Would you disguise yourself for your job or call it quits?
Mike Krolikowski did. "Mr. K," as his students once called him, served 32 dedicated years as a teacher at St. Francis Preparatory High School in Queens, N.Y. He was fired for being transsexual.
In the past five or so years, Krolikowski spiced up his professional ensemble with long hair, hoop earrings and a French manicure, in efforts to freely express himself.
During the Fall semester of 2011, a judgmental parent complained to school officials about his "inappropriate" look in a Catholic school setting. The administration then told the teacher if he did not "tone down" his look, they would ban him from appearing at school events. He chose to tone it down, but it apparently wasn't enough because they still terminated his contract.
As an alumna of this institution, I am appalled that something this absurd would even happen. In my experience at Prep, I found the administration to be very accepting of all their students. Was I wrong? Do I carry a false, naïve image of the school I consider to be a second home? Seeing my school constantly appear in the headlines year after year only says one thing to me. The administration is at fault. The teachers stand up for what is right. It just sucks that the kids get stuck in the middle of all the drama. Unfortunately, future generation Prep students may miss out on some awesome teachers like Mr. K, but us alumni should not be ashamed to say we went there. We were there in smarter times, and we are who we are now because of the great teachers like Mr. K.
Mr. K taught my senior theology class titled Human Sexuality and Love. He never once mentioned his personal preferences or acted inappropriately. He accepted and loved all of his students. He was the first teacher that was so stright up with us about sex. Of course he promoted abstinence, but he could not ignore the fact that he knew teenagers were going to have sex regardless. So, he did what any smart and caring teacher would do. He taught us how we, all genders and sexual orientations united, can practice safe sex as well as the difference between healthy and unhealthy relationships. This material will stay with us for the rest of our lives. Students even went to him for advice about their personal situations. Everyone (generally) trusted he'd be completely honest without passing judgment.
So, when the beloved teacher says he was fired solely because of his choice to dress feminine, all of his students past and present will faithfully stand by him. The beauty that blossomed from this incident is that the students came together to make a difference. We as a whole knew it would be highly unlikely to get the Prep administration to hire him again, but if we really tried to work together, we could do something to show we care. Students old and new signed a petition to get the administration to at least apologize to Mr. K for their maltreatment. It's been over a month since the article was posted, but there has been no news of any apologies.
Mr. K, if you ever see this, I hope you know that you matter, that your students recognize and appreciate all you did for us and that we wish you good luck on your future endeavors. You deserve more than what Prep has to offer you now. You deserve respect and acceptance for the amazing person that you are. God Bless.
Here's a tribute from another alumnus that feels the same.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Thursday, December 6, 2012
An actual bookstore? No way...
In the December issue, The Atlantic published an article written by author Ann Patchett. Patchett was also recently featured on The Colbert Report, where she was able to reach out to millions of viewers nationwide about Parnassus Books, the bookstore she opened in Nashville this year.
She and two friends own, manage and maintain the bookstore and the website themselves. They seem to be successful, especially after being aired on television.
I loved most of what Patchett had to say; however, I hate how it was written. It was in narrative form. She talked about what inspired her and her process for opening up the store, but there was so much fluff. The beginning was excellent, until she decided to talk about how it all started. I barely made it to the end. It would've been a good story, had it not been written by her. I'm surprised to find myself saying this because I love reading stories in the first-person voice, and I wish other magazines left room for personal stories or even excerpts from books. I find them very interesting.
There was one part that stood out to me and some other readers (that I know because I read some of the comments):
Reading the comments, people like Autumn Dennis voiced that there are tons of independent bookstores in Nashville with "legacies" and a more homey feeling than the hipster Parnassus. A person who goes by the username "therantguy" commented that it would be hard to follow in Patchett's footsteps because she was able to use her name to her advantage. He says other Joe Schmoe's with the same dream wouldn't succeed so easily because they wouldn't be able to get on The Colbert Report or get a story published in a big-time magazine for the nation to see. Other comments opened up my eyes a little bit to the fact that in efforts to talk up her store, she downplayed every other store or means that people use to get their hands on good books. In my head, I thought about how the transition from bookstores to Amazon is a lot like the transition from newspapers/magazines to tablets and smartphones, if not the same thing. There will always be a need for both— a need for the more convenient, digital version and the need for the more tangible, natural and old-school version. Luckily, there is still room in this world for both. Patchett could learn a thing or two from her readers.
