A Houston judge was suspended from her job on Friday amid accusations that she solicited prostitutes, sexted from the bench, and used her bailiff to buy drugs.

Hillary Green, who has been a judge since 2007, presided over misdemeanors, traffic cases, and civil suits for Harris County Precinct 7. Her lawyer called the decision “frustrating and surprising” in addition to arguing that many of the accusations were already public when Green was reelected with 86 percent of the vote.

She will remain suspended until a civil trial is held to make a final decision, but her lawyer said that trial could be years down the line and another judge is already slated to replace her, according to the Washington Post.

Accusations against Green first arose during her divorce from Houston Controller Ronald C. Green in 2015. It was at that point that Green said his now ex-wife “operates daily with impaired judgment as evidenced by her presiding over cases in which she has ongoing sexual relationships with litigants and witnesses,” according to the Houston Press.

Suspicions rose further when Claude Barnes, who Green admits she had an affair with for many years, came forward with allegations regarding drug use and hiring prostitutes for threesomes.

“The three of us sat,” Barnes said. “We smoked marijuana. We had a couple drinks and then three of us had sex.”

These accusations led the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct to file its first formal inquiry into the Houston judge’s behavior, an investigation that culminated in a 316-page recommendation to suspend her that was released this year. Executive Director Eric Vinson said that the commission has been investigating Green for almost four years and that in his decade in that role he has never seen a judge contest proceedings this strongly, according to the Houston Press.

The commission took note of Green’s inability to change her behavior over a five-year span and called out Green’s “outright betrayal of the public’s trust” in the report.

Other stories allege Green and Barnes smoked marijuana that was confiscated from a citizen, bought cough syrup from a drug dealer named “lover boy,” and that she texted her bailiff about explicit sexual acts that she would perform with him later.

Green admitted to buying $500 worth of cough syrup and smoking marijuana daily, but denied hiring prostitutes. In addition to smoking weed and drinking the syrup, she and Barnes took ecstasy on multiple occasions, but Green denies paying for it. So, even though she was sentencing people for committing minor drug offenses, Green frequently undertook similar behavior, according to the report’s findings.

Disgusted with her behavior, the commission asked the Texas Supreme Court to suspend Green while officials prepared their case to permanently remove her. The state bar wrote in May:

To this day, Judge Green has apparently made no attempt to reassign the bailiff with whom she actively participated in an inappropriate sexual texting relation and whom she recruited to assist in illegal drug activity. She engaged the services of a peace officer to commit a criminal act, and indeed he was apparently willing to do so. Incredibly, Judge Green sees nothing wrong with the arrangement.

Green and her lawyers countered that the allegations are the result of a bitter divorce and that Ronald Green could have stolen her phone and sent some of those text messages. They also argue that the accusations were improperly filed, creating a bureaucratic legal issue. Still, there is already ample evidence that the judge crossed several lines.

Even if some of the allegations aren’t true, Green has already admitted to multiple acts that would break the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. The code explicitly states that appropriate action must be taken if a judge is impaired by drugs and that judges must maintain professional relationships with their staff.

Though Green’s civil trial is over a year away, she will almost surely not be reinstated from her suspension with the concrete evidence the bar association already has. Green, who was once part of a powerful political marriage with Ronald, has now had a meteoric fall from grace.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Houston Judge Suspended for Buying Drugs and Prostitutes, Sexting Her Bailiff appeared first on Law Street.

Sex under the influence is a complicated topic–one rife with questions of consent and the spread of STIs or unwanted pregnancy. Traditionally, that “influence” has been alcohol, but as the legalization of recreational marijuana becomes increasingly the norm in some states, will the same concerns extend to sex while stoned? New York University researchers recently set out to weigh the differences between stoned sex and drunk sex, and their results shed some light on that question.

The researchers, led by Joseph Palamar, PhD, MPH, an affiliate of NYU’s Center for Drug Use and HIV Research and an assistant professor of Population Health at NYU Langone Medical Center (NYULMC), studied 12 heterosexual men and 12 heterosexual women. They conducted in-depth interviews about their sexual experiences while under the two different influences.

