When we talk about body image, the conversation often centers on women—and for good reason. Women have long been subjected to intense cultural scrutiny surrounding weight, beauty, desirability, and appearance. But an article I recently read, “The Problem With Male Body Image”, reminded me of something that sits at the center of much of my own research: men are not outside of these systems.

Men’s bodies are also read, judged, ranked, desired, and rejected.

And for me, that is where the conversation becomes particularly interesting.

My research interests sit at the intersection of fat studies, sexuality, masculinity, and digital life. I am especially interested in what happens when we move beyond thinking about body image solely as an individual psychological experience and begin asking questions about the systems that teach us which bodies are supposed to be desirable in the first place.

For men, the culturally celebrated body is often not simply “thin.” Masculinity can carry its own bodily expectations: muscularity, strength, height, leanness, physical capability, and particular distributions of body fat. Contemporary research continues to show that body dissatisfaction among men can be tied to pressures surrounding muscularity and leanness, and these concerns have increasingly become part of conversations about social media and masculinity.

But fat studies encourages us to ask another question:

What happens to the men whose bodies do not—or cannot—conform to those expectations?

That question has been especially important in my research with fat gay men.

Within gay male communities, the body can become an especially visible form of social currency. Dating and hookup apps can intensify that visibility. A profile reduces the body to photographs, statistics, labels, preferences, and a few lines of text. Height. Weight. Body type. Age. Race. Masculinity. Sometimes even the language of “preferences” tells us immediately which bodies are imagined as desirable and which are not.

Yet the experiences of fat men are more complicated than a simple story of rejection.

Fat bodies can be stigmatized, fetishized, celebrated, desired, categorized, and transformed into sources of community and identity—sometimes simultaneously. Communities such as bears and chubs demonstrate that dominant beauty standards are not the only systems of desire available to gay men. At the same time, alternative communities do not necessarily exist outside larger hierarchies involving race, masculinity, age, class, ability, and body size.

That tension fascinates me.

It is also one reason I find fat studies so useful. Fat studies asks us to resist treating fatness automatically as an individual problem requiring correction. Instead, it allows us to examine the social meanings attached to body size: Who gets defined as healthy? Who gets defined as attractive? Whose body is treated as evidence of discipline? Whose body becomes evidence of failure? And who benefits from those distinctions?

Those questions become even more urgent as medications such as GLP-1s and other weight-loss interventions increasingly enter public conversations about bodies and health. The question is no longer simply whether someone can change their body. We also have to consider what changing the body means for identity, relationships, community, sexuality, and belonging.

For someone whose body has helped locate them within a particular community, weight loss may represent much more than a medical outcome. It can potentially reshape how that person understands themselves—and how other people understand and desire them.

That is where I see an important connection between older conversations about male body image and where my research interests are taking me now.

I want us to talk about men and body image.

But I also want us to go further.

I want us to ask why some bodies require “positivity” in the first place while others are simply assumed to be desirable. I want us to examine how masculinity, sexuality, race, geography, health, and technology shape our relationships with our bodies. And I want us to make room for fat men not merely as people struggling to accept their bodies, but as people whose bodies can also be sites of identity, pleasure, sexuality, community, autonomy, and belonging.

For me, that is the promise of bringing fat studies into conversations about men’s bodies.

It changes the question from “How do we help men feel better about their bodies?”

to something much bigger:

“What would it take to create a world in which more kinds of bodies are allowed to belong?”

I came across this post on Facebook:

“Just to clear the air: I’m a MAGA conservative, but that doesn’t mean what a lot of you apparently think it does. Let’s break it down, because I’m tired of being told what I believe and what I stand for. Spoiler: not every conservative is the same, but most of us I know share these same principles.

1. I believe America should never depend on another country for energy, protection, or basic supply and demand. We are strongest when we build, produce, and protect things right here in the USA.

2. I believe America must put itself first. We cannot pour from an empty cup. Our country should prioritize our own people before trying to save the world.

3. I believe only legal citizens have the right to vote. You must have a valid ID to vote. I also believe in a secure election process.

