The show was also Fresh Air, and you are not garbling the message. This was the big bugaboo with W’s whole AIDS funding thing. They are paying for treatment – great, but they are only supporting abstinence based prevention programs and they extract a written pledge from each group or even from health depts not to use this money or ANY money for non-abstinence based programs. I can’t remember who spoke but the podcast release date was 6/11 on iTunes and it is Fresh Air.

I would image that Neil’s opinion spring half from genuine ignorance about what sort of sexually explicit imagery (some) women do or do not enjoy looking at, and half from a tautological definition of porn.

Or maybe we’re forgetting that NPR is just another MSM outlet. Maybe Robert is actually quite aware that there are many women who are aroused by and enjoy sexually explicit imagery; and the question was meant as a softball that his producers thought Mary Roach was going to hit out of the park, accompanied by all manner of titilating SATC-style descriptions of what women *really* like to watch.

But instead of parking it, Roach hit a chopper and got thrown out at first.

XXX,
Alison

Tony’s response is spot on, porn is a huge swath to cover. Not all women or men like all porn, we are discriminating consumers, but to claim half the population dislikes all porn is just plain crazy.

Next time they need to give the sex interviews to Ira Glass, Terry Gross or maybe Nina Totenberg; people who are a little better with hot topics. It is good to see sex being talked about on the radio all the same. I’m sending an email to NPR asking “what?”, but it seems like it would really helpful for a bunch of people to encourage them to correct this error. Like many groups NPR is trying to do good but I am sure their sexual education is as lacking as it is for most Americans.

Perhaps it’s worth considering that pornography is understood everything from one of our “erotic documentaries” to legally and/or economically censorable material to criminally prosecutable expression. Maybe saying that people, male or or female or other, does or does not like porn is as meaningful as saying “Woman like food.” or “Men do not like plants.”

Also, the fact that a person registers an erotic physical response is not the same as that enjoying what they are responding to. Put a Slimjim in someone’s mouth and tell them to chew and that person will salivate. That doesn’t mean that person wants to swallow.

I do understand your annoyance with Seigal and your disappointment Roach. I’m old enough to remember when it was “common knowledge” that women did not actually enjoy sucking cock. The denial of sexuality is dehumanizing, and stygmatizing of those who find that whatever it is that they’re “not supposed to enjoy” is actually a natural and pleasurable part of their sexuality. “Good girls don’t” is killing, maybe not to the body, but certainly tothe spirit. And perhaps that’s worse.

I wanted to send you an email about a segment I heard on NPR this week (wednesday morning I believe) but I honestly couldn’t find mention of it on the NPR website so I thought my message to you would be fruitless. But, since you mentioned NPR, and I am up way too late already, I thought I’d share. If you have any more luck in finding it than I do I think you’ll be interested in the story about how American money is being used to dictate how sex workers in other lands (Africa was the focus of the story I believe) can get access to information relating to HIV/AIDS. Something about how if an organization uses American money at all they can’t spend any money on any other message other than abstenance? Even if it is their own money?

I might be garbling the message here (really tired) but I know that if you find it it is worth a listen. And no, I honestly can’t recall which show it was on either. I’m worthless.

Cheers for all you do!