Human behavior

At first glance, this might seem amusing:

An Italian woman whose angry husband refused for 7 years to have sex with her was awarded divorce damages by Italy's high court this week.

Francesco launched his "sex strike" in the early 1990s to punish his wife, Piera, for taking sides against him in a family dispute over money, according to details of the case reported by local media.

They bitterly separated in 2000 and Francesco, still convinced that she was responsible for the broken marriage, refused to make support payments demanded by Italian courts and repeatedly appealed against them.

But the highest court ruled that Francesco's sexual punishment did not fit the crime, and doomed Piera to perpetual frustration.

"The refusal of affection or sexual attention must constitute the blame for the separation," the court ruled.

For Piera, "satisfaction in life (was) impossible ... along with fulfilment of marriage in its deepest sense."

So in Italy, where they keep trying to lower the age of consent to 14 years old, "denial of affection" can have financial consequences. What if it had been she who denied sex to him? Would the court have ruled that she was obligated to "put out"? Does the state have an interest in making sure couples are fucking regularly?

The statement that "satisfaction in life (was) impossible" for Piera because she wasn't getting laid is just about the most ridiculously patronizing remark a man could make in this case. This judge must really be impressed with himself, or at least part of himself.

Still, this is an interesting twist on what the conservatives in America call "family values" (which is code for "barefoot mommy in the kitchen"). I could just see all these sanctimonious wingnuts facing financial levies if they don't "service" their wives enough. It's one way to protect the "sanctity of marriage" from the philanderings of men (especially politicians). Too much time and virility spent on mistresses and private porn collections (to monitor the filth in our culture, doncha know?) could mean wifey doesn't get enough, and then there's hell -- and fines -- to pay!

...Naw....on second thought, alimony is alimony, and divorce can be salvation for many. It's probably best to just leave the sex quotas out of it!

In a twist that makes unmarried women victims of Ohio's new anti-gay marriage amendment, a judge there has ruled that domestic violence charges can be made only in cases of marriage:

Domestic violence charges cannot be filed against unmarried people because of Ohio's new constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a judge ruled Wednesday.

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Stuart Friedman changed a felony domestic violence charge against Frederick Burk to a misdemeanor assault charge.

Prosecutors immediately appealed.

Judges and others across the country have been waiting for a ruling on how the gay marriage ban, among the nation's broadest, would affect Ohio's 25-year-old domestic violence law, which previously wasn't limited to married people.

Burk, 42, is accused of slapping and pushing his live-in girlfriend during a January argument over a pack of cigarettes.

His public defender, David Magee, had asked the judge to throw out the charge because of the new wording in Ohio's constitution that prohibits any state or local law that would "create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals."

Before the amendment, courts applied the domestic violence law by defining a family as including an unmarried couple living together as would a husband and wife, the judge said. The gay marriage amendment no longer allows that.

Blinded by hate and bigotry, now the residents of Ohio get to reap the rewards of their righteous indignation. They thought the law was directed against gays, but now they're facing the fact that the law can hurt them in very direct ways.

Because Burk had a prior domestic violence conviction, the latest charge was a felony that could have resulted in an 18-month jail term; a misdemeanor assault carries a maximum sentence of six months.

Now isn't that just lovely? At least the battered unmarried women of Ohio can find solace in the fact that their suffering is for the noble cause of preventing gays from marrying. Here's to black eyes against gays. Here's to broken ribs to support heterosexuality. Here's to rape in the name of straight pride.

Of course, the evangelical conservatives, never ones to pass up a political opportunity, will probably crow about how these women are being punished for living in sin. Isn't that the message coming from their ranks? If you're not a married Christian, then you're not worthy of consideration? These women should be thankful that their homes weren't swept away in a tsunami.

What a wonderful Valentine's Day, to wake up to some 18+ blogs and essays by such insightful women with perspectives on this Hallmark holiday! I wish I could offer some pithy observations full of ironic humor, but none come to me at the moment. In fact, I find myself on the road this day (no, not a tryst), on a borrowed computer. I will be back in a day or two to announce the award winners. But I wanted to thank everyone who submitted or thought to mention the awards to others, and everyone who still might on this day. Because the after-VD epiphany could offer perhaps the most insight of all, I don't see any reason to close submissions until Tuesday night (oh, say at 9pm EST). 20/20 hindsight and all that.

Happy happy! :D

I received an email this morning declaring that it's about time that the right-wing legislatures cough up and provide American (and foreign) women what they seem to claim is most needed: the glorious chastity belt!