She and two friends own, manage and maintain the bookstore and the website themselves. They seem to be successful, especially after being aired on television.
I loved most of what Patchett had to say; however, I hate how it was written. It was in narrative form. She talked about what inspired her and her process for opening up the store, but there was so much fluff. The beginning was excellent, until she decided to talk about how it all started. I barely made it to the end. It would've been a good story, had it not been written by her. I'm surprised to find myself saying this because I love reading stories in the first-person voice, and I wish other magazines left room for personal stories or even excerpts from books. I find them very interesting.
There was one part that stood out to me and some other readers (that I know because I read some of the comments):
(In candor, I should say that Nashville has some truly wonderful used-book stores that range from iconic to overwhelming. But while they play an important role in the cultural fabric of the city, it is a separate role—or maybe that’s just the perspective of someone who writes books for a living.) We have a Barnes & Noble that is a 20-minute drive out of town without traffic, a Books-A-Million on the western edge of the city, near a Costco, and also a Target. Do those count? Not to me, no, they don’t, and they don’t count to any other book-buying Nashvillians with whom I am acquainted.Prior to this statement, she said Nashville used to have two bookstores: Davis-Kidd and Borders. They closed down. Their closings inspired the birth of Parnassus. I do not understand how Borders is any different from Barnes & Noble. I also do not understand how Parnassus is any different from Nashville's other used-book stores. I don't like how she added that snooty sentence about how she does not know anyone who counts those other bookstores. I do not think she did a good job explaining how Parnassus Books differs from any other bookstore. Yes, she went into detail about the bookstore from her childhood that she missed dearly, called Mills that "valued books and readers above muffins and adorable plastic watering cans." However, I still do not know how she was creating that effect with Parnassus. She told me without showing me well enough, and that is where she lost me.
Reading the comments, people like Autumn Dennis voiced that there are tons of independent bookstores in Nashville with "legacies" and a more homey feeling than the hipster Parnassus. A person who goes by the username "therantguy" commented that it would be hard to follow in Patchett's footsteps because she was able to use her name to her advantage. He says other Joe Schmoe's with the same dream wouldn't succeed so easily because they wouldn't be able to get on The Colbert Report or get a story published in a big-time magazine for the nation to see. Other comments opened up my eyes a little bit to the fact that in efforts to talk up her store, she downplayed every other store or means that people use to get their hands on good books. In my head, I thought about how the transition from bookstores to Amazon is a lot like the transition from newspapers/magazines to tablets and smartphones, if not the same thing. There will always be a need for both— a need for the more convenient, digital version and the need for the more tangible, natural and old-school version. Luckily, there is still room in this world for both. Patchett could learn a thing or two from her readers.
People Notice US!
For years, young adults kept their distance from politics because they always felt like the presidential candidates didn't care about their issues. Their campaigns were mostly aimed at adults and the elderly, and the younger audience couldn't quite grasp the confusing political lingo. As a campaigning strategy, it made sense to focus on the elders, seeming that voters aged 18-25 did not offer much political support.
However, this election engaged the attentions of young Americans aged 18-29. Twenty-three million Americans in this age group cast a vote. According to the Young Democrats of America (YDA), "Young voter turnout tripled or even quadrupled in many primary states."
Why is that?
YDA says young voters hit its peak in the 2004 election and has been increasing ever since. I personally thought that this piqued interest was due to social networking.
Call me a little late, but I just found on the Seventeen magazine website a blog about the election for their readers.
It is called Electionista Blog, and their writers informed readers of election news. The blog can be found if you hover your mouse over the "College Life" tab on the menu banner. I know the election took place exactly a month ago from today, but I found the blog about a week ago.
