Bomb Throwing Pacifist

Campus Health Hijacked

When it comes to sexual health, every college student knows the basics: get tested for sexually transmitted diseases and always use condoms.

This is of course assuming that the student in question is a well-rounded, fully educated individual whose academic portfolio has included at least a basic health and wellbeing class, and not a functionally illiterate home-schooled fuckwad whose sexual education was limited to Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction at Superbowl XXXVIII.

But the things campus health services don't talk about can pose serious risks to students' physical and mental health.

Last Friday, Dr. Miriam Grossman visited the National Press Club in Washington , D.C. to discuss her new book, Unprotected. You probably haven't heard of it.

When you have an industry which pretty much employs an army of moneys armed with typewriters to church out semi-coherent sentences interspersed with the words "liberals," "conservatives," and "banana," what more do you expect? Five bucks says you'll be able to get it for 99 cents in the discount bin by this time next month as well, I'll wager.

Grossman, a psychiatrist at UCLA's student health clinic, says her profession has been "hijacked" by radical politics.

Well, its good to see a medical professional take their responsibility to do no harm so seriously. At least its not like she's been able to turn a buck or two off peddling the "OMG!! colleg iz full of liburhuls who wants to make sexxy tim with yur darling babbies!!11!!1!" meme. Just sayin'.

Unprotected reveals how campus health professionals often risk students' well-being in order to promote feminism, androgyny, and "anything goes" liberalism. The consequences can be devastating.

As devastating as having a person in a position of trust and confidentiality writing a tell-all novel in which she details the filth and perversion of today's college students who no doubt would be devastated to learn that their deepest, darkest emotional struggles have been laid bare with all the detailed cover of a pseudonym? Time will tell.

Keep in mind that Grossman is not a political or religious ideologue.

Of course not. She just happens to hate "political correctness" and the non-judgemental "freedom to be yourself" mentality it encourages, like any other patriotic America. It's not like the book's subtitle (A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student) could be considered alarmist or anything.

And as an aside, I somehow feel that there are much more dangerous and depressing catalysts which might lead a disturbed, hurting teenager to commit suicide or engage in risky behavior...like the sense of betrayal they would no doubt feel if it turned out that their story was featured in a book their counselor was writing about the dangers of liberalism and multiculturalism. There! And I'm not even a psychiatrist. Where's my freaking book deal? Get Soros on the phone right away.

She's a psychiatrist whose clinic has treated thousands of patients, many of them self-destructive or even suicidal. And yet, despite the epidemics of eating disorders, self-mutilation, and sexually transmitted diseases among college students, many of Grossman's colleagues refuse to offer advice or treatment that obstructs their personal social agendas.

In other words, to shut the fuck up and stop being faggy homo gay fag-fags. If they weren't so perverted, then maybe they wouldn't have these kinds of problems. Good lord.

But then again, that's typical of conservative "freedom of conscience" morality and traditional pop-psychology to conflate the symptoms with the actual disorder. If a kid cuts himself because he's depressed over being gay, the solution is not to 1) tell him to "snap out of it" or 2) convince him that there is something intrinsically wrong with him that needs to change. No, the solution is 3), convince the kid that it is okay to be gay, that it's a normal part of life, that he is not alone, and that he should channel his feelings into something positive and creative instead of self-destructive, such as focusing on a sport or hobby, or joining a Gay-Straight Alliance or something of that nature.

Likewise, if a girl is depressed because she feels bad over her sexual escapades and and guilty about it, the answer is not to tell her to stop having sex or condemn her for being "wrong," but rather to address the root of the issue, discuss the reasons why she feels guilty, assuage her guilt as much as possible by reminder her that all people make mistakes and that sex can be a fun and enjoyable activity, and giving her advice on how to make better choices in the future and avoid potentially negative situations.

But then again, that's the politically correct answer. In the Bible, you just stone them.

According to Grossman, many campus health professionals' first priority is to never make moral judgments about students' behavior.

Indeed. I though campus health professionals' first priority was to help the student cope with trauma or sickness, be it physical or psychological, not sit around and pass judgment on people. An example (albeit anectdotal) of this involved my time working for the police department.

A woman had been raped but because she was embarrassed and confused and frightened, she didn't tell anyone for 24 hours, at which point her friend immediately called the police. A police officer came over and offered to drive her to the hospital for tests and treatment, which she accepted. However, upon arriving at the hospital and being admitted, the duty nurse clucked and muttered at the victim, saying things along the lines of "Well of course any potential sample is going to be ruined now. Maybe the next time you're raped you shouldn't wait 24 hours before coming to the hospital." Needless to say, that nurse never, ever spoke to a rape victim that way ever again (at least, not in the presence of the local police officers).

Point is, it is not the job or duty of health care professionals to pass judgment on their patients, but to help them out as best they can, period.

