Our civilisation cannot afford to let the censor-moron loose. The censor-moron does not really hate anything but the living and growing human consciousness. – D.H. Lawrence
Last Saturday I interviewed Stanley Siegel, LCSW, a psychotherapist, lecturer and author whose popular sex blog Intelligent Lust was quickly becoming one of the most popular on the Psychology Today site…until it was cancelled in the latter part of February for, apparently, being about sex.
MM: So you’ve been writing this column since September, then about six weeks ago you changed editors?
SS: Yes, the editor who originally hired me and was always very enthusiastic took a leave of absence to have a baby, and was replaced by another editor who from the start was cool and distant toward me. I used to get regular emails from the original editor, things like, “Wonderful column!” and “Keep on doing what you’re doing!”, but once the new editor began I heard nothing. Also, at Psychology Today there are two indicators of how a blogger is doing; one is a “most popular” list based on the number of views, and my column had risen very quickly to the top of that. And they were often on the “most essential” list, which is what Psychology Today is recommending to their readers. Once the editors changed I never appeared on the “most essential” list, so clearly there was a shift in their thinking about what I was doing, but never any comment or guidance.
MM: So you had signs you were becoming persona non grata, but nobody said “Stanley, let’s do something different.”
SS: That’s right. And not too long into that new editor’s regime, I started to write more personally about my own sexuality and sexual experiences. I decided to break the “sacred vow” that psychotherapists are expected to be bound to, which is that you maintain a position of neutrality. So I came out not only as a gay man but as a highly sexual man at 65, and interestingly my readership increased; those columns in which I was authentic about myself got a tremendous number of viewers, and I got many emails and tweets about how people were inspired by my honesty. But I got nothing from Psychology Today.
MM: That certainly jibes with my own experience in my blog. I seem to get the best response from a mixture of objective and subjective material.
SS: Yes, I think I really found my voice by doing that. I referred mostly to the theoretical and academic, and made disclosures about my own experience as appropriate to the subject. I felt as though I had found a really good balance that was working both for me and for everybody who was reading it.
MM: So as I understand it, things came to a head when you wrote a sex work-positive column, and the editor went ballistic.
SS: Well, what happened first was I wrote a column called “Penis Envy”, which was about men’s anxiety about their penises, and in it I talk about my own penis with a sense of humor. And people appreciated my honesty, I got lots of good feedback on it. Then when I went to post “Sex Worker or Therapist” I was blocked; there was a flag saying, “For editor’s review”, though previously I could post anything.
MM: Oh, so the decision was made before she saw the sex work column!
SS: Yes, so when it didn’t appear after about 20 minutes I sent an email asking why it wasn’t posted and she wrote back a one-sentence comment, “It’s too graphic.” And I thought, “Okay…”
MM: And it wasn’t graphic at all. I didn’t find it any different from your column on promiscuity or the one on marriage.
SS: Exactly, and it is a sex column after all. But I wrote back asking what exactly was too graphic, and offering to modify it. She wrote back, “Psychology Today does not write about sex workers or sexual surrogates.” I knew that wasn’t true because I had done my research and seen a number of other columns on the subject.
MM: I still get hits every day from Satoshi Kanazawa’s column in which he talks about me, so I know that one is still up there.
SS: Absolutely. So I sent her a reply with the links to all the columns that had recently appeared on the subject: Dead silence. Then the next morning I got an email from the editor-in-chief saying, “We have decided to retire your column.” I wrote back that I didn’t understand, and no conversation occurred; she didn’t respond to me, so about three days later I wrote a note saying, “Can I expect to hear from you? I have given you several opportunities to act professionally in this matter. Should I not hear from you by the end of the day I will assume that your intention is to stonewall the conversation regarding the questions I raised, and respond accordingly by moving the conversation elsewhere.” I received an answer stating, “We have always made it clear that we reserve the right to retire any blogger at any time, and review bloggers periodically with an eye toward what content is or is not setting the tone we wish to broadcast. Should you desire to escalate the discussion we will de-publish all of your posts from our site and archives.”