4. I believe no foreign aid should be given until every veteran at home is taken care of.

5. I believe immigrants make America stronger — when they come legally. If your first act in this country is breaking the law, you aren’t an upstanding citizen.

6. You can marry who you want. I may agree or disagree with your lifestyle, but your life is not mine to judge, I leave that to God Almighty.

7. I believe men are men and women are women. Surgery or hormone don’t change that. Men should use men’s bathrooms, and women should use women’s bathrooms.

8. I believe schools are for education, not indoctrination. Kids should learn math, history, reading, and science – not political propaganda. They should not be taught they were “born in the wrong body” or pushed into gender delusion.

9. I believe America is in a mental health crisis. Mental health care is real, it matters, and it desperately needs to be addressed.

10. I believe guns aren’t the problem – people are. Gun control only infringes on constitutional rights. But I also believe in common sense: background checks are necessary to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill.

I’m a conservative because I believe in faith, family, freedom, and personal responsibility. I don’t want a government that controls every aspect of our lives – I want a government that protects our rights, secures our borders, defends our freedoms, and then gets out of the way. We are strongest when Americans take care of America first, when families are supported, when our veterans are honored, and when our children are given truth, not propaganda. I love this country, and I believe it’s worth fighting for.”

There is actually quite a bit in this post that I have no interest in “debunking.”

If you believe the United States should spend less money overseas, that’s a political position. If faith informs your values, that’s your right. If you believe immigration laws should be enforced, we can debate what those laws should look like. If you believe veterans deserve better support, I doubt you’ll find many people arguing that veterans deserve worse.

Those are beliefs.

But this post also illustrates something that increasingly frustrates me about political conversations: we keep blurring the distinction between what we believe and what is demonstrably true.

So, let’s talk about a few of these.

America Needs to Be Energy Independent

Okay, but here’s the problem: by one of the most common measures of energy independence, the United States already produces more energy than it imports.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United States has been a net total-energy exporter since 2019. In 2025, the country exported 31 quadrillion BTUs of energy while importing 21 quadrillion BTUs. U.S. energy production also reached an all-time record in 2025.

That doesn’t mean we import nothing. We both import and export petroleum and other forms of energy because we’re participating in an international energy market. The EIA specifically notes that petroleum is the largest component of both U.S. energy imports and exports.

So if the argument is that America should produce lots of energy domestically, fine.

If the argument is that America currently relies on foreign countries because we aren’t producing enough energy here, the numbers require a much more complicated story.

“Only Legal Citizens Have the Right to Vote”

This one jumped out at me because it is presented as a political principle when it is already the law for federal elections.

You have to be a U.S. citizen to vote in federal elections.

USAGov states explicitly that noncitizens — including lawful permanent residents — cannot vote in federal elections. Some jurisdictions allow noncitizens to vote in certain local elections, but that doesn’t mean they can vote for president or Congress.

Voter ID is a separate issue. States establish their own identification requirements, and most require voters to provide some form of identification when voting in person. Exactly what qualifies varies by state.

We can debate whether every state should require a particular kind of photo ID.

But “only citizens should vote” isn’t a proposed MAGA reform to federal elections.

That’s already how federal elections work.

“Immigrants Make America Stronger — When They Come Legally”

This is where language starts doing a lot of work.

You can absolutely believe immigration laws should be enforced.

But saying that someone’s “first act in this country is breaking the law” treats immigration as though everyone arrives under identical circumstances.

They don’t.

Someone lawfully admitted as a refugee, someone requesting asylum, someone who entered with a visa and overstayed it, someone who crossed the border without authorization, and someone who received lawful permanent residency are not the same legal category.

Immigration policy is complicated. We don’t make it less complicated by collapsing millions of different human beings and legal circumstances into a slogan about whether someone is an “upstanding” person.

“You Can Marry Who You Want, But…”

This one is personal for me.

If you believe your religion teaches that my marriage is wrong, I cannot control your religious beliefs. Nor do I want the government telling you what you must believe about God.

But calling being gay a “lifestyle” isn’t simply an expression of religious liberty.