The results? Both alcohol and weed lead to riskier sexual behavior overall. But, at the end of the day, drunk sex was riskier than stoned sex. Sex after consuming lots of booze was more likely to lead to negative feelings of regret, shame, and embarrassment afterwards. According to the Washington Post’s analysis of the study:

The most commonly reported feeling after sex on alcohol was regret. Both males and females commonly reported that regret, shame, and embarrassment were associated with alcohol use, but this was rarely reported for marijuana.

However, the study also acknowledged that those feelings may come from the situations in which alcohol and marijuana are likely to be consumed. Given the fact that marijuana is still illegal in most states, it’s more likely to be consumed in intimate settings; alcohol is often consumed at larger parties and in more social situations.

The study also found that sex under either influence led to some technical difficulties for both men and women–the study’s writeup stated: “marijuana use was linked to vaginal dryness and alcohol was commonly described as increasing the likelihood of impotence among males.”

Put simply, sex under the influence–alcohol or weed–has its risks. But drunk sex is riskier than stoned sex, an important distinction as recreational marijuana becomes more and more socially acceptable (and legal).

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Riskier: Drunk Sex or Stoned Sex? appeared first on Law Street.

Studying life expectancy allows us to understand what factors help people live longer and how changes in conditions affect people’s lives. Recent research shows how life expectancy varies among different groups of Americans, sparking some important questions about future policy decisions. While life expectancy has increased overall over the past several decades, those gains tend to vary widely among certain groups. This research has implications on a range of issues from public health and inequality to Social Security. 

Read on to find out more about the current U.S. life expectancy, how it has changed over time, and how American lifespans compare to those of people in other countries, particularly other advanced nations.

How long do People Live?

The most common way to measure how long people live on average is through life expectancy, which is the amount of time in years a newborn baby is likely to live based on current conditions and health trends. The average life expectancy at birth for Americans as of 2014 was 79.68 years, meaning a child born in 2014 in the United States could be expected to live to that age. While this provides a baseline, the numbers can be further divided among a variety of demographics, which tell a more in-depth story.

Life expectancies tend to vary among different groups, particularly when categorized by race, sex, and income levels. In the case of race, there is a wide disparity between black and white Americans. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report in 2009 found that the average life expectancy for black Americans was 75 years old, which was the same as it was for white Americans back in 1979. According to the CDC, the reasons for this disparity are higher rates of cancer, diabetes, homicide, heart disease, and perinatal conditions. Racial disparities are considerably larger when you further divide by education. Some of the largest gaps in life expectancy exist between white Americans with more than 16 years of education and black Americans with fewer than 12. One dynamic keeping this gap from becoming even larger is the much higher rate of suicide for whites.

Sex also plays a role in how long the average person can expect to live. In 2012, the average life expectancy for a male in the United States was 76.4 years and 81.2 years for women. This gap is not uncommon, however, as women tend to live longer than men for a number of reasons. One such reason is that women generally engage in less risky behavior and suffer fewer car accidents. These numbers hold even though more baby boys are actually born than baby girls, although that is mostly the result of female embryos having slightly higher rates of miscarriage than male embryos.

A third major factor that relates to life expectancy is income. In a recent study based on data from 2001 to 2014, researchers found that the average life expectancy for the richest men in the United States is approximately 87 years, which is about 15 years longer than the poorest. To put that in a clearer context, rich men in the United States live longer than men in any other country, while poor men live, on average, the same number of years as men in countries like Sudan and Pakistan. The numbers are similar among wealthy women who have an average life expectancy of 89 years old, 10 years longer than women in the lowest income group. Although researchers have not drawn a causal line between life expectancy and income to explain what drives this gap, a clear correlation exists between the two.

The accompanying video summarizes the study’s findings:

The numbers can also be parsed further. Although the rates for the richest men and women vary little depending upon the geographical area, the same is not true for the poor. On average, low-income people live shorter lives in the middle of the country compared to those who live in rich coastal cities. The study’s authors note that most of the geographical differences may be behavior-related and potentially explained by factors like rates of smoking and obesity. They also note that in wealthy cities with high levels of education and public spending, those at the bottom of the income scale tend to live longer than their counterparts in less affluent cities.

