Sex and Sensibility: Quick Takes

Sex and Sensibility: Quick Takes
by Kristen Loveland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sex and Sensibility: Removing the Kid Gloves

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

Removing the Kid Gloves
by Kristen Loveland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway people, remove the kid gloves.

Hot Crossed Monogamy

Passing along info on an event in NYC this Saturday that I sadly can't attend -- but maybe you can (and can tell me about it!):

Mating in Captivity: Sexuality and Monogamy Roundtable

Participants: Michael Kimmel, Pamela Paul, Esther Perel, Owen Renik (moderator)

September 13, 2008, 2:30 PM

This roundtable will address the ways in which monogamous partnerships affect sexual desire, sexual function, and sexual need. How do secrets and risky behaviors play a role in undermining domestic stability and trust, while potentially enhancing sexual activity? Does domestic partnering imperil our inherent sexual drive? Is it more beneficial to preserve the stability of the family unit than to explore one's sexuality to the fullest? Is it possible to do both? What are the chemical and structural influences that play a role in this dynamic? The multidisciplinary panel will examine these questions and the way that imagination can play a role in the sexual dynamic of marriages and long-term sexual partnerships.

Sponsored by THE PHILOCTETES CENTER FOR THE MULTIDISCIPLINARY STUDY OF IMAGINATION (how's that for the name of an institute?!) at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute.

If anyone goes and wants to blog about it here, door's WIDE open :)

Family Stories: Heteroflexibility

And now for our monthly contribution from Jacqueline Hudak, who writes the Family Stories column here at GWP. Here's Jacqueline!

Heteroflexibility

Sexual politics are in a time of huge transition – think Ellen and Portia – and still, there is simply no public cultural consciousness about the concept of “sexual fluidity.” A well-crafted recent book by Lisa Diamond, Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire (Harvard University Press), takes another step toward putting it on the map.

While perhaps not yet a public story, the notion of women’s sexual fluidity is certainly coursing through the zeitgeist. I was in the midst of writing this post on Diamond’s book when I decided to take a break and see Woody Allen’s new film, Vicky Cristina Barcelona. And there it was, right there on the big screen: sexual fluidity, and all the attendant complexities.

In one scene, Scarlet Johanssen’s character Cristina, is relating the complicated story of her relationship with Maria Elena, who happens to be her lover’s ex-wife. Her friends Vicky and Doug listen intently. As Cristina pauses, Doug rushes to ask, “So, what, you mean you’re a bisexual?” To which Christina replies, with some discomfort, “Oh, I’m not really into those categories.”

Not into those categories indeed.

Diamond, a Professor of Psychology and Gender Studies at the University of Utah, has conducted, to date, the only detailed longitudinal study of women’s same gender attractions. She interviewed nearly one hundred young women at two year intervals over a period of ten years about their relationships and desires and found that, for women, love and desire are not rigidly lesbian or heterosexual. By the 10th year of her study, two-thirds of the women had changed their identity label at least once.

The notion of "sexual fluidity" contradicts the dominant cultural story about sexuality—the idea that you are one thing or another, but rarely both. That story shapes our ideas about sexual orientation as fixed in early adulthood and remaining static throughout a lifetime. But as Diamond so eloquently points out, for women, this has not been the case.

One of the many things I loved about this book was the depth and analysis of research that Diamond amassed. Having done research on this topic myself, I was aware that there was a lot of data around that supported a more fluid conception of sexuality for women – Kinsey, Adrienne Rich, and the ‘erotic plasticity’ model in 2000, to name a few. The only problem was, it didn’t conform to the (male) sexual standard. Since genital sex is not necessarily how women construct their sexual identities, the sexual experiences of women have been invisible, or somehow deviant from the (male) norm. My friends, we have been called ‘outliers.’

My only disappointment with the book was that I wanted the conversation to continue. Just as it ended I felt like I had arrived at the good part: the implications of women’s sexual fluidity, for us as researchers and clinicians, and more importantly, as partners and mothers. As a family therapist and mom who went through such a transition, I know it was not a solitary process; it entailed numerous and ongoing conversations with my children, family and extended community. Suddenly I found myself in the midst of a story that was totally unfamiliar: Married woman with two kids falls in love with a woman. I mean, wasn’t I supposed to know which team I played for before I turned 45?