MM: “De-publish!”
SS: That’s it. Threats. Intimidation.
MM: It’s scary how much more common that sort of thing has become, media self-censorship I mean. I used to get the actual magazine for a while in the ‘80s, and I never saw it as a prissy publication which would shy away from the subject of sex. There’s nothing in your columns that Dr. Ruth wasn’t saying on television 25 years ago.
SS: I think the self-disclosure, and the fact that I was being positive about sex workers, was too much for this particular editor.
MM: I’d love to believe, because it would validate my own preconceptions {laughing}, that the editor cancelled your column because of the sex worker thing, but don’t you think that she was already looking for an excuse by that point?
SS: Yes. That’s absolutely right. So, what are the reasons? I never got an explanation. I asked many times for conversation; I asked for a meeting so we could discuss the reasons, the subtext for all of this, because it sure sounded homophobic and sex-phobic to me, and they refused. So I just went public.
MM: And I think that was the right thing to do. They may “de-publish” your articles…
SS: They did. Everything.
MM: …but they can’t make you an “un-person”. I mean one could if one were a Stalinesque dictator, but one cannot do that on the internet. They can remove the columns from their site, but you can publish them on yours.
SS: Right, and that’s what I plan on doing. I plan on publishing them on my site, and on other venues if possible.
MM: I hope I can give you some publicity.
SS: Thank you.
MM: Well, it interests me from two points of view. Before I was a sex worker I was a librarian, so this topic appeals to me from the anti-sex work angle, and also the censorship angle. It’s crazy to me that a psychology site would censor information about sex, it would be like a medical site censoring information about venereal disease.
SS: {laughing} Exactly.
MM: So, how much of the blame can really be placed on the editor and how much on the site itself? Do they have a policy of upholding the decisions of lower editors no matter what, or…?
SS: Well, I did hear something from the owner, basically saying that they only included columns about sex on the site for the sake of completeness, but they don’t care about them because they aren’t monetizable. They just can’t sell advertising on them. So even though they bring in a lot of readers, the management feels they’re the “wrong type of audience.”
MM: Wow.
SS: And after the “racism” controversy last year with Kanazawa’s column, they’re apparently extra-cautious. But, this is a psychology magazine! What is the “wrong type” of reader? Is there a “wrong type” of patient? It’s just astounding to me. It’s such bigotry that it enrages me, and I’m going to do my very best to get the word out. I’m happy to have the “wrong type” of readers; obviously they’re searching, everybody’s searching.
MM: I’ve had my own problems with feminists and even other sex worker activists who criticize me not for what I’m saying but for the way I say it, the words I use. But I think people know lock-step marching when they see it, and tend to disregard it. What you were doing, giving of your own experience, I think readers know when they see it that they’re seeing something genuine.
SS: And that’s more powerful than anything else.
MM: So, where to?
SS: For right now I just want to call attention to the bigotry, for as many people to know about it as possible. And then for me personally, I want to shift the column to my own site or find another place for it, and to keep the sex-positive conversation going.
MM: Well, I’m going to do my little part to help.
SS: And thank you for that, Maggie.
MM: Well, we’re all in this together really, all the sex-positive bloggers I mean.
SS: Yes, and I think it’s especially important to send out a positive message about sex workers. I’ve benefitted a great deal from them over the years, many people have. As I said in that column sex workers are like sex therapists, and I think it’s important for people to hear that.
If after reading Mr. Siegel’s essays you’d like to see more of his work, you may be interested in his book Your Brain on Sex.
One Year Ago Today
“Jill Brenneman Q & A (Part One)” is a collection of questions and answers drawn from the comments to the Jill Brenneman interview columns, arranged into logical order and lightly edited for spelling, punctuation and syntax.
I think Mr. Siegel has done the stand-up thing here. Let me tell you – once he got the boot it was a foregone conclusion that his articles would be removed. They were just waiting an appropriate amount of time to ensure he didn’t make waves and then, once this incident was “stale” – POOF! They’d have been zapped!
