Sex and Sensibility

Just over a month ago, the New York Times featured a column by Charles Blow lamenting the state of young people dating (in case it’s not obvious, his main points: dating = desired; hooking up = “sad”). The column was filled with over-generalizations, most notably about “what girls want.” To see a more even-handed, inquisitive, if still problematic, article about our fairer sex’s needs, you should probably take a look at the New York Times Mag’s “What Do Women Want,” which includes such felicitous quotes as, “Meana made clear…that, when it comes to desire, ‘the variability within genders may be greater than the differences between genders,’ that lust is infinitely complex and idiosyncratic.” As a keen follower of many a cultural-sexual zeitgeist article, it was a refreshing moment.

Far away from the Op-Ed page in the NY Times’ Health section yesterday, there appeared yet another article that made me sniff the air and wonder, “Has change really come to America?” The article, titled “The Myth of Rampant Teenage Promiscuity” documented how, despite making guest appearances on Oprah as an “oral-sex epidemic” and on Tyra, the idea of millions of not-yet-legal Americans getting it wildly on, is, well, not totally the case. (For the record, the Guttmacher Institute rebutted the notion of a teen oral sex epidemic last year: their research showed that most teens who have had oral sex have also had intercourse, and only 1 in 4 virgin teenagers have had oral sex.)

Tyra’s shows, on a teen pregnancy epidemic and teenage unprotected sex, were at least more on topic, though like most TV hosts her unscientifically-surveyed data was thrown to the public replete with exclamation points and sad-face emoticons.

So what’s the real dish on teenage sex? The National Center for Health Statistics troublesomely reported this month that “births to 15- to 19-year-olds had risen for the first time in more than a decade.”

But does this necessarily mean a rise in teenage promiscuity? Of course not, as one perspicacious NY Times reporter, Tara Parker-Pope, demonstrates. Having done her research, Parker-Pope also reports that “Today, fewer than half of all high school students have had sex: 47.8 percent as of 2007, according to the National Youth Risk Behavior Survey, down from 54.1 percent in 1991” and goes on to write:

The latest rise in teenage pregnancy rates is cause for concern. But it very likely reflects changing patterns in contraceptive use rather than a major change in sexual behavior. The reality is that the rate of teenage childbearing has fallen steeply since the late 1950s. The declines aren’t explained by the increasing availability of abortions: teenage abortion rates have also dropped.

And indeed, as the Guttmacher Institute has reported, there has been a shift in sex education: in 2002 the proportion of teens likely to hear information about contraception had declined from 1995, while the proportion who were likely to have heard only abstinence information had increased.

Kathleen A. Bogle, an assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice at La Salle University and the author of “Hooking Up: Sex, Dating and Relationships on Campus” (N.Y.U. Press, 2008), who was also cited in the Charles Blow column, though in a very different context, closes off the article by telling everyone to basically just chill the hell out:

“I give presentations nationwide where I’m showing people that the virginity rate in college is higher than you think and the number of partners is lower than you think and hooking up more often than not does not mean intercourse,” Dr. Bogle said. “But so many people think we’re morally in trouble, in a downward spiral and teens are out of control. It’s very difficult to convince people otherwise.”

Of course, reporting that we actually shouldn’t be worried about teenage sexuality isn’t sexy –it takes away our society’s opportunity to fetishize the idea of forbidden, rampant teen sex, our society’s leeway to take a morally outraged and overwrought approach to young people’s sex lives. So why should I be surprised that the article hasn’t gotten anywhere near the “Most Emailed List,” even in the Health section, and even though the Blow column spent a number of days in front-page, Number One spot? I guess I’m not. I just wish I could be.

-Kristen Loveland

Image Credit.

I just had to put up a quick post highlighting some of the great articles coming out of RH Reality Check discussing what Obama’s administration will mean for reproductive rights. Over a year ago, RH Reality Check published a questionnaire filled out by Obama’s campaign staff outlining his nuanced, but firm view on reproductive rights.

Now that President Bush is doing his best to undermine reproductive rights in the last days of his presidency, how sure can we be that a President Obama will live up to the promises seen in Obama the candidate? As with much of the future Obama administration, right now we can only react and predict as his nominations and appointments unfold. So, the good, the bad, and the ugly?

The (very) good: Obama nominated Dawn Johnsen this week to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. Johnsen is a fierce, pro-choice advocate who served as Legal Director for NARAL Pro-Choice America from 1988-1993.