The writers haven't posted anything since Nov. 7, but looking through all of the posts, you can see how much of an effort they made to get their readers interested in voting. The blog aimed to teach their readers how the election affected women and students specifically. They succeeded in finding real stories from real people that wanted to voice why it is necessary to vote.
Their "about the blog" section reads:
I kind of wish I had found this sooner so that I could have kept up with the election better. Also, I just finished co-creating a political magazine targeted at young readers. The mission statement read similar to what Seventeen had to say about their blog (without the sass), so I am extremely interested to see how much this blog had an influence on young female voters. Good job, Seventeen. Good job.
However, this election engaged the attentions of young Americans aged 18-29. Twenty-three million Americans in this age group cast a vote. According to the Young Democrats of America (YDA), "Young voter turnout tripled or even quadrupled in many primary states."
Why is that?
YDA says young voters hit its peak in the 2004 election and has been increasing ever since. I personally thought that this piqued interest was due to social networking.
Call me a little late, but I just found on the Seventeen magazine website a blog about the election for their readers.
It is called Electionista Blog, and their writers informed readers of election news. The blog can be found if you hover your mouse over the "College Life" tab on the menu banner. I know the election took place exactly a month ago from today, but I found the blog about a week ago.
The writers haven't posted anything since Nov. 7, but looking through all of the posts, you can see how much of an effort they made to get their readers interested in voting. The blog aimed to teach their readers how the election affected women and students specifically. They succeeded in finding real stories from real people that wanted to voice why it is necessary to vote.
Their "about the blog" section reads:
Politics can be confusing, overwhelming, and well, a little boring. That's where Electionista comes in! Our Electionista bloggers are here to give you the facts in a straight-forward language that's easy to understand. Keep checking back in to learn about the political front-runners, what they stand for, and what it means for you. You'll also find tons of ways to get involved because your voice matters. Even if you aren't old enough to vote, your voice can still be heard.Honestly, I would have never expected this from Seventeen, simply because they are so girly and celebrity-based that it did not make any sense. While reading through the posts that shed light on how each topic related to women and their readers' generations, I realized how remarkable this was. I am not a Seventeen reader. The only things I ever noticed in that magazine were articles about how to tell if a guy likes you and how to put on makeup so it looks like you're not wearing any makeup at all. To see this on their website, I find them to be more sophisticated than I used to. I also really dig how they used the blog to empower women and students all at the same time.
I kind of wish I had found this sooner so that I could have kept up with the election better. Also, I just finished co-creating a political magazine targeted at young readers. The mission statement read similar to what Seventeen had to say about their blog (without the sass), so I am extremely interested to see how much this blog had an influence on young female voters. Good job, Seventeen. Good job.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Return of the Unicorns!!
Maxim reporter Jesse Brukman published a story about North Koreans saying that they knew of an old unicorn lair. He created a fake skit about a rocket scientist and a farmer talking to each other about checking up on the lair as soon as the scientist found the cure for AIDS using medieval technologies. He ended the story by telling his readers the only evidence that it is a unicorn lair is the mere fact that the rectangular rock has the words "unicorn lair" engraved in it.
Although it was funny, his satire piece was really dumb. It also kind of made fun of North Koreans in a disrespectful way, mocking them for how smart they may think they are.
It didn't fulfill my appetite for Maxim's typical funny, sarcastic pieces. Also, I found the title to be somewhat misleading. As soon as I saw unicorns were seen, I got so excited. Yes, it definitely did what a good title is supposed to do - draw in the reader's attention. However, the content of the story lacked substance. It failed to be newsworthy and failed to live up to the reputation of the title. I thought it would be an educational piece from the beginning paragraphs, since he mentioned the reign of King Tongmyong, but the remaining paragraphs did not follow.
Although it was funny, his satire piece was really dumb. It also kind of made fun of North Koreans in a disrespectful way, mocking them for how smart they may think they are.
