This is going around the interwebs today:
The Evolution of Girls' Halloween Costumes
I've made it a policy not to engage in debate with the friends of acquaintances, but when the friend of a friend commented on Facebook that feminism, secularism, and sex positivity were to blame for this phenomenon, I decided to come here to discuss the many ways she's wrong.
Patriarchy manifests itself differently in different cultures. In theocracies, it may come with the expectation that a woman remain completely modest in dress and behavior, norms that may or may not be enforced by law. In our capitalist society, however, patriarchy manifests as the idea that our bodies - and our sexualities - are commodities to be bought and sold, cheered on and exploited by the standards of the male gaze.
The common theme is that our bodies are not our own; they are controlled by a system of oppression, or sometimes even by another human being directly. Whether we're being forced to cover ourselves against our will or made to believe that our only worth comes in being sexy for another person's enjoyment, it's all patriarchy, and it's all intensely detrimental.
So the sexy costumes. I have friends who enjoy them immensely. But you know what? They're grown adults who have chosen - though likely through a lifetime of socialization - to don very skimpy outfits on Halloween, at parties, etc. Most of them wouldn't be caught dead in a Halloween store's $10 faux corset, but at a glance their wardrobe choices appear similar to the costumes I tend to roll my eyes at. Which is to say, I don't exactly cheer on the practice, but I do respect it as a means of self-expression, a reflection of our patriarchal society though it may be.
It gets hairy when you start parsing "choice" and "autonomy" with the knowledge that we do not exist in a vacuum, that all our behaviors and choices are influenced by the way we've been brought up. But what we can probably all agree on is that the availability of these ever-shrinking costumes - and the disappearance of other options - pollutes the minds of girls from a very early age. If from a young age a girl consistently sees nothing but outfits that highlight her chest and fall far above her knee, how can we even begin to hope that she will be able to express her sexuality autonomously as an adult?
Make no mistakes... the sexualization of young girls is not the result of feminism, secularism, or sex positivity (ideals that all deem autonomous decision making and healthy sexuality of high value). No, childhood sexualization comes, not surprisingly, from our culture's version of patriarchy: a capitalist view that sees bodies as objects to be bought and sold.
Showing posts with label sex and sexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex and sexuality. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Thursday, September 20, 2012
The Waiters
So this came to my attention today.
Okay, for the record, being sex positive means not judging people for their sexual tastes and practices. And that includes not judging folks who, how to put this, "wait" until they're married to do the deed. I certainly don't judge the author of the above article for his relationship choices, despite the fact that he probably thinks I do. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a way outdated concept riddled with oppressive societal norms, but as a friend of mine likes to say, "If abstinence is your fetish, who am I to judge?"
The issue I have with "The Waiters" is that they're so fucking high and mighty about it. They think that the rest of us - the slutty promiscuous sinners who surely will never find true happiness because we just "give it away" to anything that moves - actually want the same things but just don't have the strength or moral integrity to "do things right."
WHICH IS PATHETIC. It's a dream world. I never harbored some uber-sanctified idea of my "virginity." I don't believe "virginity" is even a real physiological state; to me, it's a social construct kept locked up behind a facade of bunk science and poor understanding of reproductive anatomy. And again, if you want to place value on the concept of virginity, then by all means. That's your business. But don't start pulling information from a 19th century textbook to tell me that all women bleed like a slaughtered pig the first time they have intercourse.
So no, I never saw much value in waiting until marriage, in the concept of my supposed "virginity." Does that mean I don't respect myself or my body? Have poor self esteem? Need to "give it up" to keep a man around? Hardly. Let's look at the facts: I have never had sex with someone because I needed to be validated. The only time I've ever had sex under any kind of pressure that surpassed my own autonomy was in a bad relationship that needed to end (a married relationship, at that).
Bad relationship drama aside, I have remained very sexually autonomous in a world that would love to see me otherwise. To start, I was very well educated, mostly by my private (but not religious) school which actually taught comprehensive sex education. The first time I had sex, I was just a few days shy of 17. My boyfriend and I talked it over, we evolved to a place where becoming sexual with one another was something we were both comfortable with, and oh yeah, WE USED PROTECTION. And you know what? I don't regret a thing.
I understand that I'm treading into becoming high and mighty myself, so I want to interject here that I am not trying victim blame. I understand that sexual relationships are far too often entered into for unhealthy reasons, and I believe good, moral people fall into the traps set by a system of inequality between the sexes. So let me say this: anyone who manipulates someone else into having sex with them is a stain upon the wonderful world of human sexuality. The people who fall for it are generally socialized to do so by a system of capitalist patriarchy, which teaches us (particularly those of us with girl parts) that sex is a commodity to be bought and sold while simultaneously shaming us for taking part in it. (Consequently, this is the same system that the aforementioned author likely aligns himself with... food for thought.)
But back to the article. "Oh, we're so much better than that woman who's husband is sleeping it off because we actually feel different today!" You ever stop to think that maybe that couple doesn't want your life? That they don't want your marriage? That they simply didn't perceive their wedding to be this sudden, life-altering event, but rather a wonderful milestone in an already-evolving relationship?
Naw, they wanted to wait, to not live together first. They just fell to temptation. They're weak. Their morals are in shambles. Your way is so much better.
Fuck your understanding of morals. Morality isn't something you abide by just because some centuries-old book tells you to. Morality is something you have internalized for yourself, and even if it does come from a religious influence, you've still internalized it for personal reasons. I'm a very moral person, but for a number of reasons I could never internalize the kind of morality that your religion pushes. However, I do have extremely clear guidelines for how I handle everything from conflict to sexuality, and I very rarely waiver on any of it. One of my favorite morals is non-judgment. As I've said, I don't judge The Waiters. That's their business. But I have a very clear moral duty to call them out on their bullshit when I see them doing harm by passing moral judgment on others.
"Oh, but marriage is just the way to go." Right, because sexual relationships are always great if you're married. People never use sex to manipulate their partners in a marriage. A married man never rapes or sexually assaults his wife. All relationship problems would just magically be solved if everyone would just get married.
Whatever. I hope he and his wife enjoy a long and happy life in whatever alternate reality they currently reside in.
Enough ranting and cursing for now... Jezebel makes it better with all the hilarious GIFs.
Okay, for the record, being sex positive means not judging people for their sexual tastes and practices. And that includes not judging folks who, how to put this, "wait" until they're married to do the deed. I certainly don't judge the author of the above article for his relationship choices, despite the fact that he probably thinks I do. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a way outdated concept riddled with oppressive societal norms, but as a friend of mine likes to say, "If abstinence is your fetish, who am I to judge?"
The issue I have with "The Waiters" is that they're so fucking high and mighty about it. They think that the rest of us - the slutty promiscuous sinners who surely will never find true happiness because we just "give it away" to anything that moves - actually want the same things but just don't have the strength or moral integrity to "do things right."
WHICH IS PATHETIC. It's a dream world. I never harbored some uber-sanctified idea of my "virginity." I don't believe "virginity" is even a real physiological state; to me, it's a social construct kept locked up behind a facade of bunk science and poor understanding of reproductive anatomy. And again, if you want to place value on the concept of virginity, then by all means. That's your business. But don't start pulling information from a 19th century textbook to tell me that all women bleed like a slaughtered pig the first time they have intercourse.
So no, I never saw much value in waiting until marriage, in the concept of my supposed "virginity." Does that mean I don't respect myself or my body? Have poor self esteem? Need to "give it up" to keep a man around? Hardly. Let's look at the facts: I have never had sex with someone because I needed to be validated. The only time I've ever had sex under any kind of pressure that surpassed my own autonomy was in a bad relationship that needed to end (a married relationship, at that).
Bad relationship drama aside, I have remained very sexually autonomous in a world that would love to see me otherwise. To start, I was very well educated, mostly by my private (but not religious) school which actually taught comprehensive sex education. The first time I had sex, I was just a few days shy of 17. My boyfriend and I talked it over, we evolved to a place where becoming sexual with one another was something we were both comfortable with, and oh yeah, WE USED PROTECTION. And you know what? I don't regret a thing.
I understand that I'm treading into becoming high and mighty myself, so I want to interject here that I am not trying victim blame. I understand that sexual relationships are far too often entered into for unhealthy reasons, and I believe good, moral people fall into the traps set by a system of inequality between the sexes. So let me say this: anyone who manipulates someone else into having sex with them is a stain upon the wonderful world of human sexuality. The people who fall for it are generally socialized to do so by a system of capitalist patriarchy, which teaches us (particularly those of us with girl parts) that sex is a commodity to be bought and sold while simultaneously shaming us for taking part in it. (Consequently, this is the same system that the aforementioned author likely aligns himself with... food for thought.)
