The COVID-19 pandemic brought unprecedented challenges, causing widespread financial strain, heightened mental health struggles, and deepening existing inequalities across communities. While this wave of challenges was felt nationwide, for some, these challenges were magnified. Two such groups particularly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic include those exposed to incarceration—either directly or through a partner—and those who experienced a pregnancy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, incarceration is a stressful experience, not just for those behind bars but for their loved ones as well. Going through the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic was a hardship for millions of Americans, but handling this stress while dealing with the impacts of having a husband or partner incarcerated and during pregnancy can amplify stress levels and stressful experiences.

Incarceration is not just an isolated event. It reverberates through families, especially during periods of instability like a pandemic. Even before COVID-19, incarceration exposure has been tied to economic and emotional hardships. During the pandemic, these existing issues were compounded, leading to even more struggles for those trying to navigate pregnancy and prepare for a newborn. When a partner or loved one is incarcerated, families are often in need of critical sources of support. The pandemic made accessing community resources and social networks that could have provided some relief even harder. Under these conditions, these valuable resources are even more critical when coupled with preparing for a birth or caring for a newborn. Even so, whether women exposed to incarceration during pregnancy endured heightened stressors had not been subject to research.

Our Study

Our study explored how exposure to incarceration affected women’s experiences during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using data from the 2020 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), we analyzed responses from recent mothers in 17 states that participated in a special COVID-19 supplement. The survey included questions about various stressors brought on by the pandemic, such as job loss, difficulty paying rent, food insecurity, and mental health struggles.

To understand the impact of incarceration, we assessed differences in COVID-19-related stressors between women who had experienced incarceration themselves or through a partner in the year before giving birth and women who had not reported such experiences. The findings showed that women exposed to incarceration reported significantly more COVID-19-related stressors than their peers. On average, they experienced about five different stressors, compared to fewer than three among those without incarceration exposure. They were over twice as likely to face difficulties such as homelessness, increased anxiety, and depression, physical, sexual, or emotional aggression from a husband/partner, as well as problems paying bills and meeting basic necessities like food. For example, nearly 39% of incarceration-exposed women worried that food would run out, while only 14% of non-exposed women shared this concern. These results highlight the unique vulnerabilities that incarceration-exposed families faced during a time of widespread uncertainty and upheaval.

Implications

Our study emphasizes the need for more targeted support for families impacted by incarceration, especially during times of widespread crisis like a pandemic. Programs that focus on helping with housing stability, mental health support, and economic relief can make a big difference. For example, connecting families with community organizations offering public assistance or expanded access to home visiting programs could help ease the burden during tough times.

It is also important for healthcare providers to recognize the unique challenges faced by these families. Screening for incarceration exposure and other social determinants of health during prenatal visits could open the door to resources that can mitigate some of the hardships these families face. By focusing on holistic care that includes social and public assistance support, we can better aid mothers and their families through such challenging times.

While the height of the COVID-19 pandemic has passed, challenges—especially for families who faced compounded difficulties due to incarceration—show few signs of slowing down. As the babies born during 2020 grow into toddlers, their families continue to grapple with the long-term effects caused by the stressors endured by the pandemic and the ongoing collateral consequences tied to incarceration for families and children. Our research highlights a crucial need for policies and programs that support these vulnerable families, especially during their most critical moments.

Alexander Testa is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management, Policy, and Community Health at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. His research examines the consequences of criminal justice contact and violence exposure on health over the life course. Follow him on Twitter @testaalex

Chantal Fahmy is an Associate Professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at The University of Texas at San Antonio. Her research focuses on reentry and reintegration from prison, health criminology, social support and social health, and the intersection of public health and incarceration. Her recent work has been published in Social Science & Medicine, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Journal of Traumatic Stress, and Journal of Mental Health. Follow her on Twitter @ChantalFahmy

Benjamin Jacobs is a resident physician in Obstetrics and Gynecology at Duke University. His research interests center around adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and its impact on the prenatal, perinatal, and postpartum periods. Follow him on Twitter @ben_m_jacobs1

Dylan B. Jackson is an Associate Professor in the Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. He is a developmental and health criminologist who uses a life-course lens to study the intersection of crime, criminal legal system contact, and health among children, adolescents, and families. His research aims to inform policies and interventions that 1) promote health as a developmental crime-prevention tool, and 2) reduce health inequities for children, adolescents, and families impacted by crime and the criminal legal system. Follow him on Twitter @Dr_DylanJackson

When was the last time you heard someone say they wanted sex that was just “good”? Ever heard anyone wax nostalgic about an “average” sexual experience they had? Probably not.

Whether scrolling through social media, thumbing through glossy magazine pages, or even in late-night chats with friends, the talk is always about making sex great. But what actually separates great sex from the merely good?

In a companion piece published earlier, we explored how chemistry, connection, and orgasms topped the list for “great sex” components. With Valentine’s Day around the corner, we thought you might enjoy learning about three more surprising but essential ingredients for great sex: sexual skills, sexual responsiveness, and sexual mindfulness.

1. Sexual Skills: More Than Just Techniques

Sure, knowing your way around your partner’s body is important. But sexual skills go beyond just technique. They include reading body language, understanding non-verbal cues, and adapting to your partner’s unique needs and desires. As one participant explained, “It’s about knowing when to lead, when to follow, and when to simply listen.” For them, great sex wasn’t just about physical acts; it was about creating an experience of mutual understanding and connection.

Yet, as with any skill, there’s a catch. When sexual prowess becomes a competition or a source of personal validation, the focus shifts from connection to ego. One man shared, “I caused a lot of first orgasms, and I’m prouder of that than anything else I’ve done.” For some, sexual prowess can become a source of personal validation, shifting the focus from mutual connection to individual ego. Great sex demands shared joy, not a race to the orgasm finish line.