I’m not sure that I agree with him though on the homophobic part of the “firing”. Maybe it’s just my own dullard pre-conceptions of what those editors are like – but I wouldn’t think too many of them would be far-right religious nuts.
And Maggie! Who on earth criticizes you for the way you say things?! I’m just kidding – I know the answer to that. For me, when I first came to your blog I was really uneasy with your use of the word “Whore” and how casually you referred to yourself as one. I’m beyond that now – though I would never use the word to describe you, myself – it still has an “icky” ring to it for me.
I don’t agree with all of Mr. Siegel’s columns … but I think that all sides and opinions should be heard. I hope he keeps up the fight in a different venue and certainly hope he remains popular!
By the way – I think he should send one more email to the editors over there and ask them to put up a “redirect link” to access his columns on his own site now!
CHUTZPAH!!
Fantastic stuff Maggie – thanks so much for sharing this interview with us. This spoke to my ever letting anyone hold the cards for me on my own writing. The censor-morons are alive and hunting people like us every day. Keep up the good fight and my regards to Mr. Siegel as well.
Psychology Today, like any site with contributors, can certainly pick and choose who writes for them, and can decide that they don’t want a particular author anymore. But you’d expect a civilised level of behaviour, letting someone know why they were being dropped, and giving them feedback. Here, Psychology Today’s actions are simply vindictive; drop the author and then expunge what he’s written. He seems to have “touched a nerve”; so just what are Psychology Today afraid of?
It’s the trend today to disrespect those who have a different opinion than you and to think of them as bad people as well instead of simply disagreeing with their opinion and even maybe disrespecting their opinion. Increasingly people are disrespecting others different from them instead of the better idea of disrespecting their opinion or better yet simply disagreeing with it. People need to see other people as people first no matter what because human life is inherintly valuable. Decent Christian Catholic clergy might say hate the sin and never hate the sinner who is worthy of love.
Political screwjob games have also become more common even in places where they should be reduced and try to shunt them out completely. The military for example is one of these places. I realize we as human beings can never completely eradicate political screwjob games because we’re human, but the less the merrier as there’s always real work or real rest to be done which is more important than bothering with unnecessary drama.
You may be on to something when it is said that sex work(hostess bars, stripper bars, escorts whores etc.) especially prostitution is therapeutic. The U.S. military leadership has never been officially tolerant of prostitution and has officially been against it. However, there was more of turning a blind eye to the practice of it in the past than today. There hadn’t been an Article 174 officially banning it for all military under the Uniform code of Military Justice until circa 2003 A.D. which even prohibits military personnell who are off duty, out of uniform, and in places where it is legal for civilians to engage in it e.g. some counties of Nevada, the Netherlands and Germany. The military was more passive in the past about catching people who engaged in prostitution and is more active now. Most Soldiers who commit suicide are male, young and their girlfriend or wife is threatening to leave, take the children if there are any, usually threatening to take money from the Soldier, have often but not always taken money and destroyed his financial credit rating as well as cheated or commited adultry. This is usually done during his deployment to a war zone when he can do little to fend for himself and also shortly after he has returned home. Male Soldiers are less likely to suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, PTSD, than female Soldiers for the wartime activities of what they did, what was done to them and what they saw, and if the male Soldiers do suffer from PTSD from war, then they are less likely to severe effects of it and are more likely to recover. Men including male Soldiers are more likely to suffer, suffer more intensely and suffer for longer with less chance of recovery from failed relationships especially than women including female Soldiers. I had known American Soldiers in Korea who admitted their wives back home were divorcing them and these male Soldiers had sex with Korean, Russian and Filipina Whores which they said made them feel better than counseling. Prostitution in Iraq and Afghanistan is almost non-existant especially for the American Soldiers. I read an article on MSNBC that the American Soldier who deployed to Iraq 3 times and finally to Afghanistan and killed 16 Afghan men, women and children recently had a troubling e-mail sent to him from his wife. He also suffered from traumatic brain injury and PTSD which the U.S. Army deemed him fit to serve in a second war and a 4th warzone deployment. Noone can know for sure, but maybe whoring would have prevented him from doing that horrible act.