It didn't fulfill my appetite for Maxim's typical funny, sarcastic pieces. Also, I found the title to be somewhat misleading. As soon as I saw unicorns were seen, I got so excited. Yes, it definitely did what a good title is supposed to do - draw in the reader's attention. However, the content of the story lacked substance. It failed to be newsworthy and failed to live up to the reputation of the title. I thought it would be an educational piece from the beginning paragraphs, since he mentioned the reign of King Tongmyong, but the remaining paragraphs did not follow.
Brukman, you failed to serve these beloved mythical creatures well. Shame on you!
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Defining Latinos
On Thursday, the Huffington Post shared a story questioning, "Is Ted Cruz Latino Enough To Represent Texas Hispanics In Congress?" What in the world does that mean, "Latino enough?"
The article goes on to say that Cruz is a Cuban-American whose father immigrated to the states so that he would have a better life. It is the fact that Cruz has a strict stand on illegal immigration in a border state that upsets the Hispanics in Texas. They make up 26% of Texan voters and are mostly Mexican-American Democrats. It makes sense that they would disagree with Cruz's views, but the chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, Gilbert Hinojosa, took disagreeing to a whole new level. He said that the only thing Hispanic about Cruz is his last name. He continued to insult him by saying that he is as Hispanic as Tom Cruise.
That is a heinous remark from one Hispanic to another. Hinojosa might as well have spit in Cruz's face. Hinojosa's history as a Cameron County judge shows that he built international bridges connecting Texas to Mexico. The current judge's administration is completing the $21 million government-funded Cameron County West Rail Relocation Project, in which a railroad is being built from Brownsville, Texas, to Tamaulipas, Mexico across the Rio Grande River. Of course he's against Cruz because he's not on his side when it comes to immigration, but that doesn't make it okay to bash who he is.
What exactly makes you qualified to label yourself Latino or Latina? Dictionary.com defines Latino as "a person of Latin-American or Spanish-speaking descent." Descent, meaning ancestry or origin. The only real aspect of culture someone needs to be included in an ethnic group is bloodline, and Cruz obviously has that.
Yes, Hinojosa was a county judge, but he took his judgments too far this time. How do you discriminate against your own? Who does he think he is to judge whether or not someone is Hispanic or not? Every individual in our country is entitled to his or her own beliefs, regardless of where they come from.
Hinojosa was wrong to belittle Cruz. It is wrong to dictate to someone who he or she is or who he or she is not. It's not an easy thing to handle when someone disrespects you like that, and I admire Cruz for handling this harsh criticism in a humble manner.
The article goes on to say that Cruz is a Cuban-American whose father immigrated to the states so that he would have a better life. It is the fact that Cruz has a strict stand on illegal immigration in a border state that upsets the Hispanics in Texas. They make up 26% of Texan voters and are mostly Mexican-American Democrats. It makes sense that they would disagree with Cruz's views, but the chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, Gilbert Hinojosa, took disagreeing to a whole new level. He said that the only thing Hispanic about Cruz is his last name. He continued to insult him by saying that he is as Hispanic as Tom Cruise.
“[Hinojosa's comment is] a base attempt to reach the ugliest part of our human nature, to despise people because of their racial and ethnic origins.”--Democrat-turned-Republican Rep. Aaron Peña to the Houston Chronicle.
That is a heinous remark from one Hispanic to another. Hinojosa might as well have spit in Cruz's face. Hinojosa's history as a Cameron County judge shows that he built international bridges connecting Texas to Mexico. The current judge's administration is completing the $21 million government-funded Cameron County West Rail Relocation Project, in which a railroad is being built from Brownsville, Texas, to Tamaulipas, Mexico across the Rio Grande River. Of course he's against Cruz because he's not on his side when it comes to immigration, but that doesn't make it okay to bash who he is.
What exactly makes you qualified to label yourself Latino or Latina? Dictionary.com defines Latino as "a person of Latin-American or Spanish-speaking descent." Descent, meaning ancestry or origin. The only real aspect of culture someone needs to be included in an ethnic group is bloodline, and Cruz obviously has that.
Yes, Hinojosa was a county judge, but he took his judgments too far this time. How do you discriminate against your own? Who does he think he is to judge whether or not someone is Hispanic or not? Every individual in our country is entitled to his or her own beliefs, regardless of where they come from.