I remain curious and perplexed about our need to hold on to these rigid and discrete categories when they obviously do not fit for women. I am heartened by the youth who do not seem to have the same attachment to the labels, and instead are ‘questioning’ ‘spectrum’ and ‘heteroflexible.’ Perhaps my children’s generation will focus on the quality of a relationship rather than the sex of their partner. In the meantime, perhaps movies such as Barcelona books such as Lisa Diamond's, and real life family stories like ours will help inch the conversation along just a little bit more.

For previous posts by Jacqueline, click here.

The Hookup Hangup

I'm back in action. I mean, rather, back at work.

A piece I wrote, "Sex and the Single Guys, For Real," is up today over at the Women's Media Center. The piece has nothing to do with Grandma of course, unless you count the fact that Marge volunteered at a center that offered counseling and contraception to teens, for which I will always remain extremely proud of her.

My WMC commentary features Michael Kimmel's new book, which was also reviewed, btw, by Wesley Yang in yesterday's NYTimes (see "Nasty Boys"). Here's the teaser:

With all the excitement of the summer games, you may have missed this juicy bit of “news” from Olympic Village: as soon as their competition ended, the athletes apparently got rather busy themselves.

They had sex. Lots of it. So much that organizers in Beijing handed out free condoms, says former Olympian Matthew Syed of the UK’s Times Online. And this year, Syed tells us, the female athletes were as horny as the men.

We’ve long been inundated with images of young men with libido flowing unchecked. But with sexual insatiability now cast as an equal-opportunity calling, the guys are no longer portrayed as alone. If all the hook-up hoopla about kids on U.S. campuses is true—the girls have gone wild! the boys can’t get enough!—then the athletes in Beijing were hardly the only modern young men and women engaged in an Olympic-size orgy of never-ending desire.

But wait! New research...Read the rest.

And for those here in NYC, Kimmel will be reading from and discussing his book, Guyland, on Sept. 9 at 7pm, at Borders Columbus Circle. I may see you there....

The "Hook-up Generation": You Talkin' About Me?

You may have heard that the Bush administration's latest attempt to infringe on women's reproductive rights could give health-care workers the right to refuse contraception to their patients. Yes, it all sounds a bit pre-Griswoldian. I'd like to say I'm shocked. But I'm not. After all, we live in a world of abstinence-only sex ed and, for a time, Eric Keroack. More especially, we live in a cultural climate intent on pathologizing and condemning young people's sexual practices, and governmental encroachment on the sexual habits of legal adults seems like the obvious next step. But let's be honest, they're really concerned with the sexual habits of young women, and are we surprised?

In 2007 when I first opened the Atlantic Monthly to discover Caitlin Flanagan's take on Laura Sessions Stepp’s Unhooked, which chronicles "the semi-anonymous 'hooking up' that is now the norm," I was floored. After noting Stepp's conclusion that the "girls" were “exhausted physically, emotionally and spiritually” by the practice, Flanagan carried on her own paternalistic diatribe on "girls" who change "in some ugly ways when left on their own." I was shocked. They were talking about me. Or, at least, they thought they were talking about me. After all, I was a 23-year-old woman who had hooked up with men I was not nearly in love with throughout college. Did this make me an "ugly-wayed" girl?

With other things on my mind (a grad school thesis, job search, friends and flings), I promptly forgot about it. However, soon I realized that this trend wasn't going away. What has followed, from both the religious right and so-called cultural studies of my generation such as Unhooked and Girls Gone Mild by Wendy Shalit, has been an attempt to convince young women that by engaging in pre-marital, or more broadly "pre-love," sexual activity, they risk their emotional and psychological well-being. With women no longer prohibited by fear of pregnancy or STDs, purity propagators are now on a mission to tell women that, like smoking and fatty foods, sex is bad for their health.

