Monthly Archives: March 2012

Birth Control Debate: Religious Freedom or Sexism?

Date: March 29, 2012
Author: julietjeske
Categories: Agnostic, Politics, Uncategorized, Women and Feminism
Comments: Leave a reply
U.S Postage Stamp, 1957

U.S Postage Stamp, 1957 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I am completely floored by the current debate over the health care mandate requiring health insurance companies to pay for birth control and religious freedom. For starters no one is arguing that men receiving a prescription for the erectile dysfunction drug fill out any forms or prove that they are married or using the drug to procreate. Other than a few crafty legislatures who have introduced bills as a means to protest these insane attempts to limit access to birth control, no one has argued against viagra in terms of religious freedom.

And what about religious freedom? When did the right to worship as you please change to the right to influence or direct the personal behavior of your employees? Health insurance isn’t a hand-out paid for entirely by the employer and given to employees out of the goodness of their hearts. It is part of an employees compensation, so the employee is in effect earning their health insurance through their hard work. Most plans take a portion of the premium directly out of the employees paycheck. And the employer is allowed to deduct a certain amount paid for their employees premiums off of their tax liability, as health insurance is just another cost of doing business.  I also cry foul because so far there has been no mention of IVF fertility treatments.  The Catholic church is against IVF treatments because they create many embryos that ultimately get destroyed in the process of trying to create a pregnancy.  IVF treatments are not being mandated as part of basic health insurance coverage by the government but it is interesting how the pro-life movement rarely mentions them or brings up the topic.  We don’t see throngs of protestors outside fertility treatments for the great multitude of frozen embryos destroyed as a result of these fertility treatments.

So how far are we going to take religious freedom?  How much can an employer influence the lives of their employees in the name of religious freedom.

Would Muslim employers

  • Require female workers to wear a veil while at work, or even a Burka
  • Be allowed to discriminate against women and refuse to hire women based on their religious beliefs
  • Pay women less than men, based on their religious beliefs
  • Ban all pork and other prohibited foods under Islamic law in the workplace even for non-Muslim employees
  • Make non-Muslim employees observe Muslim holy days and traditions including fasting
  • Require moments of silence in the work place for all five times during the day that Muslims pray towards Mecca

Would Mormon Employers be allowed to

  • Ban Coffee from the work place
  • Institute modest dress code laws
  • Require mandatory readings of the Book of Mormon

Would Scientologist employers be allowed to

  • Refuse to cover any psychiatric or psychological drugs or care
  • Force employees to attend Scientologist meetings or treatment such as for alcoholism or learning disabilities
  • Demand every employee to be audited with an e-meter

Would an orthodox Jew employer be allowed to

  • Force female employees to wear wigs and forgo pants for long skirts and modest clothing.
  • Institute all Kosher laws regarding the Sabbath and food restrictions

Would a Jehovah’s Witness employer be allowed to

  • Refuse to cover many surgeries that would require a blood transfusion

Christian Scientist

  • Ban most medical procedures in favor of spiritual healing and prayer

Seventh Day Adventist

  • Require all employee to adhere to a strict vegetarian diet while at the work place

And could any religious employer refuse to cover the legal spouse of a same-sex marriage in the states in which same-sex unions and marriages are legal?  Most states mandate employers to cover their employees for some type of health care coverage depending on the amount of employees.  Could an especially frugal employer simply state that their religious beliefs would only support 100% faith healing and prayer, pretty much wiping away the need for health insurance entirely.  Why not?  If an employer gets to act as a parent to their employee and decide what is morally acceptable and what is not, what is to stop such an action.

The birth control debate is just another ridiculous attack against women.   And I don’t know when the employer’s right to freedom of religion supersedes the right of an employees right to privacy or their own religious freedom.  I thought religious freedom was the right to worship as you chose, not the right to dictate to others how they should or should not live their lives.

