sexuality

Anytime Jean Kilbourne has a new book out, I pay attention. And last week, I came upon her latest while hunting for that new ProBlogger book at B&N. Kilbourne’s latest is called So Sexy, So Soon: The New Sexualized Childhood and What Parents Can Do to Protect Their Kids, and it’s coauthored with education professor Diane Levin.

I was waiting for someone to come out with this book. Like The Lolita Effect: The Media Sexualization of Young Girls and What We Can Do About It (note the similarity of the subtitles), the authors accuse the media of sexualizing children. No surprise there. But what does sound surprising is the extremity of the anecdotes. Here’s from the Publishers Weekly review:

Constantly, American children are exposed to a barrage of sexual images in television, movies, music and the Internet. They are taught young that buying certain clothes, consuming brand-name soft drinks and owning the right possessions will make them sexy and cool—and being sexy and cool is the most important thing. Young men and women are spoon-fed images that equate sex with violence, paint women as sexually subservient to men and encourage hooking up rather than meaningful connections. The result is that kids are having sex younger and with more partners than ever before. Eating disorders and body image issues are common as early as grade school. Levin and Kilbourne stress that there is nothing wrong with a young person’s natural sexual awakening, but it is wrong to allow a young person’s sexuality to be hijacked by corporations who want them as customers. The authors offer advice on how parents can limit children’s exposure to commercialized sex, and how parents can engage kids in constructive, age-appropriate conversation about sex and the media. One need only read the authors’ anecdotes to see why this book is relevant.

Any of you parents–or girls studies experts–out there got your own advice on dealing with this phenomenon? Inquiring minds are eager to know.

Oh, how men take pride in their sperm.

As a fertility specialist cum (hey no pun – it’s Latin) interview subject recently told me, often when a man learns that his sperm are plentiful, mobile, and strong, he’ll proclaim right then and there: “My guys are good! My guys are good!” Meanwhile, awaiting her diagnosis, his partner will slowly retreat back in her chair. And get this: even in an era when severe male factor infertility is one of the diagnoses most easy to treat, some guys who go in with their partners for fertility workups refuse to go through with the semen analysis because they’re too afraid of the results. For more on all this, of course, check out Sperm Counts: Overcome [pun intended] by Man’s Most Precious Fluid by sociology and women’s studies prof Lisa Jean Moore, a book I blogged about here a while back.

So with all that as a prelude, I thought I’d start out the week by karmically balancing the universe. Color me 1970s, but I firmly believe that more women should greet the news that their ovaries are working with “My Girls Are Good!” Or something like that. “Girls” doesn’t quite cut it. Any one out there got an alternative expression for ovum pride? I’m taking suggestions.

Here today is Adina Nack with a fantastic guest post on how STD stereotypes have led to the mismarketing of the HPV vaccine as a cervical cancer vaccine. An associate professor of sociology, who has directed California Lutheran University’s Center for Equality and Justice and their Gender and Women’s Studies Program, and author of Damaged Goods?, Adina asks some provocative questions about the consequences this gendered mislabeling will have for public health awareness. –Kristen

The “Cervical Cancer” Vaccine, STD Stigma & the Truth about HPVby Adina Nack

You’ve probably seen one of Merck‘s ads which promote GARDASIL as the first cervical cancer vaccine. Last year, their commercials featured teenage girls telling us they want to be “one less” woman with cervical cancer. GARDASIL’s website features new TV spots which say the vaccine helps prevent “other HPV diseases,” too, and end with, “You have the power to choose,” but do you, the viewer, know what you are choosing?

A clue that this is a STD vaccine appears briefly at the bottom of the screen: “HPV is Human Papillomavirus.” Merck’s goal may have been to appeal to parents who are squeamish about vaccinating their daughters against 4 types of virus which are almost always sexually transmitted. This marketing strategy means that the U.S. public, currently undereducated about HPV, is none the wiser about this family of viruses which infect millions in the U.S. and worldwide each year. When the ads briefly mention “other HPV diseases,” how many realize they’re talking about genital/anal warts and that recent studies link HPV with oral/throat cancers? [You don’t need to have a cervix (or even a vagina) to contract any of these “other” HPV diseases.] Why don’t they want us to know the whole truth about the vaccine?

Branding GARDASIL as a cervical cancer vaccine was aimed at winning public support. But, what are the consequences of a campaign built on half-truths? Today, only females, ages 9-26, can be protected against strains of a virus that may have serious consequences for boys/men and women past their mid-20s. If public health is the goal, then let’s question how our STD attitudes shaped a marketing plan which has, in turn, influenced drug policy.