Changes in Life Expectancy

Life expectancy in the United States has changed dramatically over time. For example, in the 1930s, when Social Security was first introduced, the average man only lived to be 58 years old and the average woman 62 years old. Ironically, the retirement age for Social Security was set at 65. Another important consequence of the gap in life expectancy for the rich and poor is its effect on economic inequality and Social Security. As wealthy people live longer, they also receive more in Social Security benefits because they get additional payments over the course of their lives. Depending on how large the gap is, wealthy people may end up taking out a larger share of what they contributed relative to their income, which could reduce the progressivity of the Social Security program. This gap also has important consequences for the debate about retirement age, which many argue is necessary to keep the program funded as baby boomers retire.

While life expectancy has changed a lot over the past several decades, it has affected different groups in distinct ways. The clearest explanation comes in the same three characteristics mentioned earlier: sex, race, and income. In this instance, sex and race tend to blend together. Traditionally, white women have lived the longest, however, a recent study found that life expectancy for white women actually went down by a month. While this group still lives longest by far, the number has shrunk slightly due to a combination of factors, including rising suicide, drug overdose, and liver disease often caused by alcoholism. While white people, in general, suffer from these problems more than other groups, women have been particularly susceptible. This dip in life expectancy is actually the first one since totals have been calculated and happens at a time when other health concerns such as strokes and heart disease are causing fewer deaths.

The video below looks at this unexpected change:

While white women saw a reduction in life expectancy, several other groups saw an increase. Namely, black males and Hispanics of both sexes are expected to live longer. The third group, made up of white males and black females, saw no change in their life expectancy. Aside from sex and race, income level’s influence on life expectancy also changed. In the case of income, the richest people in America have gained three years in life expectancy from 2001-2014, while life expectancy for the poorest Americans did not change.

The United States Compared to the Rest of the World

Reliable data for life expectancy covers a relatively short time in history. In fact, for the United Kingdom, the country with the farthest reaching information, rates only go back to the 191h century. In the U.K., and virtually every other country, life expectancy was very short in the early 1800s, averaging between 30 and 40 years old; in South Korea and India, it was as low as 23. However, as healthcare and science improved, especially regarding infant mortality, life expectancy rose dramatically across the globe around the beginning of the 20th century.

This rapid improvement occurred in the United States as well, but the U.S. average of 79.68 years currently ranks 43rd relative to the rest of the world. Although countries with longer life expectancies may not be as large and diverse as the United States, it is important to ask why–for such a rich country–the U.S. life expectancy is relatively low, particularly compared to other developed nations.

The answer, according to the CDC, is threefold: drug overdose, gun violence, and car crashes. These three categories lead to injuries that account for roughly half of the deaths for men and a fifth for women in the United States. Americans, on average, live two years fewer than people in similarly developed countries. The effects of these, particularly drug overdoses, have been most acutely felt among middle-aged white Americans. Another important factor that contributes to America’s lower life expectancy is smoking tobacco. Many people in the United States started smoking earlier and in larger numbers than in other places.

Another major factor affecting life expectancy and keeping the United States behind other developed countries is the infant mortality rate. The infant mortality rate “compares the number of deaths of infants under one-year-old in a given year per 1,000 live births in the same year.” The infant mortality rate for the United States is 5.87. Although that is historically low, it is less impressive compared to other countries–the United States has the 167th highest rate out of 224 countries, and is a far cry from most other developed nations that average between two and four. Like life expectancy in general, infant mortality rates are also affected by things such as race and income with more affluent and white babies at a much lower risk of death than lower-income and black babies.

Conclusion

There is no conclusive way to say exactly how long a person will live, but life expectancy provides an effective measure to see how certain factors contribute to longevity. In the United States, these numbers have been broken down further to take into account the differences across a wide range of demographics. In general, the most recent data was positive, with groups either staying where they are or seeing life expectancy gains, except for a few cases. However, even these modest gains still leave the United States behind many other developed nations. The reasons for this shortcoming are manifold, ranging from high infant mortality rates to smoking tobacco. Regardless of the results, though, life expectancy can provide people with a good baseline for how long they might live and what factors contribute to longevity.