But back to the article. "Oh, we're so much better than that woman who's husband is sleeping it off because we actually feel different today!" You ever stop to think that maybe that couple doesn't want your life? That they don't want your marriage? That they simply didn't perceive their wedding to be this sudden, life-altering event, but rather a wonderful milestone in an already-evolving relationship?
Naw, they wanted to wait, to not live together first. They just fell to temptation. They're weak. Their morals are in shambles. Your way is so much better.
Fuck your understanding of morals. Morality isn't something you abide by just because some centuries-old book tells you to. Morality is something you have internalized for yourself, and even if it does come from a religious influence, you've still internalized it for personal reasons. I'm a very moral person, but for a number of reasons I could never internalize the kind of morality that your religion pushes. However, I do have extremely clear guidelines for how I handle everything from conflict to sexuality, and I very rarely waiver on any of it. One of my favorite morals is non-judgment. As I've said, I don't judge The Waiters. That's their business. But I have a very clear moral duty to call them out on their bullshit when I see them doing harm by passing moral judgment on others.
"Oh, but marriage is just the way to go." Right, because sexual relationships are always great if you're married. People never use sex to manipulate their partners in a marriage. A married man never rapes or sexually assaults his wife. All relationship problems would just magically be solved if everyone would just get married.
Whatever. I hope he and his wife enjoy a long and happy life in whatever alternate reality they currently reside in.
Enough ranting and cursing for now... Jezebel makes it better with all the hilarious GIFs.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Our Foreskins, Ourselves
A number of people have asked me my opinion on the new American Academy of Pediatrics statement on infant circumcision, released today. But y'all know I'd have my opinion out there even if I hadn't been asked, so here it is:
Further Reading:
Doctors Opposing Circumcision: Commentary on American Academy of Pediatrics 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement (pdf)
Intact America
The Whole Network
- The background: It appears the AAP has taken the same body of evidence they've used for the past 13 years plus one new study and somewhat reversed their stance. Despite the hype that the AAP now "recommends" routine circumcision, what the AAP has done is take into account one new study on HIV transmission and is now saying that "the benefits may outweigh the risks." While this is a stone's throw from actually recommending routine male circumcision, it's close enough, and future parents will take it to heart. Sidebar: The AAP is now the only major pediatric association in the world that does not clearly oppose routine infant circumcision.
- While they have added a single study on HIV transmission, the study they are actually referencing cites VOLUNTARY male circumcision, as in, by choice at an adult age, in areas of the world where HIV rates are astoundingly high. This has led to the idea that circumcision at birth somehow protects men from contracting STIs later in life. However, among industrialized countries, the U.S. ranks high in both STI transmission rates (including HIV) and percentage of boys circumcised at birth. In other words, we don't even have correlative evidence to back up this claim. Of course STI transmission is a big concern to me personally, but I don't see how removing a functional part of a boy's penis at birth is going to somehow protect him from contracting an infection later in life. To address this issue, I'd advocate instead for a) comprehensive sex education in schools, b) more funding for youth programs that encourage and increase access to safer sex practices, and c) a society that isn't so sex-negative that things like condoms and penises can't even be discussed in a frank and honest manner.
- Regarding the "penile cancer" risk: Penile cancer is extremely rare.
When it does occur, it usually manifests in what we call the "foreskin" of the penis. So by removing the foreskin at birth, a male infant will grow up
to be less likely to develop a cancer that he was already unlikely to
develop in the first place. By this logic, we should also be removing the breast buds of baby girls. Think about it... breast cancer manifests in the functional breast tissue, the basis for which is present at birth. And seeing how breast cancer is far more common than penile cancer, we should be taking every possible precaution. We'll do it when they're two days old, so they won't remember it. We'll use anesthesia, so they won't feel it. And if they want to have kids later in life, well, they can just feed their babies with infant formula. And besides, women can still get some sexual pleasure without their breasts being involved. (See how ridiculous this sounds?)
- This is just speculation, but... given the fact that more and more insurance companies (and Medicaid) is seeing infant circumcision as a cosmetic procedure, they tend to not cover the costs. Perhaps the AAP is changing their position so they can continue performing the procedure regularly (cough cough cha-ching cough cough). Again, just speculation.
Further Reading:
Doctors Opposing Circumcision: Commentary on American Academy of Pediatrics 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement (pdf)
Intact America
The Whole Network
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Making the Cut: Our Hypocritical Stance on Non-Consensual Genital Modification
Let me be clear... I support religious practices that don't overtly harm people. Okay, you might say, where do you draw that line?
Here in the U.S., we obviously don't draw it at the mutilation of a child's genitals. But we do have express bans on other forms of violence sanctioned by religious texts, such as the stoning of women who have sex out of wedlock [Deuteronomy 22]. In fact, we in the U.S. rail against such literal interpretations of religious texts as practiced in countries under a fundamentalist version of sharia (and we use this as justification for the occupation and destruction of those countries... just sayin'). And we have no problem speaking out against the mutilation of female genitalia in Africa, even though that practice is congruent with religious tradition as well. Are we so hypocritical in our disdain for religion-induced violence that we only accept the kind practiced by people who live in our neighborhoods and look like us?
Unfortunately the religious freedom card continues to dominate the conversation about circumcision in particular. But what about the discussion of sexual freedom? We need to be talking about how the mutilation of child's genitals is a huge sexual rights issue. When it comes to female genital mutilation, the implications are obvious: no clitoris, no sexual pleasure. What we don't always realize is that the removal of the male foreskin removes a wealth of nerve endings as well, scarring the penis and removing a lot of sensation. Obviously the organ can still function enough to perform its "biological task," but what about the quality of that child's future sexual life?
The other socially accepted form of genital mutilation not discussed nearly enough is the mutilation (sometimes called "modification") of organs that are considered "ambiguous" at birth. Seeing how we all have differently-sized-and-shaped genitalia, I find it ethically repugnant that a parent might opt to have their baby's organs cut to look "more normal" without the child's consent. Still, I'm sure any parent who's had their child's genitals "modified" for this reason would tell you they thought it was for the best. After all, we live in a world where only two variations of sex organs are considered acceptable, and parents don't want their kids growing up in a world that might persecute them on the basis of something that can be cut away. It's amazing, really, that our society is so homophobic and transphobic that parents would rather have their children endure major reconstructive surgery than just leave it be.
By now I've probably offended dozens, and really that's okay. The non-consensual modification of a person's genitalia is a topic many are passionate about, and many of us have strong opinions one way or another. But the conversation, so often about either "religious freedom" or "normalizing the child for her/his own sake", misses too many points to not be taken to task. We can't discuss the above without also taking into account the child's future as a sexual being in charge of her/his own body, and we need to start thinking about the inherent problems with putting things like religious tradition before sexual autonomy.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Get Yer Freak On. Doula's Orders.
Today is my May Mama's estimated due date. Well okay, her original EDD is the 28th, but they pushed it back to today because of imaging. Which means I'm still considering her to be due on the 28th.
When I talked to her today, she was anxious. Her last two babies had been born at 39.5 weeks exactly, and going "past" her due date was worrying her. I reassured her that all babies are born eventually, and besides, as her midwife already said, third babies tend to be the odd ones out. Old wives' tale, sure, but backed up with years of observation by pretty much every midwife I've ever talked to.
Then, showing my nerd-colors a bit, I reminded her that babies, like wizards, are never late. They arrive precisely when they mean to.
We went on to have a good conversation about inducing labor naturally. And no, I'm not talking about smearing your vag with evening primrose oil or doing shots of castor oil. I tend to be cautious about those methods when a mama isn't being threatened with medical induction, since they tend to have negative side-effects that are, let's say, unpleasant.
But to simply get things going, I always say, a mama needs to simply have a really good night: get a nice long foot/calf massage, have a half glass of red wine, and have some good sex. Or as I call it, the Sex, Booze, and Foot Rubs Method.
While the above methods tend to be looked at as mere old wives' tales, there is in fact scientific basis for their use. And besides, unlike castor oil and assuming we're only recommending a half glass of wine, there is little to no risk of negative side-effects.
Here's why they work!
The Sex
Oxytocin, the so-called "love hormone," is at least partly responsible for three distinct physiological events in a woman's reproductive cycle: orgasm, labor, and breastfeeding. As a sex-positive doula and lactation educator, you might say that oxytocin is my homegirl.
The female orgasm was once thought of as relatively inconsequential to the reproductive process. In fact, some fertility specialists have even suggested that orgasm "dilutes" a woman's chance of becoming pregnant. (I call bullshit. Also sexism. But that's another post.) Au contraire, says a bulk of new-ish research that essentially reaffirms what lay-health workers have been saying for years: orgasm increases your chances of conception. See, when a woman orgasms, her body releases even more vaginal secretion than she does when simply "aroused," helping to lubricate the sperm's path to the egg. Additionally, the oxytocin released via orgasm contracts the uterus, lowering the cervix (the "neck" of the uterus) and making the uterus more accepting of a fertilized egg (ever wonder what that tight feeling in your lower abdomen was?).