The, well, not bad, just unknown: Obama’s office announced the nomination of CNN’s Sanjay Gupta for surgeon general. Gupta’s CNN show, “House Call,” has avoided the topic of reproductive health and when talking about AIDS has never really touched on the topic of sex. http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/01/08/but-can-he-talk-about-sex

Still, reproductive issues specifically rarely grace the screen. An entire episode devoted to “women’s health issues” covered only the topics of breast cancer, smoking, and heart disease. In a 2004 special on multiple births, he headed up the top of the news program with the news that pregnancies among girls ages 10-14 were on the decline, which he attributed to “abstinence programs and birth control,” a fairly ambiguous and tentative statement.

And the Ugly: Well, this may actually be a good. It seems that right-wing, anti-choice extremists are already plotting their opposition marches and rallies and false information spreading. While this is something pro-choice organizations will have to focus on combating, it is a good sign that the opposition is scared of what an Obama administration will mean for reproductive rights.

If you’ve been subway traveling in NYC in the past year, then you may have noticed the proliferation of ads for Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs), which often feature the shadowy face of a young woman, and some text about “having more than one choice” or “if only I’d known.” We’ve heard from RH Reality Check about the misleading information spread by CPCs and their partner organizations, and Pandagon featured the story of a woman who called up a CPC, claimed that she had headaches but was not sexually active, but was still informed that she might be pregnant and should make an appointment.

Ms. Magazine adds to these damning exposes with an article in their latest issue featuring two college-aged women who went to check out the CPCs their college health centers directed them to. That bears repeating: their COLLEGE health centers. In fact, according to the article, 48% of college health centers that responded to a survey by the Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance directed college students to CPCs.

What do these young women get when they’re directed the CPC way? Well first, one gets a delay, which is the last thing a woman considering pregnancy options wants. Then, upon arrival, she is handed the typical post-abortion stress fact sheets:

“Even before I found out I wasn’t pregnant, the counselor said I should abstain from sex,” says Lopez. She was given a fact sheet on “post-abortion stress” and asked to fill out a form that sought nonmedical information about her family and her religious beliefs. And then, when her urine test revealed not a pregnancy but a possible urinary tract infection, the center did not offer her any medical treatment or refer her elsewhere.

Lacking medical personnel, the goal of these centers is not to provide a woman with an array of options, but to convince her that having an abortion will be ruinous to her mental, physical, and emotional well-being. Have a history of breast cancer in the family? If you have an abortion, you’ve signed your death warrant.

While there have been campaigns against these centers and their advertisements, including legislation from Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) seeking to hold CPCs to “truth in advertising” standards, CPCs receive millions in federal grants ($60 million according to a 2006 Washington Post report), coming from taxpayer dollars, to fund their operations.

But besides the Bush administration’s long affiliation with abstinence-only education and obsession with re-opening the culture wars (on a side note, an interesting article from Frank Rich: with the defeat of three key anti-choice votes in South Dakota, Colorado, and California, has the American populace finally proved that they’re moving beyond this particular culture war?), we shouldn’t be surprised by their funding for these programs. After all, the paternalistic “protection” of a woman’s psyche, treating her as a woman-child who can’t be trusted to make these decisions on her own, has been at the forefront of reproductive legislation, appointments, and Supreme Court debates throughout the Bush administration:

1. The appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs in 2004. As The Nation wrote, Dr. Hager was the author of “Stress and the Woman’s Body and As Jesus Cared for Women, self-help tomes that interweave syrupy Christian spirituality with paternalistic advice on women’s health and relationships.”

2. The appointment of Eric Keroack as chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services in 2006. As Susan Jacoby wrote in the Washington Post at the time, “In his view, anyone who has premarital sex is less likely to form a healthy relationship later in life because every orgasm somehow reduces a person’s capacity for deep emotional attachment. Dr. Keroack’s view of orgasm was approximately that of Gen. Jack D. Ripper in the movie Dr. Strangelove. Gen. Ripper, as you may recall, was concerned about the Russians stealing his ‘precious bodily fluids.'”

3. And finally, the most notorious and egregious example, was the ruling in Gonzales vs. Carhart, where the Supreme Court upheld the federal partial-birth abortion ban, primarily on the paternalistic claim of the Inconstant Female. As Dahlia Lithwick brilliantly argued at the time, “Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion is less about the scope of abortion regulation than an announcement of an astonishing new test: Hereinafter, on the morally and legally thorny question of abortion, the proposed rule should be weighed against the gauzy sensitivities of that iconic literary creature: the Inconstant Female.”