2. Sexual Responsiveness: Listening Without Words

You definitely don’t want to feel like you’re invisible during a sexual encounter. Participants described bad sex as encounters where their partner was oblivious to their needs, treating them more like an accessory than an equal participant. As one woman put it, “I could have been a blow-up doll, and it wouldn’t have mattered.”

Responsiveness changes the game. It’s about tuning into your partner’s signals, both verbal and non-verbal, and showing genuine care for their pleasure—or even their lack of desire. In healthy relationships, responsiveness fosters trust and a sense of safety, allowing couples to navigate everything from mismatched libidos to periods of low sexual interest. As one woman said, “Sex with my lover is GREAT sex no matter what is added or what is remiss. He always has ‘ME’ in mind when he is thinking of his next move. No matter if it’s what can I do with this ice cube or what happens if I touch her there. There’s always tomorrow, and it’s always good, or we stop, readjust, and try something else new or something that is tried and true.”

3. Sexual Mindfulness: Being Fully Present

Imagine this: You’re completely in the moment, free from insecurities about your body or worries about how you’re “performing.” You’re not thinking about tomorrow’s to-do list or whether you left the stove on. You’re just… there. That’s sexual mindfulness, and according to our participants, it’s a hallmark of great sex. One woman shared, “When I let go of my insecurities and focused entirely on the sensations, it was like discovering a new level of intimacy.” Many participants explained how being fully present can transform a sexual encounter into a profoundly connected experience.

But mindfulness can be elusive, especially for those grappling with body image issues. One woman confessed, “The lights were on, and I just feel less insecure with them off.” For many women, societal pressures about appearance create barriers to fully enjoying the experience. However, as body confidence grows, so does the ability to relax and embrace the moment.

What Does This Mean for You?

These findings challenge us to think beyond the basics of “good sex” advice like trying new positions or spicing things up. Instead, they invite us to focus on the deeper, often overlooked aspects of connection:

• Are you actively honing your sexual skills by learning about your partner’s desires?
• Do you practice responsiveness, making sure your partner feels heard and valued in the bedroom?
• And finally, can you let go of distractions and insecurities to be fully present?

Alicia M. Walker is Associate Professor of Sociology at Missouri State University and the author of two previous books on infidelity, and a forthcoming book, Bound by BDSM: What Practitioners can teach Everyone about Building a Happier Life (Bloomsbury Fall 2025) coauthored with Arielle Kuperberg. She is the current Editor in Chief of the Council of Contemporary Families blog, serves as Senior Fellow with CCF, and serves as Co-Chair of CCF alongside Arielle Kuperberg. Learn more about her on her website. Follow her on Twitter or Bluesky at @AliciaMWalker1, Facebook, and Instagram @aliciamwalkerphd

It is late January 2025 and my eyes are still affixed to the websites and reels and headlines about the Los Angeles fires. A lot of my family and friends live there. I have spent the last two weeks texting people I know to see if they’re okay and following their temporary dislocation and participation in heroic relief efforts. Everyone I know is safe, but there are not many degrees of separation between me and people who’ve lost their homes. I can’t seem to stop scrolling and watching, gutted by the endless images of burned down neighborhoods but uplifted by the generosity and coordination demonstrated by first responders and communities helping those who’ve lost everything. 

I write about the social meaning of home spaces and possessions. I have also written about how disasters showcase this meaning. I have noted that when there is a disaster, we lose the opportunity to say goodbye to something we may have hoped would outlive us.

In the news media, it is not unusual to highlight the emotional toll felt from the loss of possessions in stories about home fires, sometimes accompanied by rationalization about that loss if no people or animals were hurt. In story after story this month, I heard people say “at least nobody was hurt.” In my past writing about home disasters, I posited that “to focus too much on the importance of stuff can make people seem materialistic or somehow immoral. Imagine the outcry if someone said, ‘We lost Grandma, but thank goodness her table was salvaged…’” It’s not that people are intentionally trying to avoid stigma when reflecting on the devastation of their losses; it’s that it is normal to express gratitude for lives saved even in the midst of property and possession loss. Disaster is not only personally emotional, it also brings forth the notion that particular emotions are defined as socially acceptable in certain contexts. 

For this moment, I am setting aside analysis of the immense toll of emotional and physical turmoil of losing lives or a home and all its material contents. I am also setting aside analysis of the political claims being tossed about related to the Los Angeles fires. My focus here is on the ways that news and social media outlets portray people’s relationships with their homes and their stuff – especially when lost as a result of a disaster – and what this says about families specifically and cultural values generally. Despite the devastating size and impact, the LA fires are not necessarily different from the disasters I’ve written about in the past in terms of demonstrating the social significance of homes and possessions. But there seem to be a few ways that the news coverage of the loss of homes and their contents in Los Angeles differs from other accounts from other places and times. Here I elaborate on these ways.

In the coverage of the LA fires, stories of homeowners quickly choosing which items to grab on their way out the door and images of firefighters retrieving photo albums and what they perceived to be family heirlooms – keeping them safe in a place far from a burning home or placing them gently on the sidewalk across the street from a house in flames – kept showing up on my feeds. I watched a reel showing firefighters stacking photo albums next to a grandfather clock – soot-covered but salvaged – across the street from a burning house. I read an article about a cherished ring in a safe that firefighters found and protected.