So oxytocin contracts the uterus. Hence labor. But the wonder-hormone's job isn't over when the placenta is delivered. Oxytocin is also responsible for the milk "letting down" during breastfeeding. See, when a woman first lays eyes on her baby, she's essentially OD'ing on oxytocin, as is baby. That's the love hormone doing its job. Baby will hopefully find her/his way to a nipple and begin suckling. When the nipples are stimulated, oxytocin is released from the posterior pituitary gland, contracting the tiny myoepithelial cells inside the milk ducts, forcing milk out of the breast and into baby's mouth. That oxytocin release is still doing it's job "down there," helping mama's uterus to clamp down post-delivery, thus reducing risk of excessive postpartum bleeding.
I mention the connection to breastfeeding because oxytocin is also released with nipple stimulation. Women who are into nipple stimulation during sex may enjoy it for a number of reasons, but physiologically it's because that burst of oxytocin contracts the uterus (which essentially puts interior pressure on the clitoris and, well, you get it). In other words, if you're into nip-stim, include that in your labor-inducing sex practice. Otherwise you can just turn on your breast pump when you're finished doin' the deed, and you will probably get a lot of the same benefits.
If a woman is having sex with a man, his stuff may play a labor-inducing role as well. Semen contains prostaglandins, autocrine hormones that help to soften ("ripen") the cervix. A softer cervix makes the fertilization/implantation process more likely, but these hormones work the same when a woman is already pregnant. The low dose of prostaglandins in semen alone aren't likely to induce labor in a woman who's not yet term (which is why care providers don't warn against sex during pregnancy unless a woman is at risk for preterm labor), but the mild softening in a term mama might just be enough to tip her into labor mode. As an added bonus, if he's, let's say, "gifted," his penis hitting against the cervix may indeed induce some mild (but not earth-shattering) uterine contractions.
Captain Obvious moment: I generally don't recommend the prostaglandin method if a mama is in a relationship where she's at risk for a sexually transmitted infection. The last thing she needs is to be infected with an STI right before a baby comes squeezing through her vagina! If infection is an issue, sex with a condom still contains the benefits of oxytocin and cervical pressure. Masturbation is a safe and effective alternative for women who don't have a partner (or just simply don't want to engage in partner sex). Again, oxytocin is stronger than prostaglandins... go team vag!
The Booze
While its use remains controversial amongst even the most alternative midwives, wine in small quantities (a glass or less) is thought to help the mother's body relax through the anxiety that often hinders the body's ability to start labor on its own. Anxiety leads to the release of catecholamines, the "stress hormone" which interferes with the release of oxytocin. So while the alcohol itself does not induce labor (it can, in fact, cause vasodilation, which actually hinders labor progress), a bit of wine to "take the edge off" of what ever stress a mama may be experiencing can help things along.
The Foot Rubs
There are several pressure points in the feet and ankles that, when massaged, may induce uterine contractions. The first is in the soft area between the achilles tendon and the medial malleolus (the "knotty" bone on the inside of the ankle). The second is about four finger-widths above the malleolus. Even if the massage does not actually induce contractions, a nice ankle rub may help with the ankle swelling many women experience as they get further along in pregnancy.
A midwife also once told me that the heel is a reflexology point to the cervix. In fact, she says, you can often read how effaced (soft) a woman's cervix is by compressing her heel, and can often soften a "tough lip" by rubbing out hard points. I have no research to back that up, just one midwife's anecdote.
And by now my May Mama has called and said that since I gave her the above information, she's been contracting steadily (but lightly) for the past little while. So there. Get yer freak on, doula's orders.
When I talked to her today, she was anxious. Her last two babies had been born at 39.5 weeks exactly, and going "past" her due date was worrying her. I reassured her that all babies are born eventually, and besides, as her midwife already said, third babies tend to be the odd ones out. Old wives' tale, sure, but backed up with years of observation by pretty much every midwife I've ever talked to.
Then, showing my nerd-colors a bit, I reminded her that babies, like wizards, are never late. They arrive precisely when they mean to.
We went on to have a good conversation about inducing labor naturally. And no, I'm not talking about smearing your vag with evening primrose oil or doing shots of castor oil. I tend to be cautious about those methods when a mama isn't being threatened with medical induction, since they tend to have negative side-effects that are, let's say, unpleasant.
But to simply get things going, I always say, a mama needs to simply have a really good night: get a nice long foot/calf massage, have a half glass of red wine, and have some good sex. Or as I call it, the Sex, Booze, and Foot Rubs Method.
While the above methods tend to be looked at as mere old wives' tales, there is in fact scientific basis for their use. And besides, unlike castor oil and assuming we're only recommending a half glass of wine, there is little to no risk of negative side-effects.
Here's why they work!
The Sex
Oxytocin, the so-called "love hormone," is at least partly responsible for three distinct physiological events in a woman's reproductive cycle: orgasm, labor, and breastfeeding. As a sex-positive doula and lactation educator, you might say that oxytocin is my homegirl.
The female orgasm was once thought of as relatively inconsequential to the reproductive process. In fact, some fertility specialists have even suggested that orgasm "dilutes" a woman's chance of becoming pregnant. (I call bullshit. Also sexism. But that's another post.) Au contraire, says a bulk of new-ish research that essentially reaffirms what lay-health workers have been saying for years: orgasm increases your chances of conception. See, when a woman orgasms, her body releases even more vaginal secretion than she does when simply "aroused," helping to lubricate the sperm's path to the egg. Additionally, the oxytocin released via orgasm contracts the uterus, lowering the cervix (the "neck" of the uterus) and making the uterus more accepting of a fertilized egg (ever wonder what that tight feeling in your lower abdomen was?).
 | |
| Sidebar: Oxytocin is also associated with trust, which helps explain why women who have good relationships with their care providers tend to have smoother labors. |
I mention the connection to breastfeeding because oxytocin is also released with nipple stimulation. Women who are into nipple stimulation during sex may enjoy it for a number of reasons, but physiologically it's because that burst of oxytocin contracts the uterus (which essentially puts interior pressure on the clitoris and, well, you get it). In other words, if you're into nip-stim, include that in your labor-inducing sex practice. Otherwise you can just turn on your breast pump when you're finished doin' the deed, and you will probably get a lot of the same benefits.
If a woman is having sex with a man, his stuff may play a labor-inducing role as well. Semen contains prostaglandins, autocrine hormones that help to soften ("ripen") the cervix. A softer cervix makes the fertilization/implantation process more likely, but these hormones work the same when a woman is already pregnant. The low dose of prostaglandins in semen alone aren't likely to induce labor in a woman who's not yet term (which is why care providers don't warn against sex during pregnancy unless a woman is at risk for preterm labor), but the mild softening in a term mama might just be enough to tip her into labor mode. As an added bonus, if he's, let's say, "gifted," his penis hitting against the cervix may indeed induce some mild (but not earth-shattering) uterine contractions.
Captain Obvious moment: I generally don't recommend the prostaglandin method if a mama is in a relationship where she's at risk for a sexually transmitted infection. The last thing she needs is to be infected with an STI right before a baby comes squeezing through her vagina! If infection is an issue, sex with a condom still contains the benefits of oxytocin and cervical pressure. Masturbation is a safe and effective alternative for women who don't have a partner (or just simply don't want to engage in partner sex). Again, oxytocin is stronger than prostaglandins... go team vag!
The Booze
While its use remains controversial amongst even the most alternative midwives, wine in small quantities (a glass or less) is thought to help the mother's body relax through the anxiety that often hinders the body's ability to start labor on its own. Anxiety leads to the release of catecholamines, the "stress hormone" which interferes with the release of oxytocin. So while the alcohol itself does not induce labor (it can, in fact, cause vasodilation, which actually hinders labor progress), a bit of wine to "take the edge off" of what ever stress a mama may be experiencing can help things along.
The Foot Rubs
A midwife also once told me that the heel is a reflexology point to the cervix. In fact, she says, you can often read how effaced (soft) a woman's cervix is by compressing her heel, and can often soften a "tough lip" by rubbing out hard points. I have no research to back that up, just one midwife's anecdote.
And by now my May Mama has called and said that since I gave her the above information, she's been contracting steadily (but lightly) for the past little while. So there. Get yer freak on, doula's orders.
Monday, February 20, 2012
When You 'Approve' of Pretty Much Anything
When I look up from my desk, there's a camera phone in my face. I can tell it's set to "video" by the way they're snickering. "Lauren, can we ask you something?" they begin. I tell them of course, they can ask me anything. From a sea of teenage giggles comes the question, "Do you approve of penis sucking?"