And here’s where I struggle with the larger argument of the post.

It ends by saying government should protect our rights and then “get out of the way.”

Great.

Then get out of the way.

My marriage doesn’t require your religious approval any more than your marriage requires mine.

Religious freedom means you get to practice your religion. It doesn’t mean the rest of us have to organize our lives according to it.

And Then We Get to Transgender People

Within a few paragraphs, we’ve moved from:

Government should get out of our lives.

to:

Government should determine which bathroom another adult is permitted to use.

Those ideas deserve to be placed next to each other.

People can hold traditional beliefs about sex and gender. People can also debate policies involving sports, prisons, schools, medical treatment of minors, and privacy.

But those are debates about where government authority should begin and end.

If your definition of limited government includes government regulating someone else’s gender expression, medical decisions, identification documents, and bathroom use, then your position isn’t simply that government should “get out of the way.”

It’s that government should intervene in some people’s lives but not others.

That’s a very different argument.

“Schools Are for Education, Not Indoctrination”

On this one, I actually agree with the first sentence.

Schools should educate.

Students should be taught accurate history. They should learn how to evaluate evidence. They should encounter ideas. They should learn to distinguish credible sources from misinformation. And they should learn that sometimes evidence will challenge something they previously believed.

That’s education.

Teaching students about slavery isn’t indoctrination.

Teaching students that gay and transgender people exist isn’t indoctrination.

Teaching students about racism, sexism, religion, gender, sexuality, political ideology, or inequality isn’t automatically indoctrination either.

The question should be:

Is what we’re teaching accurate, supported by evidence, appropriate for the educational setting, and relevant to what students are supposed to be learning?

Calling information “propaganda” because it conflicts with someone’s political or religious worldview doesn’t answer any of those questions.

And Finally: Guns and Mental Illness

This might be the most frustrating part of the entire post.

It says:

“Gun control only infringes on constitutional rights.”

Then, two sentences later:

“Background checks are necessary.”

A legally required background check is firearm regulation.

So the actual position isn’t that all firearm regulation infringes on constitutional rights. The position is that some firearm regulations are acceptable and others aren’t.

That’s a legitimate position.

But then let’s debate which regulations are effective, constitutional, and appropriate instead of beginning with an absolute statement that the writer immediately contradicts.

I’m also uncomfortable with casually turning “the mentally ill” into the explanation for gun violence.

The research is considerably more complicated than that.

Research does not support treating mental illness as the primary explanation for violence. A major review of the evidence concluded that the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent and estimated that only about 4% of criminal violence can reasonably be attributed to people with mental illness (Rozel & Mulvey, 2017).

That doesn’t mean mental health is irrelevant to firearm policy. It is particularly important when discussing suicide; epidemiological research finds a strong relationship between mental illness and suicide risk.

But “guns aren’t the problem — people are” doesn’t magically resolve an extraordinarily complicated public-health problem.

And treating “the mentally ill” as a synonym for “dangerous people” isn’t a mental-health policy.

It’s stigma.

Believe What You Believe. Just Don’t Call Every Belief a Fact.

Here’s where I ultimately land.

I don’t expect conservatives and liberals to agree about the proper size of government, immigration, taxation, foreign aid, firearms, gender, religion, or a hundred other issues.

We’re going to disagree.

That’s democracy.

What bothers me is something different.

It’s presenting political preferences as objective facts and then treating anyone who questions them as though they oppose America, veterans, families, freedom, children, or common sense.

You can say:

I want stricter immigration laws.

That’s a political position.

You can say:

I think we should spend less on foreign aid.

Political position.

My religious beliefs shape how I understand marriage and gender.

Personal belief.

I oppose most gun-control legislation.

Political position.

Fine.

But when you tell me noncitizens are voting in federal elections, America isn’t producing its own energy, schools are systematically indoctrinating children, or mental illness explains gun violence, you’ve crossed from telling me what you believe into telling me what is true.

And once we’re talking about what is true, we have something better than Facebook memes to work with.

We have evidence.

We have data.