What was this about? In my research on love letter curatorial practices and my most recent study of the social meaning of vacation homes, I describe a strategy of the possessors of these objects and places: imagined future kinship nostalgia. This is a motivating factor when people save and carefully and intentionally store objects such as heirloom decor items or photos (or when they create moments that yield saved photos). People do this because these items are meant to be discovered or viewed or reminisced about in the future by those experiencing them today. Doing this preserves a family story over time, presumably unless disaster strikes. Often it may represent a moment as ideal, removed from (or sometimes as evidence of overcoming) visible hardships. The stories and images of firefighters saving seemingly cherished things reinforces the value of preserving family stories for future generations’ imaginings of the past nostalgically. That these mementos were preserved from a disastrous fire becomes part of the preservation story. But it is not that the image of firefighters saving photo albums tells a happy story, nor is it the case that the firefighters personally know the people who may want to look back fondly on past photos. It is that deciding to save these items and having the event shared in the media tells a larger cultural story: the items have been deemed worthy of preservation because they represent the family story that must also be preserved. Thank goodness they were saved. That these stories were featured as part of the ongoing news during the fires suggests family story preservation – even and perhaps especially if it is preserved in physical form – remains a strong cultural value.

The coverage of the LA fires was also unique relative to stories from other disasters in its focus on celebrities and their families who lost their homes and possessions, including those who filmed themselves as they discovered that they had lost their home (and then were interviewed afterward on television). Images and interviews of celebrities involved in donation drives and financial contributions followed as the fires lessened. Even though news accounts of disasters often include private video footage of the experience and interviews about loss from people experiencing the disaster, these stories felt decidedly different from past news accounts of fire disasters, including the one in Paradise, California in 2018.

Why? What makes the depiction of a disaster different if famous people are part of the story? Two reasons. First, celebrities are in an interesting social position – they are people who experience hardship just as anyone might, but they are also likely to be affluent. They may have multiple homes, making them far less economically precarious than many people who lost everything. As I noted in my past writing about disasters and the meaning of home possessions, “stuff matters differently depending on your access to the stuff in the first place.” The critique of celebrities not doing enough, or even not deserving sympathy, was related to their perceived status as wealthy homeowners who could afford to rebuild without much sacrifice. Second, celebrities occupy a somewhat contradictory position: they need to be relatable, but they also need to be set apart from other people. They need to be normal and have families like we do, but they also need to somehow be superhuman. They need to be real enough so that fans can see them as worthy of their dedication and support. But they need to be a little bit unreal in order to retain their status as famous. I don’t know what it’s like to have an eight million dollar mansion. Someone in that social position may as well be a fictitious character to me. But hearing about their very real loss of family mementos and the emotional trauma of seeing their neighborhood vanish? This humanizes even the most untouchable icon.

The LA fire story being told through the lens of fame aligns with the fact that Los Angeles is viewed in the cultural imaginary as a magical place, artificially removed from the hardships of real life. It is not as if Los Angeles is Disneyland, but it does get portrayed as a mystical magical place, with characters and plots and the glitz of a movie set, where dreams come true, idealized stories are told, and magical moments are part of a morning stroll to a coffee shop. But it is a fallacy to believe that an entire city – one filled with racialized income inequalities, disagreements about water policy and access, and devastating effects related to climate change – is somehow magically removed from real life. Anyone who lives there who struggles can tell you that. Anyone with a healthy dose of cynicism about what is real and what is fake can tell you that.

The fires made the magic really come crashing down. They made Los Angeles a really real place, ironically stalling the industry dedicated to creating fictional places, people, and plots. If it could happen in La La Land, it could happen anywhere. Not even magical places are removed from the possibility of devastation. They are filled with real families, homes, and possessions. And an occasional celebrity or two, who – as human beings – are part of the real families that reside there or hope to reside there again someday.

Family life is often romanticized in movies, but we also do this in our real lives (and in news stories about real lives) when we preserve mementos that may not capture the harsh realities of life’s hard moments. It will be interesting to watch the family stories from these devastating fires continue to be told through nostalgic renditions of home spaces and domestic objects. It will also be intriguing to watch the collective story of the fires be told – to see what mementos are nostalgically lifted up as cherished symbols of a city that – for the sake of the cultural imaginary – aims to retain its magic.  

Michelle Janning is Professor Sociology at Whitman College and the author of several books about how homes and domestic objects tell the story of what’s really going on in today’s families, including Investing in Enchantment: Money, Market, and the Family Vacation Home.

A record number of U.S. renters are cost burdened, paying 30 percent or more of their monthly income towards their housing costs. High housing costs prompt low-income families to make widespread cutbacks on other critical household essentials, such as food, education, and transportation. However, high rental costs also have another effect on families that is less well-documented—they make it more difficult to find a new home. When affordable housing options are few and far between, how do low-income renters relocate?

In a new paper published in the American Sociological Review, I address this question using interviews that I conducted with 69 low-income non-Hispanic white and Latina/o renters living in Los Angeles (LA). Like other high-cost cities, LA is an extremely challenging housing market for low-income families. When I began this study in 2019, LA’s median rental price for recent movers was nearly $2,200 per month. LA landlords often require tenants to earn at least three times the monthly rent, excellent credit, and up to two months’ rent as a deposit.

Many of these requirements are out of reach for low-income movers. Instead, they turn to trusted sources of support to help them during moves: their friends, family members, and coworkers. I found that low-income white and Latina/o renters alike leaned heavily on their social ties to help them lease up. Friends and family members provided information about open apartments and cosigned leases with renters with low credit scores. Renters’ social ties also gifted or loaned money or hosted movers temporarily while they bolstered their savings. For instance, Maggie, a low-income white renter, told me that her mother cosigned her lease. “If I didn’t have that,” she reflected, “I don’t know how I would have found a place.” Meanwhile, Maite, a low-income Mexican renter, borrowed money from her mother to cover the cost of the required $2,600 security deposit.