It's mid-November and I've just started working as the coordinator for a teen peer educator program. The regular health educator, a woman with whom they have built strong bonds of trust, has recently had a baby and left this goofy group of kids under my care. They are trained to facilitate presentations and workshops about sex, drugs/alcohol, peer pressure, healthy relationships, and more with other teens in their community. The program is associated with lower teen pregnancy and STI rates. These kids are smart, but they are also teens... that is, they have dirty minds and they love to say weird shit.
"Approve?" I ask. "As in, do I approve of other people doing it?" More giggling, plus nodding. "Okay y'all. What do we talk about here? If it's consensual and safe, I 'approve' of pretty much anything."
Roaring laughter. "ANYTHING?!?!" They can barely contain their excitement, basking in the belief that they have "tricked" me into opening the floodgates. Tricked my ass. This was intentional.
What follows is a series of questions about whether or not I "approve" of a whole host of weird things, at least as "weird" as the unseasoned teenage mind can conjure. It is at this moment I realize I am, at my heart, cut out for this kind of work. I don't flinch, even when in my mind I may be making my best "WTF?" face. The same goes for my work as a doula. When a multiparous mama said she "wanted pressure on her anus" to relieve some unnerving sensation during second stage, I didn't flinch... I wrapped a tennis ball in a nitrate glove, slipped one on my own hand, and held the thing to her anus until her baby started to crown and the visibly-confused OB told me to get out of the way. It wasn't weird to me. It was intuitive and matter-of-fact, and it made her birthing experience more comfortable.
But back to the teens. While the "penis sucking" question became a running joke, the conversation that started it all established a culture of trust between myself and these particular teens. During my tenure as their coordinator, several of them would return privately to ask intensely personal questions. Questions that they weren't about to ask their parents, HCPs, or even close friends.
Now consider how the "penis sucking" question would have been met within the school system. An educator would either have to espouse some state-scripted AOUM crap, or (more likely) would chastise the inquirer for being "inappropriate." If there was an educator on the taxpayer's payroll telling kids that they "approve of pretty much anything," can you imagine the resulting shitstorm? That would be 24/7 news material, and of course the context would be completely absent from the discourse surrounding the controversy.
Towards the end of my job coordinating the teens' program, an intern remarked at how comfortable I was being completely honest about my private sexual life. The initial question of "do you approve of ______" had turned a bit more personal: "Do you ______?" "Have you ever _____?" "Why do people like ______?" "What's the safest way to ______?" These conversations were generally humorous yet serious, and I felt that by providing answers using my own personal experiences, I was furthering the trust and rapport that would reassure the teens that they could really ask me anything. I reminded the interns that they absolutely did not have to answer questions about their personal lives if they didn't want to, but that I did because I felt that it normalized sexuality and reaffirmed that sex was a universal and enjoyable part of being human. And always, I reminded them about our two best friends, consent and safety.
I'm sure some parents (and maybe my bosses) would have raised an eyebrow if they knew what kinds of things I'd shared with my teens, but kids need this kind of blatant honesty, especially when they're so obviously not getting it elsewhere. Teen sexuality is, in our society, something we're supposed to cringe at, something that's bad and can only be bad. Hell, the most anti-sex right wingers even believe that the only reason teenagers even think about sex is because they're "told to" by the media and allegedly "anti-morality" feminists. A recent video put out by the American Life League accused Planned Parenthood in particular of getting teens "addicted" to sex, apparently using masturbation as the "gateway drug" (can't make this shit up). While this all fits nicely into the religious right's crusade against positive sexuality, it does absolutely nothing to offer teenagers realistic and factual information about their bodies and their sexual lives. When messages that paint sexuality in a positive light are so absent, teens - especially teen girls - have two choices: they can either adhere to the conservative principle that sex is a commodity to be used in exchange for a husband, or they can follow the media's insistence that sex is a commodity to be used in exchange for social clout. (Consequently, these two camps decry the other to boost their respective "profit margins." They also both reaffirm the message that a woman's sexual life is not her own. That teen girls can use their bodies for whatever purpose best suits their own desires is tragically absent from almost any mainstream debate about sexuality.)
The American Life League would surely accuse me of exposing my peer educators to some vague form of "pornography," but in reality all I ever did was answer questions honestly. We see childhood as this protected period, and in so many ways it absolutely should be, but we forget that kids are just young humans. In their own way, kids are sexual creatures just the same - anyone who's had to have "the privacy talk" with their toddler can tell you that - and while it doesn't mean they should be going out and expressing those tendencies with other people until they reach a certain level of maturity, it does mean that we need to have these blatantly honest conversations early and in an age-appropraite way. The religious right wants us to forget that, to equate masturbation - surely the safest and most self-affirming sexual practice there is - with deviance and dangerous promiscuity. But they do this to maintain a power structure which is not conducive to one's best possible sexual health. Sure you can point at the fact that lifelong-monogamous couples aren't likely to contract an STI, but how often does this really work out, and when such a lifestyle decision comes from a culture of sexual repression and not one's autonomous desires, what else is being lost? It may seem simpler, but in the long-term, is it even worth it?
I suggest a frankness about sexuality. An openness. Such an approach does nothing to encourage teens to be "promiscuous," no... time and time again, research shows that comprehensive sex education results in fewer STIs, lower instances of unintended pregnancies, heightened self-esteem, healthier and more egalitarian relationships. I also suggest parents quit freaking out when "someone else" talks to their kids about sexuality. "Someone else" teaches them about almost every other thing, so why not sex? Especially when that "someone else" is a trained educator who can answer questions that parents may not know the answer to (or may not feel comfortable answering honestly). Sometimes it's hard to release that kind of control, but parents need to remember that, when it comes to sex education, "someone else" may very well be the best possible option.
Unless of course parents are willing to be the ones on the other side of a video camera, being filmed while their kid asks them a question about "penis sucking."
It's mid-November and I've just started working as the coordinator for a teen peer educator program. The regular health educator, a woman with whom they have built strong bonds of trust, has recently had a baby and left this goofy group of kids under my care. They are trained to facilitate presentations and workshops about sex, drugs/alcohol, peer pressure, healthy relationships, and more with other teens in their community. The program is associated with lower teen pregnancy and STI rates. These kids are smart, but they are also teens... that is, they have dirty minds and they love to say weird shit.
"Approve?" I ask. "As in, do I approve of other people doing it?" More giggling, plus nodding. "Okay y'all. What do we talk about here? If it's consensual and safe, I 'approve' of pretty much anything."
Roaring laughter. "ANYTHING?!?!" They can barely contain their excitement, basking in the belief that they have "tricked" me into opening the floodgates. Tricked my ass. This was intentional.
What follows is a series of questions about whether or not I "approve" of a whole host of weird things, at least as "weird" as the unseasoned teenage mind can conjure. It is at this moment I realize I am, at my heart, cut out for this kind of work. I don't flinch, even when in my mind I may be making my best "WTF?" face. The same goes for my work as a doula. When a multiparous mama said she "wanted pressure on her anus" to relieve some unnerving sensation during second stage, I didn't flinch... I wrapped a tennis ball in a nitrate glove, slipped one on my own hand, and held the thing to her anus until her baby started to crown and the visibly-confused OB told me to get out of the way. It wasn't weird to me. It was intuitive and matter-of-fact, and it made her birthing experience more comfortable.
But back to the teens. While the "penis sucking" question became a running joke, the conversation that started it all established a culture of trust between myself and these particular teens. During my tenure as their coordinator, several of them would return privately to ask intensely personal questions. Questions that they weren't about to ask their parents, HCPs, or even close friends.
Now consider how the "penis sucking" question would have been met within the school system. An educator would either have to espouse some state-scripted AOUM crap, or (more likely) would chastise the inquirer for being "inappropriate." If there was an educator on the taxpayer's payroll telling kids that they "approve of pretty much anything," can you imagine the resulting shitstorm? That would be 24/7 news material, and of course the context would be completely absent from the discourse surrounding the controversy.
Towards the end of my job coordinating the teens' program, an intern remarked at how comfortable I was being completely honest about my private sexual life. The initial question of "do you approve of ______" had turned a bit more personal: "Do you ______?" "Have you ever _____?" "Why do people like ______?" "What's the safest way to ______?" These conversations were generally humorous yet serious, and I felt that by providing answers using my own personal experiences, I was furthering the trust and rapport that would reassure the teens that they could really ask me anything. I reminded the interns that they absolutely did not have to answer questions about their personal lives if they didn't want to, but that I did because I felt that it normalized sexuality and reaffirmed that sex was a universal and enjoyable part of being human. And always, I reminded them about our two best friends, consent and safety.