Ah yes, the fragile female psyche. Too weak to handle a few bad brushes with males, as the purity proponents argue, too fickle to be decisive on their own reproductive choices. We shouldn’t be surprised that CPCs have been federally funded under Bush, but we should hope that President-Elect Obama ushers in a new era where women are no longer treated as child-citizens.

–Kristen Loveland

The other day I wrote a post saying that Sarah Palin could call herself a feminist if she wanted to (more on that next week), but that she did not practice a viable feminism. I’ve previously written about how Palin’s policies are distinctly anti-women.

Women have the right to sexual freedom and privacy as well as the right to economic and social independence and advancement; a lack of reproductive rights represents a disconnect preventing women from fully taking advantage of either. A woman cannot be both sexually active and fulfill her economic/social plans without the assurance of birth control and the choice to abort if needed. In Slate, Linda Hirshman cited statistics on female teenagers’ economic prospects if they give birth at an early age:

The fact sheets from the well-respected National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy describe a bleak prospect: Even controlling for social and economic backgrounds, only 40 percent of teenage girls who bear children before age 18 go on to graduate from high school, compared with the 75 percent of teens who do not give birth until ages 20 or 21. Less than 2 percent of mothers who have children before age 18 will earn a college degree by age 30, compared with 9 percent of young women who wait until age 20 or 21 to have children.

But wait, there’s more: “Overall, teenage mothers—and their children—are also far more likely to live in poverty than females who don’t give birth until after age 20.”

I think it’s obvious that women must have access to reproductive choice. And because lack of information can have such an egregious and detrimental impact on a young woman’s future social standing, we must be prepared to speak openly and honestly about sexuality and the effect of unexpected or too-early pregnancy on women’s economic future in our society.

Yet, when it comes down to reproductive justice, the McCain camp is unwilling to address the reality of women’s multiple circumstances in today’s America. Palin doesn’t believe in abortion unless a woman’s life is at risk. McCain has created some fantasy world where thousands of women making up “illnesses” and “health risks” to fetch themselves abortions, using “air quotes” to describe women’s “health” concerns. Though Palin and McCain may claim that they are concerned about women’s issues, they have no idea about the needs of the majority women in America. It’s a dark realization, an especially dark one with November 4th looming.

But to add some levity, take a look at the ever-awesome Samanta Bee’s take on John McCain on women’s “health”:

(Wait for it, wait for it… It’s in there)

While each candidate in Wednesday night’s debate gave his stump speech on Roe v. Wade, only Obama mentioned the need for better sex education in the school system, and that was quickly skedaddled by a change in topic. Put another way, as politicians are such fans of doing, the two candidates spent more time discussing whether Obama did or did not launch his campaign in Bill Ayers’ living room than discussing how they plan to battle rising teen pregnancy and STD rates. As Amy Schalet pointed out in a Washington Post article last week, “High teen pregnancy rates result in part from our inability to talk honestly and wisely about teen sexuality.” So where are we left if our two presidential candidates are never asked to talk about it at all?

Of course, part of the problem is that very few people besides the Religious Right, NARAL Pro-Choicers, and well, those who read this blog, are asking these questions. Sure, there are other things on our mind: the economy, Iraq, etc. But our general populace’s inability to ask basic, rational questions about the way their children are taught about sex in schools, and therefore their ceding of these decisions to a minority base, speaks to larger problems in our culture: an inability to approach sex in an individualized and normalized way.

Dagmar Herzog talks in Sex in Crisis about the anxiety with which America adults in the twenty-first century approach sex. In the nineties, most Americans seemed relatively satisfied with their sex lives. Sure it wasn’t always the best sex ever; sometimes there was boredom, or lack or desire, or lack of orgasm, or any of the other minor dissatisfactions that are normal in a human sexuality that can only be as perfect as the person experiencing it. Sometimes there were fears about love and emotional connection. But of course, again, why wouldn’t there be? Now, with articles and drug campaigns asking you whether you are experiencing a tepid orgasm, erectile dysfunction, porn addiction, you name it, American adults are constantly told to compare their sexuality to others and ask themselves, “Is there something wrong with my sex life?” As Herzog writes:

What is going on is an ideological assault on something pretty fundamental: the most intimate and personal aspects of sex. It worms its way into the core of the psyche by playing on the imperfections and emotional confusion that so often accompany sex. Rather than helping people get comfortable with the unruliness of desire, the current trendy idea is to freak people out.