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page

Life After Divorce: Removing the Stigma of Divorce

Date: March 25, 2012
Author: julietjeske
Categories: Divorce, Relationships, Straight Spouse, Uncategorized
Comments: 13 Replies

I have heard some buzz about certain politicians advocating for tougher divorce laws.  So I did some research in the anti-divorce movement some of what I found really made my head spin.  For instance in an article of a certain pro-marriage website www.smartmarriages.com I found the following

It is hardly debatable that many of society’s ills can be traced to the continuing high rates of marital distress and divorce.

I would argue that there are plenty of other things contributing to society’s ills, but in order to stay on topic I won’t list them here.  What followed that statement was actually a fairly balanced discussion on the pros and cons of enacting tougher divorce laws.  What I found disturbing however is that in 2012 anyone would debate making divorce less accessible.

Our culture has grown leaps and bounds since the 1950’s and earlier when most of society viewed divorced people with suspicion and derision.  But the stigma of being divorced hasn’t completely gone away.  Every time a divorced political candidate runs for office, the press scrutinizes their marital history as it is somehow indicative of their moral character.   Entertainers and public figures are not immune to this criticism either.  As crusaders of conservative values like Rush Limbaugh who himself is on his fourth wife.  Or Newt Gingrich who can’t seem to stop getting married, then having and affair only to then marry his mistress.  Then there is Jennifer Lopez already over marriage number three at 42 and Larry King on marriage number eight.  And of course we have Kim Kardashian who after a lavish televised wedding for her second marriage, filed for divorce after only 72 days.   Some people seem to have a marriage problem.  And then there is the rest of us.

I married once, and for reasons completely out of my control my marriage ended.  I am not deficient or somehow morally bankrupt as a result.  It was not a weakness on my part that my marriage fell apart.  My husband was a closeted homosexual, I discovered as much and got out as soon as I possibly could.  For many of my divorced friends they also felt like they had no choice but to leave their marriages.  One of my friends found out her husband was a criminal and when confronted with this information he blamed her, even though she knew nothing about his criminal activity.  Another friend married a man who refused to seek treatment for his bi-polar disorder.  A disease he struggled with in the past but had hidden from his wife.  His untreated mental illness made him physically and emotionally abusive to both herself and their child.  Since he refused treatment, she also had no choice but to leave the relationship.   Or in the case of several of my friends, one spouse simply did not want to remain in a monogamous relationship and continually had extramarital affairs.  What is the other spouse supposed to do?  Stick around and put up with the constant deception, open themselves up to possibly getting a sexually transmitted disease, stay faithful to a partner who is not faithful to them?  And in some marriages one spouse becomes overwhelmingly emotionally or physically abusive, constantly tearing down or controlling the other.  Should someone stay in that situation?  I think not.

Are we supposed to feel like failed people because our partners made it impossible for us to stay in our marriages?  Are we emotionally weak or deficient?  Are we morally bankrupt?  Have we committed some horrible crime against society?  When I hear of conservatives promoting laws to make divorce more difficult I want to scream.  Marriage is a personal matter between two people.  Should the government intervene for the sake of society and prevent divorce?  We all know of couples who stay together in a mutually destructive dance of co-dependency, or marriages in which one partner suffers irrecoverably while the other uses them as an emotional punching bag.  Is an injurious marriage preferable to a divorce?

In my case there were no children involved, the only people who have suffered have been my former spouse and myself.  How are we destroying society?  And when children are present, should restrictive divorce laws force them to stay in a painful and destructive household in which one or both parents are miserable?   I can’t imagine that environment could lead to a healthy childhood.

Marriage is just a relationship made more complicated by social and legal ramifications.  If one or both parties want to leave a marriage the government should not force them to stay together for the sake of society.  Of course some individuals do abuse marriage and make both marriage and divorce seem trivial.  But most of us were just doing the best we could, and maybe we ended up with the wrong partner.  Maybe we got married too young, maybe we felt pressured into it, maybe we just made a foolish choice.  It doesn’t matter, most divorced people are not morally bankrupt and we are not the bane of society.  Thank goodness we live in a country where we can legally walk away from these toxic unions, and anyone would prevent us from doing so is the truly morally corrupt person.