I'm sure some parents (and maybe my bosses) would have raised an eyebrow if they knew what kinds of things I'd shared with my teens, but kids need this kind of blatant honesty, especially when they're so obviously not getting it elsewhere. Teen sexuality is, in our society, something we're supposed to cringe at, something that's bad and can only be bad. Hell, the most anti-sex right wingers even believe that the only reason teenagers even think about sex is because they're "told to" by the media and allegedly "anti-morality" feminists. A recent video put out by the American Life League accused Planned Parenthood in particular of getting teens "addicted" to sex, apparently using masturbation as the "gateway drug" (can't make this shit up). While this all fits nicely into the religious right's crusade against positive sexuality, it does absolutely nothing to offer teenagers realistic and factual information about their bodies and their sexual lives. When messages that paint sexuality in a positive light are so absent, teens - especially teen girls - have two choices: they can either adhere to the conservative principle that sex is a commodity to be used in exchange for a husband, or they can follow the media's insistence that sex is a commodity to be used in exchange for social clout. (Consequently, these two camps decry the other to boost their respective "profit margins." They also both reaffirm the message that a woman's sexual life is not her own. That teen girls can use their bodies for whatever purpose best suits their own desires is tragically absent from almost any mainstream debate about sexuality.)
The American Life League would surely accuse me of exposing my peer educators to some vague form of "pornography," but in reality all I ever did was answer questions honestly. We see childhood as this protected period, and in so many ways it absolutely should be, but we forget that kids are just young humans. In their own way, kids are sexual creatures just the same - anyone who's had to have "the privacy talk" with their toddler can tell you that - and while it doesn't mean they should be going out and expressing those tendencies with other people until they reach a certain level of maturity, it does mean that we need to have these blatantly honest conversations early and in an age-appropraite way. The religious right wants us to forget that, to equate masturbation - surely the safest and most self-affirming sexual practice there is - with deviance and dangerous promiscuity. But they do this to maintain a power structure which is not conducive to one's best possible sexual health. Sure you can point at the fact that lifelong-monogamous couples aren't likely to contract an STI, but how often does this really work out, and when such a lifestyle decision comes from a culture of sexual repression and not one's autonomous desires, what else is being lost? It may seem simpler, but in the long-term, is it even worth it?
I suggest a frankness about sexuality. An openness. Such an approach does nothing to encourage teens to be "promiscuous," no... time and time again, research shows that comprehensive sex education results in fewer STIs, lower instances of unintended pregnancies, heightened self-esteem, healthier and more egalitarian relationships. I also suggest parents quit freaking out when "someone else" talks to their kids about sexuality. "Someone else" teaches them about almost every other thing, so why not sex? Especially when that "someone else" is a trained educator who can answer questions that parents may not know the answer to (or may not feel comfortable answering honestly). Sometimes it's hard to release that kind of control, but parents need to remember that, when it comes to sex education, "someone else" may very well be the best possible option.
Unless of course parents are willing to be the ones on the other side of a video camera, being filmed while their kid asks them a question about "penis sucking."
Saturday, January 28, 2012
The Moral Majority
Last week I did a lactation consult at a home where the mother left the TV on. Usually I am able to completely tune out this kind of thing, but the subject matter of the TV program kept distracting me. (And by the way, how rude is it to leave your TV on during an appointment with someone?)
It was Anderson Cooper's new daytime program, and the subject was "Purity Balls." Cooper's primary guest was Randy Wilson, "founder" of the "purity ball" concept and obvious Quiverfulling patriarch:
For those not in the know, "Purity Balls" are wedding-like events where pre-teen girls, paraded around in white dresses, pledge to their fathers that they will remain "pure" until marriage. I'm not kidding, they actually pledge their virginities to their dads. Perhaps most laughable is their insistance that these events allow women (led by a male hand, of course) to be "empowered" enough to refuse the pressures of risky sexual activity. Incestuous overtones aside, this phenomenon has become just another way for the Religious Right to lay further claim to the female body. Reaffirming the antiquated notion that a woman's only worth comes from refusal of her own sexuality, Purity Balls not only assume that a woman ought to stay "virginal" until marriage, but that her sexuality must only exist within the confines of heteronormative, monogamous ownership by her husband thereafter.
Fortunately, the always quick-witted Jessica Valenti, founder of Feministing.com and author of The Purity Myth, was there to make a counter-argument:
The remainder of the episode, from what I caught, was a monotonous argument between audience members. One group reiterated the obvious sexism that assumes women can't make their own decisions without a male guide, the other defended the idea by citing vague statistics on STIs and unintended pregnancies. When able, Valenti offered some critique of what was missing from the discussion: one side railed against the repression of sexuality, the other against the dangers of sexual activity as perpetuated by damaging media images, but why aren't we talking more about the commodification of sexuality and offering young girls ways to make truly autonomous decisions about their sexual lives?
Valenti's points didn't resonate all that well, but not because she herself isn't one of the most articulate advocates of positive sexuality. The problem was the context of the discussion: it was a daytime talk show where complex topics with many gray areas don't exactly get a comprehensive view.
I will often rail against the concept of "virginity," as I see it as little more than a well-perpetuated social construct. Pregnancy and STI infection notwithstanding, there are no permanent physiological changes that occur when a person, male- or female-bodied, engages in any kind of sex act with another person, at least none that couldn't be inflicted upon oneself through masturbation. The other problem is that people identify "virginity" in many different ways: there are folks who have given or received oral sex that will still refer to themselves as "virgins," though they aren't much less likely than a person who has had vaginal intercourse to have contracted an STI. The presence of a "hymen" (now more accurately called the corona) is still thought of as a litmus test for a woman's supposed "virginity," though in actuality the thing itself rests somewhere between anatomical reality and social myth.
Wilson and his crew likely identify with the "Moral Majority," a politically-active group of fundamentalist Christians who lobby for their conservative leanings to be made into law. They want to see not just abortion but also contraception outlawed or severely restricted, they rail against any family or relationship dynamic that does not fit into a "one man one woman" mold, they want to force their religious beliefs into public spaces, and they most certainly do not want to see positive sexuality taught in schools. And after all this judgment-passing and alienation, they still call themselves the "majority."
I cringe at the word "morality" for just that reason: I've been socialized to associate it with the above principles. But the word itself, "morality." All it means is that a person is aware of their personal values and that they hold themselves to them without compromise. And in that sense, I'm a highly moral person. I don't have the kinds of morals that are put upon me by some overarching system of oppression, and in that sense I'm more likely to remain moral without compromise. Because I truly value what I value. If I, for example, wanted to have sex with a similar-sexed person, I'd do it consensually and with total ownership of my actions. I wouldn't do it by toe-tapping in an airport restroom after a full day of crying fire-and-brimstone at the very people I'm trying to sleep with. Which is, in actuality, how the real majority lives: we set our boundaries, we try to follow them, and when we don't we accept the consequences. Sometimes our values are dictated by a religious or spiritual belief system, but when that's the case, it's because we've chosen - not been forced - to draw from those systems. Like it or not, the "Moral Majority" isn't any kind of majority at all.
When I teach middle schoolers about sexual consent within a healthy relationship, I ask the following series of questions:
What I'm trying to get at here is this: if the "Purity Ball" crew was really out to empower young women with the tools needed to hold themselves to values that they feel good about, they'd teach them to first explore their own values, then own them for their own sake. And they certainly wouldn't just target young women. But of course this simply cannot come from the group that calls itself the "Moral Majority." Such a group exists to force someone else's rules upon large groups of people, rules that keep the female-bodied in a place of subservience and the male-bodied in positions of unrealistic authority, a responsibility which is in its own way oppressive as well. A truly empowering model would involve imparting upon every young person that they - not their fathers or husbands or whoever else - are in control over their bodies and their sexual lives.
It was Anderson Cooper's new daytime program, and the subject was "Purity Balls." Cooper's primary guest was Randy Wilson, "founder" of the "purity ball" concept and obvious Quiverfulling patriarch:
For those not in the know, "Purity Balls" are wedding-like events where pre-teen girls, paraded around in white dresses, pledge to their fathers that they will remain "pure" until marriage. I'm not kidding, they actually pledge their virginities to their dads. Perhaps most laughable is their insistance that these events allow women (led by a male hand, of course) to be "empowered" enough to refuse the pressures of risky sexual activity. Incestuous overtones aside, this phenomenon has become just another way for the Religious Right to lay further claim to the female body. Reaffirming the antiquated notion that a woman's only worth comes from refusal of her own sexuality, Purity Balls not only assume that a woman ought to stay "virginal" until marriage, but that her sexuality must only exist within the confines of heteronormative, monogamous ownership by her husband thereafter.
