

“Medicine is medicine,” said Carroll.