Although renters across race/ethnicity leaned on their social ties for help during moves, I found that low-income white and low-income Latina/o renters had access to different typesof resources through their social networks. These network resource differences ultimately influenced renters’ housing search outcomes.

Consider Clara, a low-income Honduran renter who was evicted by a boarding house owner after  she learned that she was pregnant. Due to her low credit score, Clara and her husband struggled to find an apartment. Her husband learned that his coworker’s brother lived in a building nearby. This workplace social tie vouched for Clara and her husband to the building manager, who allowed them to move into a studio apartment. However, the unit was in extreme disrepair. Here, Clara recalls the moment when she stepped into her new apartment for the first time:

There was an old bed, just thrown on the ground…there must have been 2,000 cigarette butts, just everywhere. There were cockroaches, there were rats, the toilet was broken, everything was green…When he opened the door and I saw, Oh my God! I felt like my world was falling apart.

Clara felt that she had no other choice but to accept the unit, in spite of its conditions. To cover the entry costs, Clara turned to another workplace social tie—her supervisor at her job as a factory line worker—who loaned her the money she needed for the deposit.

Low-income white renters had access to relatively affluent friends and family compared with low-income Latina/o renters. These connections helped them enter homes that aligned more closely with their family’s needs and preferences. For example, during Jennifer’s last move, she moved temporarily into her parents’ single-family home for several months. Her parents did not expect her to pay rent, and this support allowed her to save quickly and to be more discerning during her search. As she recalled:

We had saved up a decent amount of money…We probably looked at five to ten apartments in the area. I’d call the ads, leave a message, make an appointment, go view the place. Then, it would be like, “Thanks, don’t like it.” They’d have issues or something I didn’t like about the complex. Some of them didn’t have gated parking or amenities that I was looking for.

Jennifer’s family’s support helped her enter her first-choice apartment. Other low-income white renters told me that their ties had given them financial gifts (as opposed to loans) or cosigned their leases, like Maggie’s mother (introduced above). In contrast, most Latina/o respondents’ social ties also struggled to make ends meet, placing critical limits on the type of assistance that they could offer to their loved ones.

This support made all the difference for movers’ housing outcomes. Thanks to the help of financially secure friends and family, low-income white renters mostly avoided badly maintained apartments or crowded homes. Support from social ties also shaped how movers’ experienced the housing search process itself. For instance, Clara’s housing search was prolonged and stressful, and her move left her owing a substantial amount of money to her boss. In contrast, Jennifer’s move was relatively seamless, and living with her family without paying rent allowed her to avoid debt. “It was pretty much wham, bam, it was so perfect,” she told me, jokingly.

In a landlords’ market with few vacancies, landlords can prioritize potential tenants with high incomes, substantial savings, and excellent credit. To meet these criteria, low-income renters often turn to their social ties for assistance. However, the resources that their social ties can provide make all the difference in renters’ housing outcomes. Given the persistence of racial inequalities in social network resources, this ultimately widens inequalities between moving families.

Several policy tools may help stem the harms of unaffordable housing markets on low-income families. First, policymakers should consider limiting the use of credit and background checks. Credit checks are a relatively recent tenant screening tool that often do not capture the difficult budgeting decisions families make to pay their rent. For instance, many respondents that I spoke to carried large credit balances precisely so they could have the cash on-hand to make their rent. Second, policymakers should also consider limiting security deposits, which force movers to take on financial debt, or passing legislation that allows renters to pay deposits over an extended period. As long as landlords’ screening practices prioritize renters with financially secure social ties, rental housing searches will continue to widen inequalities among moving families.

Steven Schmidt is an NSF SBE Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Southern California and an incoming assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at Boston University. He can be reached at steven.schmidt@usc.edu or on Bluesky at @stevenschmidt.bsky.social.

Demie Kurz is a Research Affiliate in the Department of Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. She is the former Co-Director of the Gender, Sexuality & Women’s Studies Program at Penn and a Co-founder of the Carework Network, an international organization of researchers, policymakers, and advocates involved in various domains of care work. Her books and articles have focused on challenges facing contemporary American families and social policies that would better support families.

AMW: Why do you believe that parenting teens and young adults is especially challenging, and how are mothers particularly affected?

DK: While parenting is one of the most important tasks of any society, popular narratives fail to reflect the challenges of raising children, teens, and young adults. Some parents, particularly mothers, who do the majority of the work of parenting, are viewed as too involved in their children’s lives, as helicopter parents micromanaging their children and teens; others are viewed as not involved enough. Often parents are blamed when their children aren’t viewed as successful. Adolescence is widely seen as the most difficult stage of parenting. Yet despite its importance, we have a limited grasp of what it actually takes to guide teens through adolescence and on to young adulthood.

AMW: What does “letting go” look like in parenting, and what challenges come with it?

DK: Based on over a hundred interviews with an economically and racially diverse group of mothers, and some fathers, I describe what mothers identify as a key challenge of parenting—what they often call “letting go.” Parents are expected to supervise the lives of their teens on an ongoing basis and ensure that they safely transition to young adulthood and on to adulthood and gain the credentials they need to succeed in an era when reaching adulthood has become more demanding. At the same time, parents must pull back and “let go,” turn over more control to their teens and young adults who must learn to take more responsibility for their lives. As they balance the tasks of maintaining control and letting go in these arenas, parents must continually make difficult decisions. Often, they have to make these decisions without much information; communication with teens becomes more challenging as they make more decisions on their own.

AMW: What broader resources do parents need to raise children, teens, and young adults successfully?