Resources

The World Bank: Life Expectancy at Birth

Infoplease: Life Expectancy for Countries, 2015

The Journal of the American Medical Association: The Association Between Income and Life Expectancy in the United States, 2001-2014

Social Security Administration: Life Expectancy for Social Security

The Washington Post: The Stunning–and Expanding–Gap in Life Expectancy Between the Rich and Poor

CNN: White Women’s Life Expectancy Shrinks a Bit

NPR: Life Expectancy Drops For White Women, Increases For Black Men

CNN: Why Americans Don’t Live as Long as Europeans

Population Reference Bureau: Smoking-Related Deaths Keep U.S. Life Expectancy Below Other wealthy Countries

Central Intelligence Agency: World Factbook

Our World in Data: Life Expectancy

USA Today: Life Expectancy in the USA Hits a Record High

Population Education: Why Are More Baby Boys Born Than Girls

USA Today: Infant Mortality Rates hits Record Low, Although Racial Disparities Persist

Business Insider: Huge Racial Gap in Life Expectancy

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Explains Life Expectancy in the United States? appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Lately, we’ve been inundated with information on women’s underrepresentation in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). But what doesn’t get a lot of recognition is that inequality in science doesn’t just apply to the gender of the people working on new developments–it can extend to the nature of the developments themselves. Medical research has a history of being disproportionately biased toward men, despite the fact that differences between the sexes affect everything from how diseases should be treated to how medications are developed. Bias in medical research extends beyond the lab, and that’s a problem. Read on to learn about the need for equality in medical research, and how ensuring that equality is a step toward good health for all.

History of Sexism in Science

Sexism has been endemic in many aspects of scientific research; a full historical review would be as lengthy as it would be disheartening. But it’s important to recognize a consistent tradition of sex-based inequality in medical research. It has long been assumed that conclusions can be applied generally to both men and women, without taking into account the need to design studies that focus specifically on the biological and physical differences between the sexes. There have been myriad reasons for this lack of female inclusion. Science was heavily focused on studying the “norm,” and the “norm” as pertaining to scientific research was a roughly 155-pound man. Moreover, it was believed that the only difference between men and women were their respective sex organs. Furthermore, concerns regarding testing on pregnant women, or potentially-pregnant women, and the harm that could happen to fetuses discouraged researchers from including women of child-bearing age, and sometimes women as a whole due to their changing hormone cycles.

However, those assumptions finally began to change, albeit slowly, in the later decades of the 20th century. In 1985, a report released by the Public Health Service Task Force on Women’s Health Issues concluded that “the historical lack of research focus on women’s health concerns has compromised the quality of health information available to women as well as the health care they receive.” Founder of the Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR ®) Dr. Florence Haseltine, MD, PhD, was working for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the mid-1980s when she began championing the need for medical research that recognized differences between men and women. She eventually coined the term “sex-based biology,” essentially meaning the study of the sex differences between men and women and how they apply to different aspects of medical research and health. Dr. Haseltine worked to confront different ways in which this inequality was manifested, including by advocating for more women to be included in clinical trials. Despite the fact that the NIH had recognized that inclusion of women in clinical trials is essential, they still aren’t always included.

These revelations sparked action by government agencies including the NIH, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Congressional Caucus on Women’s Issues. But it correspondingly also sparked the need for an organization that could champion the cause of sex-based biology head on. The Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR) was founded in 1990 to “bring attention to the lack of inclusion of women and minorities in medical research and clinical trials.”

While progress has been made in including women in scientific research, there’s still substantial work to be done. Women and minorities remain underrepresented in clinical trials and medical research.

Why is it so important that sex differences are taken into account in medical research?

Put simply: men and women are biologically different. Health differences between men and women range from a prevalence of a particular disease, to the ways in which it manifests itself, to the drugs used to treat it. For example, SWHR focuses on Alzheimer’s Disease and Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) as two of the many illnesses that deserve a look through a sex-based biological lens.

Alzheimer’s Disease 

Alzheimer’s Disease is one example of a condition that disproportionately affects women. In fact, women are almost twice as likely to be affected by Alzheimer’s as men. Overall, it is the fifth most common cause of death for American women. This increased prevalence for women isn’t just coincidental. There are specific sex differences that need to be taken into account when it comes to the study of how and why Alzheimer’s Disease strikes some and not others. According to experts at SWHR’s Alzheimer’s Roundtable, there are many different factors to consider:

Women suffering from depression have a 90 percent increased risk compared to men and an even greater risk after menopause, due to decreased estrogen levels. Another risk factor is having a hysterectomy and ovaries removed. Women who remove their ovaries before the age of 48 have a 70 percent increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s. However, if that woman used estrogen hormone therapy until menopause, she reduces her risk.