Hinojosa was wrong to belittle Cruz. It is wrong to dictate to someone who he or she is or who he or she is not. It's not an easy thing to handle when someone disrespects you like that, and I admire Cruz for handling this harsh criticism in a humble manner.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Poor Planned Parenthood
Planned Parenthood seemed to be a hot topic on Ms. magazine's Feminist Wire Daily Newsbriefs last week. Texas officials revoked funding on Friday and pro-life protesters provoked violence in Oregon. Coincidentally, Texas happens to be a "red state" and Oregon a "blue state." With elections just around the corner, what impact will the outcome have on Planned Parenthood? Do these recent occurrences symbolize more than just a bad rep of this women's health institution?
I think so.
The topic of abortion has become more significant with each coming election. Obama has left Planned Parenthood alone, but Romney (unfortunately) refuses to let his beliefs be unheard. A typical conservative, he believes that life starts from conception. Early this year, his website said that he is against abortion in all cases because his personal religious beliefs consider each child God's blessing. He has since changed his stance on abortion, saying it is acceptable in the unfortunate cases of rape, incest or a threat to the mother's life. However, he still supports fellow Republican political figures Todd Akin, who believes that a woman's body can prevent pregnancy in instances of "legitimate rape;" Joe Walsh, who thinks there's no scientific evidence that pregnancy can threaten a mother's life; and Richard Mourdock, who instills that even an expecting rape victim's baby is "a gift from God."
Slate magazine writer William Saletan tells his readers,
Oregon pro-life protesters shoved a girl exiting the building after she had kicked one of their signs. Later that day, she came back with her father. Angry, he punched the protester. In turn, the protester stabbed the man, Ted Clair, seven times. Last year in my anthropology class, I learned that anti-choice people have had an outstanding history in violent protests, ranging from fistfights to attacks involving arson. If you are defending life, why would you do anything to damage another's or your own? Protesters need to understand that they should practice what they preach.
And Republicans need to understand that without abortion, our economy will be even worse. Teenage pregnancy is on the rise, and many of these girls aren't even old enough to have a job yet. All these mothers who cannot support themselves, nevertheless a newborn child or twins, will make our economy worse. Even if these new mothers were to find jobs, chances are they'd have to drop out of school or not continue to college. So not only will they be poor on welfare but uneducated and unable to move up in the business world. Without abortions, women may have to die for their children, who may grow up poor without the second income or as an orphan if the father was never around. Then victims of rape or incest will have to revisit the burden of the most demeaning day of their lives whenever they lay their eyes on the children they never wanted to begin with. There are more orphans than couples willing to adopt, so that option is not always available. There's seven billion people in this world. According to National Geographic's 2010 video "7 Billion," about five people are born each second in the world. Taking away abortion in the states can probably increase that by one more person each day. Why take away the one option that regulates this? We cannot afford more people. There are already too many in our nation alone that are suffering in this era of economic turmoil. Why put more people in the streets instead of saving them from their suffering?
Romney acts like he doesn't care what the people want. He only cares about what he and his friends want. He just wants to be the poster-boy of America. It doesn't matter who he hurts in the process. Taking away the funding for Planned Parenthood should be a sin. Pro-lifers should take a more realistic perspective. Here's to the old saying, "Don't fix it if it ain't broke." Abortion is not broken. Our government is.
I think so.
The topic of abortion has become more significant with each coming election. Obama has left Planned Parenthood alone, but Romney (unfortunately) refuses to let his beliefs be unheard. A typical conservative, he believes that life starts from conception. Early this year, his website said that he is against abortion in all cases because his personal religious beliefs consider each child God's blessing. He has since changed his stance on abortion, saying it is acceptable in the unfortunate cases of rape, incest or a threat to the mother's life. However, he still supports fellow Republican political figures Todd Akin, who believes that a woman's body can prevent pregnancy in instances of "legitimate rape;" Joe Walsh, who thinks there's no scientific evidence that pregnancy can threaten a mother's life; and Richard Mourdock, who instills that even an expecting rape victim's baby is "a gift from God."
