Posted Apr 10th, 2014 12:18 PM by Mark Kernes
CLOUD COOKOOLAND—Dr. Judith Reisman (the doctorate is in Communications, though she apparently also has a law degree) has made a career as the foremost attacker of sex researcher Dr. Alfred Kinsey and the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction which he founded. She's also the originator of the concept of "erototoxins," which allegedly "flood the brain" of people watching porn. (Most people call them "endorphins," which are released naturally whenever someone does something pleasurable.)
But now Judy has a new theory, and it's a doozy: Condoms were never FDA-approved for anal sex—which oddly enough is also the title of the article she got published on the ultra-conservative Whirled Nut Daily World Net Daily website.
See, according to Reisman, "condom pushers have for years dispensed false, deceptive claims about how the product protects—or fails to protect—the health of sex participants. The reality is that condoms are manufactured and approved every day for natural, vaginal sex, not anal 'sex.' They are not effectively designed to protect from disease those people who engage in sodomy... [T]he FDA, even after looking at AIDS studies for roughly 40 years, has NEVER—that is never, not ever—approved a condom for use in oral/anal or penile-rectal anal 'sex'."
We admit we've never thought of using a condom for "oral/anal" sex, whatever that is—rimming?—and we're also guessing that ol' Judes has never had "penile-rectal anal 'sex'," which we guess is why she puts the "sex" in quotation marks.
And what's her source for that outlandish claim? Would you believe an article in Consumer Reports magazine from sometime prior to April, 1995?
"Some condom boxes specifically indicate they are designed for vaginal sex only," she quotes the report, via a "CDC National Hotline Training Bulletin." "Are they not effective for anal sex? Which condoms should be used for anal sex?
"For the most part, FDA has only evaluated data on condoms tested in vaginal sex," the article continues. "There have been several published studies and surveys which indicate condom breakage and slippage rates may be higher during anal sex. However, these studies are only retrospective. Whatever the breakage rate, it may be reduced by use of a water-based or silicone-based lubricant."
So: Hardly a polemic against using condoms for anal sex, even in those dim historical times of about 20 years ago—Why, they barely had internet in those days!—so AVN checked to see if Consumer Reports had updated its advice regarding condoms, and sure enough, they had.
"For our latest test, our intrepid mystery shopper bought more than 15,000 condoms," a 2009 Consumer Reports article states. "Seven of the 20 models we tested earned a perfect score, indicating they were not only stronger and more reliable than most, but also had no leaks or flaws in their packaging. Those top seven include one Durex, two Lifestyles, and four Trojan models..."
In fact, the ConsumerReports.org website has no less than 12 articles recommending condom use, without specifying whether that use should be limited to vaginal intercourse, and a couple of them—here and here—certainly imply (if they don't state it outright) that condoms are as useful for anal sex as for vaginal.
Apparently, what Reisman is really "on about" is a "report" authored by Hawaii state Rep. Bob McDermott (R-Whackjob), an MBA career politician with no discernable medical training, which refers to a "federally funded sex education program currently in use in 12 of [Hawaii’s] public schools … created by the University of Hawaii and Planned Parenthood … [that] defines the anus a 'genital'."
The program McDermott's referring to is "Pono Choices," which was developed in-state and is being used in Hawaii's public and charter schools for kids 11-13, in part because Hawaii’s teen pregnancy rate is 93 pregnancies per 1,000—almost one in 10—young women ages 15-19. (We're guessing that might be lower if more of them practiced anal sex, but that's neither here nor there—and McDermott definitely doesn't want it there.)
"The Federal Drug Administration [sic] warns Americans, on its website, that anal sex is 'simply too dangerous to practice'," McDermott said, with Reisman noting that, "Pono Choices [which for some reason she thinks should be renamed "Porno Choices"] has received nearly $1 million in federal funding from the Department of Health and Human Services."
Incidentally, that "simply too dangerous to practice" quote comes from a 1990 Food & Drug Administration Web page, an advisory courtesy of the George H.W. Bush presidency, but it's not the FDA's finding; it's a quoted statement from Ronald Reagan's Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, a rabid conservative who opposed women's right to abortion on "moral grounds." But that's conservatives for you: Always up-to-date!
BTW: "Planned Parenthood implicitly and explicitly has promoted anal 'sex' to children and adults for years," Reisman claims, apparently based on this sentence in one of their brochures—which, of course, makes no mention of children: "If you choose to have vaginal or anal intercourse, use condoms every time."
Reisman thinks Hawaiian parents should be prepared to sue the Hawaiian School Districts that use the Pono Choices program, as well as "everyone in the Hawaiian schools who had a hand in disseminating this false information ... [i]f their children acquire deadly diseases as a result of this propaganda and the deliberate withholding of key information," but that's small potatoes compared to whom she really wants to sue.
"A class action lawsuit by AIDS victims and their loved ones would rock the world," Reisman states, "a suit based on the fact that condom pushers have for years dispensed false, deceptive claims about how the product protects—or fails to protect—the health of sex participants... Such a lawsuit should target the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Planned Parenthood and a myriad of teachers and school systems, too many to count, that have taught that anal 'sex' (traditionally termed 'sodomy' or 'buggery' under British-based legal codes) as [sic] not so different than natural coitus."
Better watch it, Michael W: Judy Reisman's comin' for ya—and she ain't happy!
This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.