In order to prevent the devastating onset of Alzheimer’s–which is estimated to affect 15 million people over the next 15 years–it is essential to understand what role sex differences play and how women’s physiology can make them, in some cases, more susceptible.

Cardiovascular Disease (CVD)

Despite popular perception about its frequency in the male population, cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains an acute problem for women. In fact, CVD accounts for one in three deaths among American women–more than all cancers combined.

It’s also another example of an illness that can manifest differently between men and women, and has different risk factors. For example, CVD appears on average seven to 10 years later for women than men. There are also risk factors that are more visible for women than men, such as the fact that young women who smoke are at a higher relative risk for developing CVD than men who smoke.

Moreover, the way that CVD presents in women can be different than in men–sometimes leading to a failure by healthcare professionals to detect symptoms in a timely fashion. Women’s symptoms can include fatigue and indigestion, and can appear up to a month before a heart attack. These differences can also lead to misdiagnosis when a woman is actually experiencing a cardiac event–a study in The New England Journal of Medicine found that women under 55 were seven times more likely to be misdiagnosed than men. It’s important that researchers and doctors consider how not only different sex-based risk factors contribute to CVD, but also how different symptoms present themselves.

Another issue with a male-centric view of CVD is that symptoms that are more prevalent for men have been more widely publicized and focused upon in public service campaigns. As a result, women may not recognize the symptoms or risk factors themselves–the following video created by SWHR highlights some of the gaps in public knowledge:

Continued Underrepresentation in Clinical Trials and Research

It’s evident that progress has been made in including women in clinical trials–particularly when it comes to specific topics like heart disease and breast cancer. However, there’s still much work to be done. As recently as 2014, the FDA moved toward greater transparency in disclosing the sex breakdown of those who participate in clinical trials. However, that news was bittersweet–it confirmed long-standing concerns about the inclusion of women in clinical trials. SWHR released a statement about the FDA’s disclosure, stating:

We commend the FDA for the effort in collecting and releasing these data to the public and we believe it is an initial first step towards reducing the disparities and lack of information on sex and ethnic differences. But as is evident, the percentage of minority participation is dismal and while there are women in all of the trials, the numbers are not statistically significant to reach any clinical relevance.

So, where are researchers still struggling when it comes to including women in clinical trials and research?

Cardiovascular Disease Clinical Trials 

While the risk of CVD has been well-recognized by proponents of sex-based biology, and women have been increasingly included in studies about cardiovascular disease, there’s still a struggle to make sure that studies report on gender differences. According to a 2009 paper by the American Heart Association (AHA) on the “Status of Women in Cardiovascular Clinical Trials,” both government and non-government studies continued to fail to report on sex differences in CVD studies between 2000-2006. The AHA stated:

An analysis of trials included in Cochrane meta-analyses (Cochrane Systematic Reviews) for the inclusion of women in cardiovascular clinical trials and for the reporting of gender-based analyses showed similar results. Of 258 clinical trials studied, women constituted only 27 percent of the pooled population and of 196 trials which included both genders, only 33 percent reported gender-based outcomes. When analyzed by year of publication before or after 1993, there was no difference in the frequency of gender-based analyses.

In order to ensure that the differences in the ways that women and men present and experience CVD are taken into account, reporting on sex differences in clinical trials needs to be a priority.

Conclusion

There’s no doubt that we’ve come far in this field and an improved concentration on exploring sex-based biology has resulted in a better understanding of sex differences–but we need to continue to such efforts in order to promote good health for all men and women. Clinical trials need to be designed to ensure not only the inclusion of, but also the recognition of their differences. Working toward inclusivity of medical research will benefit us all by increasing our understanding of what causes various illnesses and how to treat them.

Resources

Primary 

Society for Women’s Health Research: History

Society for Women’s Health Research: Timeline

Society for Women’s Health Research: News

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Leading Causes of Death

Additional

Journal of Applied Physiology: Sex and Gender: What is the Difference?