Slate magazine writer William Saletan tells his readers,
Texas Governor Rick Perry says, "Today's ruling affirms yet again that in Texas the Women's Health Program has no obligation to fund Planned Parenthood and other organizations that perform or promote abortion. In Texas we choose life, and we will immediately begin defunding all abortion affiliates to honor and uphold that choice." Ms. tells readers in this newsbrief that the state will not be able to make up for the 40% of low-income women that use these services. Republicans are forgetting that these establishments do not only provide abortions, but some vital services for women such as cancer screenings. All this decision will do is put women's health at risk, especially because they are not willing to offer low-income women any more or special healthcare options.
 |
| From motleynews.net |
 |
| From boyculture.com |
And Republicans need to understand that without abortion, our economy will be even worse. Teenage pregnancy is on the rise, and many of these girls aren't even old enough to have a job yet. All these mothers who cannot support themselves, nevertheless a newborn child or twins, will make our economy worse. Even if these new mothers were to find jobs, chances are they'd have to drop out of school or not continue to college. So not only will they be poor on welfare but uneducated and unable to move up in the business world. Without abortions, women may have to die for their children, who may grow up poor without the second income or as an orphan if the father was never around. Then victims of rape or incest will have to revisit the burden of the most demeaning day of their lives whenever they lay their eyes on the children they never wanted to begin with. There are more orphans than couples willing to adopt, so that option is not always available. There's seven billion people in this world. According to National Geographic's 2010 video "7 Billion," about five people are born each second in the world. Taking away abortion in the states can probably increase that by one more person each day. Why take away the one option that regulates this? We cannot afford more people. There are already too many in our nation alone that are suffering in this era of economic turmoil. Why put more people in the streets instead of saving them from their suffering?
Republicans need to realize that there is a reason why we have a separation of Church and state. Personal beliefs should not interfere with political ones, especially not if thousands of people will be at a loss because of it.
 |
| From realitychex.com |
And this is why I do not trust Romney. He changes his stances and his opinions way too often and drastically during his campaign. Who's to say if he gets elected that he won't "change his mind" again and do things just because he can, because he has an advantage that Obama didn't -- there are more Republicans in the House of representatives than Democrats. There goes our freedom and what is truly best for those near or under the poverty line.
Romney acts like he doesn't care what the people want. He only cares about what he and his friends want. He just wants to be the poster-boy of America. It doesn't matter who he hurts in the process. Taking away the funding for Planned Parenthood should be a sin. Pro-lifers should take a more realistic perspective. Here's to the old saying, "Don't fix it if it ain't broke." Abortion is not broken. Our government is.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Can too much sex really be that bad?
The word hypersexuality will be newly defined when the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual updates its terminology this coming May. This 'sex addiction,' to be known as hypersexual disorder, has proved itself evident in certain people's lives.
Research shows that some of the patients tested used sex as a means to cope with depression and anxiety or other unhealthy emotional states and occurrences. However, as these people continually use sex as an escape, their problems and mood swings only get progressively worse over time, ruining their relationships with other people and most importantly, their relationships with themselves. It also ruins their ability to achieve healthy sex.
It is interesting that in the study, the 150 patients who had gone in for a diagnosis were primarily white males. It seems that the hypersexuality took place mostly with themselves, turning to masturbation and pornography.
Lindsay Abrams asked the question in her article, "Do claims to "hypersexuality" really make one disordered, and deserve a place in the same book that defines debilitating afflictions like depression or schizophrenia?"
My answer: yes. Hypersexual Disorder (known as HD) does exist. I have a friend who once sought self-satisfaction three or more times a day after going through a bad breakup. It negatively affected him physically, emotionally and socially. When it came time for him to actually perform, he couldn't. He was terrified that he had erectile dysfunction and thought to himself, "No, I'm way too young to have that." He was relieved when his doctor told him it was all in his head, but does that really make it any better?