Now, if adults are experiencing this level of anxiety about their own sexual lives, imagine how such over-scrutiny and neuroticism is translated to a population who has long been subject to excessive sexual observation in America. If sex can is psychologically and emotionally damaging for adults, given the especial “unruliness” of the teenage sex drive and a whole life during which this psychological damage can manifest itself, it must be doubly so for teens.

But what if we began to treat not only adult sexuality, but teenage sexuality, as normal? In a qualitative study comparing conceptions of teenage sexuality in the Netherlands and the United States, Amy Schalet documents how American adults dramatize teenage sexuality as hormone-raging, out-of-control, and irrational. (Part of the study is published as “Must We Fear Adolescent Sexuality? at Medscape General Medicine.) Dutch parents, on the other hand, recognize teenage relationships as legitimate and work to normalize sexuality.

Guess which country has the lower teenager pregnancy and STD rates.

more...

Sex and Sensibility: Quick Takes
by Kristen Loveland

Hi to all from your Sex and Sensibility lady here. Here are a few things that caught my eye this past week:

1. The Truth About Teen Girls: Belinda Luscombe has an awesome article in Time Magazine talking about how, despite the proliferation of sexual imagery in the teenage world, maybe we shouldn’t be twisting our knickers in such a knot over their alleged sexual promiscuity. To wit:

“With the pornucopia of media at teens’ disposal in the past decade and a half, on cell phones and computers as well as TVs, early-adolescent sex should be having a growth spurt. But the figures don’t necessarily support one. Despite a minor increase in 2006, the rate of pregnancies among teen girls has been on a downward trend since 1991. Another indicator, the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, is alarmingly high: nearly 1 in 4 girls ages 14 to 19 and nearly 1 in 2 African-American girls, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But this is the first year such a study has been completed, and the study doesn’t separate 14-to-16-year-olds from 17-to-19-year-olds, so it’s still unclear which way that trend is heading.”

Keep reading this fantastic article here and thanks to Deborah for sending this to me!

2. I Am Charlotte: The Series: While on the one hand it appears that there are finally a number of voices asking us to put on the breaks for a second and contemplate what the actual sexual experiences of teenage girls are, it looks like Tom Wolfe’s I Am Charlotte Simmons is going to be made into an HBO series. Charlotte Simmons the book has often been noted as over-stated and over-bearing in its condemnation of college sexuality. As the New York Magazine Book Review put it at the time:

“Wolfe’s vision of eroticism is ultimately too dark. When, in Charlotte Simmons, an older man has sex with a younger woman, it is, of course, cynical. But when a younger man has sex with a younger woman, it is equally cynical. Indeed, all the sex in Wolfe’s imagined university is rotten. All intimacy is rotten. At the end of the novel, Charlotte falls in with a new man. He comes from a very different walk of life than Charlotte does, and to all appearances he adores her. One might reasonably see this turn of events as a triumph—love conquering differences, love opening doors. But Wolfe intends for us to see it as a defeat: The man is not suited for his clever country heroine; she has forgotten, he suggests, that “she is Charlotte Simmons”; she has lost her identity.”

To put it mildly, I’m not overly-optimistic about the way the series will portray yet another young woman who has lost her character to the hedonistic offerings of that Gomorrah now known as the American university.

3. The Old is New Again: And finally, on a slightly different note, Ann over at Feministing recently wrote about John LaBruzzo, a state legislator from Louisiana, who wants to pay low-income women to be sterilized. Something that is consistently overlooked in mainstream’s take on what it means to be Pro-Choice is that it is just that: the choice to have or not to have a child. As a political position, it is both concerned with those woman who, for x, y, and z reason, choose not to have a child, and with those from whom the right to have a child is coercively taken away. There have been a number of studies and histories done on sterilization abuse which, particularly in 1970s America, targeted poor and minority women, and included everything from outright nonconsensual sterilizations, to unclear statements signed on the hospital bed before an abortion, to, well, something like LaBruzzo’s brilliant idea. The government has no place in coercing a targeted group of women into permanent reproductive decisions.

Sex and Sensibility
Sex and Sensibility is a weekly column from Kristen Loveland that seeks to put the reasoned voice of a young woman in her 20’s into the “sex wars” fray. Sometime member of the “hook-up generation” and frequent skeptic of the social, cultural, and sexual messages young women receive from the religious right and national media, Kristen provides a voice for a much-discussed generation that has had little chance to speak up for itself.