Marketing a “cervical cancer” vaccine may have appeased some social conservatives who don’t want their daughters vaccinated against any STD, fearing it might promote premarital sex. But, the vaccine will likely soon be available to males, and their anatomy does not include a cervix — will girls get a “cervical cancer” vaccine and boys get a HPV vaccine? The current gender-biased policy supports a centuries old double-standard of sexual morality. Most view STD infections as more damaging to women than to men. Many believe that STDs result from promiscuity — girls/women deserve what they get. So, are we ready to embrace any STD vaccine (including a future HIV vaccine) as a preventive health measure?

Having studied women with HPV, I know that a person can contract the virus from nonconsensual sex or from their first sexual partner — you could still be a ‘technical’ virgin since skin-to-skin contact, not penetration, is the route of transmission. In my new book, Damaged Goods?, I take readers inside the lives of 43 women who have struggled to negotiate the stigma of having a chronic STD. One chapter delves into stereotypes about the types of people who get STDs: these beliefs not only skew our perceptions of STD risk (bad things only happen to bad people) but also can psychologically scar us if we contract one of those diseases. Merck’s branding of GARDASIL makes sense: a typical U.S. teenage girl or young woman has good reason to fear others’ judgments of her — thinking her to be promiscuous, dirty, naïve, and irresponsible — if they knew she’d sought out a STD vaccine. Whereas, getting a “cervical cancer” vaccine feels more like something that a responsible girl/woman would do.

Unfortunately, with GARDASIL taking the easy way out, the U.S. public misses a prime opportunity to learn about this prevalent, easily transmitted disease that is unfortunately difficult to test for. We’ve also lost a chance to take on STD stigma and challenge the population to view sexually transmitted infections as medical problems rather than as blemishes of moral character.

No vaccine is 100% effective and neither are the treatment options for HPV infections. STD stereotypes (particularly negative about infected women) come back to haunt those of us who become infected with diseases like HPV and herpes, which are treatable but not curable. Until there’s a ‘magic bullet’ cure, we should educate ourselves not only about medical facts but also about STD stigma — the anxiety, fear, shame and guilt — that often proves more damaging to the lives of those infected than the viruses, themselves.

Three quick hits this afternoon (courtesy Rebekah Spicuglia) regarding new info about women’s health here and abroad:

Saving Mothers, One at a Time
7/15/08
NY Times: According to a 2007 study of global maternal mortality rates, more than two-thirds of deaths among Malawian women of reproductive age are linked to pregnancy or childbirth – a larger proportion than in any of the 171 countries in the study.

Teen Sexual Behavior Does Not Predict HPV Risk
7/16/08
RHRealityCheck.org: A teen’s sexual activity doesn’t predict her future risk for HPV, and shouldn’t determine whether she receives the HPV vaccine, according to University of Michigan researchers. HPV, genital human papillomavirus, is the most common sexually transmitted infection, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Study Questions Breast Self-Exams
7/15/08
Boston Globe: Although most women are told to examine their breasts every month for lumps, new research confirms that the practice – on its own – may do more harm than good. Self exams, and those by healthcare providers, actually produce an increase in benign biopsies, but don’t get the patient into treatment earlier or save her life.

(Image is from Women’s Health 2009: The 17th Annual Congress)

This just in, via Patti Binder: As part of the 3rd Annual New York State Day to End Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, Girls Education and Mentoring Services (GEMS) has reserved a limited amount of complimentary tickets for guests that are still interested in attending the screening of VERY YOUNG GIRLS. Email Makia Kambon at Makia@gems-girls to reserve one of the complimentary tickets today.

Screening of VERY YOUNG GIRLS &
Youth Leadership Panel
Friday, June 20th at 6:30pm

6:30pm: Hear directly from the members of GEMS as they discuss their leadership role in the movement to end CSEC. All attendees will receive a copy of GEMS White Paper on Youth Leadership in the Movement to End Commercial Sexual Exploitation, funded generously by the Ms. Foundation.

7:30pm: Attend a special screening of the SHOWTIME/Swinging T documentary VERY YOUNG GIRLS. This documentary highlights the experiences of the girls that GEMS serves. This compelling film provides an opportunity to hear the girls’ tell their own stories in their own words. Co-sponsored by the Fordham Institute for Women and Girls.

Tickets for Screening**:$25 General Admission
$10 Students/ Non-Profits

Click here to RSVP and purchase tickets online.

This morning I’m pleased to bring you another rockin guest post from Virginia Rutter, sociology prof at Framingham State College, who is, in my estimation, quite nice. And a sassy writer to boot. Enjoy! -GWP

It Isn’t Nice, by Virginia Rutter

“It isn’t nice.” That is how I explained my extremely negative response to Todd Purdum’s Vanity Fair article on Bill Clinton and to TP’s press interviews this week. It isn’t nice to go around speculating about people’s sex lives (at least in public), but TP did. It isn’t nice to speculate about their health either. TP did.