The recent publication by the The Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute of Sense and Sexuality, subtitled: "The college girl's guide to real protection in a hooked-up world" highlights this fact.
According to Sense and Sexuality, girls should avoid hookups because oxytocin, released during sex, will cause a girl to "develop feelings for a guy whose last intention is to bond with you." Further, it scientifically observes that "as the number of casual sex partners in the past year increased, so did signs of depression in college women." In sum, once you have sex with a guy, you're a goner. You fall in love, you get attached, you're bound to become love-sick and depressed when it doesn't work-- all because you had intercourse.

Don't you find it odd that such arbiters of high culture and higher religion center their definition of "love" on sexual intercourse? While troubadours once spun tales of romantic despair and literal illness caused by love unrequited, today's story-tellers have pared that soulful feeling down to a simple physical act. As my generation would say, how ironic. As I would say, how wrong. In a recent Vanity Fair article, British bon vivant Nicky Haslam, now 68 and with many lovers come and gone, says, "The truth is I’m not that interested in sex... I’m about love. It’s wonderful once or something. The quickest way to fall out of love is to sleep with somebody. Don’t shatter the crystal.” Go ahead. Call me a romantic. But my greatest heartache was not caused by the guy who hopped in and out of my bed and got away, but by the guy who seemed to fulfill my ideal of what I want in a partner, and got away.

Let's talk about agency and subjectivity, because I think it's about time the media published more first-hand accounts from the "hookup" generation itself. Tracy Clark-Flory, my own age (24), wrote a great article at Salon about her "hookup" experience--she's had about three times as many hookups as relationships, and concludes, "like innumerable 20-somethings before me, I've found that casual sex can be healthy and normal and lead to better adult relationships." Like many my age, who will wait to marry until they are well into their late twenties and thirties, she has found hookups to be a way to romantically vet men. I whole-heartedly agree.

And about that term "hookup"--so amorphous, so undefined. To be clear, if I tell a friend that I "hooked up" with so-and-so last night, her first reaction will be "So how far'd you go?" A "hookup" can range anywhere from making out to a full romp in bed. It might include slinking out at midnight or staying over, cuddling in the morning, going out for brunch. It is one of the most ill-defined terms of my generation, which makes it surprising that so many adults have such firm opinions on it. And while a hookup may be "semi-anonymous" as Flanagan says, it often involves a classmate or an acquaintance or friend you've known for years. It can last a night, a month, or three years on and off.

In college and beyond, the line between hooking up and dating has become increasingly blurred. I've known couples now engaged who began with an orientation-week hookup. I've known wine-and-dine daters who have dropped out of the picture with nary an explanation. Do I worry about girls who engage in hookups because they think the only thing they have to give are their bodies? Of course. And as Shira Tarrant recently noted in Bitch, "the modesty movement makes some good points about the effect a hypersexual culture can have on women’s well-being and sense of self."

Yet why are our moral watchdogs so quick to condemn women's sex-positive behavior as primary culprit? As Tarrant goes on to argue, such an analysis leaves women with only two choices: to be either virgin or whore. And personally, I'd like to think of myself as neither. Writes Tarrant, "If we refuse to acknowledge that judgments about women and modesty come from an extremely narrow-minded, controlling view that has more to do with punishing female sexual agency than with modesty itself, all we’re doing is restating that good girls don’t, bad girls do, and each gets what’s coming to her. 
" By targeting immodesty and hookups, in fact, such commentators only undermine their mission, ignoring the complex social influences that actually do lead some women to value their bodies over their selves. Self-destructive sex is a symptom of a greater social pathology--not the cause.

But haven't I ever felt "exhausted physically, emotionally and spiritually" from "hooking up"? Yes, sometimes, just as I've felt exhausted by tested friendships and challenged beliefs. Show me a Bildungsroman protagonist, or an average American college student, who doesn't need to go through emotionally and physically trying times to develop a better understanding of what he or she wants in a career, a friendship, a partner, in him- or herself.

At the end of her Atlantic article, Flanagan writes: "The bitter pill for many parents sending their daughters to college is that there is no possible way to protect them from what they will encounter once they have been dropped off at the freshman dorm." As a woman who is very different today from the tremendously introverted and scared 18-year-old her parents dropped off at her freshman dorm, all I can say is: thank goodness for that.

