Political Views of a Sex Therapist

Saturday I sat in front of a grocery store for several hours with a retired elementary school principal and former teacher. Why would I do that? She and I were registering voters - some who had moved since the last election and some for the very first time, including a woman in her fifties.

I've always voted in every election, but this is the first time I've been politically active by volunteering. I'll make no secret of it. I will be voting Democratic this November. Show me a sex therapist, educator or researcher and I'll show you someone who will be voting Democratic.

Republicans have never been friendly to the paths of professionals like me. Instead of facilitating research or broadening easy availability of mental health care, they've taken away funds (think Reagan and the closing of many mental health facilities) or offered us tactics for decreasing the number of unwanted pregnancies that simply don't work (think virginity pledges and sex education courses that teach only abstinence until marriage). The Republican Vice Presidential candidate's own daughter's pregnancy is evidence of how well this works. "Kinder and gentler" have been empty words.

Yet, it's interesting that I have had quite a few politically conservative clients in my practice here in the Sacramento area -- unlike my years in San Francisco where you'd be hard put to find one. My conservatives here have enjoyed the benefits of my work despite being philosophically quite different from me at some deep levels.

I usually learn of their political positions quite by accident or inference. It certainly isn't a question that I consider necessary to ask in order to be of help to them. My aim is to help them get to where they want to get. It is their agenda to set, yet they are seeking my set of skills that are intertwined with how I view the world.

I could not, however, possibly help the range of people that I do if I did not hold a progressive viewpoint and see life from a liberal position. In fact, a good number of the sexual problems that bring my clients to my office stem from holding rigid views and being "antigressive" (a word I'm making up here to be the opposite of "progressive").

In addition to the horse race that seems uncomfortably close for President, California has two propositions that I oppose: Proposition 4 and Proposition 8.

Prop 4 puts certain young women into a jackpot, a horrible set of circumstances made even worse. These young women are the ones who are pregnant and live in a family that is closed to communication about accurate sex information and who are very punitive. The majority of young women would communicate with their adult family members if they were pregnant unintentionally. That's because they have somewhat open communications within their family. Would it be an easy communication? Not likely. But, would it happen? Most likely. Most young women do discuss difficult circumstances with their parents without legislation!

Prop 4 insists that those who are not in such an emotionally and physically safe family must tell their adults anyway or go through incredibly difficult set of legal maneuvers. Prop 4 punishes those young women when that's just what they don't need. Legislation is not going to straighten out the communication problems in these types of dysfunctional families. Legislation will not protect these young women from emotional or physical abuse in these families. It just further traumatizes them.

How can families then get the outcome of this legislation without passing this legislation? By being a family that talks about all types of life issues with open attitudes. This doesn't mean that they have no rules. It also doesn't mean that they have no consequences for behaviors. It means that parents be "askable" parents, that they're the first ones their kids turn to because they know they'll get reasonable responses that rest on accurate information. That's what would lead a pregnant young woman to tell her parents about her dilemma -- not legislation.

Yesterday when a man in his seventies was filling out his form to change his address, he told me a story that concerned Prop 8, one designed to overturn the decision of the California Supreme court permitting marriage between two same sex people. A woman had come to his door and asked how he was going to vote on it. The man said without hesitation, "I'm voting against it." She said, "Why? Are you gay?" He said that he was married for a long time and was currently a widower. "But why would you vote against this then?" she asked. "Because they should have the right to do so also."

I smiled to myself when he told this story. Deep down this man understood the benefit of having a long-term committed relationship -- regardless of the gender of the people in it. He probably knew that a committed partner is generally there for you in times of illness, challenging life circumstances, and stress. He also probably knew that when people make a formal commitment, most think twice before severing it. He saw no harm in that either. Many same-sex couples are looking for these types of life and health benefits. These benefits don't eliminate the rights of opposite-sex couples to marry. They simply coexist.

Last week a McCain ad was aired that portrayed Obama wanting to teach sex education courses to kindergarten students in school. (I was relieved to see Joe Klein's take on this ad in the Sept. 29th issue of Time magazine.) As I understand it, Obama wants accurate, age-appropriate information taught to schoolchildren. I'm for that. Without it, sex therapists of the future will have no shortage of clients. I would like to think that some day I could go out of business for lack of clients. For that and many other reasons, I'll cast my Democratic vote.

Related Topics:

• Health Matters in the 2008 Election
• Voice Your Vote: Election '08