Todd Purdum dedicates his first several paragraphs drawing tawdry atmosphere—we get the whiff of “Air Fuck One” that whisked Bill’s attendant “motley crew” to a wedding last summer in Paris. This sets the tone. And then for balance, there’s a line or two about, oh jeepers y’all, I’m not saying there is any evidence of philandering. Golly, I just want to tell you that some of Clinton’s old staffers worry about it. And then more paragraphs of tawdry atmosphere.

(1-800-CALL FOUCAULT is how my friends in the English department respond.)

One of the nice things, to me, about leaving behind the 1990s was leaving behind this kind of pants-sniffing political story telling. (Is that a not-nice thing to say? I’ll ponder that.) Remember, the story telling we have this decade is about the big lies we know about – on the economy, the war, on civil liberties, not little hypothetical lies we heard someone say someone said something about. That’s just not nice.

But here is what was pathetic: In interviews, TP is all like, I wasn’t insinuating anything about Bill Clinton’s behavior. The facts I am reporting are about how some Clinton staffers are worried about some people who are talking and thinking it might be possible that maybe Bill is, has, or will mess around. The news: someone feels anxious thinking about sex.

(1-800-CALL FREUD is how my friends in the psychology department respond.)

In interview after interview, TP keeps to his message, I repeat I am not insinuating about Bill’s sex life, I have no information about that. Sounds (ironically), a little bit like “depends upon what the definition of is is.” That’s soooo 1990s. That’s not nice—wasn’t then, isn’t now.

Here’s the deal, TP: write your “sleazy” story whatever way you want, whatever way your editors will tolerate or goad you into. If you can tolerate not being nice, and it passes muster in your business, go ahead. And, if you do it in the service of asking the hard questions, about financing his foundation, his livelihood, well, reasonable minds can accept that. But don’t also be pathetic.

And that brings me to the health stuff. The TP anxiety report extends the apprehension among well meaning FOBs about the psychological impact of his heart by-pass surgery. Makes you cranky. Impulsive. Changes your personality. No doubt big medical interventions, similar to a trauma, influence–or have the odds of influencing–state of mind. But if you are going to speculate about that, some other facts in evidence merit consideration—aka speculation—too. What else could influence Bill’s state of mind and make him irritable or impulsive? Let’s see, there’s the trauma of the 2000 election, the doubledarktrauma of the 2004 election, the traumatimesinfinity that has been the Bush administration. You could say, well we should all be a little irritable (aren’t we?)—but as irritable as the regular folk are, think about this happening when the party and the government are your baby.

And then there is the issue of gender. Just like there are no good gender scripts available for a woman in a powerful position and how best to respond when people market a nutcracker in her image (and the like), there are equally no good gender scripts available for a man in a powerful position to respond to this kind of treatment of the woman he loves.

What I mean by gender scripts is that nearly all women—whether feminist or not—are raised with ideas about delicacy; nearly all men—whether a former president or not—are raised with ideas about protectiveness. What can give a person irritatsia is when the scripts are uncertain. Bill Clinton is a feminist man who has forged a partnership with a woman who is his equal; he has given real support to her. He hasn’t been perfect. But the gender trap in this situation isn’t his clinging to old ideas of male privilege, it is not having a way to reconcile all those expectations about gallantry with the expectations Bill has bought into about equality in his marriage. And if you are a man reading this you may recall times when you have felt damn irritable, maybe even sometimes reactive, when it seems impossible to get it right.

From the look of Todd Purdum’s Vanity Fair piece, it seems impossible for Bill to get it right. Turns out it is impossible for any of us to get it right. Including TP. And I think that understanding that is being nice.

So Philip Weiss recently “reported” in New York Magazine on the secret lives of married men. And the gals at Slate’s XX Factor blog responded, calling the piece “not an outré confession but a fiftysomething baby boomer’s long-winded attempt to rationalize his desire to screw a variety of women despite being married.” I concur. Though Weiss’ article presents itself as provocative and edgy, the piece is inflected with the naïve, wishful rhetoric of 1970s thinking about sex. Here’s the XXers’ take:

Weiss explains that men “hunger for sexual variety” and determines that this hunger is “a basic and natural and more or less irresistible impulse.” He reports that men are using more porn than ever and quotes Mark Penn wondering what will happen when women “realize it.” He notes that sexless marriages among power couples are endemic. He harps on his own desire for “some[thing] strange.” Yet when his exasperated wife proposes an open marriage in response to all his bellyaching, he flinches at the thought that she might avail herself of the new rules, too.

Ah, Phillip. Double standard, much?