DK: Mothers’ accounts of their experiences also show how vitally important resources are to the process of parenting. Parents cannot rely solely on their individual actions to ensure that their teens progress successfully on to adulthood. They require good neighborhoods, safe schools, and funds for extracurricular activities. As the mothers I interviewed make clear, parents are continually searching for resources that will improve their children’s chances of success. Policies that provide resources for lower-income families who live in underresourced neighborhoods with underresourced schools are particularly important for reducing the stark inequality of opportunity that currently divides lower-income from higher-income families.

Alicia M. Walker is Associate Professor of Sociology at Missouri State University and the author of two previous books on infidelity. She is the current Editor in Chief of the Council of Contemporary Families blog, serves as Senior Fellow with CCF, and serves as Co-Chair of CCF alongside Arielle Kuperberg. Learn more about her on her website. Follow her on Twitter or Bluesky at @AliciaMWalker1 and Instagram @aliciamwalkerphd

Think back to sex ed class (if you had one). Now imagine that class, but remove all mentions of anything beyond straight relationships. For some of you, that might not require any imagination.

For many sexual minority men (gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men), traditional sex and relationship education leaves a lot to be desired. Our recent survey of over 900 sexual minority men across Australia shows just how out of touch these sources can be—and the surprising ways people fill those gaps.

So, What Did We Do?

We asked sexual minority men—who ranged from 18 to 88 years old—to rate the usefulness of different sources of sex and relationship education. These included the usual suspects, like school programs, family, and friends and peers. We also threw in some more modern sources like social media and the internet, popular culture, pornography, and official information from public health sources. The idea was simple: understand how helpful these sources really are for topics that matter, like HIV and STI prevention, relationship skills, consent, and intimacy.

What Did We Find?

Across the board, every source of sex and relationship education was rated as low to moderate in usefulness. Here’s the rundown:

1. Schools and Families: No surprise here—these traditional sex education sources rated the lowest. Many men in our study felt these sources either glossed over or ignored issues that matter in their lives, like relationship skills, consent, and intimacy. But school does seem to cover sexual and reproductive anatomy somewhat.
2. Peers, Friends, Social Media and the Internet: These sources were a bit better for relationship skills, but even friends can only take you so far. Social media and the internet was also somewhat useful, though there’s always the risk of bad information or questionable advice.
3. Official Information Sources: When it came to topics like HIV and STI prevention, health services and public campaigns did get higher marks. These sources have made big strides in promoting safer sex practices among sexual minority men. But for everything else—like learning about intimacy, communication, and consent—they still fell short.
4. Pornography: This one’s interesting. Porn was rated as useful for learning about sexual behaviours, like techniques and positions. However, it wasn’t helpful for learning about healthy relationships or consent, as you might expect. Watching something on screen doesn’t exactly teach you how to communicate with a partner in real life.

Figure 1. Perceived usefulness of each sex and relationship education topic by source.

We also found that apart from pornography, older participants rated nearly all sources as less useful compared to younger men. This could suggest that the ways different age groups access and value information vary greatly. Older men may have had fewer inclusive resources available in their youth, which could impact their trust in these sources.

So, What’s the Takeaway?

The biggest takeaway? Most sex and relationship education sources aren’t covering all the bases for sexual minority men. Schools and families often don’t seem to address same-sex relationships enough (if at all). And while friends, social media, and even porn may appear to fill in some gaps, they’re not giving the whole picture, especially when it comes to building healthy, fulfilling relationships.

Why Does This Matter?

For a lot of people, sex and relationships education is one of the first places they learn about relationships, consent, and intimacy. When these early lessons don’t resonate or feel inclusive, it’s easy for sexual minority men to feel left out—or worse, to lack the guidance they need to make informed decisions. Sure, friends and the internet can help, but this isn’t always reliable or comprehensive education.

Imagine going through life learning about relationships, intimacy, and consent from sporadic online articles, snippets from friends, or random bits of pop culture. That’s where many sexual minority men seem to find themselves today.

What’s Next?

These results make one thing clear: in the eyes of sexual minority men, sex and relationship education needs an upgrade. We need programs that are tailored to include the experiences of sexual minority men—something that speaks to their lives. Topics like relationship skills, intimacy, consent, and HIV prevention all deserve attention, and they should be addressed in ways that don’t make people feel left out or unrepresented.

This study shows that while we’re making strides, there’s a lot more to be done. Our next steps as researchers—and hopefully as educators and public health experts, too—should involve finding out what actually works and how we can give everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, the tools to build healthy, fulfilling relationships.

Our study is available to read online in Sex Education for free.

James Newton is a PhD candidate at the University of Queensland, focusing on the intersections of mental health, social policy, and sexual health education. With over 15 years of experience in clinical and community mental health, James currently leads safety and quality initiatives at a non-government mental health service provider, shaping safe, high-quality mental health services. He’s also an accredited Clinical Social Worker with the Australian Association of Social Workers. Follow him on Twitter [@jamesnewton87], ResearchGate, or LinkedIn.

If you missed the Council on Contemporary Families’ “Families in Perilous Times: A Policy and Public Scholarship Workshop” this October in Baltimore, here’s a recap of the event.

The day began with opening remarks from CCF Chair Arielle Kuperberg, setting the stage for the discussions ahead. The first panel delved into abortion in the post-Dobbs era. Sameera Nayak shared compelling research on abortion access and family planning for immigrants amidst the current legal challenges. Aubrey Jackson Soller followed with an in-depth exploration of contested personhood in abortion legislation. Wrapping up the panel, Carole McCann examined the ways information about abortion circulates online.