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page

Dating After Divorce: Mr. or Ms. Angry

Date: March 22, 2012
Author: julietjeske
Categories: Dating, Dating - NYC, Dating After 35, Dating Online, Divorce, Relationships, Uncategorized
Comments: 3 Replies
Raiva-Ager-Icon

Raiva-Ager-Icon (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I am adding the following disclaimer to all of my dating related blog posts.  I change details, and create composite characters when I write about dating archetypes such as “Mr. Houdini, Mr. Angry, etc.  I would hate it if someone wrote about a high energy blonde comedian negatively in a blog, so because of that I never include a person’s occupation or anything about their physical description.  I also change enough details that I doubt anyone I am referring to would even recognize themselves if they read one of my articles.   I have split one person into three, or taken several people and put them all into one example.  So simply put, I am very ethical on this blog.

We have all been out with someone like this, and I will freely admit that I have been this exact person.  I am writing this in part, because I need to remind myself of this bad dating habit.  🙂  And as always all of my examples will remain confidential and I will change certain details to protect the not-so-innocent.

Mr.or Ms. Angry

  • Usually over 35 (Or any age)
  • Any occupation
  • Any socioeconomic background
  • Any level of physical attractiveness from gorgeous to hideous

Bad behavior

  • Immediately starts complaining about something on a date
  • Bitches about their ex
  • Goes on and on about something negative
  • Gets angry with you over nothing
  • Shows disrespect to a server or another service based employee
  • Says horrible things about their family members
  • Plays the Victim with no shades of gray

I will openly admit that I have been extremely guilty of being a “Negative Nellie” while on dates.  In my case I am more of a Ms. Morbid or Ms. Negative than Angry but they are really just different shades of the same color.  A date with a “Mr. Angry” will usually go something like this…

You meet somewhere for a quick bite or drink and your date immediately starts into a rant about something horrible in his or her life.  It could be one of any of the following, divorce, breakup, finances, politics, mortgage, lease, problems at work, hatred of something, even a former lover.

Mr. or Ms. Angry starts his or her first conversation with a virtual stranger with a complaint of some sort.  Are they justified?  They very well might have plenty of reason to rant, but doing so on a first date is a terrible idea.  I know I have a bad habit of talking about my divorce but it is difficult for me to avoid this topic since I am currently writing a book about it, I blog for the Huffington Post in the Divorce section and has been the single most traumatic and transformative event in my life.  It is difficult to not speak of the elephant in the room.  But try I must, because when I’m meeting a person for the first time and I find myself  just ranting about some injustice the red flags are blowing in the wind and sirens are going off, Danger, Danger…RUN!

One man insisted on calling me before our date.  I hate calling men on the phone I haven’t met, but we had a mutual friends so I agreed to it.  He started our conversation with a 20 minute rant on how much he hated living in Los Angeles.  He then went on about an illegal sublet and an unfair landlord, and spoke at length about his complicated realtionship with his ex-wife.  Which he said and I quote “Any woman is just going to have to DEAL with it, but I still love her!”  Why I didn’t get off the phone is beyond me, but he topped off the conversation by referring to  Kermit the Frog as a “Pig F*cker”.   And he said as much with pure venom.  I won’t get into what this man did for a living to protect his privacy, but his job was sort of related to children’s entertainment.   Most examples of Mr. and Ms. Angry will complain about a former partner, as complaining about an ex seems to make sense to a new potential mate.  I’ve done it myself, but I wish I hadn’t.  As I have said many times on this blog and in my stand-up.

Any man who trashes his ex in front of a new woman, don’t be surprised if you are next on his list.

And of course this goes for women as well.  We have all dated psychos and some of us have experienced extremely bad behavior – cheating, deception, physical violence, disrespect, obsessiveness, controlling or manipulative behavior .  We may feel completely justified in our rants, but listing our grievances presents us in the absolute worst light to a new suitor.  It is also a huge red flag is EVERY former partner of a Ms. or Mr. Angry is:

  • Crazy
  • Psycho
  • Abusive
  • Addict or Alcoholic

You have to ask yourself, what is the other side of the story?  And why does this person keep picking unstable or cruel people as partners? Some are real victims as bad relationships happen to nearly everyone, but if literally EVERY former lover is pure evil…chances are these situations have far more shades of gray then Mr. or Ms. Angry will let you in on.