We have research.

We have laws we can actually read.

And none of those things require us to agree politically.

They just require us to care whether what we’re saying is true.

You are entitled to your politics.

You are entitled to your beliefs.

You are entitled to your religion.

But none of us — MAGA, liberal, progressive, conservative, independent, or otherwise — is entitled to our own facts.

References

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2026, May 27). The United States is a major energy exporter and importer, especially for petroleum. U.S. Department of Energy.
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Supports: 2025 exports of 31 quads, imports of 21 quads, record net exports of 11 quads, and the explanation that petroleum represents the largest portion of both U.S. energy imports and exports.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (n.d.). U.S. energy facts explained: Imports and exports. U.S. Department of Energy.
EIA — U.S. Energy Imports and Exports
Supports: The United States has been a net total-energy exporter since 2019.

U.S. General Services Administration. (2026, February 23). Who can and cannot vote. USAGov.
USAGov — Who Can and Cannot Vote
Supports: U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections; noncitizens, including lawful permanent residents, cannot vote in federal elections. Some jurisdictions allow noncitizen voting in certain local elections.

U.S. General Services Administration. (2026). Voter ID requirements. USAGov.
USAGov — Voter ID Requirements
Supports: Voter-identification requirements differ by state, and voters without the requested ID may have alternative procedures available depending on state law.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2026). Affirmative asylum at a glance. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
USCIS — Affirmative Asylum at a Glance
Supports an important qualification to the immigration section: U.S. immigration law permits a person who is arriving in or physically present in the United States to apply for asylum if the statutory requirements are met. That is one reason “illegal immigrant” cannot accurately describe every person seeking protection at the border.

Library of Congress. (n.d.). Marriage and substantive due process. Constitution Annotated.
Constitution Annotated — Marriage and Substantive Due Process
Supports: In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license marriages between two people of the same sex and recognize lawful same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (n.d.). Federal firearms licensee quick reference and best practices guide. U.S. Department of Justice.
ATF — Federal Firearms Background Checks
Supports: Federal law requires licensed firearms dealers to conduct a NICS background check before transferring a firearm to an unlicensed person unless a statutory exception applies. In other words, background checks are themselves a form of government firearm regulation, which supports the contradiction you identify in the original post.

Rozel, J. S., & Mulvey, E. P. (2017). The link between mental illness and firearm violence: Implications for social policy and clinical practice. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 445–469.
PubMed — Rozel & Mulvey Article
Supports: Mental illness is a weak risk factor for violence, and firearm policy that focuses indiscriminately on people with mental illness can contribute to stigma.

Metzl, J. M., & MacLeish, K. T. (2015). Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms. American Journal of Public Health, 105(2), 240–249.
PubMed — Metzl & MacLeish Article
Supports: The commonly asserted relationship between psychiatric diagnosis and gun violence is substantially more complicated than the “guns don’t kill people, mentally ill people do” framing. The authors specifically examine assumptions connecting mental illness and mass shootings.

In a recent post from The Advocate, I’ve been following the coverage of Grindr’s deepening ties with the Republican Party, and it’s a shift that really makes you stop and think about where the “business” of being queer is headed. The article explores how Grindr, under CEO George Arison, is leaning hard into GOP circles—spending millions on lobbying and hiring big-name Republican staffers to run their D.C. operations.

What really jumps out isn’t just the money, but the awkward tension of it all. You have an app that’s essentially the digital town square for the LGBTQ+ community, yet its leadership is cozying up to a political movement that has historically been at odds with its users’ lives. Seeing Grindr hire a former aide to an anti-marriage equality senator to help them navigate “soft regulations” feels like a major pivot. It’s a move that appears to prioritize corporate survival and AI growth over the typical “rainbow” political alliances we’ve come to expect.

Working at the intersection of identity and digital spaces, I see this as a pretty wild shift in the “Rainbow Capitalism” playbook. It used to be about brands trying to look progressive; now, it’s about an LGBTQ+ giant playing the game of traditional power and lobbying, regardless of the optics. It forces a tough question: can a platform really protect its community while its leadership funds the very people working against that community’s rights?