I am writing to tell you about our new campaign called
GiveUsRealChoices.org which I think would be a great piece for your
blog. Direct from the Middle Ages to you, the Pennsylvania State
Legislature is offering the latest in Medieval birth control- Chastity!
And today, you can “order� your very own Chastity Belt by going to
www.GiveUsRealChoices.org!

Medieval, you say? Well, when faced with the challenge of addressing
unintended pregnancy, other states require comprehensive sex education,
insurance coverage for birth control, and emergency contraception for
rape survivors. What does the Pennsylvania State Legislature do? They
give us “Chastity Awareness Week.�

Show the Pennsylvania State Legislature that their idea of “Chastity
Awareness Week� just doesn’t cut it – and that women deserve some
real choices. Go to www.GiveUsRealChoices.org today and order your
chastity belt from the Pennsylvania State Legislature!

Please let me know if you will post on this cutting-edge campaign and
feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.

Thank you,
Amelia Field

Men: Buy one for your daughter. Buy one for your wife. Buy one for your mistress. Buy one for your mother. Buy one for the neighbor girl. Buy one for all those young vixens whose youthful vigor stirs up those discomfitted feelings inside. Lock up your treasures. Men, keep your vaginas secure!

Write to your right-wing representatives today!

Operation Secure Womb

Lauren of Alas, a blog, found this lovely bit of Christian love:

The U.S. Department of Justice has issued its first-ever medical guidelines for treating sexual-assault victims - without any mention of emergency contraception, the standard precaution against pregnancy after rape....

Gail Burns-Smith, one of several dozen experts who vetted the protocol during its three-year development by Justice's Office on Violence Against Women, said emergency contraception was included in an early draft, and she does not know of anyone who opposed it.

"But in the climate in which we are currently operating, politically it's a hot potato," said Burns-Smith, retired director of Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services....

Lynn Schollet, a lawyer with the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault, said that without emergency contraception, the trauma of rape could be compounded by an unplanned pregnancy.

"It is very unfortunate to set forth a model national standard that is not giving women the best care available," Schollet said.

At this point, I find myself wondering if this would even be possible if the Equal Rights Amendment had not been stonewalled by the old Confederate states.

But wait, there's more!

The controversy has erupted just weeks before the Food and Drug Administration is scheduled to reconsider whether to make it easier to get emergency contraception. A year ago, the FDA rejected nonprescription sales of Plan B, an emergency contraceptive. The ruling delighted conservative groups that had lobbied the Bush administration but went against the FDA's own staff, advisory panels and major medical societies.

The manufacturer's latest application would make Plan B available without a doctor's orders to females 16 and over.

Ah, so they're setting the ball for a spike in the face of all women.

Advocates say emergency contraception, which is high-dose birth-control pills, reduces the chance of pregnancy 75 to 90 percent - but only if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.

"This narrow window of effectiveness makes timely access to emergency contraception critical," declares the petition.

File this one under "Don't confuse us with facts, our minds are made up."

One of the most inconsistent aspects of care is the morning-after pill. A 2002 analysis of national emergency-room data by the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey found that only 21 percent of sexual-assault victims received it. In a 1998 survey of urban Catholic hospitals, a University of Pennsylvania study found that 12 out of 27 centers had rules against informing rape victims about the method.

The risk of pregnancy after rape is small - less than 5 percent - but the vulnerable group is large. Of 333,000 sexual assaults and rapes reported in 1998, about 25,000 resulted in pregnancies - of which 22,000 could have been prevented, estimated James Trussell, a Princeton University population researcher.

Emergency contraception is controversial because, like stem cells and cloning, it has become tangled in the politics of abortion. The method usually works by keeping an egg from being released or being fertilized. However, it may sometimes prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus - equated with murder by some conservative groups and the Catholic Church (which opposes all forms of contraception).

Were you taking notes? Dr. George Isajiw, an anti-choice activist, wasn't. Look at the ludicrous position he claims:

By giving emergency contraception, he said, "you're giving a dangerous drug that's not doing any good, or else you're causing an abortion. As a moral principle, a woman has the right to defend herself against an aggressor. But she doesn't have the right to kill the baby."

Not doing any good? Excuse me? It thought unwanted pregnancy (for teens, for grandmothers, for any women) was something to prevent.

And what baby? The pill is designed to prevent conception! Is he afraid of emasculating the man's precious seed?

What a nice capper to 2004. Next year: "US ships rape victims to Guantanamo."

I need a cocktail.

-media girl

[Update 9:42pm EST -- echidne has a most eloquent and biting response to this latest salvo by the radical right in its abuse of women.]