It is a mental problem that can easily escalate into something more and can even lead to other disorders or dysfunctions, including schizophrenia. If HD is not a manifestation of one's depression, it can certainly lead to it due to the negative effects.
I just do not understand why these psychiatrists are saying that only people over the age of 18 can be diagnosed with this. Many adolescents start exploring their sexuality at a much younger age, and although I could not fathom anyone younger experiencing or falling victim to this extreme condition, I do not think age should be part of the criteria for diagnosis. That's like saying young children cannot be depressed or schizophrenic, when they can.
I like that Abrams wrote about this because it sheds a light on something people normally wouldn't think of. Sex has such a positive image in our society, but too much of a good thing can really be a bad thing. Who knew that sex, a personal tension-releasing natural act, can be so traumatizing to some people? Sex can be as addicting as alcohol, cigarettes or any other drug.
Mostly, it's sad to see that it can be completely unnoticed unless the person going through this shares the information with someone else, which is unlikely. It's embarrassing to talk about, and many people just wouldn't understand.
I just hope that the people who seek self-satisfaction too often don't think that because of this diagnosis, that they are a mental case or an emotional mess. Abrams explains that porn, masturbation, fetishes and sex in general moderation are healthy. Just be wary of the line that can be crossed.
Abrams did a good job in explaining HD, but I have one unanswered question. How does being diagnosed with this disorder actually help the patient? How will they be treated? I think that is almost more important than the actual study of the soon-to-be-offical dysfunction. I am interested in learning how people who have this will be able to put it behind them.
Research shows that some of the patients tested used sex as a means to cope with depression and anxiety or other unhealthy emotional states and occurrences. However, as these people continually use sex as an escape, their problems and mood swings only get progressively worse over time, ruining their relationships with other people and most importantly, their relationships with themselves. It also ruins their ability to achieve healthy sex.
It is interesting that in the study, the 150 patients who had gone in for a diagnosis were primarily white males. It seems that the hypersexuality took place mostly with themselves, turning to masturbation and pornography.
Lindsay Abrams asked the question in her article, "Do claims to "hypersexuality" really make one disordered, and deserve a place in the same book that defines debilitating afflictions like depression or schizophrenia?"
My answer: yes. Hypersexual Disorder (known as HD) does exist. I have a friend who once sought self-satisfaction three or more times a day after going through a bad breakup. It negatively affected him physically, emotionally and socially. When it came time for him to actually perform, he couldn't. He was terrified that he had erectile dysfunction and thought to himself, "No, I'm way too young to have that." He was relieved when his doctor told him it was all in his head, but does that really make it any better?
It is a mental problem that can easily escalate into something more and can even lead to other disorders or dysfunctions, including schizophrenia. If HD is not a manifestation of one's depression, it can certainly lead to it due to the negative effects.
I just do not understand why these psychiatrists are saying that only people over the age of 18 can be diagnosed with this. Many adolescents start exploring their sexuality at a much younger age, and although I could not fathom anyone younger experiencing or falling victim to this extreme condition, I do not think age should be part of the criteria for diagnosis. That's like saying young children cannot be depressed or schizophrenic, when they can.
I like that Abrams wrote about this because it sheds a light on something people normally wouldn't think of. Sex has such a positive image in our society, but too much of a good thing can really be a bad thing. Who knew that sex, a personal tension-releasing natural act, can be so traumatizing to some people? Sex can be as addicting as alcohol, cigarettes or any other drug.
Mostly, it's sad to see that it can be completely unnoticed unless the person going through this shares the information with someone else, which is unlikely. It's embarrassing to talk about, and many people just wouldn't understand.
I just hope that the people who seek self-satisfaction too often don't think that because of this diagnosis, that they are a mental case or an emotional mess. Abrams explains that porn, masturbation, fetishes and sex in general moderation are healthy. Just be wary of the line that can be crossed.
Abrams did a good job in explaining HD, but I have one unanswered question. How does being diagnosed with this disorder actually help the patient? How will they be treated? I think that is almost more important than the actual study of the soon-to-be-offical dysfunction. I am interested in learning how people who have this will be able to put it behind them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)