-Kristen Loveland

Sex and Olympic City

Did anyone see that article last weekend on the Olympic athletes and sex? The Times Online's Matthew Syed reported on how the athletes were acting like bunnies once their sport was over. Of greatest interest to me, he noted that success on the field didn't necessarily translate in gender equitable terms. While Olympic gold is a “surefire ticket to writhe” for even the geekiest of Olympian men," says Syed, “gold-winning female athletes are not looked upon by male athletes with any more desire than those who flunked out in the first round.”

Why might this be? Syed's hypothesis:

"It is sometimes even considered a defect, as if there is something downright unfeminine about all that striving, fist pumping and incontinent sweating. Sport, in this respect, is a reflection of wider society, where male success is a universal desirable whereas female success is sexually ambiguous."

In all fairness, Syed is not condoning the phenomenon, merely noting it. Is he correct? What do you think?

Overly Sexy Girls

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.

"My Girls Are Good!"

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.

Women's Health Research

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)

EVENT: Very Young Girls, a Documentary

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.

GUEST POST: It Isn't Nice

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.

The Affairs of Men

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?

Motherhood - The Myths, Realities, and the Sex

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?

The Pill: Help Write its History

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

Little Little Girls Gone Wild

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.

Sex Ed at Starbucks

I just got an email from a coordinator at Current TV, where they just released a compelling video that profiles "Ducky Doolittle" as she travels across the country teaching people about sexual empowerment. So I'm sitting here at Starbucks (yes, evil Starbucks) and I open the link for the video and before I know it Ducky is shouting "THIS IS THE CLITORIS!" through my computer, for all of Starbucks to hear. Hehe. I guess that's kind of the point--and I'm all for it. But still, I'm left here at Starbucks kinda wanting to crawl under my chair.

Not Your Grandma's Grandma

So in addition to it being Jewish American Heritage Month and all, it's also Older Americans Month. I told Marco this just now and he said, "Hey, a month for me!" (Note: he's not really Jewish, just really likes my tribe. And he's not truly old, just kind of.)

Anyway, here are three important facts about older Americans to start off your day, courtesy of Ashton Applewhite and CCF:

MORE MARRIAGE: Men and women over 65 are more likely to have partners than at any time in history. They are now more likely to be married (as opposed to widowed or divorced without remarriage) because both men and women are living longer and because the gap between sexes is narrowing. In addition, people are more likely to remarry at older ages, although unmarried elders are also much more likely to cohabit than in the past.

HOT SEX: There's no association between menopause and reduced sexual desire, once we control for other factors. Nor are post-menopausal women less likely to be orgasmic, although some report their orgasms are less intense. And Americans in their sixties and beyond are certainly interested in sex: they're fueling a booming Viagra market.

MORE POVERTY: Widowed and divorced women who took time off from work to raise children are especially vulnerable to poverty because almost all retirement income is based on work — theirs or theirs spouses'. And Social Security is the only source of income for more than 40 percent of older women living alone.

Ashton is currently working on a project about older Americans called So When Are You Going to Retire: Octogenarians in the Workforce. For much, much more on any of this, contact Ashton at applewhite@earthlink.net.

Those Wellesley Gals Are at It Again

And thank goodness they are. In an earlier post I commented on the CCF panel on hooking up and wrote about the scarcity of research on adolescent sexuality. Well, I just learned that researchers at the Wellesley Centers for Women have been following a sample of Gen Y kids* through six grade and, over the next year, new research from the study will look at children's friendships, adolescent romantic relationships, puberty and adolescent health, risky behavior and aggression, school achievement, the black-white achievement gap, and more. For more info on the study, click here. And to sign up for the WCW's e-newsletter, try here.

*Gen Y is that cohort name for children born to Boomer parents between 1981-1995.

Introducing: The Frisky

I may be late to the party on this one, but I just came across a blog called The Frisky, a sexy site--or, in their words, a "Venuszine"--for women highlighting women in music, art, film fashion, and DIY culture. The Frisky sent me an email (target marketing to feminist bloggers, and hey, it worked!) with links to some awfully misogynistic and creepy sexist ads, with their critique attached: "First we seriously question the Disney Push Bra. Does this fall under "soft" kiddie porn? And well we are speechless about this one."

Do check em out--The Frisky.