P.S. I’ve been to busy to write lately, but have caught up with all the articles.
I think as the mainstream media censure more & more articles they don’t like that they just become more irrelevant. Thank goodness for the internet & blogs where people can still the word out for those people who are seeking that information.
Now Dr Ruth is sure one thing you’d never see on TV nowadays!
I predict a lot of readers will go with him. And maybe his previous editor.
Oh high holy hell! Where does Psychology Today get off doing this? I get that they’re cautious after the Kanazawa shitstorm, but it wasn’t like they hadn’t received complaints about him before. He wrote egregiously misogynist stuff and people had been paying attention and writing to PT; it was only after the infamous “black women not babes!” column that they bothered to can him. So to pull Siegel is just ridiculous. Thank you for publishing this interview.
This article reminds me of the argument brought up in the recent attempted ban by Paypal of certain kinds of written erotica.
Many people seem to be of the opinion that only the Government is capable of censorship. But people do it all the time. Almost as soon as any kind of human grouping or society is formed, certain words, subjects, manners of speech will be restricted. It is easy to say, “Then leave that group/organisation/etc.” But often this is not possible, or comes at great social, emotional, or even financial, cost. In the case of Mr Siegel, the removal of his column from the magazine effectively removed his works (which had previously been deemed worthy of being displayed) from the view of a large number of people. While the magazine is entitled to do so, it is nonetheless, censorship.
Political correctness is also censorship – censorship of thought itself. The choice of words shapes the way the hearer perceives the information being presented. “Freedom fighter” or “Terrorist”, “Liberated woman” or “Slut”. By determining what words, especially nouns, may or may not be used shapes our perception of the world, mainly by putting blinkers and baffles on our senses. Yes, some words are offensive, but most of those were created to be offensive, or assigned that use over time. But when simple descriptive words like fat, thin, tall, or short, are deemed offensive, then the motivation is clearly not merely that of avoiding offence.
The above brings to mind a classic Jack Vance SF novel “The Languages of Pao” which centres around the concept that language influences thought and behaviour, or more technically, the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.
@ V. W. Singer. Nail on the head with PC. Google up the Frankfurt School.
Cheers
JD.
That was very nice article. I have been to PT website and read Stanley Siegel’s post that I found very interesting. It is sad to see that he is being censored. I also found this blog that has some good posts about sex. marriage, relationship. It has some other good intellectual material.
http://rubbishcrap.wordpress.com/
Hey Doc, I was recently on a Navy base working with some young Sailors.
The topic of the day when I first got there was … “Who stickered our cars?”
This was right after Valentines day … and apparently many of the Sailor’s cars had gotten a valentine’s heart sticker plastered on their window and someone with voluptuous lips and ample lipstick had “kissed” the glass of the window right by the sticker.
Sailors are Sailors … and they didn’t know who this woman was … but figured she was in some serious “heat” and … a few were eager to help her out with that problem. In any case – she got their attention.
It turns out … the “woman” in question was a 45 year old woman from the base Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Services (MWR). MWR knows that single Sailors get lonely around the holidays and they were concerned that some of the Sailors without girlfriends – or with girls back home – might be depressed. So they got this 45 year old woman to go around and sticker and kiss the cars of these 18-25 year old Sailors.
It sounds a bit creepy – and the Sailors were disappointed when they figured out who the culprit was … but, in a way you can’t fault MWR for trying to cheer people up.
Now – we didn’t have such an “active” MWR when I was a 20 year old Sailor.
We just visited hookers. 😀
And – I don’t think we were ever disappointed. 😉
God interview. I’ll be checking out his stuff.
GOOD interview. Ooops, but a GOD interview would be like Exodus or something.
LOL! I’ll see if I can’t get Aphrodite to sit still for a short Q & A. 😀
I happen to remember that Scholastic made an author change a book very heavily because they were afraid it would remind kids of summer. It was published as a book about ice skating penguins.