Fortunately, the always quick-witted Jessica Valenti, founder of Feministing.com and author of The Purity Myth, was there to make a counter-argument:
The remainder of the episode, from what I caught, was a monotonous argument between audience members. One group reiterated the obvious sexism that assumes women can't make their own decisions without a male guide, the other defended the idea by citing vague statistics on STIs and unintended pregnancies. When able, Valenti offered some critique of what was missing from the discussion: one side railed against the repression of sexuality, the other against the dangers of sexual activity as perpetuated by damaging media images, but why aren't we talking more about the commodification of sexuality and offering young girls ways to make truly autonomous decisions about their sexual lives?
Valenti's points didn't resonate all that well, but not because she herself isn't one of the most articulate advocates of positive sexuality. The problem was the context of the discussion: it was a daytime talk show where complex topics with many gray areas don't exactly get a comprehensive view.
I will often rail against the concept of "virginity," as I see it as little more than a well-perpetuated social construct. Pregnancy and STI infection notwithstanding, there are no permanent physiological changes that occur when a person, male- or female-bodied, engages in any kind of sex act with another person, at least none that couldn't be inflicted upon oneself through masturbation. The other problem is that people identify "virginity" in many different ways: there are folks who have given or received oral sex that will still refer to themselves as "virgins," though they aren't much less likely than a person who has had vaginal intercourse to have contracted an STI. The presence of a "hymen" (now more accurately called the corona) is still thought of as a litmus test for a woman's supposed "virginity," though in actuality the thing itself rests somewhere between anatomical reality and social myth.
Wilson and his crew likely identify with the "Moral Majority," a politically-active group of fundamentalist Christians who lobby for their conservative leanings to be made into law. They want to see not just abortion but also contraception outlawed or severely restricted, they rail against any family or relationship dynamic that does not fit into a "one man one woman" mold, they want to force their religious beliefs into public spaces, and they most certainly do not want to see positive sexuality taught in schools. And after all this judgment-passing and alienation, they still call themselves the "majority."
I cringe at the word "morality" for just that reason: I've been socialized to associate it with the above principles. But the word itself, "morality." All it means is that a person is aware of their personal values and that they hold themselves to them without compromise. And in that sense, I'm a highly moral person. I don't have the kinds of morals that are put upon me by some overarching system of oppression, and in that sense I'm more likely to remain moral without compromise. Because I truly value what I value. If I, for example, wanted to have sex with a similar-sexed person, I'd do it consensually and with total ownership of my actions. I wouldn't do it by toe-tapping in an airport restroom after a full day of crying fire-and-brimstone at the very people I'm trying to sleep with. Which is, in actuality, how the real majority lives: we set our boundaries, we try to follow them, and when we don't we accept the consequences. Sometimes our values are dictated by a religious or spiritual belief system, but when that's the case, it's because we've chosen - not been forced - to draw from those systems. Like it or not, the "Moral Majority" isn't any kind of majority at all.
When I teach middle schoolers about sexual consent within a healthy relationship, I ask the following series of questions:
- Should anyone ever force you to do anything you don't want to do?
- If you only say "yes" to something after being pressured, is it really consensual?
- If you've consented to something in the past, does that mean you've consented to it at any point in the future?
- Do you have the right to revoke consent in the middle of a sexual encounter?
What I'm trying to get at here is this: if the "Purity Ball" crew was really out to empower young women with the tools needed to hold themselves to values that they feel good about, they'd teach them to first explore their own values, then own them for their own sake. And they certainly wouldn't just target young women. But of course this simply cannot come from the group that calls itself the "Moral Majority." Such a group exists to force someone else's rules upon large groups of people, rules that keep the female-bodied in a place of subservience and the male-bodied in positions of unrealistic authority, a responsibility which is in its own way oppressive as well. A truly empowering model would involve imparting upon every young person that they - not their fathers or husbands or whoever else - are in control over their bodies and their sexual lives.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
The Politics of EC
At risk of sounding like a Plan B commercial, things don't always go as planned. The single most prepared and educated individuals can have a condom break, or hell, get lost in the heat of the moment and fail to use one at all. While the latter certainly indicates a higher lack of preparedness (or common sense), the point is this: people who engage in vaginal intercourse - be they married or single, monogamous or not, teenaged or adult, using condoms or on the pill or neither - are at risk for a situation that could lead to an unintended pregnancy.
While emergency contraception (trade names "Plan B" or "Next Choice," aka "the morning-after pill") has only been FDA approved since 1999, health care providers have been cutting up contraception pill packs for the exact same purpose since the 1980s. The drug was made available to women over 18 without a prescription in 2006, then, in 2009, the FDA arbitrarily approved the drug for OTC use for women 17 and older.
Fast forward to last week, when "pro-woman" HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overrode an FDA recommendation to make emergency contraception OTC for all. A political move indeed, likely stemming from the fact that we are approaching an election year, and let's face it, Sebelius is "Obama's Girl."
We've heard the cries of disapproval from every anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-sex activist out there: "It will make young girls engage in sex at a younger age." "Women will start using it as their only form of birth control." "It causes early abortions." "It will turn the country into a 24/7 orgy," and so on and so forth.
I'm not about to spend a lot of time refuting these claims, sighting the ways we know that making contraception available to teens does not lead to earlier sexual contact, how it makes no sense to take a $35 pill every time you have sex instead of going on OCs for $20 a month, how it does not cause "early abortions," etc. What I will spend some time on, however, are the reasons the mainstream population allows themselves to be swayed by the Christian Right's barrage of anti-sexuality bullshit.
It comes down to a conversation I had with my dad over Thanksgiving. Neither of us had any clue that the FDA was considering OTC status for emergency contraception at the time. I believe I was going on about how securing a prescription for Plan B involved little more than a 5 minute conversation with an advance practice clinician about your family history, and no, the girl's parents did not have to sign off on it, at least not in North Carolina.
While relatively conservative, my dad has a more progressive outlook on some social issues, and birth control seems to be one of them. However, he seemed shaken by the fact that a 15 year old girl could walk into a Planned Parenthood, talk with a nurse practitioner, and walk away with Plan B without her parents ever knowing. My first reaction would have been to accuse him of being a typical anti-woman wingnut, though he's my dad and I know he's really not a raging misogynist. Such a disconnect led me to take a moment to process exactly what his major objection could be.
Then it hit me.
Dad is a 62 year old man with a daughter who was 15 a mere twelve years ago. When he pictures a 15 year old girl, he pictures his daughter: an awkward string bean of a high schooler who, in his mind, has absolutely no interest in dating, let alone sex. When he pictures that 15 year old procuring Plan B, the thought is horrifying. That girl is, after all, someone's daughter.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, I picture a 15 year old girl and I see one of my teens. They've had a condom break (or didn't use one at all), or maybe they forgot to take their pill or get their Depo shot. Now is no time to tell them that they shouldn't have been doing whatever they were doing to get themselves into that situation. That conversation can be had after they get their EC, and if it's one of my teens, you know we'll be having it. "You were drinking and didn't know what you were doing? Tell me what's wrong with that." "You didn't use a condom? Why on earth... we have a giant bucket right here in the office." "Condoms break, yes... it's rare but it happens. Do you want to talk about an IUD or another method?" "What can we do to help you remember to take your pill? Have you thought about the NuvaRing, or maybe an Implanon?" Nowhere in the above scenarios do I think for even a second that I can change what's already happened, nor do I believe that having made EC available will make them more likely to do it again.
Then I started thinking into the future. Will I become one of those moms who used to be uber sex-positive but now has a kid who she doesn't want to admit is a sexual being? Let's be real... kids are humans. Humans are sexual. There is no "sex switch" that gets flipped on when you turn 18 (or when you get married... but that's a whole other post). We don't like to talk about it, but children masturbate. I was just having a conversation with a friend who told me that her two year old son gets an erection when he nurses; the thought horrified me for about 2 seconds until I checked myself and realized that it's not at all weird... it's a normal biological response to a place of extreme comfort and happiness.
It makes us so uncomfortable to think of kids, especially our own, being sexual beings, but ignoring it (or trying to "save them" from their inherent nature as a living breathing human) is hardly going to change that. If anything, it makes things worse. Too many times young girls fail to ask for EC because they're embarrassed, or they think they need their parents' permission, or they can't afford it, or they don't even know it's available to them. That doesn't make them stop having sex... it makes them more likely to face an unintended pregnancy and have their childhood come to a screeching halt. If all we have to do to keep that from happening is toss our ridiculous notions of "the virtuous child" out the door, well, I think we owe them at least that much.
While emergency contraception (trade names "Plan B" or "Next Choice," aka "the morning-after pill") has only been FDA approved since 1999, health care providers have been cutting up contraception pill packs for the exact same purpose since the 1980s. The drug was made available to women over 18 without a prescription in 2006, then, in 2009, the FDA arbitrarily approved the drug for OTC use for women 17 and older.