When Mr. or Ms Angry starts off with a bitch fest, they are also letting you know that any new person in their life is a dumping ground for emotional baggage.  If you end up dating that person, you will become the new rubbish bin.  Of course we all complain about our lives to our friends and lovers but it should only be part of the relationship, not the main part.  Ideally you go on dates to get to know a new person, find things you share in common and if you are really lucky discover the intangible and elusive connection.  Your date is not your therapist, and you shouldn’t let someone treat you like one either.  I outta know, I know of where I speak on this one. 🙂  I have been both accidental therapist AND the ranting lunatic.

Related articles

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page

Online Dating: Advice for Men – How to Pick a Good Photos for Your Profile

Date: March 8, 2012
Author: julietjeske
Categories: Dating - NYC, Dating Online, New York City, Relationships, Uncategorized
Comments: 4 Replies

I am writing this because I just keep seeing the same thing over and over and it is making me crazy. I know most dating websites have general tips and tricks on picking the best profile photos.  I am not sure who is reading the advice given because I just checked my Match.com profile and in one day saw so many great examples of what NOT to do…I felt compelled…the blog must come out.

The absolute first thing you should do before publishing your profile or emailing anyone is: Have a trusted female friend look over your photos, your essay and everything else.  I cannot stress this enough.  Your mother doesn’t count.  You need a woman close to your age who knows you, and has your best interest at heart.  An ex-girlfriend is perfect, as long as you are on good terms.

Here are a few bad photo trends that I see repeatedly:

#1 – Bathroom Mirror Self-portrait – If you are really going to the full cliché then take every photo of yourself without a shirt.  Just make sure we can see the cell phone in the photo, and make it clear that you are in your bathroom.  Some men have nothing but shot after shot of themselves flexing in the mirror.  If you want to look like a Jersey Shore type of douche bag – this is the perfect way to make that happen.

#2 – A photos of yourself with an ex-girlfriend with the woman’s face blacked out –  When there is a big black box over the face of a former lover it speaks volumes. It says a lot about what you think of that person, and what it is saying is not very nice.  The same goes for the artful crop, that is we can tell that you have carefully cropped out a former girlfriend.  It’s fine on one photo but not so cool if all of your photos are like this.

3. Every photo is a group photo. – You would think this one would be obvious.  It says something about you if every single photo is a group photo…and what it is saying is that yes, you have friends..BUT you are hiding something…not good.

4. All of your photos are taken from a far distance. – I don’t get the landscape photos, or photos from vacation that include no humans whatsoever.  A photo of a nice sunset is lovely, but it says very little about what you look like.  When I see this, I just assume the man is married, or hideous.  It seems shady.  Don’t do it.

5. Really old photos – Some guys take this to the extreme, I have seen photos from the 1970’s complete with the yellowed sepia film and obvious hair and wardrobe choices that are clearly not from this decade.  It’s great if you had a wonderful bushy stash in the year in which I was born….but I would like to see what you look like now.

6. Nudity – The only exception to this rule is if you are looking for hook-ups or casual sex and you are making that very clear on the rest of your profile.  Then by all means…show the goods.  But there are sites for that sort of thing.  Generally speaking on most dating sites, nudity will get you kicked off and your photos will be taken down.  It is also probably not going to work as well as you think it is.  Women like a nice looking male body, but you run the risk of repulsing a lot of women.  It’s kind of like going up to a stranger and flashing them.  If you are at a swingers club, this behavior could be extremely welcome.  But if you are just standing on the street – women are libel to just run away from you.  Most women just aren’t wired in quite the same way as the average male. Also your body might not be as smoking hot as you think it is.  When in doubt – show a female friend and she what she thinks.