There is tacit approval of casual sex: student health services pass out free condoms and instruct students on their use.

The idea of course being that as fully rational adult human beings living in a close-knit, densely populated community, the first task of the health center is not to judge students when they engage in sex, but rather to ensure that they do so safely.

Or, more succinctly: "I have this runny sore on my dick and I'm kinda worried about it, but if I go to the student health center, they'll laugh and/or give me shit. So I guess I'll just wait and see how it plays out."

But they won't mention the psychological health risks of promiscuity -- which Grossman says is a major cause of emotional disturbance among her female patients.

Because while I am unaware of any literature suggesting that promiscuity carries certain psychological health risks (aside from the expected social and psycho social component), there is ample evidence to suggest that unnaturally high levels of promiscuity are symptomatic, rather than causal, of psychological distress.

Being gay is not a medical precursor to depression, although gays do have depression at a much higher rate than the straight population. Being an athlete does not make you abuse performance enhancing drugs, but they are related. Whether this is due to a biological component or a social, judgmental climate, I'll leave for you to decide (translation, cram that up your politically incorrect pipe and smoke it, Grossman).

When Dr. Grossman sees a patient reporting depression or excessive self-criticism, she often discovers, with a little prodding, that the cause is a casual relationship that has produced unreciprocated attachment. Her claims are supported by neurobiological research, which reveals that women are hard-wired to attach to sexual partners.

Oxytocin is to blame. [...]Thanks to biology, a woman who allows an endless parade of men through her bedroom is putting her mental health at risk.

Hmm, hmm, hmm. Let's see what the science has to say...

What really irks Schmitt is that many people interpret this finding to mean that women are designed to be faithful but men are predestined to be promiscuous. That's not what the evidence shows. Instead, both women and men are fully equipped for one-night stands and lifelong relationships.

Just because men and women are programmed for promiscuity doesn't make it impossible -- or unnatural -- to have faithful, monogamous, long-term relationships.

"I tell people to honor their values," Williams says. "If you honor fidelity as important to you and your relationship, it is a matter of your own integrity to honor that.

SOURCES: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, July 2003. David P. Schmitt, PhD, founding director, International Sexuality Description Project, and associate professor, Bradley University, Peoria, Ill. Helen E. Fisher, PhD, Center for Human Evolutionary Studies and Department of Anthropology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J. George Williams, PhD, marital and sex therapist, Atlanta.

I win.

This fact is largely unknown to college women, who have grown up with the feminist myth that women respond to casual sex the same way men do.

Feminist myth? Let's look at that again.

That's not what the evidence shows. Instead, both women and men are fully equipped for one-night stands and lifelong relationships.

Bad news woman. But because of the biologically proven fact that women have on average 20% less brain capacity than men, I'll let it slide.



Students' physical health is also put at risk by politically correct--but medically inaccurate--information campaigns about sexually transmitted diseases.

Speaking of which...

HIV is fraudulently presented as an equal-opportunity infection, creating unnecessary panic among low-risk groups. In fact, HIV is spread almost exclusively by anal sex, intravenous drug use, or a partner who does those things.

Almost exclusively by anal sex and intravenous drug use? Ashley, 13.2 MILLION African women would like a word with you.

And, despite the obsessive focus on "safe sex," most women remain unaware of an easy way to protect themselves from STDs. They aren't told about the cervical transformation zone, a ring of cells that is vulnerable to infection. The transformation zone is large in a teenage girl, but shrinks as she gets older. In addition to condom use, a woman can reduce her risk of contracting an STD simply by waiting a few years to become sexually active.

In short if you have it, you're a filthy slut who probably deserved it.

Grossman's arguments against the campus "hook-up culture" are medical, not moral.

And yet for some reason she felt the need to publish her findings in a popular psychological text already making its way about the right wing talk circuit as a cautionary tale against the evils of political correctness and liberalism. Besides everyone knows, peer-reviewed journals are for faggy gay homo fag-fags.

'Til next time! :)

I have to say that I am totally confused by campus prevention of "hook-up" culture. Case in point:

1) My friend was very very drunk one night and comes into my room at 3 a.m. crying that all she remembers is fighting back a guy in her bedroom and being undressed. Our RD made her file a report and gave her a referral to Planned Parenthood for a rape test the next morning. Well, anywho, the director of Res. Life gave her a speech about how she "had it coming". Luckily, my friend was not raped, but unfortunately the RD resigned for "conflicts of interest with the director of Residence Life".

2) I waited 48 hours to get Emergency Contraception. Instead of saying "well that was stupid for waiting", they gave me a pamphlet and told me that they were more than willing to talk with me and deal with any issues I had about having sex. It ruled.

I just wish that our ENTIRE school would take a united stand (okay, they'res only 1500 of us) on responsible sexuality.