Fast forward to last week, when "pro-woman" HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overrode an FDA recommendation to make emergency contraception OTC for all. A political move indeed, likely stemming from the fact that we are approaching an election year, and let's face it, Sebelius is "Obama's Girl."
We've heard the cries of disapproval from every anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-sex activist out there: "It will make young girls engage in sex at a younger age." "Women will start using it as their only form of birth control." "It causes early abortions." "It will turn the country into a 24/7 orgy," and so on and so forth.
I'm not about to spend a lot of time refuting these claims, sighting the ways we know that making contraception available to teens does not lead to earlier sexual contact, how it makes no sense to take a $35 pill every time you have sex instead of going on OCs for $20 a month, how it does not cause "early abortions," etc. What I will spend some time on, however, are the reasons the mainstream population allows themselves to be swayed by the Christian Right's barrage of anti-sexuality bullshit.
It comes down to a conversation I had with my dad over Thanksgiving. Neither of us had any clue that the FDA was considering OTC status for emergency contraception at the time. I believe I was going on about how securing a prescription for Plan B involved little more than a 5 minute conversation with an advance practice clinician about your family history, and no, the girl's parents did not have to sign off on it, at least not in North Carolina.
While relatively conservative, my dad has a more progressive outlook on some social issues, and birth control seems to be one of them. However, he seemed shaken by the fact that a 15 year old girl could walk into a Planned Parenthood, talk with a nurse practitioner, and walk away with Plan B without her parents ever knowing. My first reaction would have been to accuse him of being a typical anti-woman wingnut, though he's my dad and I know he's really not a raging misogynist. Such a disconnect led me to take a moment to process exactly what his major objection could be.
Then it hit me.
Dad is a 62 year old man with a daughter who was 15 a mere twelve years ago. When he pictures a 15 year old girl, he pictures his daughter: an awkward string bean of a high schooler who, in his mind, has absolutely no interest in dating, let alone sex. When he pictures that 15 year old procuring Plan B, the thought is horrifying. That girl is, after all, someone's daughter.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, I picture a 15 year old girl and I see one of my teens. They've had a condom break (or didn't use one at all), or maybe they forgot to take their pill or get their Depo shot. Now is no time to tell them that they shouldn't have been doing whatever they were doing to get themselves into that situation. That conversation can be had after they get their EC, and if it's one of my teens, you know we'll be having it. "You were drinking and didn't know what you were doing? Tell me what's wrong with that." "You didn't use a condom? Why on earth... we have a giant bucket right here in the office." "Condoms break, yes... it's rare but it happens. Do you want to talk about an IUD or another method?" "What can we do to help you remember to take your pill? Have you thought about the NuvaRing, or maybe an Implanon?" Nowhere in the above scenarios do I think for even a second that I can change what's already happened, nor do I believe that having made EC available will make them more likely to do it again.
Then I started thinking into the future. Will I become one of those moms who used to be uber sex-positive but now has a kid who she doesn't want to admit is a sexual being? Let's be real... kids are humans. Humans are sexual. There is no "sex switch" that gets flipped on when you turn 18 (or when you get married... but that's a whole other post). We don't like to talk about it, but children masturbate. I was just having a conversation with a friend who told me that her two year old son gets an erection when he nurses; the thought horrified me for about 2 seconds until I checked myself and realized that it's not at all weird... it's a normal biological response to a place of extreme comfort and happiness.
It makes us so uncomfortable to think of kids, especially our own, being sexual beings, but ignoring it (or trying to "save them" from their inherent nature as a living breathing human) is hardly going to change that. If anything, it makes things worse. Too many times young girls fail to ask for EC because they're embarrassed, or they think they need their parents' permission, or they can't afford it, or they don't even know it's available to them. That doesn't make them stop having sex... it makes them more likely to face an unintended pregnancy and have their childhood come to a screeching halt. If all we have to do to keep that from happening is toss our ridiculous notions of "the virtuous child" out the door, well, I think we owe them at least that much.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
On Fidelity
This whole Anthony Weiner thing has got me thinking about the parameters of "fidelity" in relationships. By which I mean, fidelity is (to me) a relative concept, defined by the individuals involved in the relationship.
First I have to say this: I don't know whether or not these internet and phone exchanges were okay with Weiner's wife. He mentioned that she knew about them before they were married, but we don't know whether or not that means she was cool with it. If she doesn't consider it cheating, then he wasn't cheating. Period.
Regardless of the parameters of the congressman's marriage, there are many couples out there who would not consider what he did cheating. Some couples have open relationships where outside sexual experiences are fine. For others, the partner has to actually have sexual contact for it to be considered cheating. On the other side, there are folks who believe that sending suggestive photos over the internet is, in fact, cheating. There are also those who think that receiving a lapdance is cheating. Even further down the spectrum, some people consider watching pornography cheating, and others think that even masturbating is cheating. Some people even believe that looking at another human with a lustful eye is cheating (think Christine O'Donnell here).
What I'm trying to say is that this concept of "fidelity" is too relative for us to just point blank say that Anthony Weiner was cheating on his wife, especially if we don't know what was and was not okay between both partners. If his wife was fine with it, then he wasn't cheating, because "cheating" by definition implies that one partner was breaking the rules of the relationship.
Cue the barrage of conservative Bible-thumpers who believe everybody should live by their standards. Many have probably already spoken out about Weiner's supposed "infidelity," and to be sure many more would if they themselves hadn't already been caught toe-tapping in some airport men's room. For these folks, even couples who have a polyamorous agreement are "cheating." While they may be "cheating" on the standards laid out in certain religious beliefs, not everybody conforms to such a rigid set of rules.
What would be lovely is if we were all comfortable enough with our partners to discuss these parameters, and have them be equally-applicable. But because we live in a patriarchal society, there will always be a certain shame in discussing just how "faithful" we need to be. To be sure, if we can't clearly discuss our thoughts on morality, monogamy, lust, attraction, etc, then we're going to continue having a whole lot of "cheaters" in the world. Some folks who don't believe looking at porn is cheating might be surprised when they're "caught" and their partners accuse them of infidelity. Others might push the limits further and further until they do cross a boundary that, instead of being discussed thoroughly, was assumed to be cheating by one partner but not the offender.
Me, I have my own definitions of what constitutes cheating, but those aren't really any of your business. Not being a relationship counselor, I can't say what folks should do when their boundaries don't meet, though it's fair to say that a simple compromise might lead to grudges and back-handed revenge.
Regardless, I don't know whether or not Weiner cheated on his wife. I honestly think he apologized to her, first and foremost, for having made the mistake of making his "junk" so public, and for making her the wife of a guy involved in a sex scandal. Or maybe she wasn't okay with it but pretended to be, or maybe she just decided to turn a blind eye to avoid the matter altogether. Again, I really don't know, but as much as I'd like to find out, I know that their personal definitions of fidelity are really none of our damn business.
First I have to say this: I don't know whether or not these internet and phone exchanges were okay with Weiner's wife. He mentioned that she knew about them before they were married, but we don't know whether or not that means she was cool with it. If she doesn't consider it cheating, then he wasn't cheating. Period.
Regardless of the parameters of the congressman's marriage, there are many couples out there who would not consider what he did cheating. Some couples have open relationships where outside sexual experiences are fine. For others, the partner has to actually have sexual contact for it to be considered cheating. On the other side, there are folks who believe that sending suggestive photos over the internet is, in fact, cheating. There are also those who think that receiving a lapdance is cheating. Even further down the spectrum, some people consider watching pornography cheating, and others think that even masturbating is cheating. Some people even believe that looking at another human with a lustful eye is cheating (think Christine O'Donnell here).
What I'm trying to say is that this concept of "fidelity" is too relative for us to just point blank say that Anthony Weiner was cheating on his wife, especially if we don't know what was and was not okay between both partners. If his wife was fine with it, then he wasn't cheating, because "cheating" by definition implies that one partner was breaking the rules of the relationship.
Cue the barrage of conservative Bible-thumpers who believe everybody should live by their standards. Many have probably already spoken out about Weiner's supposed "infidelity," and to be sure many more would if they themselves hadn't already been caught toe-tapping in some airport men's room. For these folks, even couples who have a polyamorous agreement are "cheating." While they may be "cheating" on the standards laid out in certain religious beliefs, not everybody conforms to such a rigid set of rules.
What would be lovely is if we were all comfortable enough with our partners to discuss these parameters, and have them be equally-applicable. But because we live in a patriarchal society, there will always be a certain shame in discussing just how "faithful" we need to be. To be sure, if we can't clearly discuss our thoughts on morality, monogamy, lust, attraction, etc, then we're going to continue having a whole lot of "cheaters" in the world. Some folks who don't believe looking at porn is cheating might be surprised when they're "caught" and their partners accuse them of infidelity. Others might push the limits further and further until they do cross a boundary that, instead of being discussed thoroughly, was assumed to be cheating by one partner but not the offender.