The conversation continued with a panel addressing anti-LGBTQ legislation. Barbara Risman opened with a discussion of emerging trends in public policy affecting LGBTQ individuals. Jessica Fish shared her impactful research on LGBTQ youth health. stef shuster offered a thought-provoking analysis of how regret is weaponized against trans people. Finally, Kate Drabinski highlighted their community-based work on LGBTQ+ intergenerational storytelling as a justice practice.

The next panel tackled the pressing issue of student loans. Dan Collier explored how loan balances and payment plans impact the well-being of individuals enrolled in Public Service Loan Forgiveness programs. Fenaba Addo provided critical insights into the intersection of student debt and the value of higher education for Black borrowers. Joan Maya Mazelis and Arielle Kuperberg co-presented their findings on how residential independence and financial dependence after graduation are shaped by student loans. Kuperberg concluded the panel with her research on the implications of the student debt payment pause and its end on families.

The focus then shifted to immigration and families. Bethany Letiecq opened the panel by examining the impact of policy on Central American immigrant families’ daily lives. Zohra Ansari-Thomas presented her research on immigration and aging, while Vanessa Delgado offered insights into the stratified private safety nets of Latino/a immigrant families.

Two of the CCF Early Scholars also showcased their research. Mia Brantley discussed how Black women’s motherhood-related stress intersects with religion as a coping mechanism. Jamie O’Quinn shared her work on early marriage as a response to violence within families of origin.

The afternoon shifted toward practical workshops. Cameron Farrar introduced strategies for using TikTok and social media to make academic research accessible to the public. Elena van Stee provided a hands-on workshop on podcasting, and Alicia M. Walker, Editor in Chief of the CCF Blog, offered valuable advice on crafting blog posts. The session concluded with Joshua Coleman sharing expert tips on writing for mainstream audiences.

Attendees then collaborated on projects such as essays, blog posts, and op-eds or used the opportunity to network. The day concluded with a celebratory reception, where the 2024 CCF Awards were announced. Elena van Stee received the Graduate Student Public Scholar Award. Jessica Calarco earned the Public Scholarship Award. Barbara Risman was honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award, and Laurel Westbrook and stef shuster received the Research Translation Award for their blog post, “Finding Trans Joy in Families We Choose.”

Videos of the panels are available on the CCF YouTube Channel, while workshop recordings are accessible to CCF members.

Alicia M. Walker is Associate Professor of Sociology at Missouri State University and the author of two previous books on infidelity. She is the current Editor in Chief of the Council of Contemporary Families blog, serves as Senior Fellow with CCF, and serves as Co-Chair of CCF alongside Arielle Kuperberg. Learn more about her on her website. Follow her on Twitter or Bluesky at @AliciaMWalker1 and Instagram @aliciamwalkerphd

Reprinted from Council on Contemporary Families Press Release

AUSTIN, TX – MAY 31, 2023

Major health and medical organizations universally recommend six months or more of exclusive breastfeeding to promote children’s development. But meeting this ideal is tough for many mothers. Breastfeeding is time-consuming, labor-intensive, and requires a lot of support from partners and others. Thus, it is not surprising that only 25% of U.S. infants are exclusively breastfed for the recommended six months, and breastfeeding rates are lower among mothers with fewer economic and social resources. Public health initiatives consider increasing rates of breastfeeding in these populations of mothers imperative to improving children’s health and wellbeing.

However, recent research indicates that the benefits of breastfeeding have been overstated, leading some to call into question the assumption that “breast is best.”

A briefing paper released today from the Council on Contemporary Families, “Best for Whom? Breastfeeding and Child Development”, summarizes new research on the relationship between breastfeeding and a comprehensive set of longer-term child development outcomes.

In an article published today online in Social Forces, professors Jessica Houston Su (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Kerri Raissian (University of Connecticut), and doctoral student Jiyeon Kim (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), used longitudinal data from a nationally representative sample of children aged 4-14 to evaluate the relationship between breastfeeding and children’s body mass index (BMI), behavioral development, and cognitive skills. They used cutting-edge statistical techniques to compare children who were breastfed to children who were never breastfed but had very similar characteristics. They also grouped children based on their likelihood of being breastfed and compared the effects of breastfeeding on child development across these different groups.

Su and colleagues found that the benefits of breastfeeding are modest and distributed unequally. They report that breastfeeding provides small benefits for children’s behavioral development, math scores, and academic ability, but only among children who were highly likely to breastfeed. In contrast, among children least likely to breastfeed, breastfeeding appeared to provide small benefits for children’s reading comprehension and vocabulary.

Su and colleagues suggest effects of breastfeeding are incredibly challenging to isolate from the costs and benefits associated with the practice. For example, breastfeeding is associated with prolonged earnings losses for mothers, and in families with fewer economic and social resources, those losses may swamp any benefits of breastfeeding for children. In contrast, mothers who have economic and social advantages are more likely to breastfeed, and this bundle of resources may already provide strong benefits for children’s development, washing out any additional benefits of breastfeeding.

Su and colleagues’ study suggests that the children most likely to benefit from breastfeeding are those with other social and economic advantages, that benefits of breastfeeding are modest, and that breastfeeding is only one of numerous biological and environmental factors that shape children’s development. As Su and colleagues summarize the takeaway: “Efforts to increase breastfeeding rates among populations that are least likely to breastfeed are unlikely to close disparities in child development…To level the playing field, rather than merely telling mothers that “breast is best,” policies should focus on reducing structural barriers and economic costs for mothers who want to breastfeed.”

FURTHER INFORMATION

To contact lead author Jessica Houston Su, email her at jhs@email.unc.edu.