It’s a messy, fascinating look at how tech and politics are clashing in 2026. If you want to see the full breakdown of Grindr’s new D.C. strategy, you can find the article here: https://www.advocate.com/news/grindr-republican-ceo

Scrolling through BuzzFeed recently, I came across an article by Lauren Garafano that compiles anonymous accounts from straight-identified men describing their sexual experiences with other men. The piece draws from a Reddit thread asking, in essence, whether straight men have ever had “gay moments,” and the responses range from curiosity and experimentation to secrecy and internal conflict .

What makes this collection particularly striking is not just the content of the stories, but the tension between identity and behavior. Several contributors explicitly maintain a straight identity while acknowledging same-sex encounters, with one noting he is “not gay enough to identify as gay” but still interested in occasional experiences . This disconnect raises important questions about how sexual identity is constructed, performed, and constrained—especially within cultural frameworks that continue to privilege rigid categories like “gay” and “straight.”

As someone working at the intersection of sexuality, identity, and digital spaces, I read this article as more than just a compilation of sensational anecdotes. Instead, it reflects broader patterns long documented in scholarship: the fluidity of sexual behavior, the persistence of stigma, and the ways men navigate desire in environments where disclosure can carry social risk. This blog post uses the article as a starting point to think more critically about what it means to claim (or resist) a sexual identity in the contemporary moment.

If you’re interested in reading the article that sparked these reflections, you can find it here:
👉 https://www.buzzfeed.com/laurengarafano/straight-men-sex-with-other-men

Great article to share and spread a little light on Fetishes and Kinks

Click here

Lately, I have been living in the realm of “what if.”

“what if” I had completed my social work degree?

“what if” I had never cheated on my first true love?

“what if” I had never moved to PA?

“what if” I had stuck to my weight goals in 2016?

“what if” I stayed at a job longer than 4 years?

I spend so much of my time in the “what if” stage of my thoughts that I often forget to live in the moment. I constantly fret about all of the mistakes I have made, the poor decisions, and wrong turns I took that have led me to this spot. Sometimes I am content with where I am and other times I long for a different place–those other choices seemed to wrong at that time, but now they seem to make more sense. Maybe, it really is the mindset of “distance makes the heart grow fonder.” I find it much easier to remember all the things that made me happy from relationships, circumstances, jobs, and geographical locations rather than the negative emotions that took me towards a totally different path.

I think if anything is accurate about me, I tend to constantly question my decisions, my skills, and my self more often than not. At some point, I stopped trusting myself and relied so much on self doubt, I forgot who I was and where I wanted to be. I still may not have all the answers and I may never know if the choices I have made were “correct,” but I do know that I still have a life to live. Maybe part of that learning is living.

Suffice to say, if anyone out there is reading this and connects, I encourage you to deal with the thoughts of “what if” before they become your demons.

I’m not usually one of those people that tends to make New Year resolutions but I am usually the kind of person that reflects on their past year. I can honestly say that 2018 was challenging but in a way I very much needed. On a personal and professional level, I feel that I accomplished a great deal to be proud of.

Professionally:

• Hired as an Adjunct Instructor with the College of Education
• Inducted into Tri Iota
• Inducted into Gamma Eta Rho
• Submitted my first article for publication
• Completed an internship with the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom
• Presented at the NACADA International Conference in Dublin, Ireland
• Co-Chaired the Diversity and Equity Committee for the Academic Advising Group at Temple University
• Asked to serve on the committee for the upcoming Men and #Metoo Conference
• Invited to write a submission for “Boston Pride Guide”
• Graduated from Widener with my MEd in Human Sexuality Studies
• Hired as an Adjunct Instructor with the College of Liberal Arts in the Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies Department
• Hired as the Administrative Coordinator for the CIS department for Graduate Student Services at Temple University

Personally:

• Met and dated an incredibly sweet guy this past year (even though we are not together now, I appreciate him a great deal)
• Participated in my first 5K
• Traveled to Ireland for the 2nd time
• Met some fantastic Queens (Ginger Minj, Asia O’hara, Blair St. Claire, and Monet Exchange) from RuPaul’s Drag Race
• Received a fantastic birthday phone call from Ginger Minj (thanks to some close friends)
• Moved to a new apartment
• Adopted Gertie (My little old lady dog)
• Met the guy I hope to someday marry
• Built closer relationships with friends
• Spent some time with my siblings

2018 brought me a lot of fun, adventures, tears, sadness, anger, joy, and a lot of firsts. I hope that 2019 will continue to do the same.