Me, I have my own definitions of what constitutes cheating, but those aren't really any of your business. Not being a relationship counselor, I can't say what folks should do when their boundaries don't meet, though it's fair to say that a simple compromise might lead to grudges and back-handed revenge.
Regardless, I don't know whether or not Weiner cheated on his wife. I honestly think he apologized to her, first and foremost, for having made the mistake of making his "junk" so public, and for making her the wife of a guy involved in a sex scandal. Or maybe she wasn't okay with it but pretended to be, or maybe she just decided to turn a blind eye to avoid the matter altogether. Again, I really don't know, but as much as I'd like to find out, I know that their personal definitions of fidelity are really none of our damn business.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Newsflash: Kids are sexual beings
I'm sure it's some facet of human nature to jump to conclusions. No where is this more apparent than in the mainstream perception of the American Teenager.
Think about it: from the perspective of someone who gets all their perceptions from Oprah, 60 Minutes, and a load of segments on both local and national news, the American teenager is a walking moral crisis. Drugs, sex, pregnancy, and low self esteem are staples of your News Hour Special on what could very well be your teen. So freak out already!! (Anyone remember the "rainbow parties" trend that all teen girls were apparently taking part in? Oh yeah.)
None of this is to say we do not have something of a crisis on our hands when it comes to teenagers having unsafe sex and using dangerous drugs. The lack of decent sex education, paired with a compulsory "sex is bad" mentality, has led many American teenagers to engage in sexual relationships before they're ready. Add to this the fact that many young people lack the knowledge to protect themselves from pregnancy and STDs, and yeah, we got ourselves a problem.
However, your average sexually-active teenager is not Jessi Slaughter. They are not drug fiends, they are not sleeping with a new partner every week, and they are not a part of some "epidemic of immorality" that needs to be remedied with even more repressive stigmas against one's own body.
I'll say this bluntly: kids, even young children, are sexual beings. They have impulses that are normal, natural, and valid. This is something that I'm sure I'll have more trouble saying when I have a little one of my own, but every parent needs to come to terms with this fact. No amount of Bill O'Reilly ranting about how he had a baseball mitt and not a girlfriend at age 16 can adequately challenge our nature as human beings, nor can it effectively remedy the trend of many teens engaging in risky sexual activity.
When feminists speak out against the sexualization of young girls, we are often lumped in with puritanical movements that are basically just anti-sex. The "Parents Television Council" comes to mind. However, unlike the PTC and others, feminists decry media efforts at imposing sexuality on young girls while still supporting a young woman's right to become a sexual being in her own right and on her own terms.
And of course, it's this positive outlook on sexuality, the right to be sexual in one's own right, that is apparently to blame for the supposed epidemic of teen girls getting their freak on at age 11. And not, you know, a continued culture of attacks on women's bodies, the commodification of younger and younger girls as sexual objects, and a busload of dehumanizing clothes and music produced solely to make a buck. To be sure, it is easier to blame the very non-mainstream idea that women own their bodies than to take on an entire culture of consumerism, especially when we're taught from day one that such a culture is "what makes this country great." And besides, there's just no money in women and girls feeling content with their bodies and their wardrobes.
All of this is to say that I read a great piece by the always-wonderful Heather Corinna. A sex educator, Corinna's website Scarleteen is geared towards young people, providing insight and education on safe sex, peer pressure, relationships, self esteem, and other relevant topics.
Her piece at RH Reality Check specifically addressed the things parents can do to help their kids to develop into healthy, educated, and informed sexual beings. Have a read here.
While parents may (and absolutely should) insert their personal values into their household sex education curriculum, Corinna's list contains several concepts that even the most progressive parents may not think to include:
Think about it: from the perspective of someone who gets all their perceptions from Oprah, 60 Minutes, and a load of segments on both local and national news, the American teenager is a walking moral crisis. Drugs, sex, pregnancy, and low self esteem are staples of your News Hour Special on what could very well be your teen. So freak out already!! (Anyone remember the "rainbow parties" trend that all teen girls were apparently taking part in? Oh yeah.)
None of this is to say we do not have something of a crisis on our hands when it comes to teenagers having unsafe sex and using dangerous drugs. The lack of decent sex education, paired with a compulsory "sex is bad" mentality, has led many American teenagers to engage in sexual relationships before they're ready. Add to this the fact that many young people lack the knowledge to protect themselves from pregnancy and STDs, and yeah, we got ourselves a problem.
However, your average sexually-active teenager is not Jessi Slaughter. They are not drug fiends, they are not sleeping with a new partner every week, and they are not a part of some "epidemic of immorality" that needs to be remedied with even more repressive stigmas against one's own body.
I'll say this bluntly: kids, even young children, are sexual beings. They have impulses that are normal, natural, and valid. This is something that I'm sure I'll have more trouble saying when I have a little one of my own, but every parent needs to come to terms with this fact. No amount of Bill O'Reilly ranting about how he had a baseball mitt and not a girlfriend at age 16 can adequately challenge our nature as human beings, nor can it effectively remedy the trend of many teens engaging in risky sexual activity.
When feminists speak out against the sexualization of young girls, we are often lumped in with puritanical movements that are basically just anti-sex. The "Parents Television Council" comes to mind. However, unlike the PTC and others, feminists decry media efforts at imposing sexuality on young girls while still supporting a young woman's right to become a sexual being in her own right and on her own terms.
And of course, it's this positive outlook on sexuality, the right to be sexual in one's own right, that is apparently to blame for the supposed epidemic of teen girls getting their freak on at age 11. And not, you know, a continued culture of attacks on women's bodies, the commodification of younger and younger girls as sexual objects, and a busload of dehumanizing clothes and music produced solely to make a buck. To be sure, it is easier to blame the very non-mainstream idea that women own their bodies than to take on an entire culture of consumerism, especially when we're taught from day one that such a culture is "what makes this country great." And besides, there's just no money in women and girls feeling content with their bodies and their wardrobes.
All of this is to say that I read a great piece by the always-wonderful Heather Corinna. A sex educator, Corinna's website Scarleteen is geared towards young people, providing insight and education on safe sex, peer pressure, relationships, self esteem, and other relevant topics.
Her piece at RH Reality Check specifically addressed the things parents can do to help their kids to develop into healthy, educated, and informed sexual beings. Have a read here.
While parents may (and absolutely should) insert their personal values into their household sex education curriculum, Corinna's list contains several concepts that even the most progressive parents may not think to include:
- "Encourage active consenting and sexual boundaries" -- This is bound to be one of those difficult topics for parents to broach with their kids, as it forces them to admit that their kids are, in fact, sexual beings. However, simply stating "don't do it unless you want to" and "be sure to use a condom" is probably not going to adequately inform a teenager about the limits of consent. And if the confusion over what, exactly, Julian Assange is being accused of is any indication, we could all use a refresher course in consent.
- "Help counter sexualization and stereotyping" -- Again, simply reasserting your values or telling kids how to protect themselves against pregnancy/STDs is not going to cut it. Teenagers live in a world bigger than their house... their school's social politics, television programs, messages in music, and the clothes they're encouraged to don all play a huge role in the sexual landscape teenagers are trying to map out. If parents want their children to make truly informed decisions, they need to be ready to offer a perspective on this complex landscape.
- "Dump 'The Sex Talk'" -- This was a new idea to me! Instead of the awkward, "son/daughter, we need to talk" moments, Corinna suggests parents simply insert messages on positive sexuality into day-to-day childrearing, starting as young as the child can understand. I can imagine this involves being straight about where babies come from (come on, people... the stork?!), short-but-sweet discussions on masturbation and privacy, and passing comments that reiterate messages about positive sexuality. Always remembering, of course, that no amount of "you can talk to me about anything" comments will necessarily make the kid comfortable just showing up to ask a question.
- "Support outside help" -- The single most problematic trend in the politics of sex ed is parents distrust of other people educating their children about sexuality. While we may trust others to educate our kids on things like nutrition and fitness(except Sarah Palin, of course), we simply cannot fathom that another person, possibly a perfect stranger, may know more about sex than we do. Of course, while some parents may be very well-informed about their own sexual identities, it is highly unlikely that a teen will make the exact same choices as her/his parents. S/he may be attracted to the same gender, s/he may choose to begin a sexual relationship earlier or later than the parents, or s/he might just have a completely different set of questions. Or, {gasp!}, s/he might just not want to discuss certain topics with her/his parents! Trusting that trained professionals can answer questions in those "I don't know" moments should put a parent's mind at ease, not cause a panic over whether or not the educator is going to tell your kid to run off and screw the next thing that moves. And again, if personal values are reiterated in the home, the (very basic) factoids a kid learns in school are not about to negate them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)