LINKS

Brief report: https://sites.utexas.edu/contemporaryfamilies/2023/05/31/breastfeeding-and-child-development-brief-report/
Press release: https://sites.utexas.edu/contemporaryfamilies/2023/05/31/breastfeeding-and-child-development-press-release/

ABOUT CCF

The Council on Contemporary Families, based at the University of Texas-Austin, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of family researchers and practitioners that seeks to further a national understanding of how America’s families are changing and what is known about the strengths and weaknesses of different family forms and various family interventions.

The Council helps keep journalists informed of new and forthcoming research on gender and family-related issues via the CCF Network. To locate researchers or request copies of previous research briefs, please contact Stephanie Coontz, Director of Research and Public Education, at coontzs@msn.com, cell 360-556-9223.

Follow us! @CCF_Families and https://www.facebook.com/contemporaryfamilies

Reprinted from the Council on Contemporary Families Brief Reports

A briefing paper prepared by Jill E. Yavorsky, University of North Carolina Charlotte, Yue Qian, University of British Columbia, and Liana Christin Landivar, Women’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Labor, for the Council on Contemporary Families symposium The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Future of Gender Equality (PDF).

*Views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the U.S. Department of Labor.

Three years later, women’s careers have still not fully recovered from pandemic-related impacts.

From the beginning of the pandemic, women-dominated jobs were hit hardest with employment losses, and mothers were more likely to lose or quit their jobs because of the additional childcare that fell on their plates due to school and childcare closures.

In a set of new studies, we examine career outcomes using data spanning the start of the pandemic through 2023 and uncover critical ways in which mothers’ careers are still lagging behind all others.  We also find that a mothers’ education level is a key determinant for the type of career consequence they face.

In the beginning of 2023, the employment of mothers without a college degree – a group hit hardest in the early months of the pandemic – had still not recovered, as our recent research shows.  Their employment remained lower in February 2023 than what it was pre-pandemic. In contrast, employment for fathers with and without a college degree and college-educated mothers fully recovered in 2021.

These results align with our new research based on Current Population Survey data showing that among those without a college degree and who had quit, been fired, or laid off during the pandemic, partnered mothers with children under age 13 were significantly less likely than comparable fathers to find new employment.

Why has lower educated mothers’ employment not rebounded?

Certainly, the concentration of mothers without a college degree in job sectors that experienced large employment reductions, such as the service industry, contributed to their sharp losses in employment early in the pandemic, and greater losses compared to fathers. But even within job sectors, mothers lost or left jobs at higher rates than fathers in nearly all industries.

Two big reasons many mothers left the labor force early in the pandemic and some have not returned are worsening childcare challenges and a lack of access to family-friendly workplace benefits.

New research shows that mothers who could work from home sustained employment at higher rates throughout the pandemic than those who were in jobs requiring on-site work. Unfortunately, few low-income jobs provide the ability to work from home or access to paid leave, making it difficult to meet intense caregiving obligations that grew over the pandemic and for some remained persistent.

For example, our new research using the American Community Survey, Current Population Survey, and the Elementary School Operating Status database shows that the impact of school closures had a particularly lingering negative effect on lower educated mothers’ employment. About 24% of elementary students were in school districts that did not fully reopen for between a year to a year and a half, a very prolonged gap in care infrastructure for young kids who still need supervision.

Our research shows it is mothers who picked up this added care, for many at the expense of their jobs. School closures for elementary students were associated with a 5 percentage point increase in the employment gap between mothers and fathers without a college degree. And notably, this gap persisted even 6 months after schools reopened.

Moreover, many childcare providers raised their prices or closed during the pandemic, making it even more difficult to find nearby and affordable childcare for lower educated mothers – many of whom already lived in childcare deserts or strained to meet high childcare prices before the pandemic.

What about college-educated mothers’ jobs?

If long-term employment hits largely did not impact college-educated mothers, then one might surmise that this group of women did not suffer any long-term career consequences. However, our new research suggests otherwise.

We conducted two studies that provide insights into the potential repercussions for college-educated women who remained employed during the pandemic.

First, we find that college-educated mothers experienced the largest motherhood wage penalty since the early 2000s, reversing twenty years of progress for this group of women. The motherhood wage penalty captures wage differences between mothers and non-mothers who have similar characteristics.

Prior to the pandemic, the motherhood wage gap for college-educated women had been eliminated, such that mothers and non-mothers earned similar wages. However, three years into the pandemic, college-educated mothers experienced a 6% wage penalty, relative to non-mothers.

As the graph below shows, wages for both mothers and non-mothers with a college degree took a hit after the onset of the pandemic in 2020, but non-mothers’ wages rebounded, whereas mothers’ wages did not.

Predicted Hourly Wage for Women with a College Degree

Note. For analysis shown in graph, we used months March through December for each of the years to maintain consistency across time and to capture the dip of the pandemic which began in March 2020.

We find that about a quarter of the wage penalty can be explained by either mothers holding jobs that experienced smaller wage gains in 2021 than the jobs that non-mothers held, and/or mothers switched into lower paying jobs during the pandemic, in part due to heightened work-family conflict.

Increases in the motherhood wage penalty may have also been due to heightened employer discrimination against mothers who experienced productivity losses, as many highly educated mothers suffered temporary productivity declines during the pandemic due to the additional childcare and housework they absorbed.

In a new study, we find that managers particularly penalize mothers for temporary declines in job productivity that result from childcare issues.

Specifically, managers distribute 30% fewer career rewards to mothers, compared to fathers, when their productivity temporarily declines due to childcare issues outside their control. There are no gender gaps in rewards when the employee’s productivity increases or stays constant from previous productivity levels (before they had childcare issues). We find that this is due to managers perceiving mothers as being less committed to their jobs and less interested in advancing in their careers than fathers.