Please enjoy some pictures of my favorite people from 2018.  Again, 2018, thank you. Please let 2019 be just as kind.

 

As many of you have undoubtedly heard, American Idol, has returned to the television screen and found a new home on the ABC network. I recently ran across an article on Buzzfeed (the article is posted below) that shows Katy Perry kissing an American Idol contestant on the lips WITHOUT his consent and through the use of deception.

Benjamin Glaze came for an audition with the judges and they were making a joke about the Katy Perry song “I kissed a girl” and Benjamin stated he had never kissed a girl. Katy asked Benjamin to come over and he kissed her cheek but Katy wasn’t satisfied and thus asked him to do it again…only this time she turned her head and kissed him on the lips. Benjamin was obviously taken aback by the action and seemed rather uncomfortable.

What I found even more annoying was that Katy was then commended and egged on by fellow judges Luke Bryant and Lionel Richie. Luke went on to say to Katy “Did you get him?” Lionel went on to say “That was a major deal. Your fist kiss was Katy Perry.”

While Benjamin went on to say he felt uncomfortable and wanted his first kiss to be special and this was not what he wanted–he stated if Katy had asked him he would have said no.

So in an era where we are holding men like Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer accountable, why are we not doing the same for Katy Perry?

Obviously Hollywood has a problem! The NY Times posted an article in February 2018 that listed 71 men in Hollywood who have been accused of sexual misconduct in the past two years.

From a simple Google search, I couldn’t find any recent articles that even spoke to this. While I understand that women have a power disadvantage to their male counterparts, we cannot ignore the fact that women are also capable of conducting themselves in the same manner.

You could argue that Katy Perry’s behavior wasn’t as intense or abrasive as that of the many notable accounts  of assault that are noted in the media, but consent isn’t about the level of intensity, it’s about the lack of communication of verbal or non-verbal agreements about any sort of physical engagement.

I strongly believe that if a 33 year old male had done the same act to a 19 year old female, we would be having a much different conversation. Behaviors cannot be held to a double standard! We must remember that consent is required regardless of your gender identity and that we need to acknowledge and respect each others boundaries.

Check out the article here

 

What is the big deal about celebrating Valentine’s Day? There are so many varying theories about St. Valentine, his validity, and the message of Valentine’s Day. I think we best begin at the beginning(s)….it’s going to get a little complicated on the history so buckle up and enjoy the ride.

According to History.com, February 14^th is the death date of Valentine—a holy priest in early days of the Roman Empire. Under the rule of Emperor Claudius II (a.k.a. Claudius the Cruel), it was decreed that marriage was no longer allowed due to the need for males in an ever diminishing militia— Claudius the Cruel believed that low military enlistment was due to the strong connections and attachments that men developed with their wives and children (History.com, 2018). Valentine was strongly opposed to the decree and still continued to wed couples in secret—when Claudius the Cruel discovered the secret marriages, he ordered Valentine to be beheaded (History.com, 2018). Due to his “heroic” deeds, Valentine was deemed St. Valentine Patron of Love, Young People, and Happy Marriages (Catholic Online, 2018).

Others believe that St. Valentine’s Day is connected with the pagan festival of love (a.k.a. Feast of Lupercalia) where the names of young women were placed in a box, from which they were drawn by the men as chance directed (History.com, 2018). St. Valentine’s Day was believed to be created out of the Roman Catholic church to connect the day with Christianity and not paganism—therefore, it was created in opposition to the Feast of Lupercalia (Catholic Online, 2018).