7. Scuba Gear – I have seen so many profiles in which the majority of photos are a man in scuba gear.  Not one photo, but every photo.  To me that says the man is either married, not confident in what he looks like, or embarrassed by being on an online dating site.   Well get over it and show your face!  Scuba gear gets its own category because it is nearly an epidemic online.  I have no explanation for it, but it drives me crazy!

8. Sports – Sure some women love sports maybe even more than you do, but if every single photo of yourself on your profile is one of you playing a sport, it might be a turn-off for some.  It’s not the worst thing you can do and it does say to any potential date…”I love sports!”  But you might want to throw in a straight shot of yourself just hanging out, instead of having every single shot in tiny running shorts covered in sweat.

9. Ironic boa, dress, women’s clothing – WHY? WHY? WHY do I keep finding these?  It’s just confusing unless cross dressing is your thing.   In one man’s profile,  half of his photos were in full drag, while the other half were in mens clothing.   He was open about being a cross dresser and I had to give him kudos for that.  Sure, he will turn off most women, but for the women who are actually seeking a cross-dresser the profile will be a magnet for them.  I all for honesty!  If you are cross dressing as an ironic joke, women who don’t know you may not get your sense of humor.

10. All Body shots, none of the face – This one just makes me think – married man. I’ve actually found numerous profiles like this where the man explains he is married and cheating on his wife.  One even said he was specifically not in an open marriage, nor was he polyamorous – he was just looking to cheat.  If you aren’t married, then why not show your face?  Nearly everyone tries online dating at some point.  There is no shame in looking for love online, and I have actually encountered a few men online with fairly high profile jobs.  Don’t hide.  If you want to look suspicious having no face shots is an easy way to do it.

11. Pay attention to your backdrop and details – I’ve seen many photos with men still wearing their wedding rings.  They could be old photos, but they are definitely sending a mixed message.  The married man who boasted about cheating on his wife had a baby fence behind him in one of his shots.  Sure it could have been for a dog, but it looked absolutely dreadful.

12. Only one shot – You can’t be bothered. And it increases the likelihood that you won’t look like this one photo.  I have found a good rule of thumb is 5-6 but it never bothers me when a man has 20, as long as 10 of them aren’t landscape shots.

I know men read this blog, because I can tell when they search for it.  Hopefully some of them might re-think their online profile photos after they read this, but maybe not.  I want everyone to find the love of their life out there, so put your best face forward…and please show your freaking face!

Related articles

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page

Rush Limbaugh – Sluts, Prostitutes or just a pack of Lies?

Date: March 2, 2012
Author: julietjeske
Categories: Politics, Uncategorized
Comments: 4 Replies

OK so regular readers of this blog know that I have a very popular entry with the title

Dating After Divorce in a City of Sluts

That one article completely changed the course and direction of my life, got me international press and indirectly a literary agent.  When I used the term, I used it in a lighthearted attempt to describe the sexual behaviors of the entire city of NYC.  To quote myself.

I find frustrating is that if you really want to get to know a guy first before having sex with him, it seems like there is no end to the women who will jump into bed with them. And this isn’t to say that only men do this, as women engage in the same behavior as do people of all sexual orientations and gender identifications.

So although some have misinterpreted my use of the term slut, I do indeed refer to every adult male, female, gay, straight, bisexual and transgendered person indirectly as a slut.  Not to say that every adult in NYC engages in slutty behavior, but people from every sexual orientation and gender specification certainly do.  Why people felt obligated to associate the female gender to the term “slut” is beyond me, but I meant slut in terms of people who engage in promiscuous behavior.  Some men and women proudly identify as sluts so given the context, I really didn’t see what the fuss was about.  But now that we have my history with the term “slut” addressed I would like to move on to Rush Limbaugh.

Rush Limbaugh decided to personally attack Sandra Fluke, a law student at Georgetown University who testified before the congressional committee on the cost of birth control.  For sharing her personal story about the high cost of her birth control Rush labeled her both a slut and a prostitute.  I am not going to address the name calling or equating a woman using birth control as a prostitute because it is pointless to even bother.  But I am going to break down his arguments.