Removing the Kid Gloves
by Kristen Loveland

In an article appearing in Wednesday’s New York Times titled “Girl Talk Has Its Limits,” the lives of young girls are once again put under the microscope for inspection by a pack of inquisitive adults. Not content to explore the sexual landscape of Miley Cyrus, cultural scrutiny now delves into female friendships and asks whether girls really should be talking, or “co-ruminating”, with each other so much, because “[s]ome studies have found that excessive talking about problems can contribute to emotional difficulties, including anxiety and depression.”

First of all, this is old news. My roommate’s abnormal psychology textbook from 2004 notes, “It is known that rumination is likely to maintain or exacerbate depression, in part by interfering with instrumental behavior.” Notice the terms “maintain” and “exacerbate”—the depression derives not from the rumination itself but from another source.

Unsurprisingly, one of the not-so-hidden assumptions of this article is that girls have an unhealthy obsession with boys:

“I could see it starting already,” she said, adding that she has made a concerted effort recently not to dwell on her own problems with friends and to try to stop negative thoughts. “From sixth grade, it’s boys are stupid, boys have cooties,” she said. “And then it progresses to boys have cooties but 20-year-old cooties. So you might as well change it when you can.”

Ah yes, the fragile female psyche. I might ask why the author wasted over 1,000 words devoted to a question bound to lead to a dead end. After all, will you ask your daughter to bottle up her worries instead? I might also ask why the author used fictional models from Heathers, Mean Girls, Sex and the City, and Gossip Girl for female friendship. Sure, I’ll admit that I talk to my girl friends—a lot. I get a feeling of distinct pleasure when I look at my cell’s phonebook, considering which of my good friends I should call next to ruminate about “so-and-so who failed to call” or “you’ll never guess who showed up last night” or “is it just me, or does she seem a bit self-centered lately?” But these exchanges have never quite reached the dramatics of a Lindsey Lohan-led cast, though they might be a lot more interesting if they did.

While I’d like to say that the article’s author clearly hasn’t seen enough Woody Allen movies, it’s true that females are more prone to clinical depression than males. Nonetheless, it seems rather facile to place 1,000 words of emphasis on co-rumination as explanation—even irresponsible as I watch the article trek up the New York Times “Most Emailed” list. Because in the end the article (note its placement in the Fashion & Style section) is simply another of those proprietary “What’s wrong with our young women?” pieces that will make the rounds of forwarded email and provide all too simplistic answers for questions that really deserve more complex consideration. What’s wrong with our young women? They talk to each other too much. What’s wrong with our young women? They’re too superficial. What’s wrong with our young women? They give away the milk for free.

While newspapers and magazines are understandably aching to draw readers in, we can’t ignore the implications of such incessant prying into young women’s lives. It’s noteworthy that so many articles focus, or place the blame, on the actions of young women themselves (friendships, sexual relations, drinking habits, college experiences, etc.), instead of on the society in which they are raised. But perhaps we aren’t so much interested in solving “the young women problem” as in lifting back the curtain to sneak a covert glance at that object of intense public fascination: the Miley Cyruses, the Britol Palins, and all the other bright young female things that seem so troubled. As one writer notes, “The modern American female is one of the most discussed, most written-about, sore subjects to come along in ages.”

The funny thing is, that was actually written back in 1957, which means the new ain’t so new. A young Nora Johnson was talking about “Sex and the College Girl” in the 50s, the era of the domesticated and constrained female, who kowtowed to the reasonable, responsible expectations of society. Yet Johnson’s description of her generation struck me as so relevant to today:

We are deadly serious in our pursuits and, I am afraid, non-adventurous in our actions. We have a compulsion to plan our lives, to take into account all possible adversities and to guard against them. We prefer not to consider the fact that human destinies are subject to amazingly ephemeral influences and that often our most rewarding experiences come about by pure chance.

Those are my italics. I emphasize that last line, because I think it is something we often forget as a society, perhaps in an effort fill the news feed, perhaps in an effort to re-corset our daughters. Depression and anxiety are, of course, conditions to be treated seriously. But efforts to analyze each and every aspect of young American women’s lives, (always premised, of course, on a concern for those young American women’s well-being), is a form of the strictest regulation, and ignores the intense wonder of unknowing and chance.

Whenever I read stories implying that we should worry about such-and-such an aspect of young women’s behavior, I picture an invalid who lives to be a hundred by lying on her sofa all day. But does she live? And is she any more psychologically sound for having been removed from experience all these years—or has her mind warped in on itself, obsessively concerned with the minutiae in life because she has never known the larger things? Shouldn’t we… wait, sorry, I had to catch myself there for a second. I’m afraid I was getting rather alarmist.

Anyway people, remove the kid gloves.