Some believe that no one knows the real identity of St. Valentine—there are at least three recorded St. Valentines, all of which were martyrs that were executed on February 14^th. One being identified as a priest, the second a bishop, and the third a martyr in the Roman providence of Africa (History.com, 2018).  Whoever he was, Valentine did really exist, because archaeologists have unearthed a Roman catacomb and an ancient church dedicated to St. Valentine (Catholic Online, 2018).

It’s odd to think that we spend so much commercial industry and time celebrating St. Valentine and we aren’t exactly sure what he died for or who the hell he was. Rather than focus on St. Valentine’s Day as a romantic holiday, why not make this a day of selflessness and compassion. I think it’s important to be of service and give to others, being kind to your friends/family and appreciate them, or doing something good that can go back to the universe. Here are a few tips for things to do on Valentine’s Day that break the traditional ideas:

• Volunteer
  • You could work at a local soup kitchen, work/donate food for a local food pantry, deliver meals on wheels, sign up to be a buddy with Big Brothers/Big Sisters, participate in a community/city clean up, visit sick children in the hospital, spend the day at a nursing home….the list can literally go on and on. Find something you are passionate about and get involved.
• Take the day to unplug
  • Lessen your carbon emissions. Walk/bike if the weather permits. Keep the lights off. Don’t use your phone and stay off social media. Take the day to read, clean, or maybe organize that closet you’ve been putting off for months (maybe you have items that can be donated to local charities). Just take the day to be Earth conscious and unplug a little from technology.
• Do a Secret Santa-like Valentine exchange with your other single friends/host a party.
  • Who doesn’t love a gift? Plan and organize a Secret Santa for you and your friends. You could also incorporate a party, dinner, movie, or night of enjoying each other’s company.
• Love yourself
  • Take the day to pamper yourself! Get a massage, try a fancy new face mask, go on an adventure, try an exercise class, go shopping, or whatever else makes you happy. Take the day to appreciate yourself and acknowledge that you are valuable! As RuPaul says, “If you can’t love yourself, how the hell you gonna love somebody else?”

Regardless of whether you find yourself single or in some sort of relationship, I think it important to recognize the day as one of compassion, caring, love, and acceptance. I think it is easy to be negative on Valentine’s Day if one is single because it reminds you that you are alone and not in some sort of romantic relationship. I would encourage those of us lucky enough to have close family, friends, or colleagues that we are never really alone. Love is all around us in various forms—we should embrace that and be grateful for what we have. Ultimately, I do not want my happiness to be based on my ability to be in a romantic relationship—I am pretty awesome with or without someone else to justify that.

 

References

Catholic Online. (2018). St. Valentine. Retrieved from: http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=159

History.com (2018). This day in history. Retrieved from: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/st-valentine-beheaded

I am super excited to share that I will be one of three Widener interns for the Spring 2018 semester with the National Coalition of Sexual Freedom (NCSF). Many of you may have never heard of NCSF–to be honest, I hadn’t until the opportunity for this internship presented itself. So what is NCSF and what is the purpose? According to the NSCF site:

“The NCSF is committed to creating a political, legal and social environment in the US that advances equal rights for consenting adults who engage in alternative sexual and relationship expressions. The NCSF aims to advance the rights of, and advocate for consenting adults in the BDSM-Leather-Fetish, Swing, and Polyamory Communities.”

When I learned about this opportunity, I was a little scared and somewhat unsure of how I’d be able to intern here. I have some limited exposure to kink and BDSM from my graduate studies at Widener but am not part of the community and haven’t studied anything in depth.

I was lucky enough to meet with the other interns and our supervisor for training and I am so very excited for this experience. I will be creating and presenting on intimate partner violence within kink and BDSM communities. I will be working to target college campuses and college aged youth. I have a lot of work this upcoming semester but I am very excited to grow my skills as a sexuality educator.

Higher ed friends, do not be surprised if I reach out to you for the possibility of presenting in person or via Zoom at your institutions. I need 20 hours of teaching experience to complete my internship.

Stay tuned for new updates and presentations!!