What our results mean for gender progress

Taken together, our new studies show that mothers are continuing to suffer losses in employment, wages, and career advancement due to the COVID-19 pandemic – but in varying ways across educational levels. Lower-educated mothers are less likely to be employed since the pandemic, whereas higher-educated mothers, likely because of their ability to work remotely and greater access to childcare, have been able to retain their jobs but may be experiencing wage and promotion losses along with other career penalties.

To achieve a gender-equitable post-pandemic recovery, organizational and public policies are particularly needed to support labor market re-entry, equitable wages, and fair chances of moving through the career ladder.

And, our findings make clear that to jumpstart gender progress for all women, it is critical to build a more reliable, accessible, and affordable care infrastructure.

About the Authors

Jill E. Yavorsky is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of North Carolina – Charlotte.  She can be reached at jyavorsk@charlotte.edu.  You can follow her on Twitter @JillYavorsky1. 

Yue Qian is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of British Columbia. She can be reached at yue.qian@ubc.ca. You can follow her on Twitter at @yueqian_soc.

Liana Christin Landivar is a senior researcher at the Women’s Bureau in the U.S. Department of Labor and faculty affiliate at the Maryland Population Research Center. She can be reached at liana.c.landivar@gmail.com.

American caregivers want work-family policies.  Americans generally support work-family policies, like paid family leave and childcare subsidies, yet the United States fails to provide these policies to all families on a federal level.  Because of the popularity of these programs and the support they would bring to working families, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have introduced bills with work-family policies. Yet these bills have not become enacted into law, whether they were introduced by Democrats or Republicans.  Policymakers must unravel the paradox of why these popular policies aren’t gaining enough political support. What drives Americans to support work-family policies, and what gives them pause?

Without work-family policies in place, American families were left largely to fend for themselves during the pandemic, when the government provided only temporary cash support for families.  Did the need for these policies became even more clear to American caregivers during that time?  

We asked American caregivers in 2022 about their opinions on five work-family policies: (1) paid family leave, (2) subsidized childcare, (3) universal preschool, (4) job protections for caregivers, and (5) access to remote work. 

              In interviews conducted over Zoom as the pandemic waned, more than 100 American caregivers told us their opinions on these policies, often explaining their reasoning and the extent to which the pandemic impacted their views.  Using their own words, we analyzed their explanations of their opinions on work-family policies. 

Overall, we found strong support for all of these policies from respondents of all genders and political ideologies, and that support grew higher during the pandemic.  We distilled their reasons for supporting these policies into four key themes.  First, respondents highlighted a governmental responsibility to help American families.  As Caroline, a conservative and mother of 2, stated, “I 100% support [these policies].  I feel like as a country, we need to take care of one another.”  Second, respondents felt that these policies should exist as a tradeoff to American workers for their labor.  Zariya, a moderate and mother of 1, explained: “If I am getting up and coming to a job every day to make sure that the needs of their job is being met, then that job should be making sure that I am secure in all aspects.”  Respondents also recognized that the federal government could organize the policies in a way to ensure that employers would comply.  Wilson, a conservative and father of 1, would have preferred to leave work-family policies to employers, but he had no confidence that the policies would reach the families in need: “In a perfect world, employers would offer such things. But I also think that, if they can get away with not doing it, they would.” Finally, respondents hoped to see federal work-family policies when making international (or national) comparisons.  Some respondents, like Ethan, a moderate and father of 2, made comparisons within the United States: “I made use of California’s paid family leave program, and I think it was great. So, I would support Congress doing the same.”  Joanna, a liberal and mother of 2, compared U.S. policies to those in other countries: “We’re the only … developed nation in the world that doesn’t offer anything to its citizens [for paid family leave], which is just mind blowing.  …It’s a tragedy.”

Respondents also shared their concerns and hesitations about these policies, though these were not strong enough reservations for them to oppose the policies.  We distilled these into four themes as well.  First, many respondents were uncomfortable with any directive or mandate from the government, even for policies that they hoped to see enacted.  For example, John, a moderate and father of 2, supported remote work access “as long as it’s [the employer’s] decision—it shouldn’t be mandated that they change anything—but yeah, I think it’s great because a lot of jobs could be done remotely.”  Another major concern arose from the potential for others’ misuse of the policies.  Sam, a conservative and father of 3, suggested that job protections for caregivers should have a means of accountability to limit misuse: “I think that makes sense where if you’re taking it, I think probably they should make you verify that’s what you’re really doing versus ‘taking care of my sick aunt’ for three years.” Respondents also shared a concern that the policies might harm small businesses, misunderstanding how work-family policies would be financed. Suzy, a liberal and mother of 1, was concerned about the financial burden that paid family leave might have, without recognizing the role of government financing: “For the most part, I’d be for it, but the small businesses, I think it would be really rough on.”  Finally, some respondents wanted to avoid any increased taxes they might face as a result of work-family policies.  Respondents with this concern tended to oppose the policies altogether.  As Shirley, a moderate and mother of 2, explained: “Anything that government provides support for comes out of our paychecks at some point anyway, and we’re already paying enough.”

              American caregivers overwhelmingly support work-family policies: because they know well the challenges and expenses involved in raising children and working, respondents see how these supportive policies could help all American families face their costs and pressures.  But respondents also shared many reasons for distrust: in other individuals, in increased governmental taxes and regulations, and in the misperceived burden—but real concern—for small businesses.  Despite their concerns, especially after the challenges of the pandemic, our respondents sought carefully crafted policies to limit their concerns and provide better opportunities for American families.