Some interesting tidbits today, once more, on momhood:

First, an interesting article by Paul Nyhan in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, reporting that the gap between the demands of work and home in 2008 remains wide, far wider for those sitting on the bottom and in the middle of the wage scale, according to Virginia Rutter, a senior fellow with Council on Contemporary Families. They have less money for child care and often face meager benefits at work.

In another twist, older moms are more likely to keep working after having children than younger moms, according to an analysis of federal data by former Bureau of Labor Statistics economist Charlotte Yee. In 2004, 67 percent of moms age 30 to 44 were in the labor force after having their first child, compared with 56 percent of moms in the 20 to 24 age range.

And finally, a propos of this weekend’s grand opening of Sex and the City, a Slate article reports that one of the three married mommies innocently trailing their little tyke is cheating. Wowza. The data comes from a new “Sex and the American Mom” survey conducted by Cookie magazine and AOL Body and apparently filled in by 30,000 women. Researchers, does this data ring true?

Well, speakin’ of reproduction! This just in via Elaine Tyler May, who currently teaches at the University of Minnesota and was twelve years old in 1960 when the Pill was approved by the FDA. Although not yet old enough back then for the event to have had any personal significance for her, she was already interested in the subject because her father was one of the clinical researchers who helped develop the Pill, and her mother was a founder of free birth control clinics in Los Angeles. She’s now doing research for a book and asks that this query be passed around widely. Please pass it on!

To learn more about Elaine and her oevre–which includes the groundbreaking book Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era—click here.

Dear Friends (and friends of friends…),

The Pill is often considered one of the most important innovations of the twentieth century. As I investigate this claim for a new book—set for release on the 50th anniversary of the Pill’s FDA approval (Basic Books, 2010)—I’m looking to include the voices and stories of real people. I hope yours will be one of them. I’m eager to hear from men as well as women, of all ages and backgrounds.

Have you or any of your partners taken the Pill? Why or why not? How did it work for you—physically, emotionally, and ethically? How has it compared with other contraceptive methods you or your partners have used?
· What has been the impact of the Pill on your sex life, relationships, political or social attitudes, and beliefs about the medical or pharmaceutical establishments?
· Do you have opinions about public policies related to access, availability, approval or limitations on the development and distribution of the Pill and related contraceptive products (the patch, the “morning after pill,” long-term injections, etc.).
· Anything else you think I should know?

Send me your most richly detailed answers to any and all of these questions (and don’t forget to include your age, gender, where you live, occupation, ethnic/religious/racial background, sexual orientation, marital status, political party affiliation, or any other biographical info you think is important). If you would like to participate in my study but would prefer to respond to a questionnaire, please let me know and I will happily send you one.

I’m interested in hearing from men and women who have used the Pill and those who have not, those who used it briefly or a long time ago, or who use it now. I am also eager to hear from people who work in fields that relate to the use and availability of the Pill (such as medicine, public health, social work, education, etc.). You will remain anonymous. I will use your contact information only to respond to you directly and to let you know when the book will be available for purchase (at a discount to contributors!).

And just one more thing. I not only want to hear your voice, but the voices of those you love, teach, preach to, learn from, and work with.

Please pass this request on! The more responses I receive, and the greater the diversity of respondents, the more the book will reflect the wide range of experiences and attitudes that have shaped the Pill’s history over the last half century. I hope to hear from you. Please write to me at elainetylermay@gmail.com.

Thanks very much! Elaine Tyler May

University of Iowa journalism professor M. Gigi Durham has a debut book out called The Lolita Effect: The Media Sexualization of Young Girls and What We Can Do About It. And it’s about time. If I see one more ad for Beyonce’s clothing line featuring tarted up toddlers working it, I’m going to scream.

Here’s word on the book from Publisher’s Weekly:

We’ve all seen it–the tiny T-shirts with sexually suggestive slogans, the four-year-old gyrating to a Britney Spears song, the young boy shooting prostitutes in his video game–and…Durham has had enough. In her debut book, she argues that the media–from advertisements to Seventeen magazine–are circulating damaging myths that distort, undermine and restrict girls’ sexual progress. Durham, who describes herself as “pro-girl” and “pro-media,” does more than criticize profit-driven media, recognizing as part of the problem Americans’ contradictory willingness to view sexualized ad images but not to talk about sex. Chapters expose five media myths: that by flaunting her “hotness” a little girl is acting powerfully; that Barbie has the ideal body; that children–especially little girls–are sexy; that violence against women is sexy; and that girls must learn what boys want, but not vice versa. After debunking each myth, Durham offers practical suggestions for overcoming these falsehoods, including sample questions for parents and children. In a well-written and well-researched book, she exposes a troubling phenomenon and calls readers to action.

May this book–and its message–travel far and wide. For Salon’s review, click here.