Hormonal birth control is prescribed to many woman for health related purposes that are not related to preventing pregnancy.  NO ONE in the press wants to address this.  Birth control pills are prescribed for many female reproductive health problems such as – ovarian cysts, heavy periods, irregular periods, painful periods, hormone imbalances, light or infrequent periods, early onset menopause even cystic acne.  In many cases, the pill is effective in most cases for reducing these symptoms, it is not exclusively taken to prevent pregnancy.

The cost of hormone based birth control when compared to condoms.  Rush and his staff “crunch the numbers to try to show that hormone based birth control pills are not cost-effective.  But comparing condoms to birth control is like comparing a raincoat to an umbrella.   According to AmericanPregnancy.com hormone based birth control pills have a 93-97%  success rate when used in real life conditions.  And according to the same site, condoms have a 14-15% failure rate.  So solely basing birth control on condom use would result in more unplanned pregnancies.  Also according to AmericanPregnancy.com the cost of delivering a baby could reach as high as $6000-8000 which does not include prenatal care or the extensive costs of a complicated pregnancy, especially one requiring a Caesarian section.

The Tax Payer is on the hook for birth control Rush also claimed that the “tax payer” is somehow paying for Sandra Fluke’s birth control but I don’t know where he is getting that other than thin air.  The subject being debated on congress had nothing to do with the federal government spending any tax dollars on anyone’s insurance.  If Rush would like to debate that topic he is free to do so, but this particular issue has to do with either the employer or the health insurance company paying for birth control, it says absolutely nothing about the government paying for anything.  It is designed to set national standards for essential healthcare benefits.  And using that logic, anyone in a health insurance plan is paying for another member’s care.  Pay $8,000 in yearly premiums, but use only $2000 worth of care?  Then you are paying directly into the profits of the health insurance company but also for another member’s heart surgery, cancer treatment or for a premature infant clinging to life in an incubator.   That is just how health insurance works, most people pay more into it than they get back and a few patients cost the plan more than they put in.  If it didn’t work this way the companies wouldn’t be able to turn a profit.

The women are having too much sex and that is why they need birth control – The way hormonal birth control works a woman has to take it for an entire month and stay on it for months whether she is having sex daily or once a year.  The amount of sex is irrelevant.

Married couples should not have hormonal birth control as an option for helping them control the size of their families? Rush doesn’t address this directly but the vast majority of women including Catholic women in the US use some form of birth control.  The Guttmacher Institute in a new report, Countering Conventional Wisdom: New Evidence on Religion and Contraceptive Use. The report showed that, “among all women who have had sex, 99% have ever used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning”  Are married women who use birth control sluts in Rush’s world view? Most married women only have one sexual partner, not exactly a slut.

And of course his last ridiculous statement simply made to get press more than anything else. –

Since “WE” are paying for it, these women should video tape their sexual encounters.  According to the proposed legislation, the health insurance providers or the employers would be paying for the birth control, NOT the tax payer.  And even with that insane logic, then Rush might as well start producing some of his own tapes, after all a health insurance plan most likely helped pay for his Viagra.  So everyone paying a premium to the same insurance company better start demanding videos of his erections, just because they helped pay for them.

And if he is going to make personal attacks – Rush Limbaugh – married four times, yet has no children, three of his wives were of child baring age, so either he is sterile, or someone was using birth control.  No one knows this for sure, perhaps he successfully used the rhythm method for each wife and through some miracle no one got pregnant.  Rush who has had problems with abusing prescription drugs himself, was caught entering the country with the erectile dysfunction drug Viagara.   So is it acceptable for a health insurance company to pay for a drug that certainly would increase the sexual capacity for a man, but not for birth control for a woman?  That seems like ridiculous hypocrisy to me and most Americans would agree, in fact according to A Kaiser Family Foundation survey nearly 2/3 of American Adults favored Obama’s birth control policy.

Rush Limbaugh is a blow-hard who says crazy things to get attention and press.  He might have finally gone too far.  Attacking half of the adult population directly is not always the best method for winning over converts to his cause.  But we shouldn’t tell him that, let him alienate half the voting population.  Seems like a winning strategy to me!

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page