American Heart Association: Status of Women in Cardiovascular Clinical Trials

Chronic Neuroimmune Diseases: Yes, Biologically Speaking, Sex Does Matter

American Journal of Nursing: Progress, Not Perfection

Newswise: Alzheimer’s and the Downward Spiral: SWHR Holds Congressional Briefing About Women and Alzheimer’s Disease

Netherlands Heart Journal: Gender Differences in Coronary Heart Disease

Heart Sisters: Heart Attack Misdiagnosis in Women

Society for Women’s Health Research

The Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR®), is a national non-profit based in Washington D.C. that is widely recognized as the thought-leader in promoting research on biological differences in disease. SWHR is dedicated to transforming women’s health through science, advocacy, and education. Founded in 1990 by a group of physicians, medical researchers and health advocates, SWHR aims to bring attention to the variety of diseases and conditions that disproportionately or predominately affect women. For more information, please visit www.swhr.org. Follow us on Twitter at @SWHR. SWHR is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post Sexism in Science: Bias Beyond the Lab appeared first on Law Street.

It may have been the first full week of 2015, but that doesn’t mean that our criminals are any more normal than they were in 2014. Read on to see the top five weirdest, funniest, and downright bizarre arrests of this week.

[SlideDeck2 id=31723 ress=1]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The way that the “Fifty Shades of Grey” series flies off of bookstore shelves makes it pretty obvious that sex sells. I admit to getting caught up in that craze, and despite the lack of literary merit present on the pages of those novels, they certainly do entertain. Fluffy books catered to the sexually deprived are not the only place where eroticism is being used to get peoples’ attention.

What’s sexier than every dirty page of “Fifty Shades of Grey”? Voting. Yes, you read that correctly. Recently, United States politicians have taken a page out of other countries’ books and decided to amp up the sex appeal of their ads. In 2011, Russia ran an ad suggesting that the act of voting may get you laid. Who knew filling out a ballot could have such an effect? What’s that you say, sir? You’re…voting?? Take me now, sailor!

A political ad in Germany didn’t even try to be discreet; a pair of breasts is plastered onto a poster for all to see. That’s some classy not-so-subliminal messaging. Germany and Russia are far from the the only countries embracing sexuality as a theme in campaign ads. The good ol’ U S of A loves to copy Europe when it comes to many trends, and using sex in campaign ads is no exception.

Take a look at an ad released this summer by Equality Illinois entitled “Doris Wants Your V Card.”

The ad features an older woman gesturing suggestively to two younger males and a voice tells viewers to “go ahead, vote. Take advantage of Illinois’ new online voter registration, and get your voter ID card,” which is suggestively referred to earlier in the ad as your V-card. So witty, Equality Illinois, so witty.

NPR recently published an article about the ad, which quoted Bernard Cherkasov of Equality Illinois saying that “there is a double entendre, and I think it’s very effective at catching people’s attention.” Their target audience? Young people who are disinterested in politics and therefore unlikely to register. “To tell them this is a cool thing to do, a super easy thing to do, and then once we’ve got their attention and they’re registered, then we can help them get educated as to what’s at stake in this election, how they can exercise that democratic right.”

The success of these ads, according to a Unilever study cited in The Atlantic, depends on the intended audience. Women may not be so easily persuaded by sexual innuendo as men, according to the article. Major shock there. So while ads suggesting that casting your vote may be a huge turn on may potentially get more men to the polls, women may not be so easily persuaded.

As sexual voting ads are the new kid on the block — especially in the United States — their success or lack thereof at getting people voting has yet to be seen. But hey, at least they make for some more entertaining campaigns during the oft-droll election season. So, it’s almost time to get your butt to the *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* “polls.” See you there. And so will Ryan Gosling, apparently.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [aptmetaphor via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Voting Gets You Laid appeared first on Law Street.

A new study conducted by the University of Missouri finds that those who experience repeated sexual assault are significantly more likely to develop psychological problems such as PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Bryana French, one of the researchers who spearheaded the study, points out that this was only one of a few studies that focus on types of sexual assault that fall outside of the narrow forcible rape definition. The researchers broadened their scope to include offenses like verbal coercion, substance-induced assault, and forcible rape.

Our research focuses on those individuals who receive multiple forms of unwanted sexual advances and the psychological toll those experiences take on the victims.

In general, studies revolving around the topic of sexual assault hone in primarily on violent rape. One of reasons that a study looking at various forms of sexual assault is so necessary is that it could help identify other means of abuse that could lead to potentially lifelong psychological issues. The problems often caused by sexual assault include an increase in risky sexual behavior, lower self-esteem and elevated psychological distress. A better understanding of these incidents, whom they affect, and the issues they lead to can also help develop preventative measures, as psychological damage often results from these unwanted acts.

All Types of Sexual Assault Vs. Forcible Rape Alone

According to studies, there is a huge increase of individuals who have experienced any sort of sexual assault versus violent rape alone. Past findings indicate that one in five adult women and one in 100 adult men have reported being raped. The prevalence increases to two in five among women and one in five among men who report experiencing other forms of sexual violence, such as repeated unwanted sexual contact and sexual coercion.

Repeated victimization, according to a scholarly article on the website for the National Institutes of Health, is disturbingly common. Of the 433 survey respondents, two-thirds reported repeat incidents of sexual assaults.  Though not always the case, these are often committed by the same perpetrator.

What Psychological Damage Can Repeated Sexual Assaults Cause?

A study conducted in 2012 found that the chances of a woman is seven times more likely to develop PTSD if she has experienced repeated episodes of sexual violence. Findings in an issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings found that in addition to a greater risk of developing PTSD, those who were victims of sexual assault could more easily develop anxiety disorders, depression, sleep issues, eating disorders, and are more likely to attempt suicide.

The good news for patients is that physicians are now more aware of the link between abuse and psychiatric illness so that abuse survivors may be more readily identified and referred to specialists for treatment. We hope that heightened awareness in clinical practice leads to improved outcomes for our patients.

-Ali Zirakzadeh, M.D., principal investigator of the Mayo Clinic study

How Can We Move Towards Ending Sexual Assault?

Bryana French suggests that the information gained from this study can help start a conversation among parents, adolescents and school administrators on the importance of consent and what steps to take to encourage preventative behavior.

Various websites discuss tips for preventing sexual assaults in various situations. For example, a page on West Virginia University’s website lists tips on staying safe such as “avoiding secluded places” and “practicing self-defense.” Perhaps equipping people with techniques to avoid sexual assault and educating others on the dangerous effects that these acts can cause will help reduce the number of individuals affected.

—
Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Keirsten Marie via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Startling Effects of Repeated Sexual Assault appeared first on Law Street.

Are you missing some excitement in your love life? Do you and your significant other look for different ways to bring that excitement back into your lives? Well if you are thinking about having sex on top of railroad tracks, think of something else.

In an attempt to spice up their sex life, a middle-aged Ukrainian couple decided to make love on top of some railroad tracks near central Ukraine. Aside from giving a whole new meaning to “working on the railroad,”the couple decidedthat reaching their sexual climax was more important than moving out of the way of an oncoming train. A switcher locomotive ran over the couple in the city of Zaporozhye in the early morning of Saturday, September 28, 2013. The woman died instantly and the man lost both of his legs. The man claimed that he and his girlfriend simply wanted to, “…experience an extreme sensation near the railroad tracks,” since they had, “failed to overcome their natural passion.”

It is completely understandable that couples who have been together for a long period of time want to find new ways to experience each other and find “extreme sensations,” (Trojan gets it) but you should be able to do so without risking life and limbs. Are the vibrations of the oncoming train worth losing your life? What do I know, maybe they thought they were dreaming within a dream.

The story unfortunately does not end there. The man could be facing trespassing charges for being on the tracks. It is unlikely that the man has a viable legal defense to the trespassing charges but it made me wonder about the penalties for the same crime elsewhere. In the United Kingdom, trespassing on railway tracks is considered a criminal offense and carries with it a penalty in the form of a fine for £1,000. They go on to explain why it is never a good idea to hop onto the train tracks. For example, they tell you that trains do not stop quickly (DUH!), that by simply standing near a train as it passes the wind turbulence could drag you under the wheels, and that the train runs on electricity and is never switched off (and if you touch it you will be frozen to it).

The United States has similar laws to the UK and the fines are just as expensive if not more. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) takes railroad safety and trespassing prevention seriously. They claim that over 430 trespassing fatalities and nearly as many injuries occur each year. They offer a workshop to address Right-of-Way fatalities and trespass prevention. They even offer this fact sheet to explain why it’s a very bad idea to trespass on railroad tracks. I guess they forgot to send it to this kid.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Lorenzo Gaudenzi via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Have You Ever Had Sex on Railroad Tracks? Well Don’t! appeared first on Law Street.